Posted on 06/01/2006 5:44:48 AM PDT by 300magnum
Once again he is Right on target.
God speed Roy Moore!
There are four candidates for the Alabama Supreme Court who are campaigning on the idea that states need not pay attention to Federal court rulings that they believe to be erroneous or that are not related to federal law. Moore was the leader in this pushback to federal adjudication.
campaigning on the idea that states need not pay attention to Federal court rulings that they believe to be erroneous or that are not related to federal law. George Wallace was the leader in this pushback to federal adjudication.
Sorry to disappoint them but the concept of nullification was discredited over 160 years ago.
Nullification had to do with congressional legislation, tariffs, etc. Defying courts that are exceeding their authority or encroaching on state authority is completely appropriate. The tenth amendment was still law, last I heard.
As is Article III, which gives the U. S. Supreme Court jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution, and Article VI, which places the U.S. Constitution in a position above state constitutions and local laws.
He is a demagogue who is strongly supported by trial lawyers in this state, and that's the undisputed record.
While I am certainly sympathetic with his position on the 10 commandments, I cannot follow his Man from La Mancha approach of defying court orders.
Isn't that what the San Francisco Mayor did when he performed gay marriages -- he made his own decision the the state law was unconstitutional.
What if liberal judges start ignoring Supreme Court orders on gay marriage, prayer in public places, etc.
The result would be SHEER CHAOS!
The proper way to go about this is to petition our elected representatives to change the law, and elect or encourage the appointment of judges who follow the rule of law.
If Moore thinks as the judge of an inferior (i.e., lower) court that he has the right to defy the orders of the Supreme Court, then why as a litigant should I follow any order he enters with which I disagree?
Again, Moore's position will lead to chaos and anarchy.
Maybe a little chaos is the only way to pay back the liberal scum who have infected this coutnry since the 1960s. One of these days there will be a settling of accounts.
"which places the U.S. Constitution in a position above state constitutions and local laws."
This is true as far as it goes. If a local or state law violated the US Constitution, that law is null and void. But the Federal Courts' jurisdiction does not extend to all things. The States, localities and people retain the power to act in areas not granted to the Federal government.
The Ten Commandments case was a perfect example. Supposedly, placing it there was a violation of the first amendment. However, the text states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress did not place the monument there, placing it there did make anything law, nor did it establish any religion. So where is the Federal authority to say anything on this.
I realize this is going against Supreme Court precedent, but we have a written Constitution, not the commone law tradition of judges making law down through the ages.
Compared to Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, etc.? I don't think so.
Puh-leeze. The assertion that such a monument (and the specfic refusal to allow other points of view to be similarly presented) in court does not establish the preferred status of certain religions over others so far as this moonbat judge is concerned is laughable.
Roy Moore can hang his head high: He has the US Constitution on his side.
Then you'll need to notify the Supreme Court that they need to do some chiselling in their own chamber.
And when they do it to us by ignoring Court Orders with which you agree, then what?
This election is a very depressing choice. If it isn't Moore, the only option is Riley, who lied to get elected and then tried to shove through the biggest tax increase in Alabama history (and may do so again if reelected). Once a liar, always a liar.
Moore does not have the Constitution on his side, because, like it or not, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is -- Not what Roy Moore says it is.
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.