Roy Moore, The Imperial Congress And The Rule Of Law

GOPUSA ^ | June 1, 2006 | Christopher G. Adamo

[ichabod1]

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.

We repeat: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Your riposte is nothing but a classic bait & switch. Anything extrapolated from the amendment I quoted above, other than the plain meaning of the words, is nothing but penumbraic bull-hockery.

[CWW]

You miss my point on Hitler.

Under the theory of legal-positivism, the State is the sole authority and arbitrar of what is right and wrong. There is no acknowledgment of Higher law or the natural law, upon which our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution is based. Hitler (and his ilk) pushed that line of legal thought -- which is what libs push today, and have been largley successful in promoting.

"We the People" have been represented through the election of a President and the appointment of Justices by those Presidents. The problem is that many of those Justices who have been appointed come from the legal positivist school of thought that has gotten us into this mess.

The proper response in a Democratice Republic is to discredit legal positivism as the crap it is, and to insist that our elected Presidents appoint judges who adhere to the rule of law and who acknowledge that natural law.

It is not an answer to praise others for defying court orders if you later intend those who disagree with you to follow court orders of judges with whom they may disagree. You can't have it both ways.

[Kuksool]

I used have a lot of respect for Roy Moore. However he soured on me when he endorsed the filibuster of Bill Pryor as federal judge. Roy Moore is a self-promoting clown looking to further his own financial gain. Hopefully, Riley will smash Moore hard in the upcoming Governor primary.

[texastoo]

Bob Riley has soured me be raising property taxes EVERY YEAR. I own property in Alabama.

[texastoo]

By the way, when was raising property taxes EVERY YEAR voted in. I have owned this property for almost 20 years and this is the first times the taxes are raised EVERY YEAR.

[southland]

You are so correct. Pryor used the issue to promote his rise in position. Moore will be back...

[southland]

Bob Ril;ey also raised my property taxes. I will remember this next Tuesday as I cast my vote for Roy Moore.

[southland]

ping

[texastoo]

I will remember this next Tuesday as I cast my vote for Roy Moore.

Good for you!

IMO, anyone who raises taxes EVERY YEAR is worse than a Democrat.

[GrandEagle]

You are so correct. Pryor used the issue to promote his rise in position.
I've had folks try and espouse the virtues of Pryor. I was there in Montgomery and heard with my own ears him publicly pledge his support to Judge Moore. Then when Judge Moore depended on his word, Pryor folded. I would much rather have a known enemy than a political coward like Pryor.

Cordially,
GE

[GrandEagle]

when he endorsed the filibuster of Bill Pryor as federal judge.
With good reason. When the heat is on, Bill Pryor will fold. His word has no meaning.
(See my post #50)

GE

[CWW]

You are incorrect. Pryor supported the display of the 10 Commandments by Judge Moore in his trial court because it was properly and constituionally displayed in its historical context. That was a different display.

However, when Moore told Pryor he wanted to put a monymnet in the State Supreme Court, Pryor offered legal guidance to Moore about how to create a proper and constituional display. Moore rejected that advice.

[CWW]

Bull -- You obviously did not see Bill Pryor testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Pryor told Roy Moore up front that he would not defy a federal court order.

You are fool if you choose to follow that idiot down the primrose path.

[GrandEagle]

You are incorrect.
Big smile..... Nope, I am not.
I heard him with my own ears, in perfect context, back when Judge Moore first had his run in with the ACLU about his plaque in his courthouse.

You are free to believe as you wish - Pryor can not be trusted. He is the very politician that you accuse Judge Moore of being.

Still very Cordially,
GE

[GrandEagle]

You are fool
Another big smile.....
I would much rather be a free fool under a Constitutional Republic, than a servant of a government with no respect for the very people who granted it it's authority.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --
Samuel Adams

I'm in good company

By the time Bill was before the committee he had already folded on his commitment. When it was politically expedient to support him he did. When it got nasty he folded.

The point of the discussion we are having here is not whether or not I think Judge Moores actions were smart, right, or wise, but rather whether they were legal. I do. We are under no more obligation to obey a federal judiciary that is operating outside the law, than I am to obey a policeman who tells me to shoot someone. You have completely missed Judge Moores whole point.
HE, by the way, has not changed his position - unlike Pryor.
Right or wrong, he is standing right where he has always been.

It is a very good thing for Dread Scott that the executive and judicial branch did not hold to your position many years ago.

The Fool - GE

[Tucson]

Moore's fundamental position as he argued it at the time was founded in the language (and interpretation) of the Estblishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law..."). He took the view that "Congress" meant the Federal Congress. Because Congress could make no law, the "Federal" government (any and all three branches) simply had no jurisdiction. In that reasoning, because no Federal judge or court has jurisdiction, any order on this subject had no validity.

Therein lies the absolute question. How do we read and correctly interpret the language of the Establishment Clause? Taken at its most rudimentary, it reads "Congress". It says nothing about states of local municipalities. So is Judge Moore correct or is he just articulating fantasy?

[CWW]

You just made my point -- that was the first diplay in Moore's individual Circuit Court.

Completely different a constitutional display than the one in the Supreme Court Building which, by the way, now has another 10 commandments display designed by Bill Pryor & Govenor Riley and which IS constitutional.

[GrandEagle]

which IS constitutional.
As was the first. Which is my point.
BTW, just exactly which part of the Constitution did the gift to Judge Moore violate?

[CWW]

He's right on the merits of the argument, but the Supreme Court and lower court precedent has not returned to that fundamental opinion.

This brings me to the main point -- I, like many conservatives, believe that displays of the 10 commandment are constitutionally permissible and that the present jurisprudence approving some displays by not others is a quagmire.

That's my whole problem with Moore. Where will his argument ultimately leave us? What if the Florida Supreme Court gave the finger to the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore based on their own and different interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause -- you see -- a Constitutional nightmare! That being said, however, we have to seek to change the law through a proper exercise of our constitutional franchise and not by defying valid court orders, regardless of our disagreement.

If you start advocating picking and choosing what court orders to follow, then there is no rule of law, but only rule of the jungle!

[CWW]

Moore violated the Supremecy Clause and the Establishment Clause AS CURRENTLY INTERPRETED BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND. It's not that I agree with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on this, but it (like Roe v. Wade) remains the law of the land until it is changed by Constitutional Amendment or by the Supreme Court itself!