If you believe in the Constitution please read.

[Baba Louie]

Some quote I found somewhere once about Presidential Inaugurations:

"Deeply rooted in tradition, the presidential inauguration marks a new beginning for both the United States and its brand new president. Beginning with General George Washington's 1789 inauguration in New York City, many presidents have added their own unique traditions that will continue into 2001.
The oath of office is the main focus of the inauguration ceremony and the only part required by law. In Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers provided an oath of office for the President-elect's official swearing in. This 35-word vow has not changed since the 18th century.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will try to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

George Washington added the phrase "so help me God" to the end of his oath, and almost every president has added it since.


I believe the above was taken from GWB's Inauguration website.

Here's another later version, altho I have a hard time comparing this man to Washington, Adams, Jefferson or Madison...

"Surrounded by members of Congress, Justices of the Supreme Court, dignitaries, family and friends, the President stood next to his daughter, Chelsea, and rested his left hand on a family Bible held by Mrs. Clinton. He repeated the oath of office administered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ending with the traditional words, "So help me God."


What's that? Left hand on the family Bible??? I'm sure all of the other presidents placed their left hand on the D.C. phone book... yeah, that's the ticket.

veloce851 said it best (well, I do believe someone else coined the phrase originally)...

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

...prohibiting the free exercise thereof... Unless you wear a black robe and have tenure for life.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans today worship the almighty dollar and the temporary satisfaction/conveniences that it helps procure... maybe there's nothing wrong with that either, if its your cup o tea. Lord knows I could use more (gotta work smarter)

Some here worship the freedom that owning firearms and the study and practice of less government equalling more freedom brings. Whether its a falsehood or the truth, if you believe it and champion its cause, there it is. You're good to go.

Its that annoying habit that some people in authoritative positions hold that their way is the one true and only way, and then back it up with men (or women) with guns and badges... thats a pretty hard pill to swallow. Especially when I can read the darned words myself and know exactly what the authors meant.

Everybodies gotta believe in something... I believe I need more ammo.

Gotta keep the kids fed ya know.

Adios

 

[Quartus]

It's not his, but he does have legitimate authority over it, and he is acting in complete accord with the law (not the Federal judiciary's twisting of it) and with the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Where in the world did a Federal judge get the idea that HE has anything to say about it?


Where did YOU?

 

[johnpmahler]

I'd like to point out...

the judge chose one particular translation of a hebrew text to post. Different denominations have chosen to translate those words different ways over time, and have fought bloody wars over the placement of the punctuation. There is a lively debate as to whether the text 'I am the L-rd your G-d, thou shalt have no other G-ds before me' is one commandment or two.

just the simple choice between 'thou shall not murder' vs 'thou shall not kill' makes a big difference (specially if you're up on charges for shooting a rapist)

My point is, the judge chose His translation of the text and elevated it to the level of supreme truth. He 'established' one denominations text as the definitive one.

btw, if memory serves, the 10 commandments in the scotus building is part of a larger collection of relevant text & the like. It's not standing alone. Current case law is real specific about that kind of thing. If the Judge had put together a display with some quotes from the Koran, a bit of Tao & Buddism, and some Amerindian peace pipes along with the 10 commandments, this would not be an issue.

John

 

[Graystar]

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

Perhaps *you* didn't read your statement close enough...

...our creator...

Was I to ignore the implications of this part of your statement?

And what of the gun related question I posed?

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

 

[labgrade]

Never mind.

 

[johnpmahler]

Labgrade -

please don't take this as a 'flame', but how do you figure the SCOTUS is going to rule on a case without interpeting the constitution? Yeah, it can go to extremes I suppose...and start reading all sorts of cr*p in there...but it seems to me the FF left things as general principles and guidelines, knowing that if they tried could'nt cover every possible contingency.

as an example, a literal reading of 'freedom of speech' could exclude sign language...

