Replies

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.

"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.