If you believe in the Constitution please read.

[veloce851]

Important point to make on Moore case-

First moderators please hear this out.. while I'm aware this thread was closed.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35914
I believe that was because it ended in an arguement over religion. And was not about firearms.

I believe a very important aspect to this case was left out. One that DIRECTLY effects ALL gun owners, and of course anyone who believes in the constitution.

This case is not about religion. We all know that our entire constitution and foundation of law is based on the premise that MAN is not who gives freedom to ourselves, but our higher power, our creator...God.
The term God is often confused with the stating of a religion. The belief in a higherpower is not religion. In order for our Constitution to be worth more than the paper is it printed on, we must all believe that our rights are endowed by our creator and not by another human being. The Constitution simply upholds those inalienable rights and sets forth a manner to establish law to maintain civility.

While I don't want this thread to turn into a debate on the interpretation of the 1st amendment. What we can all agree on is we believe in three documents: The Decloration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. Read them and tell me that our society isn't specifically based on the notion that MEN do not give freedom, and the rights that support it, but our creator (whatever you you may call him/her/it ).

The point to this case is this: should a federal judge be allowed to state that a sovereign state may not recognize God at all? If this were to be true then it stands that none of the sovereign states in the union can recognize the term God at all. Which then leads us to the complete and total removal of God in our Constitution and any reference to God or a creator.

Do any of you realize the implications this makes.... it means that judges human judges shall dictate all that we feel and believe. Once the notion that it's not God (insert the name of your creator) whom our freedoms are derived from, but man himself. That means the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are history.

They can then rewrite the entire Constitution!! And you can bet that will include the 2nd Amendment.. in fact it would be among the first on the their target list.

BTW The Ten Comandments sit above the members of the Supreme Court.
All of which are upheld by laws on the books.

This case is about state rights, and wether or not the founding papers have any meaning.

Now if any moderator feels this is not a civil liberty issue and directly a firearm subject. Then close the thread.
But I feel it is of dire importance that we all understand the implications of this case on the future of our country as a whole.

 

[Quartus]

Well said. If a Federal judge can get away with this, he can get away with anything. Ron Paul is right - the increasing power of the Federal government is the biggest threat to our liberties out there.

 

[NukemJim]

the increasing power of the Federal government is the biggest threat to our liberties out there

Agreed.

NukemJim

 

[rock jock]

Very well stated. And, BTW, this issue is not just limited to rights.

 

[jimpeel]

veloce851

The referenced thread was mine. I started it as a question of whether a Constitutional Amendment was nacessary to clarify the First Amendment but between my posting the thread laeder and my second post asking that question, it took a turn for the worse.

This a civil rights/Constitutional/States' Powers issue. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion outside of the fact that the word "religion" appears in the text of the First Amendment.

It is my contention that a defining amendment (XXVIII) has now become necessary to clarify the First amendment's "separation clause" for all time. I posted my version, with an invitation for others to do likewise or modify mine. That iteration of a proposed amendment stated:

Amendment XXVIII: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a government sponsored or government operated religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof by any individual, group, or entity -- private or public; 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.

I beleive that such an amendment is necessary based on the obvious confusion which is evidenced by the number of lawsuits and court cases citing this amendment.

Hopefully, those who post to this thread can separate the digfference between religion and a simple statement of Constitutional human rights. If not, this thread will meet the same fate as the previous one.

 

[Quartus]

It is my contention that a defining amendment (XXVIII) has now become necessary to clarify the First amendment's "separation clause" for all time.

Jim, how do you clarify what isn't there?



What we need is a Congress with the balls to impeach and convict judges who make up things like the "separation clause" insteed of enforcing the law as it's written,

The 1A is clear enough - it's the JUDGES who need clarification.

 

[jimpeel]

Quartus

You know its not there. I know its not there. Even THEY know its not there. It is simply time to have the Constuitution tell everyone its not there.

Imagine this. The decision was based upopn a single letter from Thomas Jefferson, the text of which is on the original thread. There are tens of letters by the founders on the subject of the Second Amendment which state the right to arms is an individual right.

Do you, or anyone else reading this post, believe that the justices will be as anxious to embrace the tens of letters comfirming an individual right to arms as fervently as they did the single letter espousing the separation of church and state?

Don't hold your breath unless you look absolutely marvelous in blue.

 

[Quartus]

Gotcha, Jim.


BTW, as a matter of fact, I do look absolutely marvelous in blue.


Well, at least my wife thinks so.

 

[veloce851]

You guys do bring up a point...
On what ground does this federal judge stand in order to even tell Judge Moore what to do in his state.

