Constitutional Crisis in the Making?

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

[William Terrell]

Actually, there is only one country, and that is Alabama. But we love all our foreign buddies, too, with the exception of the district of columbia and its franchises.

[Woahhs]

Establishment clause referred to a state setting up an established church, nothing more. Every other interpretation is simple a few nabobs deciding what the rest of us peasants should be forced to do.

Yeah, but it is kinda fun to watch the histrionic hyperbole of some trying to convince the rest of us Justice Moore is a child-molester, and The Ten Commandments in the rotunda is the first step to another Spanish Inquisition ;)

[Tax-chick]

Why, thanks! Judge Moore may be a bit of a noodle (or may not) but to me that's beside the point. The point is the egregious misuse of the First Amendment by activist courts, and if Moore's challenge helps to restore the meaning intended by the Founders, best wishes to him.

[Woahhs]

Judge Moore may be a bit of a noodle (or may not) but to me that's beside the point.

I agree. But even if he is a bit of a noodle, he's a dedicated, principled noodle.

IIRC he's been fighting this same battle in one form or another since the 80s or 90s.

[Viva Le Dissention]

What your major problem is and why you can't understand that this IS about the 1st Amendment is that the Constitution doesn't say what you think it says. The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says.

Fact is, right now, the Supreme Court has stated that religious displays, such as this, violates the 1st Amendment. So it does. Period. End of discussion. Unless and until the Supreme Court decides to revisit Lemon, there's simply no debate here. This doesn't even come CLOSE to passing Lemon.

I hope this guy likes jail, and I can't wait to see him there. I eagerly await the day when I see marshals and bulldozers removing this plaque from the courthouse. As the 11th Circuit stated in its decision, the rule of law will prevail.

[Viva Le Dissention]

dedicated, principled noodle.

So was Stalin. What's your point?

This guy is an idiot, plain and simple. We are a country based on the rule of law. This nitwit thinks that just because he doesn't like some of the rules, he doesn't have to follow them. When this low intelligence creature became an attorney, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Nice to see that he's simply dismissed the constitution as unimportant tripe, which he can choose to follow if and when he ever feels like it.

[Tax-chick]

Just think what would happen if he put up a Confederate flag :-); suddenly the ACLU wouldn't love the First Amendment's "symbolic speech" penumbra quite so much!

If the voters of Alabama have a problem with Judge Moore, they can vote him (or whoever appointed him) out. If he's violated the terms of his office, the legislature can impeach him. This is Constitutional plan for dealing with government officials. The dictatorial rule of unelected judges is un-American.

[Woahhs]

So was Stalin. What's your point?

My point is when dissenters have to roll out hyperbole like allusions to Stalin, you know who was gushing about how good the Emperor looked before the little kid spoke up.

Doing a verbal kabuki dance, and calling the man names, does not hide the fact precedent is not automatically legitimate.

[Viva Le Dissention]

the fact precedent is not automatically legitimate.

If you're not on the Supreme Court, yes, it is.

Article VI is clear, not that the low intelligence creature seems to think the Constitution is worth the paper it's written on, but it states:

"This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby[.]"

[squidly]

In light of the fact this issue has VERY LITTLE chance of turning into an armed conflict while it is played out to the end: what issue would you suggest?

It would be a wonderful thing if a state legislature had the nads to outlaw abortion. Now THAT would be a meaningful issue.

[Woahhs]

If you're not on the Supreme Court, yes, it is

No, it isn't.

I think this is the part where you start calling me names for not agreeing with you.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I'm not calling you names, I just question your ability to read and process information.

What part of Article VI is unclear? The part where it says the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land or the part where it says judges in every state shall be bound by it?

[Woahhs]

It would be a wonderful thing if a state legislature had the nads to outlaw abortion. Now THAT would be a meaningful issue.

And you think that wouldn't turn into a firefight? No; this one is as good as you can get and still keep the peace.

[Tax-chick]

The part where it says the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land or the part where it says judges in every state shall be bound by it?

The part where it says (sic) that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Law of the Land, and that the actual text of the Constitution is irrelevant.

We're supposed to have the rule of LAW - legislated by elected representatives, codified, and clear to the citizens - NOT the rule of Sandra O'Connor's new-age opinion du jour.

[squidly]

And you think that wouldn't turn into a firefight?

No I don't. Even though SCOTUS would overturn the state's law, I can't picture the president sending in the troops to keep the abortion clinics open, at least I can't picture Dubya doing that.

We're not talking secession here, we're just talking state sovereignty on an individual issue.

[Viva Le Dissention]

The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says, for better or for worse. There has to be a referee, and that referee has to decide what the rules mean. There's no way around that.

Right now, our referee has stated that the 1st Amendment forbids religious displays such as this. Until the Supreme Court chooses to revisit Lemon and modify the rules, this low intelligence creature is bound by his oath to follow the rules laid out by the Constitution--which include, in this case, taking down that monument.

The man took an oath. His word is worthless. I think he's one of the most despicable men I've seen in a long, long time.

[Tax-chick]

Words fail me ...

[Woahhs]

My ability to read and process information is fine. It's my refusal to accept your line of reasoning you should wonder about. I have no intention of conceding anything.

I do find it interesting that in interviews with both Scalia and Thomas, both made the point that SCOTUS can rule whatever it wants, but it's up to the American people to accept or reject it.

You don't have to respect my view, but you do have to live with it.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yeah, obviously the concept of living up to your obligations and following the sacred oathes that a person has taken is beyond your grasp.

Fortunately, most of our Federal Judges understand this concept slightly better than you.

As I said before, hope he goes to jail, can't wait to see him there.

[Viva Le Dissention]

What am I reasoning? I'm not reasoning anything--I'm just quoting from the Constitution.

Do you dispute the text? Do you think it means something other than what it says?

Do you think when it says "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" actually means "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, except when they really don't feel like following the Constituion?"

Seriously, what is the point of having a Constitution if the members of the government aren't bound by it? Why have it at all if the judges are free to disregard it willy-nilly?