[CMichael]

From the WSJ. The author is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR

In God I Trust
Why I'm standing up for the Ten Commandments in Alabama.

BY ROY S. MOORE
Monday, August 25, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

MONTGOMERY, Ala.--The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector.

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.

By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and my fellow justices have argued that they must act to remove the monument to preserve the rule of law. But the precise opposite is true: Article VI of the Constitution makes explicitly clear that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it, are "the supreme Law of the Land." Judge Thompson and the judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have all sworn oaths which bind them to support the Constitution as it is written--not as they would personally prefer it to be written.

By subjugating the people of Alabama to the unconstitutional edict by Judge Thompson, that public officials may not acknowledge God, the attorney general and my colleagues have made the fiat opinion of a judge supreme over the text of the Constitution. While agreeing with me that the Constitution is supreme, and that the opinion of Judge Thompson was contrary to the Constitution, the attorney general has argued that he must follow an order he himself believes to be in direct violation of the supreme law of the land.





One of the great influences on the Founding Fathers, common law sage William Blackstone, once pointed out that judges do not make laws, they interpret them. No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful.

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains--as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.





The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.
Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.

Mr. Moore is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

[Seminole]

I come to the High Road to read about and discuss issues relating to firearms. There are a number of forums on which discussions of church/state issues appropriate. This is not one of them.

[OF]

I come to the High Road to read about and discuss issues relating to firearms. There are a number of forums on which discussions of church/state issues appropriate. This is not one of them.You are quite mistaken. Following from the L&P description:Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.- Gabe

[Graystar]

I come to the High Road to read about and discuss issues relating to firearms. There are a number of forums on which discussions of church/state issues appropriate. This is not one of them. While this is true, all issues regarding how the courts address our rights are important because, ultimately, it relates to our right to possess firearms.

For example, the recent sodomy ruling from the Supreme Court was very good for us because the Court noted that a state must have a valid reason for passing laws that restrict its citizens. Such a view can be benificial in a gun-rights battle, as we all know it is impossible for any state to prove with any reasonable certainty that firearm restrictions provide a public benefit.

Remember, it is the states that place bans and license requirements on handguns....not the Federal government. So it is important to keep a watch on this current legal battle between the Feds and Alabama. Remember that part of the Brady Law was ruled unconstitutional. The Feds don't always get their way. We have to understand who wins, and why, and used that knowledge to help preserve our rights.

[Preacherman]

Seminole, GRD and Graystar are right - L&P is the ONE forum on THR that is appropriate to discuss non-firearm issues that nevertheless relate to legal and/or political issues. Since the conflict between Judge Moore and the Federal and/or State legal systems is definitely legal, and certainly has political overtones, and involves a Constitutional issue, it qualifies for discussion here. Of course, our members are free to disregard this thread and stick to the more gun-related ones if they choose.

As for the article: Judge Moore has done this before, and is politically very savvy. I don't question his personal religious convictions (which I share): but the way in which he's handled this has me wondering whether he's taken his current stand not just out of personal religious conviction, or issues relating to the Alabama State constitution, but as a calculated move designed to put his name in the forefront of Alabama politics. What's the bet he'll run for Governor sometime?

[Goaltender66]

An interesting take from a different angle:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hillyer082503.asp

-------------
First, let's get this straight: Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is no hero. He's an oddball and a zealot.

Second, the exemplary public servants during the recent Ten Commandments brouhaha have been the eight associate justices of the Alabama supreme court, Gov. Bob Riley, and Attorney General Bill Pryor.

Third, if Senate Democrats had any shame (which of course they don't), they would, after observing Pryor's performance under fire during this episode, have begun apologizing to Pryor for their mistreatment of his federal judicial nomination. And they would announce plans to end their filibuster and give him an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

As for Roy Moore, he's usually not a bad judge in ordinary cases. But he has a messianic complex and a thirst for tactical martyrdom and the publicity it brings. For intelligent advocates of appropriate public displays of the Ten Commandments, Moore's cause is the wrong case by the wrong man for the wrong legal arguments by the wrong methods. Conservatives can and should support the right of posting the Ten Commandments, but they should distance themselves from Moore's particular example.

Three years ago, after first having seen him in full bizarro mode while making complicated legal arguments to the Mobile Register editorial board, I spent well over an hour alone with him in his local then-courtroom in Gadsden, Alabama, listening to him expound upon abstruse (but important) precepts of American law. In most respects, he is a conservative jurists' dream, one who takes seriously original intent and strict attention to constitutional and statutory text.

But he has this trick, a freak of memorization ability, that allows him to recite huge passages from memory. I'd raise an issue, and he'd respond with about 800 words of direct quotation from some obscure writing of James Madison. Another question would bring an equally long citation from the Bible or from an opinion by a federal district judge in Mobile. When asked for a copy of whatever document he was quoting from, he would quickly find it in one of the many books in his office, buzz his secretary, and ask her to Xerox it. The copy invariably proved his memory unerring.

Oddly, though, as he neared the end of every recitation, his cadence would speed up and the words become less distinct, somewhat like somebody on the 48th of a set of 50 Hail Marys. At least that was better than when under fire before the editorial board, when the words rantogethersofasthewouldsound as indecipherable as somebody speaking in tongues.

Clearly, this is a man whose sense of proportion is a bit on the freakish side.

In the matter of the Commandments, his original fame grew from a small and dignified wooden plaque he hung in his local courtroom. Conservatives were right to find it unremarkable and constitutionally acceptable, even praiseworthy. And the activist Left was foolish to make Judge Moore a hero by challenging the innocuous display.

But when he was elected chief justice by riding the earlier Ten Commandments flap like Ron Turcotte on Secretariat, it was clear that he was aiming for more widespread personal glory.

The 5,280-pound monument, placed in the state Judicial Building in the dead of night (with an evangelical camera crew to record it for posterity and a curious copyright stamp at its base, for what future commercial purpose isn't clear), is actually quite handsome — but so large and so prominent as to command attention. For federal courts that insist that the constitutionality of even quasi-religious displays depends in large part on their context and their intent, this monument clearly was pushing the envelope.

But Chief Justice Moore made matters worse. Rather than accept an offer from Gen. Pryor to have the state AG's office argue in favor of the Commandments on reasonable and responsible grounds, Moore insisted on hiring outside attorneys and on making sweeping and grandiose legal arguments sure to be rejected. No need for detailed legal quotations here. The upshot of Moore's court filings was twofold: first, that the monument did indeed carry what any rational person would call a specifically faith-centered message at least bordering on "establishment" of religion — namely, that it was "an acknowledgement of God" as the source of all justice; second, that he as chief justice of Alabama was personally not subject (at least in First Amendment cases) to the dictates of a federal court.

Furthermore, the chief justice failed on several occasions to file legal motions in a timely fashion. And he did not formally appeal the injunction to move the monument. In a letter to a state legislator, Gen. Pryor explained what happened next: "[Moore and his attorneys] belatedly asked the district court to stay its injunction ... The district court denied this request on the grounds that the injunction had not been appealed and that there was little, if any, likelihood that the petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition would be successful."

In short, Roy Moore orchestrated the entirety of last week's showdown so as to virtually guarantee the monument's removal and his own martyr's role in trying, supposedly valiantly, to stop the inevitable.

Make no mistake: Moore's mastery of media manipulation has made him a folk hero to at least a strong plurality, quite arguably a solid majority, of Alabamians. In doing so, he put other state officials in a political vise. Several state supreme-court justices are facing reelection next year; Gov. Bob Riley is waging an uphill battle for a tax-reform package; and Bill Pryor needs all the home-state support he can get (not to mention that of national conservative activist groups) if he has any hopes of having his judicial nomination brought to a vote.

Nonetheless, all the officials did their duty. Directly assisted by Pryor, the other justices unanimously overruled Moore and ordered the stone's removal. As Pryor explained: "I continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the building of the Supreme Court of the United States... (But) the rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders. The rule of law means that we can work to change the law but not to defy court orders."

Gov. Riley, while also insisting that a Ten Commandments display should be constitutionally acceptable, likewise added this: "Because we are a society of laws, the Alabama Supreme Court has a duty to comply with the federal court order, whether they agree with it or not. ... Attorney General Bill Pryor should be commended for showing similar resolve to ensure that the rule of law prevails in Alabama."

All of which, of course, once again gives the lie to the Senate Democrats' nasty smear that Pryor's "deeply held beliefs" would get in the way of him faithfully applying laws and precedents with which he disagrees. Pryor already has proven himself in that regard many times over, of course — but in this case he did it so courageously, while enraging so many of his core supporters, that he has exploded the last remaining shreds of his leftist critics' credibility.

The Washington Post editorialists, for instance — who have been particularly vicious toward Pryor — scored Pryor back on August 11 (before Chief Justice Moore announced that he would defy the court order) for having "not troubled himself to say a word in defense of the rule of law." Never mind, of course, that Moore had not yet given Pryor occasion to do so.

In a later editorial blasting Moore, the Post did note that Pryor had indeed refused to come to Moore's defense — but without acknowledging its own earlier error in questioning Pryor's integrity.

As of Friday afternoon, Moore had been suspended (with pay) from the bench, pending a trial before a state judicial ethics board. Pryor will have the unfortunate duty of prosecuting the case against him. There is little doubt that the AG will do so with vigor and honor — and little doubt that the Left will give him no credit for it, even as he further alienates his own base of support within Alabama.

Conservatives, therefore, should take two lessons from the Alabama Ten Commandments flap. First, they should specifically not make Moore a cause celebre. If they want the U.S. Supreme Court to allow courtroom displays of the Ten Commandments, the Alabama case is by far the weakest one they could possibly present to swing justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor.

Second, conservatives should rally even more strongly behind the federal appeals-court nomination of Bill Pryor, a man with the courage of his convictions, a marrow-deep respect for the rule of law, and an unfailing willingness to put his political interests aside in favor of his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of these United States.
------------------

Interesting bit about Moore not appealing the injunction. That makes his motives a little more suspect, even though his motives don't necessarily impinge on the core issue at play here.

Goalie

[ChuteTheMall]

Thanks to Moore, Pryor gets to perform in public, instead of being just some name (not the Hispanic guy) on a list of candidates held up in committee. Pryor will be expected to defend the rule of law over personally held beliefs. If the media happens to cover Pryor's activities, pressure may grow to allow that up or down vote. Or at least to correct the Senate rules to require that filibusters be actually conducted on the floor and not part time like this current mess.

If topics like this were not allowed in this forum, they would be all over the site anyway. Better to confine them to one area like this where they don't get in the way of those who prefer to avoid them.



:D

[CMichael]

I come to the High Road to read about and discuss issues relating to firearms. There are a number of forums on which discussions of church/state issues appropriate. This is not one of them.

Nobody is forcing you to read the threads you don't want to read. If you don't like the topic don't read it.

[jimpeel]

I come to the High Road to read about and discuss issues relating to firearms. There are a number of forums on which discussions of church/state issues appropriate. This is not one of them. Wrong. The only forum on THR that specifically restricts the thread discussions to firearms issues is the General Discussion forum which states: Meet fellow forum members, find a common ground. Introduce new people to responsible firearm ownership. Posts must be related to firearms.

[Moparmike]

A post of mine from another forum about this very issue:I believe that if the Justice wants a monument on his front lawn (as long as it doesnt impede traffic, not a danger to others {like falling over}), that it is just fine. However, if he wants to put a symbol of religion infront of a public building on public grounds where the Government and the People are both represented and held accountable by laws, then I have a problem with it. I feel that it appears that the Alabama Supreme Court is attempting to advocate for and promote a religion. That is not acceptable. When people who can decide my fate start advocating beliefs and positions that are not written into the laws they use to decide my fate and the laws they enforce, beliefs and positions that unjustly affect the outcome of a decision, I feel that my right to a fair trial has been completely impeded. To sum up the above, Religion has no place in Justice. Justice can be served without the religious hangups. Ethics, morals, and legality can be decided without religion.

If the Justice believes that ALL our laws stem from the 10 commandments and the Bible, then he is due to start prosecuting people for non-government sanctioned religions, idolatry, coveting (read: ORWELLIAN THOUGHTCRIME), and others. I will never live in such a place as that. I will fight to remove said people who obviously have no clue as to current laws.

[Black92LX]

so what about the statues of the greek gods that aree on courts all around the nation. i guess we need to get rid of the too. ABSOLUTLEY NOT!!! Nothing is being forced upon anyone. no one is forcing it to be read or taken to heart.

[Graystar]

Nothing is being forced upon anyone. I believe this is where you are wrong. When a judge refuses to obey the orders of a higher court because he believes his god to be the highest authority, then it is very possible that all judgements he has made as an officer of the court are tainted in the same way. In that case, religion *has* indeed been forced upon the people whose lives are affected by those judgements.

[Black92LX]

possible, but not necissarily the case.

[2dogs]

On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says

Alan Keyes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


When he ordered the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the Supreme Court building in Alabama, federal judge Myron Thompson stated that the issue at stake involved the question of whether or not the state has the right to acknowledge God.

Actually, this formulation is a distraction from the real issue, which is whether or not Myron Thompson or any other federal judge has the right to interfere with state actions that may or may not constitute an establishment of religion.

Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner. The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the states or to the people.

Taken together, therefore, the First and 10th Amendments reserve the power to address issues of religious establishment to the different states and their people.

An erroneous premise

Now, Judge Thompson – like many federal judges and justices before him – claims the unlimited prerogative of dictating to the states what they may or may not do with respect to matters of religious expression. Applying this supposed prerogative, he has declared the erection of the Ten Commandments monument by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama to be an unlawful establishment of religion.

This he has done despite the clear impossibility of any basis for his action in federal law or statute. He relies on the erroneous doctrine, repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the First Amendment forbids an establishment of religion, and that the 14th Amendment applies this prohibition to the states. Based on this assertion, he and other federal judges and justices now claim an unlimited right to dictate to the states in these matters.

We have already seen that the actual language of the Constitution does not forbid an establishment of religion. Rather, it forbids Congress to legislate on the subject at all, reserving it entirely to the states. No language in the 14th Amendment deals with this power of government.

Portions of that amendment do indeed restrict the legislative powers of the states, but they refer only to actions that affect the privileges, immunities, legal rights and equal legal status of individual citizens and persons. The first clause of the First Amendment in no way deals with persons, however, but rather – in concert with the 10th Amendment – secures the right of the states and the people to be free from the dictates of federal law respecting an establishment of religion.

Distinguishing rights of the people from individual rights

A right of the people as a whole – not an individual right – is the protected object of the first clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Even if one accepts the doctrine that the Bill of Rights must be taken as the basis for understanding the privileges and immunities of citizenship, the first clause of the First Amendment simply secures this right of the people, giving clear constitutional effect to their immunity from federal dictation in matters of religion.

The practical foundation of all the rights and privileges of the individual citizen is the rights that inhere in the citizen body as a whole, the rights of the people and of the state governments. The latter effectively embody their ability to resist abuses of national power. Such rights include the right to elect representatives, and to be governed by laws made and enforced through them. (The right to vote is an individual right. The right to elect is a right of the people as a whole.) Without these corporate and collective rights, there would be no mechanisms for the concerted action of the people, no institutions for their united defense and, therefore, no materially effective security for their individual persons, property and rights against the organized forces of an abusive national power.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment secures a right of the people. Until now, though, many have treated the first two clauses of the amendment as if they are one ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."). This practice ignores both the linguistic and the logical contrast between the two clauses. Where the first clause deals with a right of the people (that is, a power of government reserved to the states and to the people), the second clause deals with an action or set of actions (the free exercise of religion) that cannot be free unless they originate in individual choice. The first clause forbids Congress to address a subject at all. The second allows for federal action, but restricts the character of such action.

By virtue of the first clause, the states and the people as such are protected from federal domination; by the second, individuals are protected from coercion in their religious conduct. The first clause allows the states and the people as such to follow their will in matters of religion; the second guarantees the same liberty to individuals and the corporate persons they voluntarily compose. The first has as its object matters that are decided by the will of the people (i.e., by the will of the constitutionally determined majority in the different states). The second involves matters decided by the will of each individual.

Parallel rights and actions

The failure to observe this distinction leads to the absurd presumption that all government action in matters of religion is somehow inherently a contravention of individual freedom. This can be no more or less true in matters of religion than it is in any other area in which both individuals and governments are capable of action and decision.

The government's power to arm soldiers for the community's defense does not inherently contravene the individual's right to arm himself against personal attack. The government's power to establish institutions of higher learning does not inherently contradict the individual's right to educate his young or join with others to start a school. The government's power to engage in economic enterprises (such as the postal service or electric power generation) does not inherently contradict the individual's right to private enterprise. It is possible for government coercively to inhibit or repress any of these individual activities, but it is obvious that government action does not in and of itself constitute such coercion.

As the U.S. Constitution is written, matters of religion fall into this category of parallel individual and governmental possibilities. Federal and state governments, in matters of religion, are forbidden to coerce or prohibit individual choice and action. Within the states, the people are free to decide by constitutional majority the nature and extent of the state's expression of religious belief.

This leaves individuals free to make their own choices with respect to religion, but it also secures the right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination. As in all matters subject to the decision of the people, the choice of the people is not the choice of all, but of the majority, as constitutionally determined, in conformity with the principles of republican government (which the U.S. Constitution requires the people of each state to respect).

