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.
"The Constitution bars any state "establishment" of religion says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". That means the government cannot promote religion in general, or favor one faith over another and the Supreme Court will make a determination as to what they think that statement actually means.
Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed."
The language was altered in the House to read:
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
In the Senate, the section adopted read:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion,"...
It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite "respecting" phraseology.
Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.
.
Am I relieved to hear that, 'cause I thought it meant you couldn't have viewpoint discrimination. Now that I'm assured that I'm wrong, I can breathe a little easier.
O'Connor's not a moderate. She's a traitor. She went so far left she ended up finding American law in Europe.
No, if it was atheist, it'd replace "God with "there ain't no God."
The absence of God does enough damage.
> The absence of God does enough damage.
We're not talking about "the absense of God," but rather, the absense of the governemnt proclaiming God. Not the same thing.
Sheesh. This is like those discussions of schools not allowing organized school prayer, and then people claiming that schools are not allowing kids to pray.
Yes, and it's more than just "fairly clear" that neither of them intended for federal courts to be turned into boards of censors.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you know what viewpoint discrimination is?
* brother, you lost me there (thankfully). And truthfully, I have no desire to know anything that would lead me to similar conclusions.
Allow me to ask you again,
Do you know what viewpoint discrimination is? Have you ever heard of the term before?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. in relationship to the polsting of the Ten Commandments.
You think it ok to post the 10 Commanments or something about Mohammed.
That's where ya lost me, brother.
AS far as your coments are concerned...
"I still am lost
and won't be found
Am blind to unreality :)
Some think that if you work hard enough to create the perception that they are the same thing, they will be.
Avoiding the question tells me that you do know, and that you do know how a discussion of viewpoint discrimination fits into a discussion of the 1st Amendment.
When you're ready to discuss viewpoint discrimination feel free to ping me.
Tell ya what...seeing as how think you know what I know, why bother to include me in your internal thought process?
Peace, brother. I have no desire to learn of your errors about the 1st Ammendment. It was written for simple folks like me. I know what the words mean.
deflection works on occasion
viewpoint discrimination...think about it
Oh xzins, it matters very VERY much!
Having read some of the writings that the Founders used to create the Constitution, I've discovered exactly HOW the government has used the 'legal' system to turn our republican form of government into a socialistic one. The Founders, recognizing that: (1) only a man's own moral code would restrain him from wrongdoing, and (2) Government would assume powers not given at every opportunity, created a country with two very different types of law.
The 10 Commandments (or the Decalogue) address what were long considered to be man’s vertical and horizontal duties. Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
The 'Nature and Nature's God' of the Declaration of Independence refers to natural, or civil law, which binds both the people and THE GOVERNMENT.
In 1988, the Supreme Court of Mississippi, citing the Decalogue, reproached a prosecutor for introducing accusations during cross-examination of a defendant for which the prosecutor had no evidence:
When the State or any party states or suggests the existence of certain damaging facts and offers no proof whatever to substantiate the allegations, a golden opportunity is afforded the opposing counsel in closing argument to appeal to the Ninth Commandment. “Thou shalt not bear false witness . . . ” Exodus 20:16.
Positive law, (or the 'legal system'), are just man made rules, and only effect artificial constructs. This includes governmental, or legal entities.
The Constitution is a contract between the individual states and a centralized government. The only thing is has to do with the people is to affirm what is ALREADY there. (Our inalienable rights.)
With the 'separation of church and state' lie, government is now unrestricted to this moral code, and can steal, lie, cheat and yes, even do murder without legal consequence.
So many Americans have become convinced that using these moral laws means they have to be Christian.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It only means you can't violate someone else's rights, not that you have to worship God.
It isn't.
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.