 

[labgrade]

Ah & a reason why I stopped awhile back - a long story. & sorry for revising my reply - sorry for losing the thought line of my reply & yours.

"Interpretation" is just that. One reads into it what they themselves believe - a huge problem with the political problems of the appointive process in the first place.

It's really not all that tough to figure.

The bill of rights (formally capitalized & worth its ink) has a preamble which (in part) states:

"The Conventions of a number of of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declatory and restrictive clauses should be added ..... "

The bor was, as is the constitution, a restriction on federal powers, not the opposite.

As far as sign language = nope. Speech isn't limited any more than a GE mini gun was envisioned.

 

[labgrade]

Bennies of the back function & cut/paste.

Stuff this into my "never mind" post just prior to John's query-thing. What I previously wrote.

"Interesting discussion, to say the least.

Coupla points tho' ....

SCOTUS shouldn't interpret the constitution, they should just read it & rule on it's (duh) constitutionality.

Too, rather than hope for/request an amendment, wouldn't it be too peachy for us to try first (again) to adhere to what we used to have? = a clear reading of the constitution prior to the revisionisms?

(obviously rhetorical) ... it seems to much somehow to harken back to those "easier" days."

Interest of integry & all that ....

 

[braindead0]

I agree that the Feds shouldn't be involved in this. The Alabama Constitution seems 100% clear in Section 3:

that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship;

This is obviously a preference.

The problem here is that this Judge should be removed.

 

[Graystar]

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.

A civil action was brought against Moore in the District Court. Moore was accused of violating the 1st Amendment.

This action was the proper way to address situations when the state violates our rights. As per the Cruikshank and Slaugherhouse cases, when a fellow citizen violates your rights, the state is charged with defending your rights. But when the state violates your rights, it is the federal government that comes to your rescue. That is what happened in this case.

The federal order is proper and fully authorized by the people of this country.

 

[Quartus]

The problem with that is, that is assumes the reigning perversion of the 1A to be correct.

But there's not one thing in the 1A about what the states can do. There's not even anything in there about what the President can do. It simply says, "Congress shall make no law...".


How does a state official setting up a monument equate to Congress making a law?

 

[braindead0]

The basic problem here is that this Judge is ignoring his oath to Uphold the Alabama State Constitution..

 

[johnpmahler]

Bill of rigths applies to the states as well

"But there's not one thing in the 1A about what the states can do. "

Fourteenth (?) amendment applies the entire bill of rights to the states as well.

 

[rock jock]

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.

I hear this argument from the antis all the time, so just for reminder's sake, are we talking about the First or Second Amendments?. I forget sometimes because there is so much intellectual inconsistency on THR on this issue.

 

[Graystar]

The problem with that is, that is assumes the reigning perversion of the 1A to be correct.

But there's not one thing in the 1A about what the states can do. There's not even anything in there about what the President can do. It simply says, "Congress shall make no law...".

How does a state official setting up a monument equate to Congress making a law?

It doesn't. Nor does it have to. You are not understanding what a bill of rights is.

A bill of rights, by legal definition, is an enumeration of fundamental rights. These rights exist outside the existence of any government. As such, no government can place limitations on our fundamental rights. But by the same token, neither can a government place limitations on what constitutes infringements of our rights.

The fact that the 1st Amendment names a single limitation upon freedom of religion does not mean that there aren’t other limitations, just as the enumeration of certain rights doesn’t mean that we have no others (9th Amendment.)

This case really exhibits the problems people have understanding what a right is and how rights are reviewed in the courts. Our rights are not written down. There is no definitive “book of rights†anywhere. Neither is there any definitive list of infringements. That is why judges that understand the law and our rights are so important to the protection of our rights. These judges must make decision on what constitutes infringement on a case-by-case basis.

I believe Justice Moore is incapable of making such decisions, as he places his personal interpretation of “gods law†above the laws of Alabama and of the United States.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Where in [the Frist Amendment] 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.

