House rebuffs court on 10 Commandments

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, July 31, 2003

[JohnHuang2]

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to withhold funds from any enforcement action related to a federal appeals court's decision that the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama judicial building is unconstitutional.

By a vote of 260-161, lawmakers last week OK'd an amendment by Rep. John N. Hostettler, R-Ind., to prohibit any money in the bill funding the Justice Department from going to enforcement of the controversial decision.

Monument of Ten Commandments

As WorldNetDaily reported, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, lost an appeal July 1 at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court's decision that a washing machine-sized granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the public building must be removed because it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The original suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"If we adopted his position, the chief justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama Supreme Court's courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have decidedly religious quotations painted above the bench," the three-judge panel said in its ruling.

On July 22, Moore announced he would appeal the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I will personally petition the United States Supreme Court as chief justice of this state to hear me on this matter," Moore said in a statement.

The Fulton County Daily Report quotes Hostettler on the House floor saying: "The [appeals] court plainly shows that it believes itself to be the chief lawmaker whose orders become law."

Hostettler continued: "It might be suggested that we do not want this legislation to disrupt the judicial process in the interim between the Circuit Court of Appeals process and the Supreme Court. It is not my intention to do that tonight. In fact, I welcome the highest court's review of this decision; and I say tonight that if they get it wrong, I will exercise the power of the purse again and defund the enforcement of that inane decision."

According to the paper's report, Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wis., was unconvinced Hostettler's amendment would have any effect whatsoever on enforcement.

"I would suggest that rather than offering amendments … if we want to protect the Ten Commandments, we will simply start by following them in our own lives and in our own careers," the report quotes Obey as saying.

Some outside the House also were skeptical of the amendment.

"Congress can't prevent the president from enforcing core executive functions," one of which is enforcing court rulings, Ronald Klain, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers in Washington, D.C., and a former counselor to Vice President Al Gore and Attorney General Janet Reno, told the Fulton County Daily Report.

The appropriations bill now is pending in the U.S. Senate.

In a statement, Barry W. Lynn, who heads Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said, "It is completely outrageous for the House to try to interfere in this way with ongoing court cases dealing with sensitive questions about the Bill of Rights. I am confident the Senate will not go along with this extreme measure."

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, July 31, 2003

Quote of the Day by NewRomeTacitus

[First Amendment]

"I would suggest that rather than offering amendments … if we want to protect the Ten Commandments, we will simply start by following them in our own lives and in our own careers," the report quotes Obey as saying.

Which will be helped if people see them now and again. Especially the kind of people who might be having appointments in the court house. And not just the lawyers.

[autoresponder]

[heleny]

"If we adopted his position, the chief justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama Supreme Court's courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have decidedly religious quotations painted above the bench," the three-judge panel said in its ruling.

That's a pretty far-reaching conclusion to jump from the broadly-accepted Ten Commandments to sectarian murals, even if those murals were considered (correctly or not) to violate the establishment clause.

[goldstategop]

The theophobes for too long have had it their way. Its time to rein in the courts assault on religious freedom in America in the service of a sectarian and partisan agenda.

[goldstategop]

By their reasoning, the mural of the Ten Commandments inside the U.S Supreme Court chambers itself is a violation of the "establishment clause." Hmmm...

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Go Hastart Go! Three Cheers for House Conservatives!

"I would suggest that rather than offering amendments … if we want to protect the Ten Commandments, we will simply start by following them in our own lives and in our own careers," the report quotes Obey as saying.

LOL. When will he start?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

If Benjamin Franklin were alive today, calling on his fellow statesmen to pray, liberals would have the man locked up.

[goldstategop]

More like feed him to the bonfire.

[Manic_Episode]

Checks and balances. Those who control the purse strings are the ones really in charge. It would seem our activist judges have met their match.

Back in college I took Constitutional Law. As I remember chapter one covered the Ten Commandments and Hanurabi's code as being historic examples of the first law of the land. The Ten Commandments are entirely appropriate for a setting dedicated to law.

[jwalsh07]

The battle at the OK Corral has begun in earnest.

[Jhoffa_]

All I want to know is how many are willfully and happily serving Satan and how many are accomplices because they simply don't know any better.

Just a show of hands or a quick survey will be fine..

Example:

Please list your reason for trying to destroy Christianity: (check one)

A) I love lucifer! Hail Satan! Hail Satan! My Lord and Master! Satan is cool!