Subverting the wisdom of the Founders

The Constitution reflects the view that the choice with respect to governmental expressions of religious belief must respect the will of the majority. Unless, in matters that should be determined by the people, the will of the majority be consulted, there is no consent and therefore no legitimacy, in government.

Though it may be argued that matters of religion ought to be left entirely to individuals for decision, this has the effect of establishing in the public realm a regime of indifference to religion. Thus, a choice of establishment is inevitable, and the only question is whether the choice will be made by the will of the people or not. The U.S. Constitution, being wholly republican, decides this question in favor of the people, but in light of the pluralism of religious opinions among the people, forbids any attempt to discern the will of the people in the nation as a whole.

By leaving the decision to the people in their states, and by permitting a complete freedom of movement and migration among the states, the U.S. Constitution offers scope for the geographic expression of this pluralism while assuring that the absence of a formal and legal expression of religious reverence on a national scale does not inadvertently result in the establishment of a national regime of indifference to religion.

When, by their careless and contradictory abuse of the 14th Amendment, the federal judges and justices arrogate to themselves the power which, by the First and 10th Amendments, the Constitution reserves to the states, they deprive the nation of this prudent and logically balanced approach to the issue of religious establishment.

Whether through carelessness or an artful effort to deceive, they ignore the distinction between the individual right to free exercise of religion and the right of the people to decide their government's religious stance. They have, in consequence, usurped this right of the people, substituting for the republican approach adopted by the Constitution an oligarchic approach that reserves to a handful of un-elected individuals the power to impose on the entire nation a uniform stance on religion at every level of government.

The right to decide the issue of establishment is a fundamental right of the people. It is also among the most likely to cause bitter and passionate dissension when the religious conscience of the people is violated or suppressed. That may explain why it is the very first right secured from federal violation in the Bill of Rights.

When they take this right from the people, the federal judges and justices depart from the republican form of government. They impose, in religious matters, an oligarchic regime upon the states. They therefore violate, in letter and spirit, Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This section declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government ..."

Unlawful usurpation and lawful resistance

In addition to these abuses and violations of the U.S. Constitution, the purblind insistence by these judges and justices on treating religious freedom as a strictly individual right has produced the very consequence that the Constitution's more prudent approach seeks to avoid. They have insisted that government adopt a stance of strict agnosticism, which in effect drives from the public realm all things that smack of religious belief.

This establishes, in the literal sense, a uniform regime of atheism in government affairs. (In the literal sense, atheism simply means the absence of God, and this, in the public realm, is what the federal judges and justices insist upon.) Since, however unjustifiably, they claim for their opinions the force of law, it necessarily follows that they mean to impose this regime by force – that is, by coercion. Thus, in the guise of a judicial effort to protect religious freedom, they destroy it – not for this or that individual, but for the people as a whole.

Naturally, this destruction has aroused anxiety and opposition among the people, who feel and fear the effects of this wholesale suppression of public religious conscience and belief. With each new manifestation of the nature and intent of the federal judiciary's usurpation of their right, the people grow more resistant. Their acts of resistance against this judicial despotism reach higher and more organized levels until they are undertaken in and through the institutions of the state governments.

The state governments are the natural focus and vehicle through which the people organize and declare their opposition to unconstitutional assertions of federal power. Because the federal judiciary cloaks its usurpation in the usual forms and procedures of law, and because Americans are accustomed to taking those forms as evidence of substantive conformity with the law, these manifestations of resistance may be denounced as unlawful.

But in this case, the lack of lawful grounds for the federal judiciary's acts must, in the end, repel these denunciations. The federal judges and justices cannot be acting lawfully when their only claim of lawfulness rests upon the Constitution – since the Constitution's sole pronouncement on the matter of an establishment of religion precludes the possibility of any federal law as a basis for their jurisdiction.

Some may insist that regardless of anyone's opinion of the lawfulness of a court's action, all are duty-bound, in the interest of order and law enforcement, to obey every court order. This is certainly true of ordinary citizens in most circumstances. Even where ordinary citizens are concerned, however, it is not hard to imagine situations in which they would be morally obliged to refuse a plainly unlawful court order. If, for instance, a judge issues an order requiring that at random an innocent person be shot when entering the courtroom, no person, including any officers of the court, is required to obey this order. In fact, like military personnel, they are duty-bound to refuse.

What is imaginable for ordinary citizens is even more conceivable when dealing with high government officials who are sworn to uphold the constitutions and laws that establish self-government in the states, and that protect the liberties of individuals and of the people. If a federal judge orders the governor of a state to take actions that he conscientiously believes violate the rights of an individual or group of individuals, no one would deny that he is duty-bound to refuse such an order.

If, for example, a Nazi regime somehow came to power at the federal level, and by legislation or executive order initiated an effort to confine Jewish or black Americans to concentration camps, all state officials acting under state constitutions that protected individual rights would be oath-bound to refuse unlawful federal court orders that declared people to be of Jewish or black heritage and thereupon ordered their confinement.

What we clearly acknowledge to be possible and even morally obligatory in case of the violation of individual rights must be even more compelling when the case involves the violation of the rights of the whole people. Thus, when a federal judge issues an unlawful order that a state official conscientiously believes violates a fundamental and constitutionally protected right of the people of his state, that official must refuse the order that assaults their right just as he would refuse an order that violated the rights of individuals. It is of no consequence whether the unlawful order comes from one judge or many, from a lower court or the Supreme Court – it must be refused.

Note that the wording here implies an obligation, not a choice. This is important – since it makes clear that the court's unlawful order places the state official in a situation where his substantive duty to the law conflicts with his formal obligation to obey a court order. A regime in which slavish observance of the empty forms of law substitutes for substantive respect for the real terms and requirements of the law clearly represents the demise of law as such.

-----------cont'd next post

[2dogs]

---------cont'd from last post

Judge Moore and the people of Alabama

In the state of Alabama, Judge Roy Moore has refused the unlawful order of Judge Myron Thompson, since it represents a destructive violation of the right of the people of Alabama to decide how their government will or will not express their religious beliefs. This right of the people is the first one secured in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, and it cannot be compromised without surrendering the moral foundations of republican liberty. Judge Thompson's assault upon this right, and that of the entire federal judiciary for the last several decades, is not, therefore, a trivial threat to the liberty of the people. Judge Moore cannot obey the court's order without surrendering that liberty.

Now, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as it applies the Bill of Rights to the states, lays an obligation upon state legislatures, officers and officials to refrain from actions that deprive the people of their rights. With respect to the First Amendment, therefore, it becomes their positive obligation to resist federal encroachments that take away the right of the people to decide how their state governments deal with matters of religion. This obviously has a direct bearing on the case of Chief Justice Roy Moore in his confrontation with the abusive order of Judge Myron Thompson.

His refusal of the order is not only consistent with his duty to the Alabama Constitution, it is his duty under the Constitution of the United States. Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, the eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court, and indeed any other state officials in Alabama who submit to the judge's order are, by contrast, in violation of the federal Constitution, as well as their duty to the constitution and people of Alabama.

As a class, therefore, the citizens of Alabama are justified in bringing suit against them for their dereliction, and in seeking reparation for the damage that has been done to their right under the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, since the federal judiciary is the perpetrator of the assault against this right, how can the people of Alabama hope for a fair and unbiased judgment from any of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court?

Judicial self-interest

Lawyers will doubtless object on the grounds that the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the jurisdiction of the federal courts in this regard. Their partisan reverence for the Supreme Court's opinions on this matter is wholly understandable, since a seat upon the court, or upon the bench of one of the inferior federal courts, usually represents the highest point toward which their ambition aspires. It is quite natural that they should support claims to a power that they may hope someday to wield.

However, lawyers' insistence that others show the same reverence is repugnant to reason and common sense. In the matter of their constitutional jurisdiction, as against the state courts or the other branches of the federal government, the federal courts – including the Supreme Court – have a strong and direct interest. If judgment in these matters is left to them absolutely, it must always lead to a situation in which the judges and justices sit in judgment of their own cause.

Our common sense joins the admonitions of the Founders of our republic in warning us not to rely on such intrinsically biased judgments. The prospect of expanding their power may distract the federal judges from the facts and merits of the case. This is, and ever has been, a weakness of our humanity.

The people and their representatives

This is why the U.S. Constitution, after enumerating certain cases over which the federal judiciary would have original jurisdiction, gave it appellate jurisdiction "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Therefore, the federal courts are not the ultimate judges of the boundaries of their own power. Final responsibility in this respect rests with the Congress.

Once we take note of this fact, it also becomes clear that thinking about matters of jurisdiction at the constitutional level cannot be considered the exclusive province of lawyers and judges. Though Congress has in some historical periods been composed of a plurality, or even a majority of lawyers, lawyers could never have an exclusionary claim to membership in its ranks. The people can send to Congress whom they choose, including people from walks of life in no way related to the legal profession. It follows, therefore, that the Constitution assumes that people who are not lawyers will have to reason and make judgments about the proper scope and limits to be imposed upon the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts.

The fact that the Supreme Court affirms the federal judiciary's claim to jurisdiction over the state governments in matters pertaining to an establishment of religion does not, therefore, settle the issue. The Congress must review and oversee such a claim. Since the people choose the members of Congress, people at large, as they consider their election, are required to consider this claim as well.

Our analysis thus far demonstrates that the Supreme Court's affirmation of this claim of jurisdiction is contrary to the plain text of the Constitution: It usurps the right of the people in their respective states to decide their government's stance on religion; it violates Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution by subverting the republican form of government with respect to this right; and by aiming coercively to establish an agnostic regime of atheism at all levels of government, it destroys religious freedom for the people as a whole and dangerously subverts the Constitution's prudent handling of matters pertaining to religion.

The right and duty of Congress

The text of the Constitution easily allows us to see and understand the federal judiciary's abuse of power and its usurpation of the right of the people in religious matters. It also provides a remedy for this abuse. The Congress must pass legislation that, in order to assure proper respect for the first clause of the First Amendment, excepts from the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts those matters which, by the conjoint effect of the First and 10th Amendments, the Constitution reserves to the states respectively and to the people. (This language avoids a semantic difficulty, since congressional legislation that explicitly mentioned matters pertaining to an establishment of religion would serve the intention but violate the terms of the first clause of the First Amendment.)

This legislation would restore observance of the Constitution by preventing the federal courts from addressing any issues related to religious establishment (as the First Amendment requires), while leaving them free to deal with cases involving the free exercise of religion by individuals, since these do not fall under constitutional ban on federal legislation. In this regard, the only state actions that come under federal jurisdiction are those involving coercive interference with individual choice in matters of religion. State action that involves no such individual coercion (such as the placement of a Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of a state Supreme Court building) is outside the purview of the federal courts.

The consequences of congressional failure to act urgently upon this matter are almost too grave for contemplation. State officials will be continually beset by federal court judgments that demand action the U.S. Constitution forbids. Errors of judgment by federal officials seeking to enforce such orders might lead to confrontations between federal officers determined to do what federal judges order and state officers determined to do what the U.S. Constitution requires.

On one side and the other, claims of lawful justification would contribute to intransigence. Problems like this, left for very long without solution, raise the sombre spectre of national dissolution. This, the Congress has the constitutional means and duty to avoid. They should move to do so without delay.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34270

[Graystar]

Alan Keyes has no understanding of our rights nor of how those rights are preserved. Anyone who thinks that the only restrictions on goverment are those listed in the Bill Of Rights are as dangerous to liberty as those who believe our rights can be limited for the "good of the public."

[El Tejon]

Mr. Keyes, if reported correctly (always a big IF), has it inverted.

I wonder what the reaction in Ol' 'Bama would be if a Taji or a Buddha were put in the courthouse? I have a feeling they would not be there to support THAT.:D

[tiberius]

He's a zealot and if he lived 400 years ago, he'd probably be burning "witches".

I'm Christian, but if I wasn't I would be terrified to show up in this inquisition chamber.

Commandments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 10 aren't even relevant in secular law. They are all religious or moral guidelines only. They would be laws if we were a theocratic state. That only leaves 3 commandments that have anything to do with a courthouse: Murder, theft and bearing false witness.

This "monument" has no place in a courthouse or legislature.

Moore may be a good person and he may have been a good judge at one time, but he certainly isn’t anymore. He should be impeached by whatever process available to the sane people Alabama.

[Dorrin79]

1st Amendment + 14th Amendment = no more TenCom Statue.

I wonder why people are always so quick to cry 'states rights' when it comes to authorizing government to do things it shouldn't?

:rolleyes:

look for Moore's forthcoming book "How I Tried To Save Alabama from the Godless Commies" in a store near you...

:barf:

[CMichael]

Alan Keyes is right on target!!!

[Tamara]

1. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:


2. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:


3. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.



4. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib.


5. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.


6. But the firstling of an ??? thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck.


7. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.


8. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest.


9. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.


10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

I think these should be posted in the courthouse; it is important for every criminal to know that Judge Moore thinks they shouldn't seethe a kid in its mother's milk.

[ComputerFlake]

According to Yahoo! news, the monument is being moved at this very moment. Protestors are not sure to which room the monument is being moved nor if the momument will be available for public display after the move. What a sad state of affairs.

Seems to me whether you are Christian or not, you have to respect the 10 Commandments for several reasons. 1) It is the basis for your current law system whether you believe in God or not 2) it's one of the oldest sets of laws on written record 3) it's still just as usable today as it was 1000 years ago. You don't have to believe in God to respect the 10 Commandments. The Supreme Court was negligent in its duties to have ignored this issue.

[Intune]

1. Wrong.
2. Wrong.
3. Sure, if you're a Christian.


Keyes has a point regarding the federal intervention. However, the AL Supremes have ruled on this matter. Move along, there's nothing to see here folks.

[tiberius]

1) It is the basis for your current law system whether you believe in God or not

What?????

Where does this come from? Please reread the 10 commandments. They have nothing to do with US law and US law is not based on them at all. Only commandments 6,8 & 9 are even relevant in regards to US law.

[ComputerFlake]

I find it quaint how easily you dismiss a document just because you aren't a Christian. Regardless of your religious standpoint, the 10 Commandments have been around since about 1300BC, Moses and a depiction of the 10 Commandments appear in three different places in the Supreme Court, and our laws ARE based, in part, upon the 10 Commandments.

And if there is to be a TRUE separation of church and state, the state has no authority to rule on a church issue. Ever. They had no authority to rule on moving the 10 Commandments at all if they believed in 100% separation of chuch and state. At some point this is going to become a large issue in this country.

[Graystar]

To believe that laws against killing and stealing did not exist before the writing of the ten commandments is textbook ignorance.

[tiberius]

You worked on the Sabbath – Go to Jail!
You’re a Hindu – Go to Jail!
You back talked your parents – Go to jail!
You would like to have a BMW just like your neighbor – Go to jail!
You cheated on your wife – Go to jail!

All hail theocracy.

[cuchulainn]

our laws ARE based, in part, upon the 10 Commandments. Actually, our laws are rooted in ancient Germanic, Celtic and Roman laws, which had proscriptions against murder, theft and false witness long before those civilizations became Judeo-Christianized.They had no authority to rule on moving the 10 Commandments at all if they believed in 100% separation of chuch and state. :confused: They moved (separated) it from a state facility. You are saying that separation of church and state bars separation of church icons from a state facilityMoses and a depiction of the 10 Commandments appear in three different places in the Supreme Court. That doesn't make this right (or wrong).

[DaveB]

And if there is to be a TRUE separation of church and state, the state has no authority to rule on a church issue.

If the good judge had installed his 'display' in a church, we would never have heard of him.

By golly... I wonder... Is it possible that Moore is, gasp, seeking attention?

Seriously, I have no axe to grind here - I believe the Ten Commandments to be as good a basic rule set as has ever been published.

However, to make them a central feature of a Government Building, in my mind, explicitly endorses Christianity. That's close enough to Government establishment of (a particular) religion to be unconstitutional.

Moore and his fanclub are not 'standing up for God'. They're standing up for themselves, and for the transformation of the United States of America into a Theocracy, ruled by enlightened folks such as themselves.

db

[Mike Irwin]

"1) It is the basis for your current law system whether you believe in God or not 2) it's one of the oldest sets of laws on written record 3) it's still just as usable today as it was 1000 years ago."

1. Incorrect. That would be English Common Law, which has little connection to the ecclesiastic law of the same period. In fact, Common Law and church law were FREQUENTLY in conflict in English society, and was one of the major bones of contentions between Church and King starting as early as the 10th century.

Of course in Louisiana many of the laws are still based on the Code Napoleon, which is purely civil law.

2. Hammurabian Law and the Codes of Brehon (essentially Irish Common Law) are the oldest codified laws that attach to entire societies, as opposed to a religious group.

3. Yes, as a moral guide on living your life, but that still fails to make the 10 commandments a basis for codified law.

[Intune]

Methinks some quaint, wrongful assumptions are being made. Oh, well.


Our FFs were some VERY intelligent fellows. Amazingly so.




"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing His religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of against." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)



"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, 1787)


May God please grant the gift of reason and the sense to use it!

