Constitutional Crisis in the Making?

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

[Woahhs]

I'll admit, I can't see Dubya doing that myself. But I didn't think I'd see what happened with Elian Gonzalez either. Besides, I don't necessarily think it's exclusively government troops that would fight to keep the clinics open.

[Tax-chick]

Well, you win the "last word" prize from me, sir or madam. Enjoy!

[Woahhs]

And if our governance was as cut-and-dried as you propose, there would be not one law infringing on the private ownership of firearms in the entire country.

I do not accept your "throwing myself on the mercy of the court, because I'm an orphan now that I've killed my parents" argument. Do I dispute the text? No. Do I think it means something other than what it says? No, I think it means something other than what YOU say it says. Simple as that.

[William Terrell]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ."

Let's temporarily substitute "A legislative body" for "Congress" to make this apply to the states. Now, how does Moore, a state supreme court justice, erecting a monument that has the 10 commandmnets on it violate this clause? Logically, how does it even fit? Show me the legal opinion that applys this clause, standing alone, as it logically must, to the action of a judicial officer. The "lemon test" presuposes a fit.

Do I hear you saying that anything the Supreme Court says regarding the Constitution stands, in spite of any reasonable interpretation thereof? You agreee with Roe v Wade, and the second legal tender case, I take it? You factor not the packing of the court by a president and a compliant Congress to establish a socialism into your opinon?

There is no rule of law when the written law can be preverted as a govenment body so wishes. There is only the rule of man, which the People ordained and established this country for the precise purpose of avoiding.

Your lack of knowledge of our form of government scares the piss out of me. If you want rule by a king or an asistocracy then why don't you move to a country that has one or the other?

[Woahhs]

I'm always amazed at the zealotry of "constitutionalists" defending precedent, but who ignore the fact there isn't a peep in the Constitution establishing judicial review...least of all the magic wand variety we've had to suffer.

[William Terrell]

Sadly, it seems several possibilities for perversion were not considered by the Founders.

[c-b 1]

Actually, it is about Moore's ambition.

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

My opinion differs slightly.

I have studied Judge Moore's accomplishments, I have heard him speak, I met him, I spoke with him. He is one of the most humble men I ever met. His ambition is to serve God.

This is about our God Given Rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. Judge Moore is fighting the erosion of our rights, the Ten Commandments is the issue that was presented him by the ACLU.

[lugsoul]

Which of your rights is eroded by not having a 2 1/2 ton 10 Commandments monument in the State Judicial Building?

[wcbtinman]

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

If you look closely, you will see that, in various permutations, the Ten Comandments are the law of the land.

[lugsoul]

Since you turned it into a joke, I guess you concede the point that English common law is NOT the only historical antecendent of our law. French, Spanish, polyneisian have all played a role in this country and are reflected in today's laws. Ever take a look at Hawaiian property law? It ain't English, that's for sure. And there was a Spanish court of law in Santa Fe before there was ever an English court in the colonies. Louisiana? Hell, they still call a lien a "privilege."

[William Terrell]

French, Spanish, polyneisian have all played a role in this country and are reflected in today's laws.

Ok, show me.

Does this mean you're fully supportive of using foreign law, custom and precedents to judge legal issues in the US?

I thought you were making the joke.

[lugsoul]

Show you? Are you kidding? Don't you know that Louisana law is derived directly from the Napoleonic Code? Do you really want proof of that? Have you never heard about the native ownership laws in Hawaii? Do you really believe that the 200 plus years of Spanish rule in New Mexico left no legal vestiges? (An aside - the longest continuously used government building in the U.S. is in... Santa Fe.)

If you are really curious, I'd be glad to fish around for some example, but this stuff is fairly common knowledge.

[lugsoul]

First, despite all the Ginsburg brouhaha, no one has said they are using foreign law as precedent. And all of the people who complained about the discussion of foreign law in Lawrence must've just missed that it was presented in direct response to the arguments in Bowers to the effect that the laws of OTHER countries meted out punishment for sodomy - so the court replied to Bowers.

Do I support using it as precedent? No, and it is not used as precedent. Do I think that relevant legal traditions have nothing to do with with our laws and should be completely avoided? No. You yourself stated that reference to Blackstone was appropriate because our common law is founded in English common law. And for those states where that is true, it is appropriate. For interpreting Louisiana law, the French civil code is equally appropriate. In interpreting tribal law on sovereign reservation matters, Blackstone doesn't really carry much weight. I agree that Blackstone and other historical legal foundations are appropriately referenced. But English common is not the only antecedent.

[Woahhs]

Which of your rights is eroded by not having a 2 1/2 ton 10 Commandments monument in the State Judicial Building?

Which of your rights is eroded by leaving it there?

[jimt]

So it's cool if a Satanist judge puts up a monument glorifying Satan? Or if a Hindu judge puts up wall hangings glorifying Shiva, the destroyer?

I think Judge Moore is a nut and his expensive piece of statuary inappropriately placed. The first four commandments are explicitly religious in nature and have nothing to do with law, unless we're going to jail people for working on Sunday, or for using the Lord's name in vain.

[lugsoul]

Well, I've addressed that for three days here. Let me give a very abbreviated answer, then answer my question.

If I walked into the court to have my case heard, and the building was dominated by a Christian monument and the Chief Justice was proclaiming that we are all governed by a Christian God, it is not that big a deal. I worship that God, as well. But if someone who doesn't represent that God comes before the Court to have his case heard against a Christian opponent, would he not be justified in thinking that the other side was the "home team?"

Our Courts are supposed to be about impartial justice. A court that openly favors the views of PART of our population does not give the appearance of impartiality.

[Woahhs]

You're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to have the state prevent you from being offended.

[Woahhs]

But if someone who doesn't represent that God comes before the Court to have his case heard against a Christian opponent, would he not be justified in thinking that the other side was the "home team?"

No.

[Woahhs]

then answer my question

It further establishes the tyranny of judicial activism and the magic wand variety of judicial review.

[jimt]

You are not entitled to have the state prevent you from being offended.

So I take it you're all right with Judge Padmahni's "All Hail to Shiva!" wallhangings in her courtroom, correct?