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.
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!
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(?).
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.
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.
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.
Gee, did anybody tell the O.J. jury? Or Robert Blake jury?
Anarchy seems to be the only option left, according to your arguments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.