[El Tejon]

While Chief Justice Foghorn Leghorn is grandstanding in a most, I say, I say, distasteful way for his run for Gov. or whatever, I find it surprising that none of his supporters have raised the issue of what is posted behind the bar in the United States Supreme Court.

HINT: It's 10 rules and they are not gun safety rules.:D

[Mike Irwin]

Tejon,

We had this discussion, and it's pretty clear that that the situations are ENTIRELY different, as discussed in this thread --

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30485&highlight=moses

Simply put, in the Supreme Court, the depiction of Moses holding the tables is done as an indication of his place as an important law giver, NOT as a religious figure.

If he were there as a strictly Judeo-Christian religious figure, then the 10 Commandments would be replicated in their entirety (they're not), and non-Judeo-Christian lawgivers, such as Hammurabi and Mohammed wouldn't be included either.

Judge Moore's 10 Commandments statue was placed as an indication of the role of a Judeo-Christian God as the foundation for the Court's power. That's simply wrong.

[tiberius]

El Tejon,

I don't believe that is correct. The doors have a depiction of the tables with the Roman Numerals on them and there is a frieze showing historic lawgivers. I do not believe that the actual cammandments are inscribed anywhere in the building.

[tiberius]

Do'h - slow on the draw. :)

[El Tejon]

Mike, you are correct, of course, but I thought it unusual that no one in support of CJFL has raised it.

[2dogs]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Really, I don't see what part of this is unclear.

How has the 10 Commandments statue violated the "establishment" clause- not the official misconstrued judicial interpretation of it- but the actual amendment? How has Judge Moore violated a clear restriction placed on Congress to make no law respecting an establishment of religion?

To not see that is the same to me as those who cannot see that umpteen laws regarding firearms have been written because lawmakers can't quite figure out the meaning of "shall not be infringed".

How has the Federal judge in this case determined that Judge Moore and the people of the State of Alabama have no right under Federal law (laws that Congress shall not make) to have their statue?

Get over your prejudice against and/or fear of religion (the way antis need to get past their prejudice and fear of firearms) and read what is written.

:banghead:

[hammer4nc]

Lots of inconsistencies in the govt.'s position.

This engraving has been on the oak doors in the supreme court for quite some time: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
Comments?

When did the 1st amendment establishment clause get generalized from applying to congress, as written, to apparently applying to every level (state, local) of government. Citations?

I'm struck how the two operative words "prohibiting" (the free exercise therof), in the first amendment; and "infringing", in the second amendment...have developed legal realities far different from their dictionary meanings.

In the first case, a granite monument prohibits anyone from exercising their chosen faith how? I see nothing remotely resembling the scenario offered by tiberious: > You worked on the Sabbath – Go to Jail! <

In the second case, how are upteen laws, restrictions, etc. of the right to keep and bear arms, at various governmental levels, NOT an "infringement"?

What I'm saying is that the concept of "infringement" should be triggered much earlier than the establishment of a "prohibition", if words have any meaning at all. Yet, hordes of legal scholars, smart judges and lawyers quote chapter and verse that is just exactly the opposite, in terms of legal realities. How is this possible?

[Keith]

Everybody here, and all of the talking heads on TV, and even the courts... are getting distracted by the minutae and completely missing the main point!

The ONLY legal and constitutional issue is what the First Amendment says - not some dubious legal chain of interpretations that lead off into outer space.
If in doubt, go back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights!

Here's what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Did someone pass a law? Nope.
Did some a establish a religion? Nope.
Does it say anything about a "Separation of Church and State"? Nope.

Did someone prohibit the free exercise of religion? Yes; the court when they ordered the removal of the monument!

Now, I'm an atheist and nothing would please me more than for people to leave their religion at home. But, clearly, the Bill of Rights gives people the right to "freely exercise" their religion as long as no official religion is established by the state!

It doesn't matter if our legal system is based on the ten commandments or the lyrics from the latest Phish CD.
It doesn't matter whether the monument in question is Jewish, Christian or Judaeo-Christian.
It doesn't matter what this judge or that court "feels" about the issue.

What matters is the bald statement in the first amendment, and nobody needs a law degree to sort that out.

The state of Alabama did NOT establish a state religion, so there is no legal or constitutional foundation to order that monument to be removed.

The monument IS an expression of religion (at least in a general way) so ordering its removal is a clear violation of the first amendment that they claim to be upholding!

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Get over your prejudice against and/or fear of religion (the way antis need to get past their prejudice and fear of firearms) and read what is written. I'm quite religious, thank you very much. In fact, I'm a Christian.

Don't assume that people who disagree with you on this matter are afraid of religion -- we're just saying that placement of a particular religion's icon on a goverment building by a government official crosses the lines made in the 1st Amt.

I personally have no problem with the 10Cs on the statehouse. Nonetheless, I recognize that doing so violates the Constitution.

When did the 1st amendment establishment clause get generalized from applying to congress, as written, to apparently applying to every level (state, local) of government. Citations? The 19th Century. See the 14th Amendment

[cuchulainn]

The monument IS an expression of religion (at least in a general way) so ordering its removal is a clear violation of the first amendment that they claim to be upholding! It was placed there by a goverment official. You are saying separation of church and state bars separating church icons from state buildings.

[Keith]

I personally have no problem with the 10Cs on the statehouse. Nonetheless, I recognize that doing so violates the Constitution.

Did congress pass a law establishing a state religion?

If not, then I fail to see how putting a religious mounument in a court house is "violation of the constitution".

Does removal of the monument infringe upon the free exercise of religion? I think it certainly does, so ordering its removal is the violation!

Keith

[Mike Irwin]

Hammer,

Read the discussion at the link that I posted.

There's a significant difference.

[cuchulainn]

Does it say anything about a "Separation of Church and State"? Nope. Yeah, and the 2nd Amt says nothing about firing guns, just keeping and bearing them.

Separation of church and state is as necessary to the establishment clause as firing guns is to the keep and bear clause.

[cordex]

I have no problem with the 10 commandments monument on First Amendment grounds. Doesn't seem to apply.

The question to me isn't one of religion, but of the right of an individual to dump something on public property without permission.

The monument should be moved and the judge charged with littering or unlawful dumping. Not his land, so he doesn't get to put up his pretty pieces of rock.

Again, not a state-religion issue; a property rights issue.

[Keith]

It was placed there by a goverment official. You are saying separation of church and state bars separating church icons from state buildings.

I'm not saying anything about "seperation of church and state" since that concept has no constitutional foundation whatsoever.

The establishing clause prohibits the recognition of a state religion - as in the Church of England where non-members were forced to support the institution.
A public official putting up a monument is not a violation unless the taxpayers are forced to fund it. That's not the case.

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Did congress pass a law establishing a state religion? 1) The 1A applies to the states and has for over 130 years

2) See my point above about the RIGHT to separation of C&S (though not mentioned) being necessary to the establisment clause of the 1st as much firing guns (though not mentioned) being as necessary to the keep and bear clause of the 2nd.

[cuchulainn]

I'm not saying anything about "seperation of church and state" since that concept has no constitutional foundation whatsoever. Yep, and firing your gun has nothing to do with the constituion, which only says "keep and bear."

And you might want to consider the role of the 9th Amt here. People have the RIGHT to having their goverment and religion separate. The 9th protects that as much as the 1st.

[Mike Irwin]

"Does removal of the monument infringe upon the free exercise of religion? I think it certainly does, so ordering its removal is the violation!"

How is it a violation of free exercise of religion?

There are places where people can worship as they see fit...

They're called temples, churches, mosques, shrines, etc.

The placement of a single religion's religious paraphenalia (sp?) in a court house, as opposed to a church, is a critical difference, and removing those representations, IF they are placed there for strictly religious purposes (Judge Moore's sole intent), is not a violation of anyone's religious freedom.

The purpose of a court house is to exercise justice based on codified law, not to be a place of worship for a single group of people.



"The establishing clause prohibits the recognition of a state religion..."

Very true. And the mechanism of the state, by allowing the placement of the religious artifacts of a single religious group, as opposed combining those from many religious in a secular manner (as is done in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives) gives the tacit imprimature of state sponsorship. And that is a violation.

For example and in other words, you can't state with any credulity that you in fact don't have a favorite cartridge when you have multiple firearms, all chambered for the same cartridge, and to the exclusion of all others.

[Keith]

The question to me isn't one of religion, but of the right of an individual to dump something on public property without permission.

Another one completely missing the point!

When did the federal government take over litter enforcement on state land?
If the people of the state of Alabame don't like the monument or the judge, then they should remove the monument or the judge!

The issue is the federal government violating the first amendment while claiming to be enforcing the first amendment.

Keith

[cuchulainn]

The issue is the federal government violating the first amendment while claiming to be enforcing the first amendment.
1)The 1st applies to the states.

2) The establishment clause is meaningless without separation (just like the keep and bear clause is meaningless without the unmentioned firing)

[Keith]

There are places where people can worship as they see fit... They are called churches, mosques, shrines, etc

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the codicile to the 1st Amendment that defined "free exercise" as limited to approved buildings and designated places.
Perhaps you could point that out to me?

The placement of a single religion's religious paraphenalia (sp?) in a court house

And which single religion would the Ten Commandments apply to? And even if it did apply to a single religion (which it doesn't), what would that have to do with Congress establising a religion?

Keith

[Keith]

1)The 1st applies to the states.

Yes it does - READ IT!

[cordex]

Keith,
I agree that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Nothing to do with the First.

But...
If a Judge is allowed to leave a big chunk of rock on the courthouse lawn, should I not be allowed to set up a giant statue of myself right next to it?

If the judge is not cited for illegal dumping or whatever their charge is for me throwing an old sofa or pile of rubble onto the same spot, then it is an issue of equal protection.

[Keith]

) The establishment clause is meaningless without separation (just like the keep and bear clause is meaningless without the unmentioned firing)

The two amendments are similar in that the first half is "interpreted" by some to limit or modify the second half of the statement.

You would not argue that "a militia being necessary" overturns "shall not be infringed" would you?

Yet, you argue that "Congress shall make no... establishment of religion" overturns: "free exercise of religion".

You're thinking like a liberal! It means what it says - congress shall not establish a state religion (including state congress') AND shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion!

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Keith,

Separation is necessary to keeping the establisment clause strong.

...just like allowing people to fire their guns is necessary to the keep and bear clause strong.

Just because a concept is in the amendment does not mean it is not protected by the amendment -- especially when that act is necessary to keeping the amendment strong.

If you are correct, then the government can bar us from EVER firing our guns. Firing is not mentioned.



...and all that doesn't even consider the right to separation of church and state under the 9th Amendment.

[Keith]

Separation is necessary to keeping the establisment clause strong.

OK, then Miller vs US is necessary to keep the militia clause "strong". Don't you see the double standard?

It just means what it says - its a clause prohibiting government from establishing a state funded religion. No more and no less than that!

The free exercise clause is just as valid as the establsihment clause - you can't use one to limit the other!

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Yet, you argue that "Congress shall make no... establishment of religion" overturns: "free exercise of religion". A government official using a government facility to promote his personal religion is not exercise of religion. It is government promotion of religion. Promotion of religion cannot be separated from establishment of religion.

Edited to fix third from last word.

[Mike Irwin]

In this case, if you've been following any of this at all, Keith, you'd be able to comprehend that Judge Moore is CLEARLY espousing a Christian doctrine with his monument. His own statements clearly make that case.

So far, as far as I have been able to determine, only Christians have been flocking to his defense. No Jews, no Muslims. Although the 10 Commandments are essential to their religious dogma, there's no role or room for them in Judge Moore's narrowly defined world.

"I'm sorry, I guess I missed the codicile to the 1st Amendment that defined "free exercise" as limited to approved buildings and designated places."

Your inability to grasp the differences between a courthouse as a functionary of the state (government), and the judge as a functionary of the state, as opposed to a group of people worshiping at a state building, is truly frightening.

Judge Moore, as a Judge, is a functionary of the state. He doesn't sit in an ecclesiastic court. He is the agent of state, and as such must act within the restrictions of the laws of the state. As an agent of the state, Judge Moore has no legal right to attempt to establish the courthouse as a state religious icon, or to install in the courthouse icons of a single religion when their purpose is solely religious.

[cuchulainn]

Keith,

It says nothing about funding. How come you get to add words?

It does not limit the prohibition simply to official establishment, but to "regarding the establisment." How come you are ignoring the word "regarding" which brings in the separation of C&S? A government action that promotes a religion is "regarding the establisment of [that] religion" even if it does not officially establish the religion.

OK, then Miller vs US is necessary to keep the militia clause "strong". Don't you see the double standard? 1) Miller vs US is not a right, it is a court case. Separation of C&S is a right (albeit unmentioned).

[cuchulainn]

Judge Moore, as a Judge, is a functionary of the state. He doesn't sit in an ecclesiastic court. He is the agent of state, and as such must act within the restrictions of the laws of the state. As an agent of the state, Judge Moore has no legal right to attempt to establish the courthouse as a state religious icon, or to install in the courthouse icons of a single religion when their purpose is solely religious. Thank you, Mike, for saying very clearly what I've been trying to convey.

[Keith]

if you've been following any of this at all, Keith, you'd be able to comprehend that Judge Moore is CLEARLY espousing a Christian doctrine with his monument. His own statements clearly make that case.

If you'd read the 1st Amendment you'd realize that it protects the right of any citizen to espouse a religion, government official or not.
It only prevents a government body from establishing a religion!

And of course, the ten commandments are from the old testament of the bible; a book that is recognized by many hundreds of religions.

Your inability to grasp the differences between a courthouse as a functionary of the state (government), and the judge as a functionary of the state, as opposed to a group of people worshiping at a state building, is truly frightening.

Then you are very easily frightened! Perhaps you should see someone about that?
Of course, the first amendment doesn't prohibit state functionaries from having or espousing religious views. It merely prohibits them from establishing a state religion.

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Of course, the first amendment doesn't prohibit state functionaries from having or espousing religious views. It merely prohibits them from establishing a state religion. He is not simply espousing them. He is a government official promoting them as the basis of goverment action. That is establishment.

[2dogs]

Don't assume that people who disagree with you on this matter are afraid of religion -- we're just saying that placement of a particular religion's icon on a goverment building by a government official crosses the lines made in the 1st Amt.

And what "particular" religion is represented by the 10 Commandments?

"We the Million Moms don't think that you, the law abiding" should be allowed to have guns. Why? Because we don't like them. Because we are afraid of them. Because we know that gunowners are mindless cretins who may shoot up our kids."

Fear/prejudice/ignorance/misinterpretation or whatever the particular reason- it is a misreading of the first amendment as much as antis misread and wishfully misinterpret the second.

As far as "saying that placement of a particular religion's icon on a government building by a government official crosses the lines made in the 1st Amt"- just what part of the amendment talks about "particular religions", "government buildings" or "government officials"?

The "firing" of firearms is a reasonable inference from the ability to keep and bear arms.

The nonsense about separation of church and state is a complete, deliberate, and misguided reinterpretation of the FF's clear words.

[Keith]

Miller vs US is not a right, it is a court case. Separation of C&S is a right (albeit unmentioned).

I think it went over your head - or I didn't articulate my point very well... Miller is often cited as an argument to limit the right to keep and bear arms since it leans on the "militia" clause of the second amendment rather than the "shall not be infinged" portion associated with the individual right.

I think you would agree that it is hypocritical to use the militia clause as a hammer against the individual liberties portion of the sentence that follows.

Yet, when talking about the very similarly constructed sentence in the first amendment you (and many other people) reverse the logic. The first part (make no law ... establishing) of the statement should not be used as a hammer against the second part (prohibiting the free exercise...).

Do you follow me? You may not like this judge displaying this religious symbol - and frankly, neither do I! But our "feelings" don't count - what counts is the very simple sentence in the Bill of Rights.

Just read the first amendment! It's not complicated...

Keith

[Keith]

He is not simply espousing them. He is a government official promoting them as the basis of goverment action. That is establishment.

Really? The judge has jailed someone for adultery? For making graven images? What has he done?

Keith

[DaveB]

In keeping with compassionate conservatism and the example set by an honorable and truthful Administration, I submit that the good Judge's supporters just come out and explain their goals.

Here's a hint: it's not religious tolerance...

From http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8728

…when asked on CNN whether principles of religious equality would lead him to support an Islamic monument similar to the two-ton commandments, Moore replied, "This nation was founded upon the laws of God, not upon the Koran." In the Christian press, Moore went even further: "This country wasn't founded upon Allah; it was founded upon the Holy Bible, and the question is whether we [Christians] are going to take a stand."
…

Fortunately, Moore is wrong when he argues that America's Constitution finds its roots in the Christian Bible, but unfortunately, that doesn't stop him from handing down opinions based on his own religious beliefs. In February of 2002, Moore ruled against a lesbian mother in a custody battle with an allegedly abusive father, calling her sexual orientation "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."

Such a non-legal ruling, combined with his refusal to comply with the lawful order to remove his monument -- to say nothing of his repeated assertion to the Christian press that God placed him in office -- show that Moore identifies himself far more with the advancement of Christianity than with upholding the law.

db

[cuchulainn]

2dogs,

1) It promotes a particular branch of religion: Judeo-Christian.

2) I don't fear the 10C. As a Christian, I embrace them (despite many failures to comply). You are erecting a strawman argument by comparing me to the MMM

The MMM want to stop private action because they fear it.

