Supreme Court shows individual's worldviews

Considering recent U.S. Supreme Court 10-Commandments decisions and some relevant
conservative Christian thinking:

Gary North, in _Political Polytheism_, says the Constitution from the beginning had already endorsed an "Atheist Regime". The proof he points to is Article VI paragraph 3, the "no religious oath test". This requirement along with a required 'oath' to uphold the Constitution leaves no authority remaining as sovereign except "We the people". It's just taken the courts this long to enforce the text of the Constitution. Gary DeMar says not so. In _God and Government_, Vol 1, he says it's not yet an Atheist Regime because we still have "in the year of our Lord" in the text of the Constitution. The late Greg Bahnsen would examine these thoughts logically. Whether North is right or not is of no significance. It's the current amended Constitution which is relevant. If DeMar is right then it should be a trivial exercise to simply impeach those judges who rule contrary to the Constitution. It's not going to happen. DeMar is incorrect. The United States is under an Atheist Regime. The currently amended Constitution endorses an Atheist Regime. How can this situation be fixed?
The United States needs a new Constitutional amendment replacing article VI paragraph 3 with something much like the original Delaware Charter had: an oath confessing belief in the "Divinity of both the Old and New Testaments".