The US Constitution very much did not establish an official religion. Europeans came to America to get away from established official religions.
passing ex post facto laws
Veto
"Informal Amendment"Another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.
Slaves
If you mean "... instead of also abiding by the US Constitution", then no. The US Constitution is "the supreme law of the land", and in cases where it conflicts with state constitutions or other laws at either the federal or state level, the US Constitution "wins". There was some debate about this at one time ... the 14th amendment exists partially to clear up any doubt that state constitutions are wholly subordinate to the US constitution, and may not allow anything it forbids (they canforbid things that it tacitly allows (by not forbidding them); they can't forbid things that it explicitly states are allowed).States may (and indeed should), of course, abide by their own constitutions in all cases where there is not any explicit conflict with the US Constitution.
In some countries, church aka religion is part of government policies and in some countries a particular religion is called the "official religion" of these nations. In Western nations, religion normally plays no role in government practices and policies. In the United States Constitution, the first amendment states that the government cannot establish an "official" religion, nor interfere with the practice of different religions among its citizens. There is a good reason for the amendment to forbid government interference in religion, it prevents government from denying citizens part of their freedoms.
the practice of untouchability.
actually yes!!
Religious Test
passing ex post facto laws
The oath of office and similar things? No, there is no such portion.
the answer is 10 years
It means that states can do what they want to do, IF the Constitution doesn't forbid it.
It forbid slavery and reconized equal rights.
No the President's veto power is part of the checks and balances on Congress.
I would guess it is to avoid the problem of divided loyalty.
"reserved powers".