I want to stop government action because it underminines the establishment clause -- just like a law against practicing with your guns would undermine the keep and bear clause.

Keith,

The first part (make no law ... establishing) of the statement should not be used as a hammer against the second part (prohibiting the free exercise...). A government official promoting a religious icon as the basis of goverment action is not free exercise. It is establishment.

[cuchulainn]

Really? The judge has jailed someone for adultery? For making graven images? What has he done? I think DaveB's last post answers that.

[2dogs]

I submit that the good Judge's supporters just come out and explain their goals.

And that has what to do with what the 1st Amendment says?

That's as relevant to the 1st Amendment as what some neo-nazi group's goal is in owning guns is to the 2nd.

Consistency is good.:rolleyes:

This is what I mean by fear/prejudice.:what:

[Keith]

It promotes a particular branch of religion: Judeo-Christian.

That's hardly a "branch", more like a whole forest! But it wouldn't matter if it did "promote" a particular branch - I mean, if it was stone tablet saying "Southern Baptists Rock!" it still wouldn't matter because not a law establishing a religion!
READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

Keith

[Keith]

In February of 2002, Moore ruled against a lesbian mother in a custody battle with an allegedly abusive father, calling her sexual orientation "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."

Sounds like a bad ruling to me. Yet, it has no bearing on whether a religious symbol can be displayed in an Alabama court house.

Keith

[Mike Irwin]

Come on, Keith. I know you're not this stupid, or at least I hope you're not.

I know you're intelligent enough to be able to grasp the difference between Judge Moore as a private citizen practicing his religious beliefs, and Judge Moore the functionary of the state who uses the power of the state to promote his personal religious beliefs.

No one is attempting to keep Judge Moore from practicing his religion as a private citizen.

But Judge Moore does not have the right, as an agent of the state, to force a particular religious belief on others. In essence that's exactly what he's attempting to do by placing a Christian monument in the courthouse.

"If you'd read the 1st Amendment you'd realize that it protects the right of any citizen to espouse a religion, government official or not.

It only prevents a government body from establishing a religion!"

Wrong.

A government official is the embodiment of the state in practice and in person. When the official becomes the proponent of a particular religious doctrine or belief while in his official duties as an official of the state, he establishes a religion as the functional basis for the state in his capacity.

"And of course, the ten commandments are from the old testament of the bible; a book that is recognized by many hundreds of religions."

Wrong.

Three religions. Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. Subgroups of those, Methodists, Ludavicher, Shiia, etc., are all practitioners of the three religions. They are denominations or sects. They are not independent religions in their own rights.

Keith, I can only conclude that you're ignoring salient points and critical differences on purpose out of some perverse desire to be childishly pedantic.

[Mike Irwin]

Keith,

To you I can only say this...

COMPREHEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

You're obviously able to read.

Your ability to comprehend and assimilate is at issue, unfortunately.

[Mike Irwin]

"This country wasn't founded upon Allah; it was founded upon the Holy Bible, and the question is whether we [Christians] are going to take a stand." Judge Moore


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." US Constitution


It's painfully clear that Judge Moore, agent of the state, is in fact attempting to establish Christianity as a state religion.

He's in violation of the Constitution and the many rulings of law as set by the Supreme Court.

[cuchulainn]

That's as relevant to the 1st Amendment as what some neo-nazi group's goal is in owning guns is to the 2nd. The neo-nazis are not promoting government action. There's a difference between the neo-nazis who want the government to leave them alone (on guns at least) and Moore who wants to base government action on religion.

[Keith]

Come on, Keith. I know you're not this stupid, or at least I hope you're not.

Your ability to comprehend and assimilate is at issue, unfortunately.

Personal slurs are a violation of both the letter and spirit of THR. Please refrain from this sort of behavior.

But Judge Moore does not have the right, as an agent of the state, to force a particular religious belief on others. In essence that's exactly what he's attempting to do by placing a Christian monument in the courthouse.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That's what it says. He hasn't passed a law, and he certainly hasn't established a religion.
He has put up a monument with a religious theme; a very general judaeo-christian theme. He is freely exercising his religious views in accordance with the first amendment.

Now, if the people of Alabama don't like the judge, they are free to fire him and appoint someone else - and maybe the new head-dude-in-charge of the court house wouldn't care to have the monument where it is. That will be up to him, not up to a federal court.

Keith

[Mike Irwin]

"Personal slurs are a violation of both the letter and spirit of THR. Please refrain from this sort of behavior."

Come again, Keith? Then why question my psychological make up as you did with this quote?

"Then you are very easily frightened! Perhaps you should see someone about that?"

That's a bit hypocritical on your part, don't you think?

[DaveB]

He hasn't passed a law, and he certainly hasn't established a religion.

He has interpreted a law as though Judeo Christian scripture was the basis of civil law. Close enough.

db

[Mike Irwin]

Once again, Keith, the Constitution is no longer the final word in this matter. It hasn't been for over 150 years.

You're attempting to apply strict Constitutional reading when you know that that is impossible given over 150 years of State, Federal, and Supreme Court rulings.

The Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be a static document.

[Keith]

Come again, Keith? Then why question my psychological make up as you did with this quote? "Then you are very easily frightened! Perhaps you should see someone about that?"


I can only point out that YOU claimed to be frightened by me. So, I was only responding to a statement you made about yourself.
If you don't want people to comment on your emotional state then you shouldn't volunteer such information...

Keith

[Keith]

The Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be a static document.

Oh lord! The eternal cry of the liberal: "The constitution is a living document"...
An argument trotted out every time someone wants to defend a new attack on civil liberties.
The Bill of Rights is not a Bill of "Suggestions" that can be overridden, modified or discarded every time some bliss-ninny rallies the rabble with cries of doom!

Keith

[DaveB]

You don't consider ruling against a lesbian because she's an affront to God an "attack on civil liberties"? Remember, he's not referring to 'God' in the abstract.

db

[Mike Irwin]

Tell me this...

If the Founders never intended for the Constitution to be modified, why did they establish a mechanism for just that process?

And why, then, did they establish the Supreme Court as the arbiter of judicial issues (Constitutional law is, by definition, a judicial issue).

Article III, Section 1:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."


"I can only point out that YOU claimed to be frightened by me."

Once again, Keith, you fail to quote accurately or comprehend completely. You have a certain and apparently natural felicity for that. I didn't claim to be frightened by you. I said your abilities, or lack thereof, are frightening. There's a big difference.

"Your inability to grasp the differences between a courthouse as a functionary of the state (government), and the judge as a functionary of the state, as opposed to a group of people worshiping at a state building, is truly frightening."

[bobs1066]

Mike, Cuchulainn, DaveB, it's like arguing with a stump that's on fire. Save your breath for other things.

bobs1066
"map est non tractus"

[Keith]

You don't consider ruling against a lesbian because she's an affront to God an "attack on civil liberties"? Remember, he's not referring to 'God' in the abstract.

Yes, I think it's a terrible ruling and clear affront to civil liberties! And if this is typical of this judges rulings, then (if I was a citizen of Alabama) I'd support his removal from office.

But it has nothing at all to do with this monument or the first amendment arguments surrounding it. Even knuckleheads and bigots have civil liberties!

Keith

[cuchulainn]

The Bill of Rights is not a Bill of "Suggestions" that can be overridden, modified or discarded every time some bliss-ninny rallies the rabble with cries of doom! Then why are you interpreting the 1st more narrowly than it reads in order to support Moore's violation of the civil right of the people to be free of laws "respecting the establishment of a religion."

You wish to interpret the 1st to read something other than what it reads. You wish to interpret to read something like "shall not officially establish or fund" (based on your previous posts).

There is more to "respecting the establishment" than the actual establishment.

The 1st DOES NOT READ simply "shall not establish."

[Keith]

If the Founders never intended for the Constitution to be modified, why did they establish a mechanism for just that process?

You can modify the mechanics of how the government does business.
But you can't dissolve the Bill of Rights with an amendment because civil liberties are not granted by government. Civil liberties are merely recognized as inherent "god-given" rights above and beyond the scope of government.

you fail to quote accurately or comprehend completely. You have a certain and apparently natural felicity for that. I didn't claim to be frightened by you. I said your abilities, or lack thereof, are frightening.

Personal insults and attacks are a violation of the letter and spirit of THR forum policy. Please refrain from this sort of behavior.

Thank you.

Keith

[Keith]

Then why are you interpreting the 1st more narrowly than it reads in order to support Moore's violation of the civil right of the people to be free of laws "respecting the establishment of a religion."

I'm not. READ the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law..." I'll cede that this statement would apply to the state congress' and to lesser governmental bodies within the state. But, NOBODY has passed a law!!!!!

" ... respecting an establishment of religion" What religion has been "established"? Baptist, Catholic, Jewish? What religion is "established" by this stone tablet in the court house?

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Keith,

(edited for clarity)

Then you must support the government's funding of religion.

Using your logic -- separation is not required because it is not mentioned -- is the same as the logic that funding is not barred because it is not mentioned

Funding is not establishment -- "Hey, we're just funding it because we like it, but we aren't establishing it. You all are free to practice your religion as you see fit."NOBODY has passed a law!!!!! Moore is making laws based on his religious beliefs -- including a law that the courthouse will be used to promote a particular religion. (That the 10C are recognized by three separate religions is beside the fact that he is promoting Christianity).

Are you saying that judicial law is exempt from the 1st? He doesn't get to hide behind the fact that his laws are not passed by a legislature? The 14 Amendment expanded the 1st not only to the states but to the other branches (executive and judicial as well as legislative).

READ the 1st in its proper context -- with the 14th.

[Keith]

Then you must support the government's funding of religion.

Really? Where did I say that?

Moore is making laws based on his religious beliefs -- including a law that the courthouse will be used to promote a particular religion.

Then perhaps you can cite this law? I have misplaced my copy of the Alabama statutes, so I'm relying on you to provide the proper citation.

Are you saying that judicial law is exempt from the 1st?

Not at all. As I stated above when the judge was quoted as ruling against the lesbian on the grounds that her way of life was offensive to god (or whatever he said) - such a ruling is clearly unconstitutional and should be overturned.
But, because a judge makes a poor ruling in one case does not mean that every ruling or decision he has ever made is wrong. It's a silly argument!

Keith

[Keith]

READ the 1st in its proper context -- with the 14th.

I don't believe anything I've said would be counter to the 14th.

Yet, even if I had, I'd be right! You can not "amend away" civil liberties expressed in the Bill of Rights.

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Really? Where did I say that? When you said that only establishment is barred by "respecting the establishment." Funding is not establishment. Using your logic, funding is allowed.

I'm taking your logic to its end. If separation is not covered, then funding is not covered.

Edited to add: I'm well aware that you've said funding is not allowed. I'm making a point.
Then perhaps you can cite this law? I have misplaced my copy of the Alabama statutes, so I'm relying on you to provide the proper citation. The law is his order that the statue be placed there. When the 1st was expanded to include judges and executives, "law" was expanded to include decisions and orders.

Just because a judge's action is not an official "statute" doesn't mean it is exempted from the 1st/14th.
But, because a judge makes a poor ruling in one case does not mean that every ruling or decision he has ever made is wrong. It's a silly argument! Indeed. Who made that argument?

My question was to your insistance that I read "congress shall make no law" I was wondering if you were limiting the first to the legislature.

[cuchulainn]

You can not "amend away" civil liberties expressed in the Bill of Rights. A government official's attempt to establish a religion by placing a religious icon in a government building is not a civil liberty.

Government officials' official actions are not protected by civil liberties (their priviate acts are protected, but this was not a private act).

[SGT109FA]

The 10 Commandments & Alabama

I think removing this monument is totally a jackass move . The judge who ruled on this is just as foolish as the complaintents.:cuss: :fire: :banghead: :cuss: :fire: :banghead: :cuss:

[Keith]

When you said that only establishment is barred by "respecting the establishment." Funding is not establishment. Using your logic, funding is allowed.

That's pretty strained logic. Particularly, since it was funded religion which was the very target of the establshment clause! The issue underlying the clause was the Church of England, and the objections all non-members had to funding this church through various taxes and levies.

The law is his order that the statue be placed there. When the 1st was expanded to include judges and executives, "law" was expanded to include decisions and orders.

I find it difficult to even comment on this. By this logic, his "I Love Jesus" coffee mug is a violation of the first amendment since it is publicly displayed on his desk in his gubmint office.

And of course, this all makes a mockery of the second half of that statement: Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise of religion". Doesn't the judge have a right to freely exercise his religion? Isn't the prohibition an infringment of that right?

AGAIN, you can not "intrepret" the first half of the sentence to mean the second half has no meaning! This is the same logic that the bliss-ninnies use when "reasoning" about the 2nd amendment.

Keith

[Keith]

A government official's attempt to establish a religion by placing a religious icon in a government building is not a civil liberty.

Establish
Main Entry: es·tab·lish
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English establissen, from Middle French establiss-, stem of establir, from Latin stabilire, from stabilis stable
Date: 14th century
1 : to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement


hmmm....

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Particularly, since it was funded religion which was the very target of the establshment clause! The issue underlying the clause was the Church of England, and the objections all non-members had to funding this church through various taxes and levies. Oh, I agree that funding is not allowed.

I'm making a point. You insist that we cannot point to "separation of church and state" because it is not mentioned. Yet you point to funding which is not mentioned.

You are being inconsistent. When we interpret, you say "Gee that's just like a liberal not looking at the text and nothing but the text." Then you turn around and add interpretation beyond the plain text.

I'm not making the point as a jab at you. I'm making you undertand that our interpretation is the same as yours.

Funding IS "respecting the establishment."
Joining (failure to separate) IS "respecting the establishemntBy this logic, his "I Love Jesus" coffee mug is a violation of the first amendment since it is publicly displayed on his desk in his gubmint office. He isn't placing the mug on public display with the intent to tell people that his decisions will be made based on religion. He has done so with the staue. With the statue, he hasn't simply made an decision about what he'll have in his private (yet government provided) office. He has made an order to publicly promote a religion using a government facility.

The mug is not an official action. The placement/defense of the statue is.Doesn't the judge have a right to freely exercise his religion? Isn't the prohibition an infringment of that right? Yes the judge has that right. That right does not extend to violating the rights of others by using his official government capacity to promote a religion.

Goverment promotion is not exercise. It is establishment.

Establish
Main Entry: es·tab·lish
<snip>
The 1st is not limited to the actual establishment. It includes actions "respecting the establishment" -- like funding, promoting or joining.

[Intune]

Keith, please read these drafts and tell me, if you were a Constitutional scholar or Alabama Supreme Court justice how you would rule on the Moore case.
First, per your example I'll begin with a definition.
Conscience-
1 a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts


DRAFTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1)
Amendments Proposed by Rep. James Madison of Virginia (June 8, 1789)


Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clause 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.





Amendments Reported by the House Select Committee (July 28, 1789)
Art. 1, Sec. 9--Between Par. 2 and 3 insert, "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

"The freedom of speech, and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."





Amendments Passed by the House of Representatives (Aug. 24, 1789)

ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.



Amendments Passed by Congress (Sept. 25, 1789)
Article the third . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth . . . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.





Keith, look how the Second changed. If you were the aforementioned Constitutional scholar or judge and someone came to you 100 years ago and said that their religious beliefs exempted them from service in the militia and you KNEW these drafts existed, how would you rule?

[Keith]

I'm making a point. You insist that we cannot point to "separation of church and state" because it is not mentioned. Yet you point to funding which is not mentioned.

It's hard to follow your logic on this. If government funds something then they have clearly "established" it. You can't establish an army unless you fund it.
Oddly (or not), I would argue that having a paid "Congressional Chaplain" (or whatever his title is) is counter to the establishment clause since his position is both funded and established by congressional statute.

I fail to see how a rock in an Alabama court house is a violation, while a paid congessional chaplain is not... I'll have to ask a liberal to explain it to me.

He isn't placing the mug on public display with the intent to tell people that his decisions will be made based on religion.

You're inserting your own "interpretation" again. The rock in question does not say "Our decisions will be based on the following ten Commandments:..."
And in fact, any ruling citing the ten commandments instead of secular law would be overturned.

The judge can say whatever he wants about god, religion, Jesus, Buddha, Allah.., whatever. He only violates civil liberties when he cites god as the source of a ruling - and in that case the ruling would be unconstitutional, not some rock in the foyer.

Keith

[Keith]

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

Using the above draft, I'd have to say that my "interpretation" is right on. Of course, no interpretation is really necessary since it's a pretty darned clear statement!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." No such law has been passed and it strains credulity to think that a very generic religous symbol embraced by literally hundreds of religions is an "establishment" of one particular sect as a state religion.

As for the second amendment, again; nothing changes. You can't compel someone to bear arms if it infringes on their first amendment right to "freely exercise" their religion.

It's the same argument - you can't use one right to "trump" and infringe on another right.

Keith

[cuchulainn]

If government funds something then they have clearly "established" it. Bingo. Why? It has effectively established it despite no official proclamation of establishment.

Funding is a part of establishement -- a subset of establishment. It is thus forbiddn

All I am saying is that ALL the subsets of establishment are similarly forbidden -- this includes promotion or joining (failing to separate).

