Laws Be Damned

NewsMax ^ | 17 February 2004 | Al Rantel

[45Auto]

Alexander Hamilton: "Judges should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty."

[thoughtomator]

Why don't you try reading the law before you make that judgement.

[jimt]

Why don't you try reading the law before you make that judgement.

I'm sure the AG of Alabama and the Alabama Supreme Court (less Roy boy) and all the Federal judges are ignorant of the law. Yup, yup.

Be serious. Roy lost unanimously and continually because of his illegal stance.

[thoughtomator]

The AG of Alabama was in the midst of a very high-stakes conflict of interest on a very similar matter. The Federal judges, as you know, are interested first in securing and extending their own power.

It is clear to me that Moore followed the only applicable law - that of the Alabama Constitution. There is nothing in federal law that contradicts what he did, either.

I invite you to try and come up with a credible legal narrative that says Moore broke a law. I have yet to see it done (not for lack of asking). So far, all anyone has been able to come up with is that the federal judiciary is supreme and cannot be challenged - no matter what a judge might decide to do. A raw appeal to authority or power is not law. Law has a very specific meaning, and the processes suggested so far as being applicable to Moore do not comport with that meaning.

[jimt]

It is clear to me that Moore followed the only applicable law - that of the Alabama Constitution.

The Alabama state constitution does not say a single word about requiring anybody to "recognize God". This is one of Moore's falsehoods, which are legion.

This is comparable to his lie about the AG, where he falsely claimed the AG "three times asked" him "to deny God", which was totally bogus.

He has more in common with the "Prince of Lies" than any positive religious figure.

[thoughtomator]

Whether the Alabama Constitution requires the acknowledgment of God or not is a debatable point. Reading the clause in question, I can see how it can be understood in that way, and I can also see how it could be understood as nothing more than a modifier of the clause itself.

However, the main point is still unaddressed: What law did Moore break?

[jimt]

What law did Moore break?

The highest one in the land, the Constitution. It has long been held that the requirement that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion also applies to states and localities, and does not allow government favoring one religion over another.

Moore felt he could use his office to advance his own version of Christianity. He was booted from office because of it.

[thoughtomator]

That rests on the conclusion that Moore's actions constitute an establishment of religion. However, given that similar actions have not been held to constitute an establishment of religion (for example, the display of a Koran in a New York City government office), an injunction only against Moore is effectively a bill of attainder, something that is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution.

Furthermore, there is no lawful source of authority for that injunction, given that the federal government is itself prohibited from restricting speech, and very specifically, speech about religion.

So we have 3 violations of the Constitution by the federal judiciary, and we have yet to identify a law that Moore can be credibly accused of violating.

[jimt]

You will twist and turn in every possible way to exonerate Moore, from reading in stuff that isn't remotely in the original (the Alabama constitution) to leaving out stuff that you find inconvenient (the US Constitution). Well, that's fine, there are those who find other criminals innocent regardless of what the rule of law says.

The good and fine thing is that Roy no longer occupies the office he abused.

[thoughtomator]

I am conducting a factual investigation, of the basis in law for the issue. You ignore the necessity of the federal judiciary to have legal grounds on which to issue an order, and this is the fatal flaw in your argument about the rule of law. Law has a meaning, it is by definition not arbitrary.

I have no special affinity for Moore. I don't share his religion, and have no interest in his personal success or failure. So to accuse me of excuse-making for him is bewildering, given that my only interest is the protection of my own freedoms of speech and religion, and my own interest that the federal judiciary should not constitute a tyranny.

What you have made clear is that the argument against Moore is based in prejudice alone and has no legal basis. The entirety of the accusation is that he attempted to create an establishment of religion - an assertion that evaporates examination of the facts.

[jimt]

I am conducting a factual investigation, of the basis in law for the issue.

Best of luck.

[Thinkin' Gal]

As one of the founders pointed out, laws are not written for the decent people. If everyone was decent, we wouldn't need laws. We have laws because we have criminals, basically. Laws are simply a way of putting down on paper the sort of behavior that a civilized society cannot endure.

1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

[RightWhale]

Good article. But even the average lawless American followes hard rules. For example, when the posted speed limit is 45, what is the speed limit?

[inquest]

Your first post on the thread and already you're starting in with the math problems. :-/

[SevenDaysInMay]

Such corruption is the foundation of fascism which shall disregard our ratified Constitution, at their peril, as our ratified Constitution intends

The DNC-Poliburo shall find another Weaver family or Branch Davidian community to destroy to drive home their position of power. The Clintons' administration murdered innocents who challenged their police powers. FBI/HRT JBTs could not risk armed citizens setting up a parimeter around them and intervening.

We shall soon enough face a showdown between Americasn fascists attempting to rule by well practiced fiat and citizens and soldiers sworn before God to defend our RATIFIED Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

The conspiring international socialist movement cannot stand to have a sovereign USA republic mocking their UN and oily tryants throughout islam's squalor.