Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal

Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2003 | Associated Press

[Lurking Libertarian]

ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

[snip]

Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.

[click link to read remainder of article]

[Labyrinthos]

The court is dead wrong and it is time we stand up and say enough. The courts are no longer moral organizations and must be opposed at every turn and judges must be round up and imprisoned for violation of their oaths of office and treason against the United States of America.

Another brilliant statement from a member of the American Taliban.

[lugsoul]

That's an interesting view. I believe you would call a judge who approached the Constitution that way a judicial activist. To say that "no graven images" means "no graven images" is not interpretive leeway. To say that "no graven images" means "graven images are okay, as long as they are the right graven images" is interpretive leeway.

[Spiff]

Spiff - tell us all about your theory. If the Utah Legislature decides to establish Mormonism as the state religion, and the SCOTUS says it is unconstitutional, why don't you explain to us all how the Utah Supreme Court can overrule the SCOTUS. That is exactly what you are saying.

When the Constitution was ratified there was at least one state with an official religion. The SCOTUS would be wrong if they said that a state could not have a state religion just as they were wrong when they said Dred Scot was only property and that the imagined right to privacy in the Constitution prevented states from enacting laws against murdering babies.

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you and your hypothetical SCOTUS not understand?

And why do you imagine that our nation's form of government is a judgeocracy or some crap like that and not a Constitutional Republic of several sovereign States? Where did you learn otherwise?

[Catspaw]

Do you want the establishment of a state religion? Sounds like you do. How about the establishment of a national religion? And what shall the people who aren't members of that religion do? Shall they be forced to convert? Shall they have to worship in secret? Shall other religions be banned?

[lugsoul]

"The SCOTUS would be wrong if they said that a state could not have a state religion" -

Well, the 14th Amendment prohibition on the state depriving any person of liberty, including 1st Amendment liberty derived from the language beginning "Congress shall make no law...", says your view is wrong. And so the SCOTUS has held for the better part of a century.

I hope you understand the implication of your argument. If "Congress shall make no law..." is the last word (despite later Amendments), then the state in which you reside can pass laws restricting free speech, freedom of the press and free exercise of religion - and there is no Constitutional problem at all with such laws.

That may be the country you want to live in, but it is not mine.

[Spiff]

That view is contrary to the entirety of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Ah, there it is. You're blinded by the "jurisprudence" on this issue. Tell me, if Dred Scot was still in vogue today - if the jurisprudence still upheld the Dred Scot decision - would you be here arguing that slaves are just property. No, instead you would recognize that the decisions on the issue from Dred Scot up until today were WRONG. Just as we are arguing that the distorted interpretations of the establishment clause and the ensuing decisions and enforcements are WRONG.

Just because the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution does not make them the final arbiter of whether the contract (the Constitution) is being breached or not. The contract was between the several States and the new Federal (not National - I really hope you will learn the difference) Government. The States are still sovereign and still have a say in the matter.

Your model would be like a group of companies contracting with a builder to build a skyscraper for them and then letting ONLY the builder's legal department be the final arbiter of whether the builder is meeting the contract or not. The companies would have no say when the builder uses the contract to continue collecting money from the companies and to start building all kinds of stuff in addition to the teetering skyscraper because the legal department keeps declaring the alterations and additional projects to be within the contract.

[First Amendment]

The court here specifically addressed that issue and found that the display did offend the plaintiffs.

I don't know if the ACLU wsa involved, I think it was. Basically with the All Criminals Love Us, everything decent and good offends them, and everything evil attracts.

[Catspaw]

Just because the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution does not make them the final arbiter of whether the contract (the Constitution) is being breached or not.

Then who is?

[Dog Gone]

Just because the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution does not make them the final arbiter of whether the contract (the Constitution) is being breached or not.

Then you reject the holding of Marbury v Madison, something which fixed what I consider a flaw in the Constitution.

Congress is now free to pass unconstitutional laws and your only recourse is to vote in new legislators who will repeal them.

[Spiff]

Do you want the establishment of a state religion? Sounds like you do. How about the establishment of a national religion? And what shall the people who aren't members of that religion do? Shall they be forced to convert? Shall they have to worship in secret? Shall other religions be banned?

No, I don't want a state or a national religion. However, that matter is, according to the Constitution, left up to the states themselves and not a federal issue.

If my state chose to pick an intolerable religion as the "official" state religion, then I might want to move to another state. Similarly if the state enacted gun laws restricting ownership of guns, then I would move to another state where the gun laws were more agreeable. The Constitution was designed to limit the Federal Government, not the state governments except in clearly defined and specified matters. The 14 Amendment and the twisting of the "equal enforcement of laws" has been one of the worst things to happen to the Constitution, our Republic, and our federal model of government. If they wanted to reaffirm that blacks had the same rights that everyone else has, they should have just said so. The 14th Amendment, as written, is a travesty.

[First Amendment]

This is another decision which is wrecking our country. And not only our country, but distorting how our great nation was founded.

In 100% agreement with your reasoning. And people of minority religions" should agree as well. Historical, absolutely.

[Spiff]

Then who is?

The People.

[First Amendment]

You didn't participate in the discussion, have never discussed with me, are just being viciously personally attacking. You are too much. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[lugsoul]

You still won't answer the question -

Can any state legally prohibit speech criticizing the state government?

Can any state ban the practice of a particular religion?

Based on your argument, they can.

[Catspaw]

The People.

"The People" how? You've already eliminated the courts from having any say.

[lugsoul]

"The 14th Amendment, as written, is a travesty."

Well, I think that pretty much frames the discussion. You believe that state governments have the right to trample the liberty of their citizens, unfettered by the Federal government. And that view is shared by, well, practically no one.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

*snort*

For a Hindu, you sure post like a fundamentalist Christian.

[exmarine]

More legislation from the bench. Clearly the 1st amendment is for protecting individual rights, not the rights of the non-entity Govt!

The separation of church and state doctrine was invented in 1947 in the Everson ruling under Hugo Black. There is no mention of this in the Constitution or the Constitutional convention, and the nation thrived for 175 years before 1947 - precedent and the Constitution militates against this legal usurpation.

Let it be known that this metaphor was extracted from a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, who, (now ironically) - were worried about persecution from the govt! Jefferson was a full supporter of the Christian faith and attended services in the CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS! He invited the Marine Corps band to play worship! Some separation!

[Catspaw]

If my state chose to pick an intolerable religion as the "official" state religion, then I might want to move to another state.

So what you're saying is that states can establish a religion (do you happen to have any legal citations on that?) and if you don't like it, the choice is to move? Your proposal seems to be that a state or states can establish that religion, persons of that religion move to that state and persons not of that religion move to a state in which their religion is the state religion, each religion congregating in a designated state. I would assume those who can't find a state in which their religion is a state religion have the option of converting or leaving the country.

[lugsoul]

There is a difference between separation, on one hand, and the state favoring one religion over others, on the other hand. Surely you do not approve of the latter.