Moore was promoting.
Moore was joining.
Actually, come to think of it, Moore was funding (the rotunda, the guys who cleaned the monument, the guys who guarded it from vandalism, etc.)

[voilsb]

Okay, I'm going to jump in here.

To preface this post, I reference my sig line: I am most certainly a Christian.

Okay, now to the point: The monument shouldn't be there. Why? Not because Judge Moore placed it. Not because of what it is. Not because of where it is. But the combination. Because Judge Moore placed a religious monument on public grounds. Not his private office in the public building, but the public grounds of the building.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Here we have a bit of confusion on the operative terms.
Congress shall make no law: Under the 14th Amendment, this is extended to all three branches of government, and to State and local government in addition to Federal.
respecting an establishment of religion: It doesn't say "establishing religion" it says "respecting an establishment of religion."
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: the third piece, I have no specific commentary on this part by itself.

The way this portion of the amendment is worded it can make two separate sentences: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

Taken with the 14th amendment, the first says that the judge, while acting in the power of his office, cannot legally place that monument where he did. If this is the case, then yes, the federal government can, as directed under the 14th amendment, order the removal of the monument.

If he did it while acting as a private citizen, then he violated a separate set of laws regarding the use of public property. Just as if he erected a statue of a giant penis on the courthouse lawn. And if this is the case, then the federal government has no place in this case

The second part does not prevent the government from restricting religious practices with secular laws; it prevents the government from prohibiting religious practices. This means that, although xyz religion says it's necessary to sacrifice a human female virgin, the government can still enforce it's laws prohibiting murder by interrupting such a religious practice.

Finally, there is nothing there about the separation of Church and State except in the ways already covered. Quite simply, the government cannot pass laws, whether by legislative action, court order, or executive order, regarding religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

For example, the government (whether federal, state, or local) cannot prohibit prayer in school. They *can* prohibit a specific prayer being broadcast in school, but it is not illegal to provide a time for students to pray as they wish, or even to have organized prayer in school if, for example, there is a room for Christian prayer, and another room for Islamic prayer, and another for Buddhist meditation, and another for non-practicioners, in addition to there being a method for additional rooms to be set up for religious practices not mentioned above. They cannot restrict the prayer time to a specific religion or handful of religions, but they are allowed to hold prayer so long as it is not interfering with the purpose of the school system: to educate the public.

Similarly, there can be religious monuments in courthouses, so long as they are not interfering with the purpose of the courthouse and that there are methods in place for other religions to be represented in a similar manner.

Likewise, the military is allowed to employ and train chaplains for religious ceremonies. However, if they do so they have the obligation to ensure that they are not restricting religous practice by providing Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist chaplains should the need arise. They also are not allowed to force anyone to attend these services or to make use of their offers.

This is different from the gov't prohibiting the firing of arms because one operating definition for the verb "to bear" is " To possess and use, as power; to exercise." In other words, "to keep and bear arms" includes the useage of those arms by firing them.

[cuchulainn]

respecting an establishment of religion: It doesn't say "establishing religion" it says "respecting an establishment of religion." Brian, I've pointed that out about 20 times, and I seem to have been ignored.Similarly, there can be religious monuments in courthouses, so long as they are not interfering with the purpose of the courthouse As you say, Moore violated this when he placed/defended the monument with the express purpose of promoting a religion.

[Keith]

Bingo. Why? It has effectively established it despite no official proclamation of establishment.

Hello? Government can not fund something unless they pass an appropriations bill - a law! "Government shall pass no law...." Remember?

All I am saying is that ALL the subsets of establishment are similarly forbidden -- this includes promotion or joining (failing to separate).

Sorry, your house of cards is undermined by the earlier lapse in logic.

Keith

[Keith]

Congress shall make no law: Under the 14th Amendment, this is extended to all three branches of government, and to State and local government in addition to Federal.

Yup, no argument there. The state is bound by the same prohibtions and the citizens have the same rights in all the states.

respecting an establishment of religion: It doesn't say "establishing religion" it says "respecting an establishment of religion."

Uh no, it says "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion.

Keith

[jimpeel]

So far, as far as I have been able to determine, only Christians have been flocking to his defense. No Jews, no Muslims. Although the 10 Commandments are essential to their religious dogma, there's no role or room for them in Judge Moore's narrowly defined world.

You obviously haven’t been following this case very closely.

http://www.onlineathens.com/images/081603/commandments1LR.jpg
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore receives an embroidered copy of the Ten Commandments from orthodox Jewish Rabbi Yehuda Levin, right, at the State Judicial Building in Montgomery, Ala., Friday.
AP

Story:
Commandments fight turns to high court (http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/081603/new_20030816083.shtml)

Moore has not answered questions from the news media since making his pledge, but did come out to the steps of the judicial building Friday, where a Jewish rabbi presented him with an embroidery made in Israel that shows the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai.

Yehuda Levin said he represents two national organizations of orthodox Jewish rabbis. Levin congratulated Moore for ''his struggle to keep us rooted in American values'' and recited a short prayer in Hebrew.

Other stories on Jewish support for Moore’s cause:

Commandments represent universal morals, rabbi says (http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/021018/morals.shtml)

TWO MAJOR RABBINICAL GROUPS SUPPORT "TEN COMMANDMENTS" JUDGE ROY MOORE (http://www.jewsformorality.org/uor_judge_moore030815.htm)

Rabbi tells Moore Jews support display (http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/106119815656850.xml)

A tale of two Rabbis (http://www.towardtradition.org/prold_taleoftworabbis.htm)

Rabbi Jonathan Miller does not speak for all Jews (http://www.russndee.net/readings/rabbi_answer1.html)

10 Commandments showdown tonight (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34182)

And this is not the only place that Jews and Christians have come together on the subject of the Ten Commandments:

Ten Commandments monument can stay on Texas Capitol grounds (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17069)

Of course not all Jews agree, either.

AJCONGRESS CALLS ON ALABAMA HIGH COURT TO KEEP RELIGION OUT OF JUDGE'S COURTROOM (http://www.ajcongress.org/pages/RELS1997/MAY97REL/may_001.htm)

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS APPLAUDS DECISION ON COURTROOM DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS (http://www.ajcongress.org/pages/RELS2003/JUL_2003/jul03_01.htm)

[cuchulainn]

Hello? Government can not fund something unless they pass an appropriations bill - a law! "Government shall pass no law...." Remember?
The method of funding was not in question. What are you talking about?

Sorry, your house of cards is undermined by the earlier lapse in logic. What lapse of logic? You merely made a non sequtur statement about funding requiring appropriation.

[cuchulainn]

Uh no, it says "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Yep, and official actions of government agents are "laws" when it comes to constitutional tests -- especially (as in this case) when the executive and judiciary are included.

[Keith]

The method of funding was not in question. What are you talking about?

We are talking about the establishment clause of the first amendment. Government can not pass a law respecting an establishment of religion, and a funding bill is a law.

Keith

[Keith]

Yep, and official actions of government agents are "laws" when it comes to constitutional tests -- especially (as in this case) when the executive and judiciary are included.

The executive is included? Must have missed that. But of course, putting a rock in the court house foyer is not establishing a religion any more than hanging a picture of the "official" state Rabbi in the foyer would be.

Keith

[cuchulainn]

We are talking about the establishment clause of the first amendment. Government can not pass a law respecting an establishment of religion, and a funding bill is a law. Um, yes, a funding bill is a law. What does that have to do with what we were talking about?

[cuchulainn]

The executive is included? Must have missed that. 14th Amt.

[Keith]

You all need to examine your premise.

The problem here is something called "Cognitive Dissonance". All psycho-babble aside, it simply means you've started with a faulty premise and then tried to marshall arguments to defend that premise. Each layer in your defense takes you further from the basic truth.

Somehow, you've gotten it into your head that any government association with religion is "agin the constitution".

This parallels the liberal take on the 2nd amendment - that the first (militia) clause somehow negates the second (shall not be infringed) clause. It doesn't work that way! You can't limit a civil liberty by quoting another liberty (or power ) from the same sentence!

Forget all the tortous legal arguments and later rulings - go back to the simple, bald sentence in the 1st Amendment and read it. It's talking about establishing a national religion (or state of Alabama religion, in the present case).
This judge may be every kind of religious bigot, a dog hater and a lousy tipper too, but putting a religious symbol in the court house is not passing a law OR establishing a religion!

Slow down, start over...

Keith

[voilsb]

Keith, you objected to my little bit about making a distinguishment between "establishing a religion" and "respectingan establishment of religion" in my earlier post by commenting that it states "Congress shall make no law respecting..."

Unfortunately, immediately above the portion to which you took objection, I had, in bold print "Congress shall make no law." Also, immediately below the section, I combined the two to state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Further, by the 14th amendment, this restriction is extended to include judicial and executive actions, not simply legistative actions.

The problem isn't with Judge Moore freely exercising his religious preference. It's with the resources he chooses to use in order to exercise that preference. Unfortunately, the public courthouse is not available to him for that purpose to the amount of exclusion he was/is trying for. The courthouse is a place of law, and although the free exercise of religion is permitted there, it is not permitted to a degree which would interfere with the practice of law, and secondly it is not permitted to interfere in any way with another's free exercise of religion in the same space, again so long as it is not intefering with the practice of law there.

I agree with you that the 1st Amendment, like the 2nd, should be taken at face value and that the government should have no legal say in matters of religion. However, the government does have the power to prevent such a monument from appearing on public grounds, just like it has the power to prevent a monument glorifying the massacre of the Jews from showing up on the courthouse grounds.

I also disagree with cuchulainn regarding the total and utter separation of church of state, but that's a different discussion for a different thread.

[Keith]

14th Amt.

The executive in this case would be the governor of Alabama. I am unclear on how he is associated with this case?

Keith

[voilsb]

Also, as has been pointed out (and ignored) a number of times in this thread, the 1st amendment doesn't read "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" it reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Those are two very different things. The second includes the first, but also covers additional things. For instance, it is unconstitutional for the government to make churches exempt from property taxes. They get away with it because they do not discriminate between Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Aztec churches.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is an establishment of religion. If the government said "LDS doesn't have to pay income tax" then that would be a law respecting an establishment of religion, even though it is not a law establishing a religion.

Likewise, permitting a judge to use public land (and even more specifically, public land which has the primary purpose of deciding on matters of law) to build a monument to a couple religions, while not permitting Joe Cleetus from building a shooting range on the same land, is a legal action respecting an establishment of religion, even though it is not establishing a religion.

[cuchulainn]

The executive in this case would be the governor of Alabama. I am unclear on how he is associated with this case?I didn't mean to imply that. Only the judiciary is involved in this case. (The executive nonetheless is covered by the 1st). Somehow, you've gotten it into your head that any government association with religion is "agin the constitution". No one has made the an "any association" argument. I and most others have gone to great pains to distinguish between this (actions in official capacity) vs. "any association."

[Keith]

It's with the resources he chooses to use in order to exercise that preference. Unfortunately, the public courthouse is not available to him for that purpose to the amount of exclusion he was/is trying for. The courthouse is a place of law, and although the free exercise of religion is permitted there, it is not permitted to a degree which would interfere with the practice of law, and secondly it is not permitted to interfere in any way with another's free exercise of religion in the same space, again so long as it is not intefering with the practice of law there.

There are no public resources associated with this.

There is no prohibition against other religious symbols, that I'm aware of. The ten commandments are a generic symbol to several hundred (thousand?) Christian and Jewish religions and sects. As far as that goes, the Muslims also recognize Moses and his commandments in their system.

So, if the building supervisor wants to mount some Buddhist laws out there and the head janitor is some middle easterner who wants the Code of Hammarabi displayed, then Judge Moore should have no objections.

As a way to run a court house I think this display opens a real can of worms. It's just not unconstitutional.

Keith

[Keith]

No one has made the an "any association" argument. I and most others have gone to great pains to distinguish between this (actions in official capacity) vs. "any association."


Hmmm... Maybe you need to go back and read your posts. We've gone from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." to some pretty broad "interpetations".

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Hmmm... Maybe you need to go back and read your posts. We've gone from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." to some pretty broad "interpetations".
We've gone from

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

to (via the 14th)

No branch or level of government -- or its agents -- shall take action in an official capacity respecting the establishment of religion.

I have never said anything beyond that.

[voilsb]

Actually, there are public resources at use here. The courthouse and the courthouse lawn are public resources.

And no, it is not unconstitutional. But it is illegal. Because if a monument of similar size were erected honoring Loki, Buddha, and Allah, it would clearly be a misuse of public land.

And likewise, I cannot legally go build a two-ton monument to Apollo in the middle of the university campus, Judge Moore should not be allowed to build one to God on the courthouse lawn.

Now, if it were an innocuous as a small plaque with the Ten Commandments on it, say, just to the left of the main entrance, I don't think anyone should have any issue with it. However, both the size and placement, and the fact it was a private venture, not controllable by voters, are part of the problem here.

[Keith]

Likewise, permitting a judge to use public land (and even more specifically, public land which has the primary purpose of deciding on matters of law) to build a monument to a couple religions, while not permitting Joe Cleetus from building a shooting range on the same land, is a legal action respecting an establishment of religion, even though it is not establishing a religion.

Well, the Declaration of Independence is absolutely rife with religious references and dogma - yet, this unconstitutional piece of trash is displayed in the rotunda of the national archives building! Are you shocked?

Quick - somebody call a federal judge!

Keith

[Keith]

No branch or level of government -- or its agents -- shall take action in an official capacity respecting the establishment of religion.

And that quote is from... what? And what would that have to do with the 1st or the 14th amendments?

You can't just make up a constitutional "reason" to prohibit something you don't like.
NOTHING in the constitution, the Bill of Rights, or later amendments, says anything about "any action" respecting the establishment of religion.

Go back to the original premise - read the 1st Amendment, etc, etc, etc...

Keith

[Keith]

And likewise, I cannot legally go build a two-ton monument to Apollo in the middle of the university campus,

You could if you were the dean of the college and somebody was willing to foot the bill. In fact, we have Greek statues all over the damned place and many of them have been paid for with public funds!

Statues! Of Gods and Goddesses!!!

Where is the ACLU? Is it only Christian symbols that are prohibited?

Keith

[cuchulainn]

NOTHING in the constitution, the Bill of Rights, or later amendments, says anything about "any action" respecting the establishment of religion. Any action in an official capacity.

The 14th says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens."

Freedom from established religion is a privilege or immunity
Any official goverment action abridges that.

[bountyhunter]

And I seem to recall the state building in Baton Rouge had a statue with ELEVEN commandments. Of course, commandment #1 was to stay the heck out of Bamastan for general health reasons and just good sense.

[Keith]

Freedom from established religion is a privilege or immunity Any official goverment action abridges that.

And how far that privilege or immunity extends is codified in the 1st Amendment!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The 14th Amendment does not add an asterisk and codicile specifying: "or any action by any government functionary, etc, etc..." You just made that part up and since you made it up, it has no constitutional weight at all!

Keith

[Black92LX]

Is it only Christian symbols that are prohibited

Unfortunitaly that's the case:cuss:

but that's what :evil: he wants.

[2dogs]

He isn't placing the mug on public display with the intent to tell people that his decisions will be made based on religion. He has done so with the staue.

Yeah, that "thou shalt not kill"- that sounds like it might have come from the Ten Commandments- we'd better do away with laws against murder lest "separation of church and state" be violated. Some ACLU operative may find this prohibition a breach of the "Congress shall make no law...." :rolleyes:

While we're at it we'd better repeal Christmas as a federal holiday- why is the government allowed to recognize that one religious holiday? Quick, call the ACLU.

No more swearing to tell the truth on the bible, no chaplains in the military, no God on money, no crosses in Arlington, strip all public buildings of any shred of religious statuary, sandblast the Gettysburg address off the Lincoln Memorial since it mentions God- boy we have our work cut out for us.

We need a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the 2nd Amendment and that "freedom of religion" part of the 1st.;)

[cuchulainn]

"or any action by any government functionary, etc, etc..." You just made that part up and since you made it up, it has no constitutional weight at all!

Once again, you take the "official" out of my statment to pretend I said "any action."

An action in an official capacity is a law for purposes of constitutional tests.

Moore took such action. That action is "respecting the establishment."

[cuchulainn]

Yeah, that "thou shalt not kill"- that sounds like it might have come from the Ten Commandments- we'd better do away with laws against murder lest "separation of church and state" be violated. The laws against murder predate the introduction of Christianity into anglo law. They merely agree with the commandment.While we're at it we'd better repeal Christmas as a federal holiday- why is the government allowed to recognize that one religious holiday? Quick, call the ACLU. Know what? I have no problem with that federal holiday. I have no problem with the 10C on the Supreme Court door. I understand why those don't promote religion.

What I do have is a problem with is a government official attempting to promote a religion. Moore is doing that on a level way beyond any of your examples.

[Keith]

Once again, you take the "official" out of my statment to pretend I said "any action."

Whatever. The first amendment doesn't say "official action" either! You have to base constitutional law on what the constitution says, not on what you "feel" is right or proper on a given day or on a given subject.

It's all based on the 1st Amendment - read it!

Keith

[Glock Glockler]

Hey, Mike

I'm trying to do that comprehension thing with the 1st Amendment and I keep running into that "Congress shall make no law" thing, seems to me that Congress isn't making any law but the State of Alabama is, so why don't we all just let the people of Alabama decide this thing for themselves?