B) I must destroy Christianity because they say my particular vice (homosexuality, incest, chicken screwing, pedophelia, etc..) is a bad thing, and it hurts my feewings! I am voting for my vice!

C) I am scared of a Religious Theocracy where the state oppresses other religions and/or stones people for their sins on the street corner and just generally becomes too "extreme" My objection is purely ideological in nature.

D) I am worried about what people will think of me if I have strong opinions, so I always listen to the extreme on both sides and then put myself somewhere in the middle so as not to offend or make myself a target for ridicule. Right/wrong doesn't matter to me, I just want to blend and be on the winning side when the smoke clears.

E) I am doing it because I secretly hate my parents.. They are so smug! They are religious and they think they know everything! Well, I'll show them! HA! I am doing this to punish people close to me, like my parents!

F) I went to college and they said that once I got this piece of paper that I was smart. They said religious stuff, anywhere outside the church is a bad thing and should never be tied to politics or public policy. I am doing this because I am so much smarter than everyone else, they told me so in college!

G) I am doing this because I am just a classic anarchist and just generally a contrary type of person. I don't care what the statue quo is, I want it changed because I like excitement and to see "the man" get shafted!

H) I am doing it because there REALLY IS no God. I am an atheist. My position is well thought out and I just don’t believe in God.

I) I believe in a different "God" So naturally, I want to marginalize other "Gods" and promote my own. I am not really a bad guy though, I just think Christians are misguided and should drop their phoney "God" and come worship my real, true "God"

J) ?

[lugsoul]

Nope. Read the opinion. The difference between this display and other 10 Commandments displays in other public buildings is drawn quite clearly.

[lugsoul]

Sure they are - but would your opinion be the same if it was stated as "a particular version of the Ten Commandments which is touted by this judge as the "correct version" which is displayed to the exclusion of other religious symbols or other sources of law." This is Judge Moore's display. He easily could have presented a display that was religion-neutral - by including other religious or secular sources of traditional law. But he explicitly states that nothing else has equal footing with his chosen KJV version of the Commandments. Not even the Jewish or Catholic versions. Defend that.

[Manic_Episode]

Regardless of anyones opinion on preferences this display is still historically significant and appropriate for a building dedicated to law. Hanurabi's code would be just as appropriate, but its necessity should not be based on appeasing the ungodly.
Liberaltarians might just as well call themselves the thin-skinned athiest party. (I've no idea if that applies to you, but they are the ones I hear sniveling the loudest on this issue)

[lugsoul]

Perhaps you should read what I wrote - or read Judge Moore's own testimony. I am not talking about godly vs. ungodly. I am talking about "my godly" vs. "everyone else's godly". That is exactly what Moore is promoting. He explicitly refused to allow religious displays of law sources from faiths other than his own. When a chief justice of a state supreme court does that, how do you get around the conclusion that the state is favoring one faith over another?

[lugsoul]

A follow-up - while supporters of Moore like to gloss over this fact, the decision in this case was not simply "the 10 Commandments is unconstitutional." The very same court that ruled against Moore upheld a 10 Commandments display in a Georgia court just two weeks before this decision. Moore is TRYING to play "in your face" politics, and his testimony in the lower court was obviously calculated to set up this kind of showdown. That is shameful behavior for a judicial officer, as was installing this thing in the middle of the night and having it filmed by a televangelist outfit for sale to pay his legal fees for the coming fight. He postured the fight himself. Then he goes out and proclaims at the top of his lungs that he has as much power to interpret the U.S. Constitution as a Federal Appeals Court has. It is a power and ego trip unworthy of the support of good conservatives.

[Manic_Episode]

Altho what you are reporting places this in a different light, as much as Christians get beat up these days I must admit that I admire his in-your-face attitude. I wish more Christians were like this. Way too many Christians think we need to all act like pansies and get pushed around. It is refreshing to see a Christian pushing back. Remember, Moore certainly isn't the first activist Judge. I believe he is fighting fire with fire. I admit my hyprocrisy that if he were a muslim Judge I'd be calling for his head, but judicial activism has been used by my enemies so often I enjoy seeing the tables turned.

[lugsoul]

(a) If the methods are wrong when used by your opponents, they are wrong when used by those on your side.

(b) It is not really that refreshing to see a "Christian" trying to use the power of the state to proclaim that his faith is better than Judaism or Catholicism, or any other faith, for that matter.

[Sabertooth]

J) ?

Hoffa. Hope that helps.