Posted on 06/01/2006 5:44:48 AM PDT by 300magnum
When Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore defied an order from Federal Judge Myron Thompson in 2003, and refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, he was summarily expelled from office under the pretense that America is a nation of laws, not of men.
Moore contended that those laws could not define or promote a healthy and free society if they were established or enforced as the result of arbitrary whims of those in power. Thus, he asserted that moral and ethical absolutes, as codified in the Ten Commandments, have been and should remain as the basis for American law.
Members of the American Civil Liberties Union, aided and abetted by their toadies in the media, were quick to warn our society of the dangers it faced if Moore's insolence was allowed to go uncontested. Furthermore, even many on the right who detest the agenda and strategy of the ACLU were nonetheless in agreement that Moore ought not be allowed to retain his position.
Sadly, the government of the State of Alabama proceeded to carry the water for the ACLU by pursuing Moore with a zeal it never displayed when attempting to defend itself against that organization. Ultimately, Moore became another victim of a federal judge who himself had perverted not only the law, but the Constitution itself.
Among institutional "lawbreakers," Moore is hardly alone. Yet in comparison to other violations of U.S. law being perpetrated at the highest levels of government, what are the real consequences to the rest of America of Moore's actions? Admittedly, he may have "offended" the God-hating liberals at the ACLU, but most of America perceived no threat or impending danger from him.
While the ultimate propriety of Moore's action could still be debated, his contention that a society which rejects the boundaries of absolute truth is on the road to collapse, has since proven prescient to the point of being nearly prophetic.
Some abominable events of the past week only serve to solidify this notion. The duplicity of Congressman William Jefferson (D.-LA) is likely a greater crime against the nation by far, since hard evidence suggests that he is involved in major corruption and an institutional cover-up.
But even Jefferson's behavior pales in comparison to lawlessness prevailing in the United States Senate, where duly enacted laws are simply being ignored and the borders of the nation are thus being systematically destroyed.
The United States Senate has now passed its immigration "reform" bill. Despite the claims of the bill's proponents, if implemented in its current form, it would grant amnesty to the flood of illegals presently invading the country.
The Senate relentlessly pursued this course with absolute indifference to the concerns and well being of the American people. Instead the nearly universal consideration of the Senate was how such a bill might affect its own standing and future.
Furthermore, the arrogant reaction of the bill's key Senate advocates to their critics has been to disparage and demean them as bigoted or insensitive. Hence, legitimate debate on the issue all but vanished, and any remaining discussion is conducted according to the intellectually bankrupt premises of the "political correct."
With each passing day, it becomes ever more obvious that government, from the local to the national level, perceives itself to be in the business of accruing power and wealth, while "We the people" are increasingly relegated to the status of serf, resource, and ultimately, state property.
In keeping with the arrogant and elitist mindset of those inside the Beltway who regard themselves as an elected aristocracy, consider the overwhelming Congressional response to the FBI raid and seizure of incriminating evidence in the office of William Jefferson.
In one of those odd displays of "bipartisanship" (which increasingly reflect Washington pitting itself against real America), major spokesmen from both parties condemned the FBI action as a violation of the "separation of powers."
Apparently, many members of Congress see themselves as somehow above the laws meant to control and maintain the peasantry in its subservient condition. The overwhelming reaction from the Congress can only be construed to indicate that Jefferson and his kind should be immune to scrutiny as long as they maintain the evidence of their criminal activity within its hallowed halls.
Meanwhile, out in the hinterlands, Judge Moore made the bold and courageous move that represents the only recourse for an individual who seeks to correct the wrongs of such an inherently flawed and hypocritical system. He decided to run for Governor of Alabama.
Hardly seeking to foment a movement of defiance against the law, Moore merely recognized the degree to which lawlessness has already overtaken our governing institutions, regardless of which political party holds dominance. In stark contrast to those who regularly acquiesce to the opposition in hopes of getting along, Moore has already proven that he will put principle above politics and personal gain, regardless of the cost to him.
The country is being increasingly ravaged by an ongoing series of issues that the political class refuses to effectively confront, either because of the enormity of special interests seeking to define them, or from fear of the "pc" armies waiting to politically assassinate any who dare to deviate from their orthodoxy.
Only such a person as Roy Moore could be expected to possess the courage and steadfastness sufficient to tackle the difficult issues threatening to cripple America and eradicate its future. Win or lose, he is showing the nation what needs to be done if it is to have any hope of restoration.
Godspeed Judge Moore.
----------
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
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.
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.
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.
Bob Riley has soured me be raising property taxes EVERY YEAR. I own property in Alabama.
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.
You are so correct. Pryor used the issue to promote his rise in position. Moore will be back...
Bob Ril;ey also raised my property taxes. I will remember this next Tuesday as I cast my vote for Roy Moore.
ping
Good for you!
IMO, anyone who raises taxes EVERY YEAR is worse than a Democrat.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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!
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.