[Marko Kloos]

The Bill of Rights applies to all levels of government.

If you argue that only Congress may not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, but the States may do so at their own pleasure, you'd have to advance the notion that only the Feds may not infringe on the RKBA, but states like California have no constitutional barriers when it comes to outright gun bans.

How about the right to free speech, or the right to a jury trial? If the Federales infringe upon them, that's bad...but if the States do, it's A.O.K.?

[cuchulainn]

Whatever. The first amendment doesn't say "official action" either! Now you are ignoring that the 1st must not be read out of context of the 14th.

Edited to add "not"It's all based on the 1st Amendment - read it! No it's not. It's partially based on the 1st. You are ignoring the 14th.
not on what you "feel" is right or proper on a given day or on a given subject. Please refrain from ascribing motive. At best, it's rude and irrelevant.

[2dogs]

I have no problem with that federal holiday. I have no problem with the 10C on the Supreme Court door. I understand why those don't promote religion.

Um, maybe you could explain it to me.:confused:

[cuchulainn]

Hey, Mike

I'm trying to do that comprehension thing with the 1st Amendment and I keep running into that "Congress shall make no law" thing, seems to me that Congress isn't making any law but the State of Alabama is, so why don't we all just let the people of Alabama decide this thing for themselves? Hey, Glock. The 14th Amendment was ratified about 130 years ago. It changed the context of the 1st.

[Glock Glockler]

Marko,

What is the point of a state having a Constitution of it's own? Why do they even need it, we have Big Daddy Federal govt to take care of us?

The States demanded a BoR as a limit on Federal power, to act as a check against the Comstitution, which they though placed too much power in the hands of a centralized govt (They were right), so what sense does it make that the states would agree to a document that would limit their own power and give that central govt the arbitrating authority to decide the internal matters within the state's borders?

I appreciate your concern, but if Concord passes a law limiting free speech or establishing a state church, it's our responsibility to deal with it, not yours. I can keep an eye and a thumb on Concord much better than I can on Washington, so maybe the Feds should go back to taking care of national defense and foreign diplomacy.

[cuchulainn]

2dogs.

Christmas is retained as a federal holiday for secular reasons -- since so many federal workers are Christians, there would be virtually no staff anyway. It's more of a personnel-management acknowledgement of reality rather than a celebration.

The SC door A) removes the religious elements from the 10C and B) is part of broader, building-wide Western Civilization lawgiver artwork.

That's a far cry from Moore who placed the 10C there with the express purpose of promoting a religion

[P12]

If the government no longer has to acknowledge the existence of a “creator” and “higher authority”, as described in the founding documents, then how can we expect our “unalienable rights” to be protected. (Well, what little of them we have left!) If no law exists from this “GOD” then how can he exist? Since there are no rules from this “GOD” then how can you people be “endowed” with these “inalienable” rights you claim to have.

“We the GOVERNMENT don’t recognize your GOD. Be gone from me you fools!”

So where will we receive our “unalienable rights” from?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their ___________ with certain unalienable Rights,”

What word would you insert in the blank?

Chip


Chip


Chip


Chip

[Tamara]

While we're at it we'd better repeal Christmas as a federal holiday- why is the government allowed to recognize that one religious holiday? Quick, call the ACLU.

That's right, 'cause it's the holiest day of my religion: Capitalism.

[Graystar]

That's right, 'cause it's the holiest day of my religion: Capitalism. LMAO!

[Intune]

If the Creator needs a government employee to prove He exists...

plop...


plop...


plop...






plop...

That was the bottom falling out of organized religion

[Keith]

No it's not. It's partially based on the 1st. You are ignoring the 14th.

Neither the 1st, nor the 14th amendment say anything about "official action". YOU said that, not the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any later amendment.

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Neither the 1st, nor the 14th amendment say anything about "official action". YOU said that, not the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any later amendment."No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of Citizens of the United States."

Edited for clarity:

"Make and enforce any law" = actions in official capacity. Actions made in official capacity always have counted as "law" in constitutional tests. That is not some modern, feel-good, living-constitution idea. It has been done that way since the founders were watching.

Law is not limited to statutes or some other narrow definition.

Moore was making and enforcing law "respecting the establishment of religion":
** He made law when he ordered action in his official capacity (placement of monument).
** He turned that law into "law respecting an establishment of religion" when he tied the action to upholding the supposed religious foundation behind U.S. law
** He was attempting to enforce law by fighting to keep it there.

[Keith]

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of Citizens of the United States."

That's right. And which privileges and immunities are we talking about? We are talking about those embodied in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law. etc, etc.

Law is not limited to statutes or some other narrow definition.

Civil liberties are codified in the Bill of Rights. They can't be infringed upon because some ill-defined general principle (that isn't even written down) sounds right to you.

Keith

[cuchulainn]

And which privileges and immunities are we talking about? That of being free of "laws respecting an establishment of religion. Moore made such a law.They can't be infringed upon because some ill-defined general principle (that isn't even written down) sounds right to you. I am not suggesting that any right be infringed.

Moore = the state. The state has no rights; it has powers. This is a situation of a power being used unconstitutionally.

[cordex]

Moore made such a law.
Um .... no.

Whatever good points you may have, a Judge acting outside his constitutional authority does not a law make.

[cuchulainn]

a Judge acting outside his constitutional authority does not a law make. Yes it does. For purposes of constutional scrutiny, Moore's order to erect the monument was a law. In the Anglo-Amercan legal tradition (since at least Blackstone) law has been understood to mean the sovereign(*) or its agents imposing its will on the people regardless of the form of that action. That's what Moore did. He acted in his official capacity as an agent of the state to impose religion on the people.

(*) obviously, in the American branch, sovereign = the state.

[2dogs]

Christmas is retained as a federal holiday for secular reasons -- since so many federal workers are Christians, there would be virtually no staff anyway. It's more of a personnel-management acknowledgement of reality rather than a celebration.

Sounds like an "assault rifle" argument to me- completely arbitrary.

Christmas is a holiday for secular reasons? What does that mean- you do away with the holiday if you want employees to show up for work, you don't retain it so that everyone can take off.

To say that the federal government recognizes only a Christian holy day as important enough to close down the entire government, and then say that it is somehow not promoting that seems a bit disingenuous. And yet a statue containing the ten commandments, which is representative of a Judeo-Christian tradition-since there is no Judeo-Christian religion- is somehow supposed to be utterly offensive.

This reeks of hypocrisy just as the AWB does. Either have the courage to ban all religious symbology from the public square as secularists want, or admit that the 1st Amendment exists for one reason - to allow freedom of religion and to prevent the federal government from imposing one religion on the public.

[CZ 75 BD]

hypothetical situation of korans or buddas or shivas placed in the building; Judge Moore was elected on his pledge to place the decalogue in the courthouse. If he had pledged to place some of the other aforementioned items, he would not have been elected to a position to do so. Also, most people are unaware of or ignore the fact that the monument also contains phrases from our history, spoken by patriots every day, that refer to God.

[ChuteTheMall]

You mean he kept a promise to carry out the will of the people to exercise religious freedom? No wonder Satan is so angry at him!

[Marko Kloos]

Commandeering public property to advance a specific religion is not "exercising religious freedom". When Judge Moore places a religious text from his belief system into the courthouse rotunda, he effectively declares that the judiciary of the State of Alabama specifically endorses and promotes Christianity.

As a private person, he has no right to place that monument in a public courthouse. As a civil servant, he doesn't have the right to do so either, because it is not within the scope and privileges of his office to tell anyone how many gods there are, or how to worship them, or what days to keep holy.

[ChuteTheMall]

We kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan; but they are still active in America, destroying symbols of religion. Remember what the Taliban did in March 2001?

http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200103/13/print20010313_64842.html


Taliban Destroys Buddhist Statues Despite International Intervention

UNESCO Director-general Koichiro Matsuura on Monday confirmed the final and down-to-earth demolition of Buddhist statues in central Afghanistan.

"The Taliban has never taken into consideration either unprecedented international mobilization or opposing voices from the highest authorities of the Islamic religion," said Matsuura.

He said the Buddhist statues in the country have been destroyed by hands, hammers or rocket fires and two of them, believed to be unique and tallest of their kind, are now nothing but ruins at the foot of the cliffs where they had stood for about a thousand years.

Both condemnation documents from all over the world and mediation trips from powerful organizations seemed in vain in the past two weeks.

Matsuura, head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, started mobilizing the Islamic world since February 26 when Taliban ordered to smash what they called " idols insulting Islam".

He also sent Pierre Lafrance, former French ambassador to Pakistan and Iran and expert on Islamic issues, to Kabul to talk with Taliban leaders.

[Marko Kloos]

We kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan; but they are still active in America, destroying symbols of religion.

The Taliban have more in common with Judge Moore than with the people removing the Decalogue from the public area of the courthouse (a far cry from dynamiting it, by the way.)

Both the Taliban and Judge Moore believe that their interpretation of their god's will overrules any worldly law, and that pious righteousness gives one all the authority one needs to advance the True Faith over all others.

[Leaky Waders]

I'm no lawyer and I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night either...

But, doesn't everyone take an oath upon The Bible prior to testifying in the courthouse?

If so, then why does a monument displaying one of the legal exerpts from the legal document become such a big deal? I mean the whole bible is used in court....but a stone tablet depiciting an exerpt cannot be displayed within it's walls? It seems absurd to me.

[2dogs]

Leaky Waders

Sir! How dare you introduce common sense into a mindless debate- fiend!;) :)

[jimpeel]

http://www.bushsupporter.org/war_dec/07afgh-scene_7.jpg
The site of the Buddhist statues after they were "removed from public view".

[cuchulainn]

How do we take "The High Road" when people on the other side of the issue mount an ad hominem attack of the lowest order -- comparing us to murderous terrorists like the taliban?

I guess we simply point out that their resorting to slander indicates that they have no logical argument.

[Keith]

I am not suggesting that any right be infringed. Moore = the state. The state has no rights; it has powers. This is a situation of a power being used unconstitutionally

The only the only thing defining a state power over reliogion is in the first amendment. To exercise a power, Moore would have had to make a law.
Since he didn't make a law, he was exercising his right as a citizen to freely exercise his religion. When the feds ordered the monument removed, THEY were exercising a power! And they used that power to infringe upon his right - a violation!

No matter how you twist and turn this, it all boils to a few words in the 1st. He either passed a law or he didn't. He exercised a right or he didn't.

Keith

[Keith]

Both the Taliban and Judge Moore believe that their interpretation of their god's will overrules any worldly law, and that pious righteousness gives one all the authority one needs to advance the True Faith over all others.

You're exaggerating the case beyond the scope of the argument - perhaps because you have no real argument! Moore has not said "God's will" overrides secular law, and until they start jailing people for making graven images and adultery, you'd do best to stick to the facts.

As mentioned earlier, we have Greek Gods and Goddesses stuck in public buildings all around the country and nobody gets their panties in a wad about that.
We have the declaration of independence in the rotary of the National Archives building and since this document is shot full of religious references it would be "unconstitutional" in the same way that Moore's rock is.
We pay a "Congressional Chaplain" to open every session of congress with a prayer as well as thousands of military chaplains.
Congress, the white house, and many of the monuments along the mall have various religious writings and icons displayed or incorporated into the buildings.

It's just plain silly to make out this case as "different" than all the tens of thousands of a other cases - and some of those situations (such as the congressional chaplain) are actual cases of "congress making a law"!


Keith

[cuchulainn]

He either passed a law or he didn't.Once again: Actions by government agents in their official capacities are "law" in the Anglo-American legal tradition. It was that way before the Constitution (since at least Blackstone). It was that way while it was being ratified. It's still that way.

Moore's action = law. He made a law. He exercised a right or he didn't. Once again: Government agents are deemed to be the state from a legal standpoint. It was that way before the Constitution (since at least Blackstone). It was that way while it was being ratified. It's still that way.

Moore = the state. The state cannot claim rights.

[Marko Kloos]

But, doesn't everyone take an oath upon The Bible prior to testifying in the courthouse?

Taking an oath on the Bible is not mandatory or essential to testifying. You can choose to affirm instead. Not even the President's Oath of Office requires them to swear on a Bible, although all of them have done so far.

Since he didn't make a law, he was exercising his right as a citizen to freely exercise his religion.

That is not an accurate view of the issue.

The citizens of Alabama have no right to commandeer public property to exercise their religion. Simply put, if Judge Moore, as a private citizen, has a right to place a 5,000-pound monument specific to his religion in the public courthouse rotunda, then every citizen of Alabama has a right to do the same. The Buddhists can bring in a 5,000-pound Buddha, the Muslims a 5,000-pound copy of the Koran, and so on.

Fact is that while every citizen of Alabama has the right to erect such a monument on their own property, and exercise their religion privately, none of them have a right to walk into the courthouse and claim the rotunda unilaterally for such a monument. It would be misappropriation of public property for a private purpose, namely the exercising of one's religion.

Judge Moore was acting in his function as the Chief Justice. As such, he used his office to advance his religion, thereby implying that the judiciary of the State of Alabama officially favors Christianity above all other faiths. Now, the good Justice has a right to his religious beliefs, but he has absolutely no right promoting his faith with public resources.

Judge Morre and his supporters have repeatedly stated publically that we were founded as a Christian nation, and that the purpose of the Decalogue in that courthouse was "to bring the nation closer to God again". It had nothing to do with private exercise of religion. it has always been about a public declaration of religious preference. "Alabama, and this courthouse, are meant to be Christian." How is that not pushing one faith above all others?

Personally, I recognize the historical place of the Ten Commandments, but I find it absurd to claim that "our laws derived from Biblical law". Our Bill of Rights is in most cases diametrically opposed to the Decalogue. Half the Decalogue deals with instructions for the worship of a specific god, and only the second half deals with inter-human relationships. Most of the "secular" commandments of the Decalogue are not unique to Christianity. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, lists many of the same "thou shalt nots", and predates the Decalogue by a millennium or so.

The Decalogue is a ten-point list of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots", half of which are in direct conflict with the Constitution. The other half are general principles of human interaction that were codified long before Christianity. It is most definitely not the basis for our current law, and the only reason Judge Moore wants it in that rotunda is to pay homage to his specific deity. The whole point is that he has no right to use either his office or the courthouse for his private worship, and he doesn't have the right to speak for all Alabamans.

You're exaggerating the case beyond the scope of the argument - perhaps because you have no real argument! Moore has not said "God's will" overrides secular law, and until they start jailing people for making graven images and adultery, you'd do best to stick to the facts.


He has claimed many times, on TV, that the Federal judge himself is "in contempt of God's law". It seems like he thinks that God's word overrides the Federal jurisprudence. He disobeys the secular law that he has sworn to uphold. We have a government of laws, not men. Of you get an order from a federal judge who outranks you, you comply. If you disagree, seek redress in court, like the people in your state have to do. Where would the judge end up if people in his courtroom disobeyed his orders and said to him, "You're in contempt of my God's law?"

Look: he snuck the monument into the courthouse at night. He knew damn well that it was brazen and legally questionable, and he knew damn well that it would generate controversy and give him an opportunity to grandstand. He only did it because he wanted to curry favor with both his deity and his constituents. He wanted to publically martyr himself and "take one for the Lord", and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the guy will run for Alabama governor within the next two election cycles.

[cordex]

Well put Marko. However, it is the very fact that he snuck the monument in at night that says to me that he was not acting as a judge, but as an ordinary citizen illegally using public lands for disposal of property.

[Keith]

Once again: Actions by government agents in their official capacities are "law" in the Anglo-American legal tradition.

And I'll point out again, that vague and ill-defined legal "traditions" don't trump the bill of rights! If you want every decision a government functionary makes to be defined as a "law" then you need to draft an amendment and get two thirds of the states to ratify it.

If you're standing in the court house foyer and a judge walks up and tells you that your pink flamingo tie (souvenir of Okechobee Springs!) is too ugly to be worn in a public place - is that a law? Can he have you arrested if you don't remove and immediately burn the offending fashion mistake?

If you resisted this impromptu fashion "law" and were arrested, would the DA be able to prosecute the case? Would the judge trying the case agree that any decision of a judge has the force of law? Would the federal courts (interstate transportation of a fashion crime) uphold the ruling?

Get real!

Keith

[Leaky Waders]

So you don't have to swear on the bible...you may affirm...the bible isn't removed from the courtroom; so you don't have to look at the ten commandments...can't you just walk on by without having them removed from their place of display?

Isn't there a National Cathedral in Washington? Doesn't the headstone on all veterans fallen in wars display government funded depictions of religion? Does our coinage, our oaths, and our pledges use God as well as pagan depictions of greco-roman gods and mystic rites in them?

Doesn't the president ask for national prayer during the times of crisis? Isn't congress opened in prayer. It's funny how prayer is removed from the clasroom because we don't want to corrupt our youth. I doubt many drug dealers and gangsters pray or look for divine intervention before going to work each day.

Isn't the architecture of Washington and many other cultural centers based upon greco-roman temple architecture? The monuments of shilo and other battelfields are most certainly religiously based.

Relgious references are certainly prevalent in our society...and have been since its birth. Just because we have an American Culture, doesn't imply intolerance.