Veloce, get this! Christianity is not the only religion practiced in this country. Unbelievable, isn’t it?

Governmental acknowledgment, recognition, etc., etc. of any religion (various flavors of Christianity being the most popular), without doing the same for every other religion, establishes, in point of fact, a legal preferential status for that religion. Is this really so difficult to see?

In another thread, we discussed issues including a state’s mandate that public-school students read verses from the Holy Bible every day. How is forcing Christianity upon these students not unconstitutional under the First Amendment?

~G. Fink

 

[tyme]

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

 

[jimpeel]

Asked and answered

as an example, a literal reading of 'freedom of speech' could exclude sign language...

In U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
BAD FROG BREWERY, v NYS LIQUOR AUTHORITY the case was about the label on the beer which depicted a certain offensive bit of sign language.

The gesture, also sometimes referred to as "flipping the bird," see New Dictionary of American Slang 133, 141 (1986), is acknowledged by Bad Frog to convey, among other things, the message "???? you." The District Court found that the gesture "connotes a patently offensive suggestion," presumably a suggestion to having intercourse with one's self.


Hand gestures signifying an insult have been in use throughout the world for many centuries. The gesture of the extended middle finger is said to have been used by Diogenes to insult Demosthenes. See Betty J. Bäuml & Franz H. Bäuml, Dictionary of Worldwide Gestures 159 (2d ed. 1997). Other hand gestures regarded as insults in some countries include an extended right thumb, an extended little finger, and raised index and middle fingers, not to mention those effected with two hands. See id .

The court held:

The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Bad Frog on its claim for injunctive relief; the injunction shall prohibit NYSLA from rejecting Bad Frog's label application, without prejudice to such further consideration and possible modification of Bad Frog's authority to use its labels as New York may deem appropriate, consistent with this opinion. Dismissal of the federal law claim for damages against the NYSLA commissioners is affirmed on the ground of immunity. Dismissal of the state law claim for damages is affirmed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Upon remand, the District Court shall consider the claim for attorney's fees to the extent warranted with respect to the federal law equitable claim.

 

[Quartus]

Veloce, get this! Christianity is not the only religion practiced in this country. Unbelievable, isn’t it?

Not being denied. Also completely irrelevant. The monument is about the HISTORICAL FOUNDATION of the laws of our country. Fire-worship, Islam, Buddhism, whatever, are not part of that history. Judaism and Christianity ARE. That's what the people that wrote the document believed. I suspect they know better than you what they had in mind. You are free to dislike that fact, but it remains a fact. If you want to argue that we should ignore that fact, go right ahead. But it's still a fact.

You are not understanding what a bill of rights is.

Your "understanding" (or SCOTUS') of what some generic bill of rights is or ought to be does not have anything to do with it. The question is about what OUR Bill Of Rights says. It says what it says. And the Founding Fathers made abundantly clear that THEIR intent in writing the Constitution, especially the BOR, was to LIMIT THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It never entered into their heads to apply those limitations to the states. That monster was created long after.

 

[rock jock]

I believe Justice Moore is incapable of making such decisions, as he places his personal interpretation of “gods law†above the laws of Alabama and of the United States.

That is simply untrue. At no time has Judge Moore stated that he will no longer administer the laws of the State of Alabama or the U.S., or replace them with Biblical Law. He is simply allowing a historical reference to the foundation of our own legal system to exist.

It is quite amazing the mental gymnastics you will go through to reinterpret the 1A and then condemn antis for doing the same to the 2A.

 

[Chris Rhines]

It's not his, but he does have legitimate authority over it, and he is acting in complete accord with the law (not the Federal judiciary's twisting of it) and with the intent of the Founding Fathers.

If Judge Moore does not own the court, then it is owned by someone else. That someone else is the only person who gets to decide what use his property gets put to. If Judge Moore wants to display a plaque of the Ten Commandments on property other than his own, then he needs to seek the permission of the property owner. Failing to do so is certainly not 'acting in complete accord with the law.'