Federal judges are not to establish law... they are only there to interpret the law when a case is brought before them. And this ultimately is a Supreme Court case. However that has nothing to do with the fact that there isn't a "case " to begin with. And there fore the Supreme Court should turn it down and that would end it right there.

 

[TearsOfRage]

I gotta wonder how many people are for states' rights when it means they get their way... but are also in favor of, say, a constitutional ammendment prohibiting states from allowing same sex marriage? Or federal drug laws for that matter?

 

[braindead0]

On what ground does this federal judge stand in order to even tell Judge Moore what to do in his state.

I think it boils down to how you interpret 'establish'. Would changing the federal court building so it looked like a Buddhist temple qualify? How about putting a crescent moon on the top of the building? How about a lawn area with a huge fire pit for American Indian / Pagan (and whoever else) to conduct their rituals?

The problem is that the Constitution didn't draw the line, I believe on purpose so that the people could (in theory) decide as the times change.

The real problem is that special interests and corporations own our government, who in turn appoint Judges....etc..etc..

We need to ban businesses and organizations from donating to politicians for starters. All campaign financing should come from the voters.. if some organization wants to ask it's members to donate is a particular way, well that's fine.... I think if we can get all involvement of non-voting entities out of the election process, perhaps we will stand a chance of taking it back.

 

[tyme]

[blockquote] I think it boils down to how you interpret 'establish'. Would changing the federal court building so it looked like a Buddhist temple qualify? How about putting a crescent moon on the top of the building? How about a lawn area with a huge fire pit for American Indian / Pagan (and whoever else) to conduct their rituals?[/blockquote]
I think all of those ideas would be really cool, especially the fire pit.

I no longer consider the 10 commandments stone a serious problem, though I think it's inappropriate for christian precepts to be put on display in a courthouse as if they were authoritative.

The problem is the moron judge who's as much as announced he considers secular law subordinate to religion. Who knows what sentences he'll adjust up or down, or what other havoc he'll wreak on defendants whose actions may or may not be in accordance with Christian ideals. Anyone who cannot reasonably disassociate judging from religion should not be a judge, as far as I'm concerned. Any bets on what he'd do in a case involving a gay defendant or a defendant who cheated on his/her spouse? What about a case involving genetic engineering? I don't have any confidence that this judge would render appropriate decisions in any case where the defendant or a witness has done something frowned upon by his religious beliefs.

 

[Quartus]

it's inappropriate for christian precepts to be put on display in a courthouse as if they were authoritative.

Like it or not, they are the foundation of our legal system. Check any number of the Founding Fathers on that point. Saying it ain't so is on the order of arguing that Washington surrendered to Cornwallis.

 

[TearsOfRage]

There was a time when slavery was an important part of our economic system but that doesn't make it right.

 

[jimpeel]

Alabama Constitution

SECTION 1

Equality and rights of men.
That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

SECTION 2

People source of power.
That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.


SECTION 3

Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Basically, if the courts declare the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional it also negates the laws written under that Constitution as well. It would also cause the release of every prisoner currently incarcerated and the expungment of all records of those who had been convicted under that Constitution prior to its being found unconstiitutional.

Until a new Constitution could be drafted and the laws recodified thereunder, the state would be wide open under anarchy. What a fine time that would be.

 

[tyme]

[blockquote]Like it or not, they are the foundation of our legal system. Check any number of the Founding Fathers on that point. Saying it ain't so is on the order of arguing that Washington surrendered to Cornwallis.[/blockquote]
"Thou shall have no other gods before me"

Please show me a constitutional law based on this commandment, or otherwise explain why that statement has any place in a courthouse.

The commandments form a personal code of ethics for those who choose to obey them. They are not to be applied to others, and certainly not by force. The commandments stone in question is not being applied by force, but it's still irrelevant to secular law. And there are several other commandments that are not only irrelevant to, but are incompatable with, secular law.

It is just as correct to say that the ten commandments were based on moral codes that were adopted as societies began to form. But of course this runs into the roadblock set up by religion: The commandments were dictated by god, they must be primary source.

 

[Quartus]

Read some history. Like I said, you don't have to like it, but everyone involved in the writing of our Constitution understood what they were doing, and wrote about it copiously. And more than our Constitution - the very foundation of the idea of human rights and liberty came from the same source. You can argue that other cultures NOT based on the Judeo-Christian ethic had the same ideas, but that doesn't change the fact that the founders of THIS country got their ideas solidly from the Bible.

That's not my opinion, that's THEIRS.

 

[Alan Smithiee]

if I were to put up was a Pagan Pentagram or a Star of David in that location that Judge would have it removed and my butt in lockup by close of bussiness the first day.

