Constitutional Crisis in the Making?

World View Weekend | 6 Aug 03 | Douglas W. Phillips, Esq.

[SLB]

Joshua 24:15 - And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

[goldstategop]

We must help Chief Justice Roy Moore stand fast against the ACLU theophobes and the anti-constitutional heathens who abet it and sit on the 11th Circuit Court.

[Mr. Bird]

the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." As Moore has pointed out: He is not Congress, and no law has been passed

That, to me, is impenetrable logic. Unfortunately, logic is not an abundant trait in the SCOTUS.

[Semper Paratus]

Constitutionaly Congress can moot the crisis by restricting federal court jurisdiction in this issue.

[drjimmy]

He will defend the proposition that the God of Christianity is supreme over the laws of our nation and that we must acknowledge Him or perish.
Is this impenetrable logic as well?

[Cachelot]

Joshua 24:15 - And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve

The State has already chosen who it will serve and is promoting it here:

Religion

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[Joe Brower]

"One man with courage makes a majority." -- Andrew Jackson

[SLB]

Good link - thanks. The god of Islam is NOT the God I worship, never has been and never will be.

[Mr. Bird]

No, I don't think that is, but that isn't the issue. As a matter of law, I don't see how the federal government has the authority to order him to take down the ten commandments, any more than they would have the authority to demand he take down a plaque that said "World's Greatest Dad".

[squidly]

Much ado about nothing. It's a shame that both sides of this issue can't exert their energies more towards issues that actually matter. This is a window dressing issue, one that doesn't do much of anything to change anything about anything.

With that out of the way, I'm always ready to back a state government in a state vs. fed showdown, even moreso this time since I'm an Alabama native.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

People need to stick with 1st Amendment and State's rights arguments. When these "theocracy arguments" are used, support is lost and the people look like crackpots.

I have absolutely no problem with the Ten Commandments displayed in a court house in the context of them being historical and important to the history of law. I do, however, have a problem with them being displayed as if they are the "law of the land".

[Eagle Eye]

I do, however, have a problem with them being displayed as if they are the "law of the land".

So would most Southern Baptists who go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath.

[steve50]

Constitutionaly Congress can moot the crisis by restricting federal court jurisdiction in this issue.

Never happen. That would limit the power of federal courts and set up some interesting arguements on other jurisdictional issues. I don't think either party wants a precedent limiting federal courts to areas they are empowered to pass judgement on.

[lugsoul]

Impenetrable logic, except for the meddlesome 14th Amendment. There is not a learned judge in the nation, from Scalia on down, who believes that the states can violate the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment at will.

[lugsoul]

Actually, it is about Moore's ambition. His entire judicial career is founded on fighting with the feds about religious displays in his court. He wants this crisis, and he set it up. The district court judge stated that he could asked for a continued stay of the order pending SCOTUS review. Moore wouldn't ask for it.

[tbpiper]

there are 1,209 mosques in America,

GPS coordinates, anyone?

[Mr. Bird]

How does the posting the Ten Commandments violate the first? What religion does it establish, or even favor?

Again, the amendment reads "Congress shall make no law..." The judge isn't even a lawmaker. And if the posting of the Ten Commandments by any government official is tantamount to establishing religion, I'd like to ask which particular religion that would be? After all, the commandments are a pre-Christian artifact. Do they in some way establish Judaism?

[Tax-chick]

The state hasn't passed a law, either. This is about imposition of Federal power, what else is new?

Judge Moore's having the Ten Commandments up in the courtroom is a statement, in effect, "I'm a religious person while functioning in my official position." He could write those words on poster board and tape it to the wall, but it wouldn't be as decorative.

The opposition is aimed as his message, and in general at the presence of religious values in public life. This is the same fight we're having over the Federal judges - thought control by the secularists.

[upcountryhorseman]

States rights went down the tubes after the war between the states!