Vanity: My Letter to Alabama Attorney General Pryor

Self | 11/11/2003 | Self

[farmer18th]

Dear Mr. Pryor:

Your actions with respect to Judge Moore confuse me.

Is "Thou Shalt Not Steal" offensive to you? (I'm glad I don't own property in Alabama)

Is "Thou Shalt Not Murder" problematic for you? (I'm glad I don't live in Alabama)

Is "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" hurtful to you? (I'm glad you don't know my wife.)

Is "Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness" repugnant to you? (I'm glad I never had to seek justice in your state.)

Is "Thou Shalt Have no Other Gods Before Me" distasteful to you? (What with lightning bolts and all, I'm glad I dont worship next to you.)

We are a nation of laws, Mr. Pryor, and not of men. I'm just confused as to which laws you follow.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Now, you tell me when the "total incorporation" theory of the 14th as applied to the BOR came into being.

I give up. It was recognized as of 1947 (se #297). The 14th Amendment was used to extend the 1st Amendment to states in this case in 1925.

For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press-which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress-are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.
Justice SANFORD

GITLOW v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)

Now let me ask you a question. Can you cite any SCOTUS opinion or even dissent which denies that the 1st Amendment applies to states?

[jwalsh07]

Every SCOTUS ruling prior to Gitlow and post 14th Amendment. I could give you examples but to what purpose?

As I explained earlier the 14th guarantees all American citizens fundamnetal rights, the right to life not withstanding.

The defining of the limits of liberty not congruent with fundasmnetal rights was meant to be left to the states. For instance, Texas could have sodomy laws while California did not. Las Vegas could have brothels while my small town could zone them out. Wisconisn could have concealed carry while Massachusetts doesn't. Alabama could display the Ten Commandments and New York could choose not to.

Freedom doesn't come from a strong central government run by 9 robes. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Every SCOTUS ruling prior to Gitlow and post 14th Amendment. I could give you examples but to what purpose?

Hah hah hah. What a laugh. This reminds me of that movie, "The Wizard of Oz." You offered me knowledge and you can't even offer any support for your own arguement. You can't find even a single justice who agrees with you! There have been more than 60 justices who have served since the 14th Amendment passed and you can't find even a peep from one of them to support your ridiculous claim that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to states.

Still, it's nice to see that folks have imaginations.

[Looking for Diogenes]

You'll have to wait - I'm still laughing!

I'll settle down when you find a citation from a Supreme Court member to support your hilarious interpretation of the Constitution.

And heck, maybe you will prove me an ass afterall. Go for it!

[Catspaw]

Let the good fight begin.

The fight over Roy's Rock and probably Roy himself is over, unless you plan on a revolution--and if so, exactly how are you going to achieve it?

Funny, though--Bill Pryor is one of the judges rejected by the Dems in the Senate (because he's too conservative), one of the people for whom the Senate is having the filibuster tomorrow.

Of course, given that Pryor is Catholic, I can see why you detest him. All one has to do is reference your previous statements in Catholics on this thread.

[farmer18th]

The fight over Roy's Rock and probably Roy himself is over, unless you plan on a revolution--and if so, exactly how are you going to achieve it?

By publicly asking idiots like you--over and over again if necessary--a simple question:

What specifically do you find objectionable about the statements:

THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.
THOU SHALT NOT MAKE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE
THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN
THOU SHALT REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY
THOU SHALT HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER
THOU SHALT NOT MURDER
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR
THOU SHALT NOT COVET

[sigarms]

"Pryor's oath is to uphold the Constitution, not a perverse and utterly unsupported interpretation of the Constitution. It's his duty to obey that Law. Not the "law" decreed by a federal judge acting beyond the scope of his authority."

Philosophically, I agree with you that the Federal judge, in this case, acted beyond the scope of his authority.

But from a practical point of view, there is no such thing as "state's rights" in the current day. Each of the 50 states aren't much more than puppets, being governed by the grand Federal state.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Wrong again Diogenes but hang in there.

Wrong again?! You mean I've been wrong before?

OK, I was wrong about the 7th Amendment applying to state courts. You were right. You are the 7th Amendment expert here. I bow to your superior knowledge of the constitutional requirement for civil juries in common law cases in state courts not handling federal rights cases.

(But you're still wrong about the 1st Amendment.)

[farmer18th]

Of course, given that Pryor is Catholic, I can see why you detest him. All one has to do is reference your previous statements in Catholics on this thread.

Nice try. If Pryor were a practicing Catholic who believed the primary tenants of his faith, he would be fine. I was a Catholic catachumen myself at one time, and our priest taught us to memorise, apply and evangelize the republic on behalf of God's law. Pryor obviously believes otherwise.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Another recently posted thread, FYI:

Charles Rice: The Bill of Rights and the Doctrine of Incorporation

[Catspaw]

If Pryor were a practicing Catholic who believed the primary tenants of his faith, he would be fine.

So, by your definition, Pryor is not a Catholic. Interesting.

[Catspaw]

By publicly asking idiots like you

Ah, name-calling in a feeble attempt to make your point. You just lost the debate.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Articles titled "Holocaust and Golden Calf" don't mock? Spending hours defending segregation in the last 48 hours?

[dirtboy]

Obviously, the fact that the courts cannot just make up laws from whole cloth goes over your head.

Try re-reading the 1st Amendment. It starts with "Congress shall pass no law". Which means Congress is the relevant body here.

[farmer18th]

Ah, name-calling in a feeble attempt to make your point. You just lost the debate.

Actually, idiots are characterized by their refusal, or inability, to answer questions. Can you name anything specifically offensive in the commandment, "thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother?" Can you state why "thou shalt not murder" is inappropriate to display in a court of law? Hmmm?

[farmer18th]

Pryor is not a Catholic.

His faith, evidently, is of no use to him in the public square. What sort of faith is that?

[farmer18th]

We are a nation of laws, but I'm not sure the law required him to act as he did.

If you're speaking of Pryor, I quite agree.

[dirtboy]

I'm glad that the federal court didn't order Pryor to take off his clothes and quack like a duck, because I guess we're all required to obey a federal court ruling no matter how ridiculous or how legally unfounded that ruling may be.

That's not what I'm arguing. The poster of this thread claimed that Pryor was not following the law, and I am demostrating that he is, in fact, following the law as it stands in this day and age. The real gripe against Pryor is that he is, in fact, following the law as laid down by a federal judge, when his opponents wish he tell the feds to stuff it.

[farmer18th]

The real gripe against Pryor is that he is, in fact, following the law as laid down by a federal judge, when his opponents wish he tell the feds to stuff it.

Actually I think you missed the point of the "quack like a duck" reference. Would there be _any_ federal order that a state judge should not obey? Is there _ever_ a time to follow a higher law and ignore the temporal one?