I wonder how he is going to explain that he had a Witch executed for not paying a parking ticket?

that is Gods Law. and he has stated, on the record, in front of his God and everyone that Gods Law comes first.

 

[bountyhunter]

The point to this case is this: should a federal judge be allowed to state that a sovereign state may not recognize God at all?

I believe you will find that what they are ruling is that states may not encapsulate "God" into any laws, programs, provisions or rulings for the general public. Because in so doing, they trample all over the rights of those who choose to not believe in God.

I am a devout Christian, but I definitely prefer my God and my government to be as far apart as possible. I don't really care what is printed on our money and neither does God. When Chrsit was asked if they should pay taxes, He said hold up the coin and tell me whose picture is on it: they said "Caesar's".

Christ said: render unto Caesar that which is caesars, and unto God that which is Gods.

And that which is God's which we should give to Him is prayer and faith. And, if you don't believe, having kids parrot the Lord's prayer in the morning isn't going to convert them. The BS about our country going to hell because the Baptists can't broadcast prayers over the loudspeakers in public schools is a crock, and everybody knows it. This is a non-issue.

 

[bountyhunter]

Read some history. Like I said, you don't have to like it, but everyone involved in the writing of our Constitution understood what they were doing, and wrote about it copiously. And more than our Constitution - the very foundation of the idea of human rights and liberty came from the same source. You can argue that other cultures NOT based on the Judeo-Christian ethic had the same ideas, but that doesn't change the fact that the founders of THIS country got their ideas solidly from the Bible.

And I recall the debates among the founders that separating church from government was so important it had to be a founding principle, even if it allowed atheism as a concept (which they did not like at all).

 

[2dogs]

That's not my opinion, that's THEIRS.

So you're saying we should let reality get in the way of some folks personal bias against religion?

Personally I don't care if the judge has the ten commandments, verses from the Koran, the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Egyptian Book of the Dead- if it bears some relation to the establishment of our Constitution and laws then I see no problem with it.

What's with atheists anyway- you can tell they are liberals by THEIR D@MN&D WHINING.

And yes I agree- this is a states rights issue. That chunk of stone is harming no one- and I challenge anyone to prove they have been harmed by it.

More power to Moore.

 

[Graystar]

This case is not about religion. We all know that our entire constitution and foundation of law is based on the premise that MAN is not who gives freedom to ourselves, but our higher power, our creator...God.

No, we do not all know that. I am here because I am what you get when you let the right mix of chemicals cook on the right planet for 4 and a half billion years. No "higher power" had anything to do with me being here.

This case has everything to do with religion. When a state judge decides not to obey a federal judge's ruling because he believes his religion's law is higher than federal law, you have an extremely dangerous situation.

What you have is a judge that will not judge within the powers delegated by the people, but by his own will. This is the kind of judge that will violate our rights if he believe that his religion calls for it. That is why he should be removed from the bench.

What if this judge interprets "Thou shall not kill" to mean that we can't have guns? Would you agree with his position then?

 

[Quartus]

And I recall the debates among the founders that separating church from government was so important it had to be a founding principle, even if it allowed atheism as a concept (which they did not like at all).

REally? Where? Are you referring to Jefferson's ONE letter on the subject, where he clearly spelled out that the "wall of separation" was to keep the State from interferening with religion, but was NOT meant to keep religion from guiding the State?

 

[veloce851]

No, we do not all know that.

Greystar perhaps you didn't read my statement close enough.

We all know that our entire constitution and foundation of law is based on the premise that MAN is not who gives freedom to ourselves, but our higher power, our creator...God.

I did not state that we all know we are made from God. I said we all know that the Constitution (which is the entire foundation of our law) is based on the premise that our rights are given by our creator... not man.
Let me refresh your memory...
We declared this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

The wording is precise. It did not say by our lord God, father to Jesus Christ.
It simply states that mankind itself does not give us freedom.

If you believe you were created in the manner you stated. Then it is that process that gives you freedom.

we then went on to state this in the Bill of Rights..

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

Where in there does it state that a State itself does not have the right to simply recognize God. It is not a relgion being established by Congress. It is simply a monument to the very essence of all human law.

edited-to ad that I'm aware the Declaration of Independence is not a part of the Constitution. But bears frame of reference for the wording of our constitution.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Here's the real issue.

On your own property, you can display anything you like, from a copy of the ten commandments to a thirty-foot sculpture of a donkey phallus. Your property, your rules.

The courthouse is NOT the judge's property. Whether it belongs to The People, the government, someone else, or no one at all is a matter for debate, but it does not belong to the judge.

- Chris