Posted on 11/19/2002 8:36:24 AM PST by Dallas
You gotta love this guy....
So might makes right and the first ammendment extends as far as some good ole boy is willing to let it go?
How did Moslems get into the conversation?
Because the Ten Commandments are the very foundation of Western ideas of jurisprudence, and the very basis on which the U.S. Constitution rests?
Judge Moore is right, and I hope he sticks to his guns.
On a funny side notee, my late grandmother had to go to court back in the 1980's over some estate issue or for jury duty. She was a devout Christian and would not "swear to God" on a Bible. The judge finally politely said, "Mam, do you promise to tell the truth in front of the court". She said, "Yes sir". He said "Thank you, mam".
You're swooning, too. Loosen your necktie. Let some oxygen percolate up.
I'd have bitched and moaned about it, but you still have to follow the decision. Otherwise, the opinions of the Court are meaningless because people will only follow the opinions with which they agree. Part of being in a democracy is following the rule of law, even when you disagree with the outcome of that process.
Now if you think that the rule of law doesn't exist, or that you don't want to follow it, then grab your gun and start your revolution. But you cannot selectively follow rulings of the Supreme Court without becoming a worse hypocrite than the Dems.
Bush v Gore was a tolerable and reasonable ruling. If courts issue intolerable and unreasonable ones they shouldn't have an expectation of those rulings being respected.
From your perspective and mine, it was a reasonable ruling. But from the perspective of the Dems, you're wrong. In which case, Democrats in the armed forces could and should refuse to follow all orders of President Bush and states controlled by Democrats should ignore all federal law. The fact is that the Supreme Court was appointed by Presidents, and its members were confirmed in accordance with Constitutional mandates. So as long as you wish to live in a democracy, you've got to follow even those rulings with which you disagree.
That was true prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment. Now that the 14th is in effect the restrictions on Congress have been extended to the states.
What is a Homeland Security Officer?Since no one in Congress read the "USA Patriot" Act before voting on it, who knows? I'd just as soon not find out.
-Eric
What an intelligent argument. Are you saying you are a Suni Moslem?
And where, in the Constitution, does it say that the displays of one's religious beliefs is unconstitutional?
And where does it say that the display of the Ten Commandments establishes a religion? And what, pray tell, is the specific religion that the Ten Commandments establish? (Because that is the test: the Constitution states: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION.) Jewish? Baptist? Catholic? Protestant? Mormon (they use the Bible, too)? Born-again non-denominational?
You can't lump all of those together and collectively call them a "religion." They are, in fact, different, having many kinds and variations of doctrine?
So, which religion does the Ten Commandments refer to? If you chose one, then I may chose a different one, and I daresay we could have thousands of answers to that question.
Oh I see, so it had no relevance to the issue being discussed, freedom of religion.
The concept of Executive Privilege has nothing to do with enforcing the decisions of the courts. It's a completely unrelated legal concept.
If you think the President should refuse to enforce Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, fine. But just remember that if/when you get a Democrat in the White House. Because you'll have opened a door that can't be shut again.
I'm a big fan of Dubya's. But if this made it up to the Supreme Court, and the President publicly stated that he wasn't going to enforce the decision because he didn't like it, he should be impeached.
When I see this judge and all the people who support his actions push to outlaw work on the Sabbath -- close all malls, restaurants, football games, television programming, etc. -- then I'll believe their sincerity.That would be forbidden by the First Amendment and made a poor idea by the Second as well. >:)=
-Eric
You know, that is essentially how are country has always been run. From "blue laws" to Wild West sheriffs proclaiming "no guns allowed here", whoever had the force of the gun behind them, well, their rules went and tough pooh to anyone who disagreed.
The Constitution has some great ideas and concepts, but they were routinely violated from the day the document was signed. We kid ourselves into thinking the FF's were some great, "moral" men who wanted freedom and liberty for all.
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.