1) The philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, existed regardless of whether the latter document had been written. Thus we cannot reasonably assert that the Declaration is a legitimate document to refer to for Constitutional interpretation, because . . .
2) The Constitution was passed by a national convention called for the purpose of modifying the Articles of Confederation. While they wrote an entirely new document, one could reasonably assert they merely made more extensive changes than were initially expected. Further, the new Constitution was ratified by the legislatures of nine States before taking effect, thus making a document truly of the people and for the people. The Declaration, on the other hand, was written merely by a convention, and signed by those members. Since it does not carry the authority of the people - which the Declaration itself insists is the only legitimate source of government - it can have no status whatsoever as law. We can use it to clarify the Constitution, but it in no way serves as a legal or moral basis for the actual contents of the Constitution. Both documents have historical and philosophical significance; but only the Constitution is law, because . . .
3) Article VI of the Constitution establishes the hierarchy of laws in the U.S. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (U.S. laws made pursuant to the Constitution, and treaties made under U.S. authority, are also supreme law; but they remain subservient to the Constitution, being that their authority is derived from it.) Therefore nothing, including the Declaration of Independence, can be construed as being superior to it.
4) Mr. Reedy ignores the fact that two of the Constitution's principle architects - Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration, was in France and played no part in debating or writing the Constitution) - believed that the U.S. government had the authority to take a religious stand. Aside from several references in the Constitution alluding to the separation of church and state, both men squarely asserted that the U.S. government had only those powers delegated to it, and therefore had no authority to legislate on matters of religion or faith. They did not feel the 10th Amendment was necessary to accomplish this, even though it was later passed after being introduced by Madison. It is absurd to think that a nation, populated by many people escaping religious persecution, would then find it appropriate (as the Puritans did) to do the same thing in the new land, particularly a people valuing individual freedom.
5) The philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence are derived from John Locke, who (like Hobbes) found that governments and societies arise from a "state of nature." This supports the belief (asserted by Hamilton and Madison) that government has only those powers delegated to it. Thus the U.S. government has no power to legislate in matters of religion or faith, and the framers intended that it be so.
6) Last, but hardly least, Mr. Reedy completely ignores the 1st Amendment. Even with no other material, and granting all of his points, he still misses the point that the Constitution was modified by this (and every other) amendment. Regardless of what the framers' intentions were prior to 1791 (ratification of the Bill of Rights), the 1st Amendment modifies the Constitution as to all matters contained within that article. And since several of the framers (such as Madison) were in the U.S. Congress that passed that article, and others were in State legislatures that ratified that article, I think it safe to conclude that the framers did not intend as Mr. Reedy asserts, the Constitution does not authorize a religious Pledge but rather firmly rejects such a concept, and the Constitution has reflected this point of view - rather than Mr. Reedy's - for the last 211 years.