I still don't get the outrage. I think it's political correctness gone haywire.

[Keith]

The citizens of Alabama have no right to commandeer public property to exercise their religion.

The judge is the head-dude-in-charge of the court house. He can decorate the place any way he wants, just as the guy in charge of any government building can do. If the new head-dude-in-charge (that replaces Moore)doesn't like the decorations, he can remove them - and neither situation is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Judge Moore was acting in his function as the Chief Justice. As such, he used his office to advance his religion, thereby implying that the judiciary of the State of Alabama officially favors Christianity above all other faiths.

You are again stretching the point beyond credulity! The Ten Commandments are from the old testament and recognized by Christians, Jews and Muslims! And those three groups are broken down into thousands of individual religions. It is not a "Christian" monument!

I recognize the historical place of the Ten Commandments, but I find it absurd to claim that "our laws derived from Biblical law".

Well, that's right. In effect, to violate the first amendment the judge would have to issue rulings based on biblical law. And if he did, those rulings would be a violation - not a rock in the courthouse foyer!

"...shall make no law..."

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Keith,

It is you who is insisting that law be defined more narrowly than the Anglo-American legal usage of the word concurrent with the ratification of the Constitution. Thus the burden is on you to provide evidence that the founders changed its defintion to whatever restricted sense you are insisting upon.

[DaveB]

Relgious references are certainly prevalent in our society...and have been since its birth. Just because we have an American Culture, doesn't imply intolerance.

I still don't get the outrage. I think it's political correctness gone haywire.


I kinda agree with you, but I want to reenforce a point.

The idea that you may go before a judge at some point and be judged not only on civil and criminal law, but on that judge's opinion of whether you and your behavior are acceptable to his God - well, that should scare the bejeezus out of you.

In practical terms, that's why we have an 'establishment clause' in the Constitution.

db

[Keith]

It is you who is insisting that law be defined more narrowly than the Anglo-American legal usage of the word concurrent with the ratification of the Constitution.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't pass the "smell test". You are claiming that every action and/or utterance of a public official is a law!

The police chief doesn't need a warrant to raid your home because (as a public offcial) his word is "law" that overrides the 4th amendment... I don't think so!

Keith

[Keith]

but on that judge's opinion of whether you and your behavior are acceptable to his God - well, that should scare the bejeezus out of you.

Such a ruling would be a violation of the first amendment. Having a religiously themed rock in the courthouse foyer, isn't.

Two different issues. You all need to stick with the rock in the foyer and leave the "what if the judge did this, or that" out of it.

Keith

[cuchulainn]

The police chief doesn't need a warrant to raid your home because (as a public offcial) his word is "law" that overrides the 4th amendment... I don't think so!When did I claim that laws override the BoR? If the police chief declares he has authority to make warrantless raids and starts doing so, he has made and enforced a law -- a bogus, unconstitutional law, but a law nonetheless. That law, I would hope, would be stopped with the 4th.

Now, please provide evidence that the founders used the term law in a manner more narrow than the Anglo-American legal usage concurrent with the ratification of the Constitution.

[2dogs]

a bogus, unconstitutional law

Kind of like rulings based on an imaginary "separation of church and state" which was derived from.........................................nowhere.:p

[Keith]

If the police chief declares he has authority to make warrantless raids and starts doing so, he has made and enforced a law

Nope, he hasn't. He (and his men) are now armed burglars who will have to pay for their crime under various criminal and civil charges arising from a violation of the 4th amendment.

Now, please provide evidence that the founders used the term law in a manner more narrow than the Anglo-American legal usage concurrent with the ratification of the Constitution.

Law
Main Entry: 1law
Pronunciation: 'lo
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Do we as a community formally recognize every action and utterance of a public official to be binding and enforcable? If the mayor tells you your Pink Flamingo tie is illegal, does those words have the force of law? Or would he have to place a bill before the city council and get a majority vote to make ugly ties illegal?

Get real!

Keith

[Marko Kloos]

Kind of like rulings based on an imaginary "separation of church and state" which was derived from.........................................nowhere.

The phrase "separation of church and state" was first coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, describing the intent and practical application of the First Amendment.

The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

[cuchulainn]

Kind of like rulings based on an imaginary "separation of church and state" which was derived from.........................................nowhere. Yeah, and the right to discharge your gun is imaginary too because it's not mentioned in the 2nd :rolleyes:

Moore made a "law respecting a establishment of religion" when he ordered the monument be placed there and explicitely tied his action to promoting religious values.

[Keith]

Kind of like rulings based on an imaginary "separation of church and state" which was derived from.........................................nowhere.

Isn't this whole discussion getting bizarre? This is why I keep suggesting that these guys go back and examine the premise - the First Amendment - and READ the very simple statement it contains. But no, they'd rather keep edging further and further out on a limb that's been sawed off a dozen times!

Now, we have the argument that there is some vaguely define and unwritten rule that trumps everything written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights - public officials are themselves "Gods" whose every pronouncement has the force of law...

Cognitive Dissonance!

Keith

[cuchulainn]

Keith,

Something out of a modern dictionary is not evidence that the founders used the term law in a manner more narrow than the common Anglo-American legal usage concurrent with the ratification of the Constitution.

I could provide you with a modern dictionary definition of regulate as "government controlled." That that does not prove the the founders used it that way. Same with your modern dictionary definition.

[2dogs]

explicitely tied his action to promoting religious values.

So now it's laws against religious "values"? How about religious names, yeah, let's do names- anyone named John or James or Paul should be dropped off a bridge.:rolleyes:

The argument about firing your gun is completely specious as that (again) is inferred from the right to keep and bear arms. "Separation of church and state" isn't inferred, it is spun like yarn.

[Keith]

The phrase "separation of church and state" was first coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, describing the intent and practical application of the First Amendment.

And this letter to the Danbury Baptists overrides the Constitution?

Jefferson also wrote that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Does that mean I can legally take my rifle to DC and do some "refreshing"?

The founders wrote all kinds of things, but the only writings with the force of law are those within the Constitution and its amendments. And in this case, those words start with; "Congress shall make no law..." and end with; "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Until judge Moore makes a law based on his religious principles, he is on firm constitutional ground. And his actions are protected by the First Amendment - which can't be "trumped" by a letter to the Danbury baptists!

Keith

[DaveB]

Masturdebation - the art of debating with yourself because you can't keep up with your opponent.

db

[Keith]

Something out of a modern dictionary is not evidence that the founders used the term law in a manner more narrow than the common Anglo-American legal usage concurrent with the ratification of the Constitution.

Ah, the liberal argument - whatever civil liberties we don't approve of, we'll just "interpret" away by creating fanciful definitions or build a house of cards based on the placement of comma's and semi-colons... Sorry, but it doesn't wash with 2nd Amendment arguments and it doesn't wash here.

In fact though, the word "Law" dates back to the 12 century (read the definition) and the word meant the same thing then as it does now.

If you disagree, then provide a cite showing that "law" in the 18th century meant "any utterance or action of a public official". You should be able to do that since Websters dates back nearly to that era.

I'm waiting...

Keith

[Marko Kloos]

Until judge Moore makes a law based on his religious principles, he is on firm constitutional ground. And his actions are protected by the First Amendment - which can't be "trumped" by a letter to the Danbury baptists!

So, if another Chief Justice in another state put up a monument in his courthouse proclaiming "There is but one God, and his name is Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet", he would be protected by the First Amendment in doing so?

[dustind]

Assuming the case DaveB posted is true, the judge has violated the 1st by putting his god above the law. If he is ruling based on religious beliefs, and not the law, he needs to be at the least thrown out. His statements to the press also seem to indicate he is biased to the point of putting his god above the law.

If the question is, "does his statue in a court house violate "prohibiting the free exercise there of"?" I would say yes, homosexuals, satanists, "immoral" people, etc, etc, would not be equal under the law. Defendants would have to hide their beliefs so that they did not bias the judge against them.

I think the line must be drawn at when people use the government to establish their religious beliefs to the point that it interfers with others "free exercise there of". God on money, and other small things do not seem to harm anyone, but court rulings can.

[cuchulainn]

provide a cite showing that "law" in the 18th century meant "any utterance or action of a public official". I never claimed anything that broad. I have been careful to modify what I say with "in their official capacity" because when they act in their official capacity, they are agents of the state -- in effect become the state.

Blackstone, in the 18th Century, defined law as:
"a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong"

Moore prescribed a rule of civil conduct: fealty to the 10 Commandments.

He didn't just put the monument there for symbolism or decoration (as has been the case in other courthouses). He explicitely put it there as an official act of prescribing what he believed to be right -- asserting that the rules of the Judeo-Christian deity govern U.S and Alabama law.

Thus it was a law "respecting an establisment of religion."

[cordex]

He didn't just put the monument there for symbolism or decoration (as has been the case in other courthouses). He explicitely put it there as an official act of prescribing what he believed to be right -- asserting that the rules of the Judeo-Christian deity govern U.S and Alabama law.
So sneaking around in the middle of the night and dragging a rock onto public property was an official act as Judge? Not on the clock, presumably not wearing his pretty black dress of office ... hrm ...

Pretty broad definition of "official" you've got there.
Does his morning evacuation count as an "official" act (and thus, law) as well?

[Intune]

Moore's attorney, Herbert Titus, wrote that a stay would "permit the Chief Justice to fulfill the campaign promise that he made to the citizens of Alabama to restore the moral foundation of law."

Yeah, sure looks like he used his position to "officially" get it done. His morning evacuations are probably looked on as a bed of roses by his supporters!
:D

This sure is helping to bring the country together, eh? United, no matter what race, religion or creed. Hmm...

[cuchulainn]

So sneaking around in the middle of the night and dragging a rock onto public property was an official act as Judge? Not on the clock, presumably not wearing his pretty black dress of office What do the time of day or what he was wearing have to do with anything?Pretty broad definition of "official" you've got there. It became official when he claimed he had the authority to do it because he is the head of the Alabaman judiciary.

[Keith]

So, if another Chief Justice in another state put up a monument in his courthouse proclaiming "There is but one God, and his name is Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet", he would be protected by the First Amendment in doing so?

What do these words mean to you: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"?

This isn't complicated stuff. If a judge or politician writes law based on religion, he's violating the 1st Amendment.
But look around you at the thousands of religiously themed monuments in every corner of the country, on public land, in government buildings and paid for with your tax dollars! Why is a statue of Zeuss (a god!) in central park not a violation, while a rock with Jewish/Christian/Muslim writings (the ten commandments) in Alabama is?

This isn't brain surgery here - open your eyes and look around!

Keith

[Keith]

I have been careful to modify what I say with "in their official capacity" because when they act in their official capacity, they are agents of the state -- in effect become the state.

Then you would approve of the Declaration of Independence being removed from public display? You would approve of removing the tens of thousands of monuments across the country that have religious themes? You would fire all of the chaplains paid for by the US government? You would remove the bible from US courtrooms? You would tear down the portions of government buildings with greek or roman gods in the facade?

The notion is ridiculous!

Keith

[cordex]

What do the time of day or what he was wearing have to do with anything?
It tells us whether or not he was acting in his offical capacity as a Judge at the time he illegally dumped the rock at the courthouse.

Contrary to popular belief, not every single action is done in an "official capacity".
It became official when he claimed he had the authority to do it because he is the head of the Alabaman judiciary.
If he in fact said that he drew his authority to use public property in the fashion that he did from his position as a Judge, then I can agree that he was acting in a manner which conflicts with the First Amendment.

[Intune]

No, I would remove a 5,000lb monument to religious laws enshrined in a house of law that suggests such religious laws are sanctioned by the "state."

[cuchulainn]

Then you would approve of the Declaration of Independence being removed from public display? You would approve of removing the tens of thousands of monuments across the country that have religious themes? You would fire all of the chaplains paid for by the US government? You would remove the bible from US courtrooms? You would tear down the portions of government buildings with greek or roman gods in the facade? Your only response is the slippery slope logical fallacy, then?

[cuchulainn]

If he in fact said that he drew his authority to use public property in the fashion that he did from his position as a Judge, then I can agree that he was acting in a manner which conflicts with the First Amendment.

from: http://www.morallaw.org/presentation.htmPresentation of the Ten Commandments Monument at the Alabama Supreme Court

Speech Delivered by Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, August 1, 2001

By the authority vested by the Constitution of the State of Alabama in the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and as the administrative head of the judicial system of the State of Alabama; and

By the authority vested by Alabama Code Section 41-10-275 in the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court as the Authorized Judicial System Representative of the Unified Judicial System of the State of Alabama; and

By the authority vested in the Chief Justice as such Authorized Representative under the lease of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama;

I am pleased to present this monument depicting the moral foundation of law, and hereby authorize it to be placed in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.

<snip>

[cordex]

Works for me.

[Moparmike]

[Mr. Burns]
Exxxxxxcccceeelllleennttt.
[/Mr. Burns]

Good info. Nothing like having proof that someone in charge overstepped his bounds.

Republicans get their panties in a wad because of Clinton lying under oath. Liberals (and Libertarians) get into a tizzy because some Bible-thumping redneck Justice oversteps his legal authority to put religion into a secular hall of law. Its all the same really. It gets way too much press, and way too much attention called to it thru actions against it. Just impeach him (we did...) and just remove the monument. Done is done.

MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES PEOPLE!!!

[Leaky Waders]

So a bunch of liberals removed the ten commandment statue from within a courthouse - big deal...the whole book is used multiple times throughout every case ever sanctioned throughout US history...

Yet, the cornerstone of the American Judicial system is whittled away and this is viewed as a 'victory' from philosophers...so the Satanists, Viking War Cult, and others that do not agree with the Ten Commandments don't have to worry about having their feelings hurt. boo hoo.

It is total bizarro world political correctness. I still find it hard to believe that some court took a firm stance on this subject and others and myself have diatribed about the state sanctioned religious icons that addorn our society.

America stands for something. And, I don't think that it's a neutral gray immoral society that is supposed to oppress it's people with hypocritical judgements like this one. Consult the founding fathers writings upon the subject of God as in the Declaration of Independence amongst other things...it wasn't an afterthought.

Could our ability, as America, to incorporate the Bible for over 200 years as a document to respect and acknowledge an oath prove intolerance to other religions no matter how non-mainstream they are? History says no...we are not intolerant bigots, despite using the Bible solely as the document for acknowledging oaths. In other words...it's in our culture to use this - it's Americana.

Those who fear this Bible or it's excerpts display a 'Chicken Little the sky is falling mentality' with respect to the history of our Legal System. I think that they are well meaning judeo-christian-phobes who can't see the forest from the trees.

As for those who really hate the statue despite any sense of its benign nature...a more coaxing argument to me would have been asking the judge to remove it upon religious principles...kind of like considering it a graven image. If a bunch a burlap hooded freaks would've showed up and burnt incense and worshipped his rock then he would've thrown it out of the rotunda himself.

[jimpeel]

For those who say things like "He didn't just put the monument there for symbolism or decoration" the Ten Commandments are now under attack in Georgia as well. They, however, are merely placed among copies of founding documents and other documents for "symbolism or decoration".

It seems that is is not enough that they are merely there for "symbolism or decoration". They are to ben banned wherever they appear by those who just cannot stand religion at any level.

[jimpeel]

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17069

Ten Commandments monument can stay on Texas Capitol grounds

By The Associated Press

10.07.02

Printer-friendly page

AUSTIN, Texas — Thou shalt not remove the Ten Commandments from the Capitol grounds.

A federal judge has ruled that a 5-foot stone slab with the biblical passage next to the state Capitol building does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man living in Austin, had sued for its removal, calling it an endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs by the state government.

In a 14-page ruling filed Oct. 2, U.S. District Senior Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth rejected those claims and said no reasonable person would consider the display a religious endorsement.

The ruling was praised by the Liberty Legal Institute, which defends religious freedoms and First Amendment rights.

"There is not (a) constitutional right to censor religious history or artifacts because some citizen feels offended," said Kelly Shackleford, the institute's chief legal counsel.

Gov. Rick Perry also applauded the ruling.

"Today's court ruling is a victory for those who believe, as I do, that the Ten Commandments are time-tested and appropriate guidelines for living a full and moral life," Perry said in a statement.

"The Ten Commandments provide a historical foundation for our laws and principles as a free and strong nation, under God, and should be displayed at the Texas Capitol," the Republican said.

The monument was donated to the state in 1961 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles for the purpose of promoting youth morality to curb juvenile delinquency. The group gave similar monuments to several states.

Hudspeth's ruling said documents show Texas accepted the monument for secular, not religious, purposes.

The monument does not bear a state seal or the Texas star that is evident on 16 other Capitol monuments, most of them memorials to the state's history.

The legislative resolution accepting the monument made no mention of religion, and there is no record that either a Christian clergyman or a Jewish rabbi participated in the dedication ceremony.

Van Orden, who said he is not religious, told the court he found the monument offensive when he passed it on his way to the state law library in the Texas Supreme Court building.

The state countered that the slab is more historical than religious, with key segments of law founded on the moral and cultural ethics provided by the commandments.

The judge noted that no one else complained about it for 40 years and that Van Orden personally waited six years before filing his lawsuit, undermining his claim that it caused him harm.

"If the plaintiff has the right to request removal ... he certainly slept on that right for a long time," Hudspeth wrote.

