Posted on 11/19/2002 8:36:24 AM PST by Dallas
History has shown us that the victors of battle write the history books and that the powerful adhere to the letter and spirit of the law only when it serves their interest.
The more I learn about the generally untaught history of these United States the less respect I have for A. Lincoln and his fellow travelers.
Many years of practice by the Courts in not rocking the boat means that even the most flagrant errors,omissions, and frauds will be upheld as the law of the land.
What in inane statement. One letter written by Jefferson don't mean $hit, and even it is subject to interpretation. You'd think by your (whatever) that Jefferson was the father of the constitution instead of Madison....geeze...give it up.
I really don't know, but that sounds right.
You have not addressed any of the points in the post.
The 14th Amendment was not ratified in accordance with the Constitution. You cannot have it both ways. You say you support the Constitution, but you are also supporting an Amendment that spit on the same Constitution in its ratification process.
Yes, but the Constitution to which we are presumed to be bound sets up the Supreme Court as the arbiter of when a law is unconstitutional, and when it is not. You choose to ignore that designation.
It is inevitable that reasonable people will have good faith disagreements over the meaning of a particular provision of the Constitution. Or over federal laws. And it is logical and rational for people to set up a court system to resolve those disputes.
You apparently want to pitch all that out the window. If you disagree with a court opinion, then you feel free to disregard that opinion. "I think its unconstitutional, whatver that Court says. So I ignore it." And you could easily extend your argument to decisions of lower courts. Again, ignoring any decision with which you disagree. It is impossible to have any ordered society under that scheme.
The worst part is that you want to do that on a case by case basis. If the system becomes so corrupted that the Courts are abdicating their responsibility and enforcing tyranny, then you have a revolution and start over. That is legitimate. But you don't want that. You want to be free to pick and choose which Court decisions you will follow. Of course, you don't expect that of others. Even if Dems think Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided, they should still follow it. Why? Because you think it is correct.
So the question becomes that by placing the ten commandments, which is clearly a tenement of the Judeo/Christian religion, on government property, is that not saying that this is the officially government sanctioned religion of the country?
Now much has been made on this thread about how the Ten Commandments are the backbone of our legal system. So lets go through them and see how many of them actually translate into codified law.
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
I am not aware of any law on the books that cover this one
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments
Again I don’t believe that is codified anywhere.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Don’t know any law against that, unless maybe it could be used to provoke someone to assault, but generally not a polite thing to do.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
There use to be some laws covering that but most of those were removed from the books around the turn of the last century
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
Good advice but still not a part of law
6. You shall not murder.
Now that is unlawful.
7. You shall not commit adultery
Now it seems to me there use to be some laws covering that, but they were long ago removed as generally people agreed that the government has no place in your bedroom.
8. You shall not steal.
Yep, can’t do that
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Perjury, yeah can’t lawfully do that unless of course you are a president. Or so it seems that’s what we learned in the last administration
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; You shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
I really like my neighbors chainsaw but again I am not aware of any law preventing me from wanting it.
So it would seem that out of the Ten Commandments only 3 of them are actually codified into law. Wouldn’t seem to be much of a backbone in our current legal system, as only 30% of it actually translates into law. And of those three that are actually law, they would seem to be kind of common sense items that one should intuitively understand are needed to run a society without having a book to tell you so.
”If Alabamans want a memorial to the 10 Commandments in their courthouse, they're free to put one there.”
That is of course assuming that the states have rights anymore that are superior to the Federal governments rights which is an issue that would take a whole other thread by itself.
”In reality, your tax money goes for many things you don't want
No, in reality most all of my tax dollars goes for things I do not want. I still believe in the old school of thought that says the government should be responsible for
1. Maintaining the military
2. Maintaining the hi-ways and byways of the country.
3. Providing police and fire protection
4. Maintaining the courts for redress of grievances.
And there is one other thing that I can’t seem to remember right now.
=====================================
Wednesday, April 9, 1997 10:41 am EDT
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Judge Roy Moore displays a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opens sessions with prayer.
And the judge, a Baptist whose fight to keep religion in his courtroom has inspired a national rally, invites others to pray with him -- as long as they're not Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
They do not acknowledge the God of the holy Bible on which this country was founded," Moore says.
