[dirtboy]

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.

Uh, TF, the point is, you can say that the appeals court ruling was unconstitutional and I can say that the appeals court ruling was unconstitutional - but that really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What matters in this day and age, in a system mandated by Congress, is that some dude seated on a federal appeals court said that the monunment was unconstitutional. I personally disagree. But it's absurd to get after Pryor with the line of attack the initial poster used - instead, a better approach would be to get Pryor as AG to stand up for the laws of his state.

[Texas Federalist]

Wrong. No act of Congress, nor the Constitution itself, gives the judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution. The judiciary claimed that power in Marbury v. Madison. Even after that decision, the Constitutionality of each law was considered independently by Congress before it was passed, and the executive branch before it was enforced. It was not until the years leading up to the New Deal that Congress and the executive branch began abdicating their responsibility to act as a check on judicial interpretation.

What you and I say is unconsitutional may amount to a "hill of beans", but Pryor is a member of the executive branch who has a duty to independently consider the Constitutionality of a law before he enforces it. In this case he has decided to punish Judge Moore for obeying the Consititution.