The critical question here is, "Who owns the courtroom?" Answer that, and you decide the case.

- Chris

 

[CZ52GUY]

Consistent hypocrisy...

I find it amazing that those who believe in the RKBA can adopt a perversion of the 1st so easily.

I'm guessing Judge Moore is empowered within his position to place the monument where it is, or the argument would have been presented differently in the case.

The Establishment Clause does not apply where no law has been passed by Congress to Establish any religion.

Judge Moore has placed a 2.75 ton monument which includes the text of the Ten Commandments within the powers of the office he holds. The "nightime installation" is often referenced as evidence of his guile...I don't know about you but I don't think I'd want to be around when they forklifted that thing into the rotunda. After hours installation made some sense.

In the end, those who are offended by the very mention of God will be those who scream the loudest both here and elsewhere.

The burden of proof is clearly on those hostile to religion seeking to imagine that which the 1st d-o-e-s n-o-t s-a-y.

The reference to the 14th's application of uniform due process is bogus. Convenient, but bogus. That argument applied here is especially dangerous to states rights everywhere. Any individual can claim injury for anything therefore that interpretation of the 14th allows for Federal intervention anywhere, anytime. Not a pretty picture.

The Federal Judiciary has no standing to impose a God-free society at the behest of those who seek to impose that on the rest of us.

Exposure to the Ten Commandments didn't make all the Hebrews believers...suggesting that exposure to them will convert the public at large can be hoped for by Evangelicals but the odds are against it.

In the end, the Free Exercise provision, which I believe includes the rights of communities to select any religion they would like (there are dozens of combo' church/schoolhouse/town halls in my neck of the woods as objective evidence), including no religion.

Congress has passed no law, the people of Alabama have every right to object if they wish, but the Federal athiests in robes have no standing this time, nor did they in many other cases in which they imposed the bidding of a fundamentalist athiest minority.

BTW, slavery was amended out of our society as should be required to change the 1st or the 2nd rather than allowing the lib's to elastize the BOR and Constitution into a document to impose tyranny rather than guaranteeing freedom.

CZ52'

 

[johnpmahler]

I'm neither Liberal nor offended by the mention of G-d's name. I do however object to the 'state', in this case in the guise of a high court official, declaring that the tenants of a particular religion are the core of justice within his jurisdiction.

He could have had 'In G-d we trust' put on that monument, or '..endowed by their creator', or some such similar theme. Heck, he could have quoted the relevant passages from the state constitution.

He didn't do that. He chose a particular Christian translation of a religious text that includes a commandment to worship a particular g-d. Sounds close enough to establishing a state religion to me, to at least be very worrysome.

Yeah, I have a problem with that.

 

[Graystar]

That is simply untrue. At no time has Judge Moore stated that he will no longer administer the laws of the State of Alabama or the U.S., or replace them with Biblical Law.

Actually, I believe I did read quotes to that effect. However, I'm having trouble locating them. So I will retract my statement and stand corrected until I can provide the evidence.

However, Moore did say this...

"Separation of church and state never was meant to separate God from our government. It was never meant to separate God from our law,"

This is clearly wrong. If what he says is so, then what does "separation of church and state" mean??

 

[Graystar]

I find it amazing that those who believe in the RKBA can adopt a perversion of the 1st so easily.

I agree completely.

I'm guessing Judge Moore is empowered within his position to place the monument where it is, or the argument would have been presented differently in the case.

No, he wasn't. He tried that argument in court and was rejected.

The Establishment Clause does not apply where no law has been passed by Congress to Establish any religion.

That is not so. Religious freedom is a right and there are no limitations on what constitutes infringement upon our rights. As you mentioned, religious freedom also includes the right to not be religious as well. So it is Justice Moore who is imposing a religious view, not the federal court.