Roy Moore, The Imperial Congress And The Rule Of Law

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

[GrandEagle]

I think you need to make a trip to DC really quick. Pres. Bush is sure wasting a lot of time trying to get Congress to pass his amnesty bill. By SCOTUS decisions, (at least by one federal judge anyway), he should just have his wishes inscribed in stone and moved into the rotunda. There you have it! Just the same a passing a law!

[CWW]

You have never responded to my argument -- where will Moore's philosophy of defying court orders get us?

He he gets to be the arbitrar of the Constittution and is not answerable to higher courts, then why can't I follow my own interpretation.

Answer the Question, GE! You can't!

[Tucson]

No argument. As you point out, we can't make a counter argument if we don't preserve the moral foundation from which we speak. Right or wrong (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson), the USSC has ruled and by convention, it is law(?).

[GrandEagle]

remains the law of the land until it is changed by Constitutional Amendment or by the Supreme Court itself
No, it remains ENFORCED because the Federal government has the raw power to make it happen. It does NOT mean that it is legally the law of the land. There is a big difference.
By making decisions that it has no authority to make SCOTUS is placing itself above the law. Enforceable? sure, Legal? No.
It reduces us to being nothing more than a two bit dictatorship with a handful of rulers.

This very point is the centerpiece of our disagreement. I'm not moving as I'm sure neither are you. It has been an interesting, and at times enjoyable discussion, but since I'm not interested in the name calling stuff, I shall disengage at this point.

Again cordially,
GE

[GrandEagle]

He he gets to be the arbitrar of the Constittution and is not answerable to higher courts, then why can't I follow my own interpretation.
I return the question to you with where does it get us by complying with a judiciary out of control and operating outside it's authority?
You have hit upon the very situation that is not easily solved. What DO we do when the highest court operated outside the authority that we have given it? The only response is exactly what Judge Moore did. You challenge it, hoping that you fellow citizens will support you and clip the wings of the court. That failed miserable.
It didn't fail because of Judge Moore's lack of courage or determination; It failed because those who pledged their support took the path of least resistance.

GE

[CWW]

Again -- you make my point -- the Dred Scott decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court because it was fundamentally wrong, as is the current constitutional jurisprudence regarding church and state matters.

[CWW]

So who determines what decisions are "legal" -- you? Roy Moore? Ted Kennedy?

The way our system is set up is that under the Supremacy Clause and Article III of the Federal Constitution, when state courts and federal courts disagree over the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, treaties or federal laws, the federal courts have the final word.

Your plan, my friend, is anarchy and is a results-oriented philosophy which the Court (both state and federal) have consistently rejected. See, e.g., Bush v. Gore -- where the Florida Supreme Court had to give way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[CWW]

actually, there are several alternatives that do not involve the anarchy of defying a federal court order:

1. The Congress has the right to determine the jurisdiction of Article III courts. So it can remove questions concerning the 10 commandments from federal court jurisdiction.

2. We can elect presidents who will agree to appoint judges who are originalists and who construe the constitution accordingly.

3. We can seek to amend the Constitution.

[GrandEagle]

Again -- you make my point

Not quite. It was overturned by the STATE Supreme Court a few years later, but by the time the 13th amendment came along to invalidate the original ruling some 10-12 years later, it would have been little consolation to him after being beaten to death by his "owner".

So who determines what decisions are "legal" -- you? Roy Moore? Ted Kennedy?
The way our system is set up is that under the Supremacy Clause and Article III of the Federal Constitution, when state courts and federal courts disagree over the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, treaties or federal laws, the federal courts have the final word.

Your plan, my friend, is anarchy and is a results-oriented philosophy which the Court (both state and federal) have consistently rejected. See, e.g., Bush v. Gore -- where the Florida Supreme Court had to give way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is an interesting dilemma I'll agree. A dilemma created because when the courts first took a left, the public also took the path of least resistance. The amendment is very clear "Congress shall pass no law". In this case neither congress passed any law state OR federal, AND the federal judiciary is forbidden from even having a legal opinion either was on establishment.
Under your "at all costs" application of the Supremacy clause, we can disband the Congress. Any law that is passed to address the issues can just be ruled "Unconstitutional", and since they are supreme, they can just make arbitrary declarations and use them as law. Under the Constitution, the Congress can limit the Courts jurisdiction. Can the court then declare that limitation to be Unconstitutional? We could go on and on. What if "we the people" amended the Constitution requiring public schools to open in prayer? The court; being supreme, could just invalidate the amendment.
I contend that the Court IS supreme in matters that "we the people" have given it jurisdiction. When it operates outside of it's legal jurisdiction then it's declarations, while enforceable by raw power, are not legal and therefore not binding.
We have given police officers authority to stop me while driving down the road. What if they stop me and begin beating me to a pulp when I've done nothing. They clearly do not have this authority. I have a choice. I can simply take the beating, hope they don't kill me, and keep my mouth shut so they won't come back after me; or, I can resist, fighting off the illegal attack, hoping that my fellow citizens will stand behind me. It is a crap shoot - you never know which way it will go.
Such was Roy Moore's situation. He chose to take a stand, forcing the issue to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS thwarted it by not hearing the case. Is his position a correct one? I think so. Was it wise to take a stand when he did? It all depends on who tells history. Our founders are heroes. Had the British won, they would be the biggest traitors to the Crown ever.

