Posted on 10/12/2004 8:48:43 AM PDT by Greek
By GINA HOLLAND
(AP) The Ten Commandments monument is pictured in the State Judicial Building in Montgomery, Ala., in a... Full Image
Google sponsored links U.S. Politics Today - Justice Antonin Scalia News Service For Political Professionals www.uspoliticstoday.com
1-3 SCOTUS vacancies over - next four years. What impact if new justices are in Scalia-Thomas mold? www.pfaw.org
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government land and buildings, a surprise announcement that puts justices in the middle of a politically sensitive issue.
Justices have repeatedly refused to revisit issues raised by their 1980 decision that banned the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.
In the meantime, lower courts have reached a hodgepodge of conflicting rulings that allow displays in some instances but not in others.
The high court will hear appeals early next year involving displays in Kentucky and Texas.
(AP) Ousted Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is shown outside the Alabama Judicial Building... Full Image
In the Texas case, the justices will decide if a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds is an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion.
A homeless man, Thomas Van Orden, lost his lawsuit to have the 6-foot tall red granite removed. The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument to the state in 1961. The group gave scores of similar monuments to American towns during the 1950s and '60s, and those have been the subject of multiple court fights.
Separately, they will consider whether a lower court wrongly barred the posting of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses.
McCreary and Pulaski county officials hung framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses and later added other documents, such as the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence, after the display was challenged.
Last week, the justices rejected an appeal from a high-profile crusader for Ten Commandment monuments, ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who lost his job after defying a federal order to dismantle a Ten Commandments monument.
The Ten Commandments contain both religious and secular directives, including the familiar proscriptions on stealing, killing and adultery. The Bible says God gave the list to Moses.
The Constitution bars any state "establishment" of religion. That means the government cannot promote religion in general, or favor one faith over another.
The lawyer for the Kentucky counties, Mathew Staver of the conservative law group Liberty Counsel, told justices that lower courts are fractured on the issue. A divided appeals court panel sided with the American Civil Liberties Union in the Kentucky case.
In the past decade, justices have refused to get involved in Ten Commandments disputes from around the country. Three conservative justices complained in 2001, when the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display in front of the Elkhart, Ind., Municipal Building.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said the city sought to reflect the cultural, historical and legal significance of the commandments. Rehnquist noted that justices' own chambers includes a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said Tuesday that he hopes the court uses the cases to declare government displays of religious documents and symbols unconstitutional.
"It's clear that the Ten Commandments is a religious document. Its display is appropriate in houses of worship but not at the seat of government," Lynn said.
The cases are Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500 and McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.
Some already have.
Best news I've heard all day.
Actually, Celtic Christianity did quite well in Ireland under Patrick. That Celtic Church did well in England and then retreated with setbacks. Ca. 450 AD St Augustine came to England to enlist Celtic Christianity (led by St Columba at the time) in the Roman wing of the church and was rebuffed. Augustine did have some success in having kings in the south align with Christianity. Those two branches of Christianity had continual growth until William the Conqueror united them in 1066.
Yes. Also, check-out the commandments carved one half inch deep in the heavy Oak doors leading to the inner court chamber.
I know Canada is coming close.
BTW, Bedlam, MA sounds like a crazy place. Good place for liberals to go.
Do as I say, not as I do?
I think there are plenty of "Lock-n-Load" types ready to go and just need a "the last straw" and a leader.
Inaccurate reporting/editorializing alert. A factually accurate account would read as follows:
The Constitution bars any act of congress regarding an "establishment" of religion.
Read Art VI.. Our Constitution and its Amendments are the Law of the Land, any State laws "to the Contrary notwithstanding".
States cannot infringe upon our rights to life, liberty, or property by respecting the 'establishments' of religions in the due process of making law. [see the 14th]
I'll predict 5-4 in favor of removal.
Having lived in Mass. for 10 years, Bedlam seems a fitting city for Kerry.
The last debate featured the President saying (paraphrased) the next judges he picks would be those that follow the law and not make it up from the bench. Judges that don't throw God out.
I remember this and NOW the court immediately takes this issue up. Time to worry, at least one liberal judge has cancer and I think this is an effort to EXACTLY boot out GOD before Bush replaces a liberal or two or three that have to retire soon due to health.
I don't know which 3 justices said they would take the case, but if it was two liberal justices, look for God to get the boot IMO!
The timing smacks of liberal justices wanting to make a huge societal impact before they hit the flames of eternity.
Thanks for your incorrect analysis, you ignorant journalist.
Interesting...
Unless I am mistaken, it is an effort to rule on it before Congress takes that opportunity out of their hands.
There you go again, letting the facts get in the way of zealous argument.
Wouldn't be the first time the robed tyranny in the Judicial branch tried to usurp the power of the Legislative and Executive branch.
And rule how? I think we need to know which three reviewed this and decided to take it. If two out of three were libs, this is an effort to boot God out before the court has new players on the bench.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.