[You Dirty Rats]

Nice try.

Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "

The Judge acted in his official governmental capacity to place monuments relating to a specific religious belief. It has been determined in the courts that this is a violation of the establishment clause above. By refusing to respect the lawful rulings in this matter, Judge Moore placed himself outside the law and deservedly lost his job.

The fact that the First Amendment can be argued to support Judge Moore's position doesn't matter. He lost the argument. Either follow the case law or stop being a judge.

The same with Newsom. He may believe the California law is unconstitutional, but that is not for him to decide a Mayor. His job is to enforce the law, which means telling same-sex couples they cannot marry.

If we have every government official in the country deciding they can interpret any law as they personally see fit, it won't be long before they also feel the same way about making and enforcing laws. Total anarchy.

Moore and Newsom are both wrong.

Dubya and the Republicans need to stand up and demand respect for the law in this country. I have no desire to see this country end up like Brazil.

[thoughtomator]

It's more than just a "nice try", it's the law. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "

In order to argue that Moore violated the law, one must assert that he is establishing religion (I'm assuming no one is going to argue that Moore's actions prohibited anyone's free exercise of religion).

But the plain fact of the matter is that there is no establishment of religion created or implied by Moore's actions. The Supreme Court has, engraved into the building, the same Ten Commandments that Moore put into his courtroom. It is not consistent to say that it is okay for the US Supreme Court to display them but not for the Alabama Supreme Court to do so.

The federal injunction against Moore is the only Constitutional violation here - it is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.

The First Amendment does not mandate abhorrence of religion, to drive religion from the public sphere. This is a false interpretation, and a study of the Founders' comments on the subject makes it clear that it was never intended to be used as a tool to drive religion from public life.

[philetus]

The problem with amendment I is, when Congress crosses the line, everyone says"hey, thays illegal, you congress can't do that, someone do something, nobodys doing anything, damn."

[Don Joe]

I have no desire to see this country end up like Brazil.

But it already has.

Oh, oops, mea culpa. You were talking about the country, not the movie, weren't you.

[WhiteGuy]

"Dubya and the Republicans need to stand up and demand respect for the law in this country. I have no desire to see this country end up like Brazil."


I doubt that they will......................

It would make them less "electable" and therefore help the democrats..............