Only Christians have been invited to lead the prayers, but the judge's clerk, Scott Barnett, said he did try to contact a local rabbi but couldn't reach him.
….snip….
"My duty under the Constitution is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God," not the gods of other faiths, Moore said." We are not a nation founded upon the Hindu god or Buddha.
continued…..
=====================================
I'm as anxious to defend the Commandments in public places on Judge Moore's back as I would be to argue the 2nd ammendment based on John Muhammad and John Malvo.
The question presented to this court is whether the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court violated the Establishment Clause when he placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton granite monument--engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God--in the Alabama State Judicial Building with the specific purpose and effect, as the court finds from the evidence, of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws.
---------Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law.
-------Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible.
-------As a state court judge in Gadsden, Alabama, then-Judge Moore displayed a hand-carved plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. He also invited clergy to lead prayer in his courtroom before trials. These acts led to two highly publicized lawsuits involving the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama. The first, brought in March 1995, was dismissed for lack of standing. See Alabama Freethought Ass'n v. Moore, 893 F. Supp. 1522 (N.D. Ala. 1995). The second, brought in April 1995 by the State of Alabama, sought a declaratory judgment that Judge Moore's display of the Ten Commandments was constitutional; that lawsuit was dismissed by the Alabama Supreme Court as nonjusticiable. See Alabama ex rel. James v. ACLU of Alabama, 711 So. 2d 952 (Ala. 1998). A large part of Judge Moore's funding for these lawsuits--$170,000--came from Coral Ridge Ministries, an evangelical Christian media outreach organization with television and radio broadcasts that cover all major Alabama cities.
On November 7, 2000, Judge Moore was elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. During his campaign for Chief Justice, Judge Moore capitalized on the name recognition that he had obtained during the 1995 lawsuits. Judge Moore's campaign referred to him as the "Ten Commandments Judge," and virtually everything put out by the campaign referenced the Ten Commandments. Shortly after his election, now-Chief Justice began designing a monument depicting, in his words, "the moral foundation of law" and reflecting "the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men." By God, the Chief Justice specifically meant the Judeo-Christian God of the Holy Bible and not the God of any other religion.
On August 1, 2001, Chief Justice Moore unveiled a 5,280-pound granite monument in the large colonnaded rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building, which houses the Alabama Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of Civil Appeals, the state law library, and the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts. Coral Ridge Ministries filmed both the monument's installation, which occurred the night before, and its unveiling; it was the only media outlet to film either occasion. The Chief Justice installed the monument with neither the approval nor the knowledge of the Alabama Supreme Court's other eight justices. He made all final decisions with regard to the specific language appearing on the monument, as well as its size, shape, color, and location within the Judicial Building.
-----------Chief Justice Moore has final authority over what decorations may be placed in the Judicial Building rotunda.
----------Thus, it was not surprising to the court that, in describing at the process of designing the monument, the Chief Justice emphasized that the secular quotations were placed on the sides of the monument, rather than on its top, because these statements were the words of mere men and could not be placed on the same plane as the Word of God. Nor was it surprising to the court that, as the evidence reflected, visitors and building employees consider the monument an appropriate, and even compelling, place for prayer. The court is impressed that the monument and its immediate surroundings are, in essence, a consecrated place, a religious sanctuary, within the walls of a courthouse.
--------He explained that the monument "serves to remind the Appellate Courts and judges of the Circuit and District Court of this State and members of the bar who appear before them, as well as the people of Alabama who visit the Alabama Judicial Building, of the truth stated in the Preamble to the Alabama Constitution that in order to establish justice we must invoke 'the favor and guidance of almighty God.'
Moore's own words burn him and his intent.
Independent, sober and unbiased? Ain't no way.
Well I certainly have bigger things to worry about but on the other hand when I started reading this thread all I saw was a lot of patting each other on the back. So why not take the other side of the debate and see if we could get some real discussion going.
"Even the Taliban destroying the statue didn't bother me"
I thought it was a great loss of art for the world, and also representative of what happens when governments have to much power, but the truth is all things will pass.
Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. . . . In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity . . . without which no free government can long exist.
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.