The judge also said that because of its location — turned away from a seldom-used door and facing away from vehicle traffic — most Capitol visitors didn't even know the monument was there.

Van Orden could not immediately be reached for comment.

Will Harrell, director of the Texas American Civil Liberties Union, which was not involved in the lawsuit, said he wasn't surprised by the decision.

An order to remove the monument would have bucked recent case law, Harrell said.

"The law has developed as such that there can be religious symbols associated with non-religious ones if they have historical values," Harrell said. "We don't go about fighting lost battles."

[jimpeel]

So there it is.

Rededicate the monument and disallow any form of clergy from attending.

Write a dedication and acceptance document that accepts the monument as a secular, not religious item.

Place it outside and turn it away from any entrance or from view of vehicle traffic.

Problem solved.

[jimpeel]

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15787

Supreme Court refuses to clear up confusion over Ten Commandments display

By The Associated Press

02.26.02

WASHINGTON — Courts across America have reached different conclusions in emotional Ten Commandments cases, some allowing government displays of the biblical list, others barring such postings.

Only the Supreme Court can resolve the question, and it chose yesterday to steer clear for now.

The court quietly turned away an appeal from Indiana Gov. Frank O'Bannon, who wanted permission to place a 7-foot stone monument on the grounds of the state Capitol.

The court's action was a defeat for Indiana and other states that sought the high court's endorsement for the notion that the Ten Commandments are as much emblems of legal tradition as they are biblical teachings.

"To just cavalierly dismiss (the case) is to put aside what is becoming a very large, growing concern on the part of millions of Americans," said Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister whose Ten Commandments Project supports the list's display.

"People are petty for attacking the Ten Commandments, and it should not be sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court," Schenck said.

In North Dakota, legislators last year approved a measure allowing schools to post the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display of religious and historical documents.

A monument of the Ten Commandments in Fargo drew threats of a lawsuit to try to get it removed. But the group seeking to remove it, the Red River Freethinkers, postponed that effort after the September terrorist attacks. Members said they worried it could lead to a backlash against Muslims.

The Indiana case presented an opportunity for a broad ruling on government display of the Ten Commandments, whether outdoors on monuments or indoors in courtrooms or other civic spaces.

Instead, the hodgepodge of conflicting court rulings will continue at least until the next time the court faces a similar appeal.

Monuments such as Indiana's are forbidden in that state along with Illinois and Wisconsin, but [u]allowed[/b] in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

Under a 1994 federal appeals court ruling, plaques bearing the Ten Commandments may not be displayed in courthouses in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. In recent years state and federal courts have also struck down display of similar plaques in South Carolina and Kentucky.

To add to the confusion, some monuments or plaques remain in jurisdictions that theoretically prohibit them. In Alabama, opponents claim the state's chief justice flouted a federal appeals court ruling by installing a 5,280-pound depiction of the Ten Commandments in the state Supreme Court rotunda.

"All Americans should feel welcome when they walk into a city hall, a courthouse or a public school," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"The posting of religious symbols there says some religious groups are better than others."

Nine states joined in a friend-of-the-court brief asking the high court to hear the Indiana case. The law is unclear, making it difficult for state legislatures to know what to do, attorneys general in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Virginia wrote.

"The importance of the issue in this case goes beyond simply whether government may display the Ten Commandments on a monument on public property," the states wrote. "The larger issue is the extent to which government may acknowledge and accommodate religion as being an important part of our nation's heritage."

The Ten Commandments contain both religious and secular directives, including the familiar proscriptions against stealing, killing and adultery. The Bible says God gave the list to Moses. The Constitution bars government promotion of religion but protects the individual's freedom to worship as he or she pleases.

Last May, the court divided bitterly in turning away a separate case involving display of a Ten Commandments monument outside a civic building.

The court's three most conservative members took the rare step of announcing that they would have agreed to hear that case, prompting an angry rejoinder from one of the most liberal justices.

The monument "simply reflects the Ten Commandments' role in the development of our legal system," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for himself and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The words "I am the Lord thy God," in the first line of the monument's inscription are "rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference," Justice John Paul Stevens replied.

In O'Bannon v. Indiana Civil Liberties Union, the governor wanted the donated monument to replace one defaced by a vandal. The Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued, and lower federal courts blocked the installation on grounds that it promoted a religious purpose.

[jimpeel]

ACLU sues Tennessee county over commandments displays (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15708)

Ten Commandments plaque ordered out of Pennsylvania courthouse (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15834)

Teen asks Tennessee county to display Islamic pillars (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15990)

Alabama House panel backs Ten Commandments amendment (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15686)

Maryland teen questions commandments monument in city park (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16260)

Push for Ten Commandments displays gains momentum in South (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16065)

Court derails planned Kentucky commandments display (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17088)

Tick, tick, tick. It is only a matter of time before they will have to rule on this issue. The debate is not just in Alabama but throughout the United States. The USSC is as cowardly on this issue as they are on the Second Amendment.

[Jay Thrower]

I have lived in Alabama for all of my twenty-eight years, and I can safely say that Roy Moore is an ********* with ulterior motives. I just hope that he is not our next governor. He picked an issue that is a hot topic in this area, and he is milking it for all that it is worth.

[Intune]

Here is a novel concept; personal religious items such as yarmulkes, crosses, prayer rugs and religious tomes are acceptable everywhere as an expression of one’s beliefs. Environs that are owned by the public jointly (state) shall have no distinctly religious items on display promoting one over the other.

On second thought, don’t we already have something like this…?
:rolleyes:

[DaveB]

I gotta idea.

The people who need to display religious symbols, and discuss their significance and place in the secular world, could build buildings dedicated to just that.

They could go there and meet with other like-minded people to view the artifacts, and even think up meaningful rituals to honor their symbols and their beliefs.

That way, the rest of the population would not feed threatened or pressured into agreeing, and could pick the building of their own choice to join, and what is is they need to believe.

db

[2dogs]

My respect for Southerners is growing...........................:D



Mississippi covets neighbor's monument
Protests, lawsuit continue in Alabama

Thursday, August 28, 2003 Posted: 5:57 PM EDT (2157 GMT)




MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove volunteered Thursday to join neighboring Alabama in the fight over the Ten Commandments monument by offering to display it in his state's capitol building for a week starting September 7.

The 2.6-ton granite edifice was moved from the rotunda of the Alabama state judicial building to a back room out of public view Wednesday on order of a federal court that ruled it violated the U.S. Constitution's restriction on government establishment of religion. (Full story)

Musgrove, a Democrat, urged other governors to allow similar displays in their states "to show support for our common Judeo-Christian heritage."

"Like many Americans, I have watched as Alabama's struggle to display our Christian heritage has unfolded," Musgrove said in a statement.

"I had hoped and prayed that the courts would stand up for our rights, and I am disappointed. It is my sincere hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will override the federal court's decision."


http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/28/ten.commandments/index.html

[2dogs]

'YOU MUST OBEY ORDERS'
JUDGE MOORE IN THE CRUCIBLE

By: Rich Smith

"Good morning, Judge Moore. The Commissioners appreciate you being here to respond to the charges against you.

"This is only an informal hearing, so I want you to feel relaxed. Realize that you’re among friends in this room, and what transpires here today goes no farther than these walls. For now, anyway.

"Let me, then, cut right to the chase. The charges against you are that you were given a lawful order and that you willfully refused to obey it.




"I’m sure I needn’t remind you that ours is a nation governed not by men but by laws. Everything we do is for the good of our nation, and all of it has a basis purely in law.

"Therefore, we are not at liberty to refuse to obey lawful orders. When a higher official or court instructs us of our duty, then we must carry it out, no matter how much we might disagree with that order. To do anything less than obey lawful orders would be to throw the country into chaos. Is that what you want, Judge Moore – chaos?

"We’ve heard your defense, that you’re relying on the ages-old legal doctrine of ‘interposition’ which permits a servant of the state such as yourself to reject any lawful order if it’s also an immoral order.

"But what is immoral these days? For that matter, what is truth?

"This thing you’re trying to protect, I must ask you, is it worth sacrificing your career for? Don’t you know this Commission has the power to permanently strip you of your high office and all the perks that go along with it? The lavish salary. The adoration of the intelligentsia. The invitations to the A-list cocktail parties. All of that is in jeopardy right now because of your inexplicable defiance.

"Look, you and I both are servants of the state. We’re members of the same team. And, because of that, I’m going to give you one final chance to do your sworn duty and obey the order that has been lawfully handed down to you.

"Even my wife wants you to have a final chance. Why, just last night, she and I were talking about this. Mrs. Himmler turned to me in bed and said, ‘That Judge Moore is such a nice-looking man. Heinrich, can’t you do something to help him?’

"And I really do want to help you, dear fellow. All you have to do is obey the order you were given by the party high-command to remove that filthy bastard Jew law professor you’re harboring in your office. I assure you, the order to round up all the Jews comes from the uppermost levels of our government. It is a perfectly lawful order; just ask any legal-affairs expert and you’ll see. Besides, it’s not as if we’re going to do any harm to the filthy bastard Jew. We’re only going to relocate him a safe distance away in a special but quite secure camp right outside the town of Auschwitz. Trust me, he’ll be very comfortable and happy there, even if on some days the smoke can be a bit of a bother.

"So, please. Set aside your conscience and obey the law. Do it with the biggest set of blinders you can put on. It’s the only truly moral thing to do here in the Fatherland in this, the decade of the glorious 1940s. Afterwards, if you ever find yourself in a courtroom on trial in a place like, say, Nuremberg, and they ask you why you consented to allow that filthy bastard Jew to be taken from your office, you can always reply that you were only following orders and that it would have been an unforgivable violation of judicial ethics for you to question the morality of the lawful order you were given.

"Don’t be a fool, man. Obey the order unquestioningly. There’s no such thing as an order you can disobey."


http://www.etherzone.com/2003/rsmit082903.shtml

[jsalcedo]

http://bbspot.com/politics/News/2003/08/burning_cross.html


Thursday, August 28 12:01 AM EDT

Mississippi Judge Ordered to Remove
Twelve-foot Burning Cross From Courthouse
By Brian Briggs

Jackson, MS - Judge Clinton Marburger continued his refusal to comply with a federal court ruling which ordered him to remove a twelve-foot tall burning cross from his courtroom.


The state faces fines and loss of federal funding if the cross is not removed before Friday at midnight.

"The cross is a symbol of God which is the moral basis for our laws," said Judge Marburger. "It's not endorsing any particular form of religion. All Christian denominations recognize the cross as an important symbol, so it really shouldn't be an issue."

"Furthermore," continued Judge Marburger, "the cross in my courtroom symbolizes the sacrifice that we all make in meting out justice, and the flames symbolize the warm feelings we have for all those who pass through our doors. Who could object to that?"

Supporters of Judge Marburger held hands on the courthouse steps and sang choruses of "Amazing Grace" and "My Mammy" during an overnight, cross-light vigil.

"Everyone knows that Jesus died on the cross, so why wouldn't we want to burn it? I mean would Jesus want to come back and see all these crosses around? I don't think he would want to be reminded of that time," questioned Tom Hayder, a supporter from Biloxi.

Other supporters wondered when the separation of church and state madness would end. Cheryl White from Jackson worried, "First they forbid the ten commandments in Alabama, now our burning cross in Mississippi. Next thing you know, they'll want to stop the re-enactments of the crucifixion during sentencing that the court in Texas does?"

The perpetually burning cross was installed late one night in July, and met with immediate objections from Civil Rights groups who decried it as a hateful symbol of racism and intolerance.


"Those people just don't understand," retorted Marburger. "When I make rulings in my courtroom, I take no consideration into the race or religious affiliation of the unseemly heathen, mostly black defendants in my courtroom."





A federal court ruled that not only did the burning cross promote a religion, but that Judge Marburger was "out of his effing mind and should be removed from the bench with extreme prejudice."

[DaveB]

LMFAO

Don't post this stuff during working hours.

db :neener:

[2dogs]

The State of Alabama has the Power of Nullification

By Robert Greenslade

The Ten Commandment controversy raging in Alabama goes far beyond the First Amendment. This case goes to the very heart of political compacts and the power of a party to a contract to nullify the unlawful acts of its agent. The State of Alabama, in its capacity as one of the United States and a party to the constitutional compact between the several States, has the power of nullification whenever any branch of the federal government blatantly exceeds its delegation of authority. This is one of those cases.
Contrary to the rhetoric emanating from the media and political pundits, this case has nothing to do with a lawful order by a federal court. The order was rooted in the judicial fiction that the First Amendment mandates a separation of “church and state”. These words do not appear in the Amendment or anywhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Even if the First Amendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, as asserted in this case, the Ten Commandments, displayed in manner that does not promote the establishment of a state religion, is insufficient to trigger the constitutional prohibitions of the First Amendment.

The Alabama case raises a constitutional question. When a department of the federal government blatantly exceeds its delegation of authority and attempts to unconstitutionally restrict the sovereign powers of a State, how does a State, as a party to the Constitution, protect itself from the unlawful act of its agent? Thomas Jefferson answered this question in a document known as the Kentucky Resolutions. Written in 1798, these resolutions were in response to the unconstitutional attempt by Congress to expand the criminal jurisdiction of the federal government through a set of laws entitled the “Alien and Sedition Laws.” The document stated in part:

The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes,?delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the Government created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers; but that, as to other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

As stated by Jefferson, the federal judiciary was not granted the power to interpret the Constitution or decide, in the last resort, questions involving the nature of the compact between the several States. Only the States, as the exclusive parties to the compact among themselves, possess that power.

The State of Virginia also adopted a set of resolutions in response to the “Alien and Sedition Laws.” These resolutions paralleled Jefferson’s overview of the Constitution and re-affirmed the principle that the States have the power to decide, in the last resort, the extent of the powers delegated by the States to their federal government.

James Madison, who has been recognized as the father of the Constitution, prepared a detailed analysis of these resolutions and affirmed the ultimate power of the States to arrest any blatant usurpation of power by the federal government. His report stated in part:

The resolution having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceeds to infer, ‘that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.’

It appears…to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts- that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States, was framed by the sanction of the States, given each in its sovereign capacity... The States, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows that there can be to tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

* * *

[T]he resolution has done more than guard against misconstruction, by expressly referring to cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous nature. It specifies the object of the interposition which it contemplates, to be solely that of arresting the progress of the evil of usurpation, and of maintaining the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to the States, as parties to the Constitution.

* * *

But it is objected, that the Judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason, the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner.

On this objection it might be observed: first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the Judicial department; secondly, that if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the Judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extent to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the Judiciary, as well as by the Executive, or the Legislative.

However true, therefore, it may be that the Judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the Government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the Judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of Judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.

In 1838, the United States Senate adopted a series of resolutions concerning the nature of the federal government. The third of these, which were adopted by a vote of 31 to 11, acknowledged that the federal government is the agent of the States:

Resolved, That this Government was instituted and adopted by the several States of this Union as a common agent, in order to carry into effect the powers which they had delegated by the Constitution for their mutual security and prosperity…[emphasis added]

As stated by Jefferson and Madison, the Constitution is a compact between the several States. John Marshall, the infamous Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, stated that the judicial power of the federal government “cannot extend to political compacts.” Since the Constitution is a political compact between the several States, the federal courts have no constitutional authority to decide, in the last resort, the extent of the powers delegated to the federal government by States.

Anytime an agent exceeds its authority, the principals, or any one of them, has the power to nullify any act of the agent that goes beyond the original grant of power. In the instant case, the States’ agent has blatantly exceeded its constitutional grant of power. The State of Alabama, as one of the United States and a party to the constitutional compact, has the authority to ignore the District Court order by invoking its power of nullification. Since that would turn this into a political question involving the grant of power from the States to their agent, the federal judiciary would constitutionally lose jurisdiction over this controversy. If the States do not exert their authority and re-gain control over their federal government, the federal judiciary, given time, will reduce the States to mere geographical locations and make them totally subservient to the federal government.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/29/greenslade.htm

[jimpeel]

How dare he call the Constitution what it really is?

How dare he call the States what they really are?

How dare he call the Federal Government what it really is?

How dare he use the exact words of the Founders and the Senate to prove his point?

How dare he construe the Constitution in its true form?

How dare he bring logical thought to this illogical debate?

Damned rabble rouser, anyway.

[Intune]

This case goes to the very heart of political compacts and the power of a party to a contract to nullify the unlawful acts of its agent. The State of Alabama, in its capacity as one of the United States and a party to the constitutional compact between the several States, has the power of nullification whenever any branch of the federal government blatantly exceeds its delegation of authority. This is one of those cases.
Ohhhhh! And he did sooo well until that last line! Wrong bucko! This is NOT one of those cases. The very fact that ALL the Supreme Court justices save one (Moore, like you couldn’t guess) are quite aware of nullification yet chose to do the exact opposite and vote against Preacher Moore states the case quite plainly. Why nullify that which you agree with? Hmm? Next batter… :cool:

[LawDog]

Anyone here remember the LawDog Off-Limits Topic list from The Firing Line?

Homosexuality.
Abortion.
Religion.

This thread reminds of why religion was on the list.

Too much heat, no light.

I'm putting this damned dead horse in a decent grave.

Lights out.

LawDog