So who determines what decisions are "legal" ?

We all can. We do it everyday. For the most part we simply choose not to challenge most of them and take the path of least resistance. That is why nothing happened when our federal government killed a house full of women and children just to get some nut. They lied (saying he had some kind of drug lab) in order to skirt the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, and get the military involved against civilians.

That is why when the federal, state, and local law enforcement steal private property property and call it civil forfeiture, then extort money from it's rightful owner so he can have it back, we say nothing. We say nothing because it is not us they are stealing from, and we want the criminals that 95% of the time, doing this gets off the streets.

The list could go on and on.

As the declaration of Independence states: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

It is not always prudent to take a stand. Judge Moore decided that this was the time for him to take a stand. With the highest judicial power in the land being the offending party, his only hope of success was that the people would demand that the situation be corrected. That failed because most folks, while not disagreeing with him in principle, did disagree that it was time to exit their comfort zone.

Cordially,
GE

[itsahoot]

Sorry to disappoint them but the concept of nullification was discredited over 160 years ago.

Gee, did anybody tell the O.J. jury? Or Robert Blake jury?

[itsahoot]

Your plan, my friend, is anarchy and is a results-oriented philosophy which the Court (both state and federal) have consistently rejected.

Anarchy seems to be the only option left, according to your arguments.

[AZRepublican]

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.

I disagree with you there. As Madison said the states are the final arbitrator over their responsibilities under the compact they entered to in forming the union.

The powers delegated by the US Constitution to the federal govt are few and defined. The powers left with the States and the people are expansive while also being the center of all absolute power that is beyond the reach of the federal govt to curtail.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Interesting how you smear Chief Justice Moore's good name all over this thread and you offer not one single criticism of the REAL abomination in all of this, the Carter-appointed anti-Constitutional apostate fraud-in-a-robe named Myron Thompson. Thompson disregarded the Constitution entirely with his so-called "ruling" and Moore upheld the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. He damn well not only had a right, but a DUTY, to disregard Thompson's "order." If a state judge obeying the United States Constitution is chaos, bring it ON ! Roy Moore belongs on the U.S. Supreme Court.

[metalurgist]

If those like Roy Moore will ignore the law to do what they think is right

then how can you stop the devil from choosing the same treacherous path?

Do you mean people like the abolitionists that defied the written law and hid run away slaves? Did they cause any change?

What about the founding fathers that ignored the laws of the king and stood for what they believed was right? No change there either I guess.

Lawers, can't see the forest for the trees.

[GrandEagle]

Thompson disregarded the Constitution entirely
Agreed, however, so do most Federal Judges, along with the Supreme court.
Thompson probably didn't have a lot of choice in the matter. The SCOTUS had made a declaratory ruling several years ago with regard to the fictitious "Separation of Church and State" clause. This ruling was void of any Constitutional basis, just simply declared to be law because it was the wishes of the majority of the bench.
Judge Thompson, either agreed with the SCOTUS declaration, or simply took the path of least resistance. Either way, his ruling, while unconstitutional, was in keeping with the current ruling classes wishes. In other words, he did not "make waves".
I don't think Judge Moore's actions were so much against judge Thompson, but more to force the SCOTUS's hand. IMHO.
Since Judge Moore's allegiance is to our Constitution, and not to the ruling class in SCOTUS, you are very correct in that he had a duty to disregard the order.

Cordially,
GE

[Clintonfatigued]

Judge Moore may have done the right thing, but he did it in the wrong way. Do you remember how he obtanied that plaque of the Ten Commandments? He purchased it secretly and then had it hauled into the Court House in the dead of night, without telling any of the other justices about it. And while Myron Thompson is a left-wing shill, Moore didn't have to defy the court. He could have, at the very least, sought a stay of the judges order pending further appeal. Instead, he proclaimed that he would defy the Federal Court. To many older Alabama citizens, his methods (if not goals) brought back embarrassing memories of George Wallace.

Roy Moore's intentions may have been good, but he made himself look like a camera-mugging opportunist. And he damaged his own cause in the process.

[fieldmarshaldj]

A large part of the point was to force a showdown. Thompson could've avoided it by obeying the Constitution instead of an "unconstitutional precedent." How or when Moore got the plaque into the courthouse is of little consequence (to me), as I imagine had he done it in broad daylight, somebody would've tried to stop it from happening.

As for reminding the citizenry of Wallace's "standing in the doorway" dog and pony show defense of blatantly illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination, I would hope the citizens would know the difference between standing up for Constitutional rights (Moore) vs. defiance of them. No, to me, Thompson and Wallace were birds of a feather.

[Lewite]

Judge Moron Thompson has a problem coping with the asumption of there being a higher Gott than he is. He is very secure in his hubris. Pretty good for person that can not even speak good english and has shown a hatred for white anything. Just my opinion.

[CWW]

Uou obviously don't know Judge Myron Thompson. He is a VERY articulate and bight judge. I have argued cases before him many times, and he has always treated me with kindness and respect.

[AzaleaCity5691]

No, William Pryor, whom I have known and supporter for a long time, did what was required of him under Alabama law, and that is to enforce any and all laws in Alabama, that's what an Attorney General does, it is a prosecutorial job, if Pryor had not done what he did in that trial he would have been neglecting his job duties as perscribed under state law.

Incidentally, Moore's going after Pryor is the reason that he won't be elected Governor.