II. ARGUMENT
Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is based primarily on two faulty premises:
1.   That Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), has been overruled in subsequent First Amendment cases and is therefore of "questionable continuing validity" (Plaintiff's Brief Opposing Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Supporting His Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, hereafter "Plaintiff's Brief" at p. 3); and
2.   That a prayer delivered by a private citizen at a government ceremony is government prayer prohibited by the Establishment Clause (Plaintiff's Brief, p. 4).
Each of these points will be addressed below.
A.   Marsh Has Not Been Overruled And Should Be Followed By This Court.
Plaintiff contends that Marsh has been implicitly overruled by the many Establishment Clause cases decided by the Supreme Court since Marsh, but he fails to point to any specific language that can be interpreted in this way.
In Marsh the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a state legislature's practice of having a government-paid chaplain open each legislative session with a prayer.  In doing so Chief Justice Burger directly admonished the courts not to
embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer.
Id. at 795-94.  Having already ruled that a prayer at the inauguration is Constitutional, this Court's inquiry should end. This Court should not attempt the unthinkable: trying to decide whether the inaugural prayer was "too Christian."  How many
2