It seems that tpaine was unable to refute the strongest argument against him, which was that Judge Moore's action was not prohibited by the 1st amendment, because by his action he made no law, not being either a member of Congress or a state legislator. Neither did he break his oath to uphold the Constitution, because as a judge, he has no authority to make law . Therefore he cannot be restricted by that clause which pertains to not making law, even if in fact the courts do "make laws," which I think we all regard as without authority from the Constitution and without force but by WILL alone, as Hamilton said in Federalist 78. Moore merely put up the ten commandments. The nice thing about most state supreme court justices is that they are electable and if the people didn't like his action, they could vote him out -- unlike the Supreme Court. Not much harm done. It's not like he put up a sign saying "Vote Democratic" which he might have done unless it was expressly forbidden him by some state statute. But he wasn't ousted because of a state law but on constitutional grounds. To me clearly he was not forbidden by the first amendment. To recap: he's not a lawmaker, either state or federal, and didn't make a law. He just posted some old laws that we don't seem to much like any more, just as a reminder of where our laws once came from. It wasn't unlawful of him, maybe just a bit rash.
Now those who did punish Moore seemed to think that the law applied to Moore, probably because judges now are so used to acting (and perhaps even thinking of themselves) as lawmakers. Thus if they read the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment as saying the states may make no law respecting the establishments of religion of US citizens, they may think that the usurptitiously legislating justices of the lower puppet states also are prohibited from such. And even prohibited from copying down the laws not of man but allegedly of God, upon which we in the West base many of our laws. If this is your argument you may be correct.
Of course we would then concede that the judiciary may read and write into the law what they WILL, thus remaking the law which they are sworn to safeguard, making it now their whim merely and at the same time making all of us willing sheep trembling before the might and power of a gavel and a black robe. The men with the bigger gavels from the higher courts overrule the smaller-gaveled men. Moore had a smaller gavel. That would make the nine men in black the head gavelpersons: power-hungry willful men in black -- reminds me the dark riders in my favorite trilogy. What could we call that? rule by gavel -- I suppose it might be a kind of rule by force among men who are sheep. The mighty gavel makes right. Don't you wonder what a Hamilton would say to the actions of the judges today or what any of the others who signed the Declaration of Independence might do?
In any case, you've definitely got me interested in the greater issue, that of the Establishment clause. I think the whole meaning of that clause hinges on the word "establishment". The words 'Congress' and 'shall' and 'make' and 'no' and 'law' and 'respecting' and 'an' and 'of' and 'religion' are pretty clear. The other question of course is what is meant in the fourteenth amendment by "privileges and immunities." That will take some more serious thought and debate, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
. . . to begin which debate . . . It seems to me that "an establishment of religion" is a legal term referring to any particular sect especially of Christianity but also of any other religion, and that Congress may not make a law prohibiting its practice or giving monies to sponsor such a sect or to create a new one or tax and abolish an obnoxious one. Now "privileges and immunities of citizens of the US" seems to only refer to individual liberties protected in the amendments, but I'm not really sure. AND I certainly don't expect that our illustrious gavel beaters really understand it too well themselves --- not that many of them even care, since they just use them gavels to beat up the Constitution and smash the rights and privileges we inherited from real men who founded this country.
Finally, if there is any ambiguity in the Constitution, I am of the opinion that is primarily for the legislators to decide which interpretation ought to be taken, not the priesthood of the judiciary whose arcane arts of the last fifty years I completely fail to understand, except perhaps as outright usurpation of government from an idle, careless, no longer worthy of free republic people.
tpaine, I think if you look carefully into the matter you will find that your best interest lies with Dr. Keyes, and that his warning is that we are in the last throes of a consumption that if not soon remedied will find our dear republic soon buried. Whatever Frankenstein might patch together will hardly resemble the noble experiment she was. Not that the experiment was a failure, just that it might be over without action now.