Constitutional Crisis in the Making?

Earlier today, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the "stay" on the "order to remove" the Ten Commandments from the Alabama State Judicial Building. Now that the stay is lifted and the order to remove is in place, Chief Justice Roy Moore has been given fifteen days to remove the Ten Commandment, or else.

But he will not obey this order. To do so would be (a) to violate his oath of office to the Alabama Constitution which specifically declares the state laws to be under God; (b) to grant jurisdiction to a federal court which is acting beyond the scope of its lawful jurisdiction; (c) to ratify an unlawful and usurpatious application of the First Amendment; and most importantly (d) to concede that the God of Scripture is not supreme over the laws of the United States.

Because the Chief Justice will not obey this order, he may well be found in contempt of court and jailed or fined. (In the order handed down today, the Eleventh Circuit Court anticipates Moore's refusal to comply and threatens a $5,000 per day fine to be levied against the Chief Justice in his official capacity.) Alternatively, federal marshals could be sent to remove the Ten Commandments, although the recent movement of Congress to defund such an activity may put the brakes on this approach. There are other possibilities as well, but whatever the tactic of enforcement adopted by the 11th Circuit Court, one thing is certain: the stage will be set for one of the greatest constitutional crises in American history (second perhaps only to the crisis between Andrew Jackson and the Supreme Court over the establishment of an unconstitutional monetary system, and the crisis precipitated by the Lincoln Administration when it raised troops against Virginia).

In this case, a "constitutional crisis" means a showdown between competing governmental jurisdictions. This showdown is all the more likely if the Governor of Alabama sticks to his principles and supports Chief Justice Moore against the unconstitutional order of the 11th Circuit Court.

There are many Ten Commandment cases surfacing around the country. This one is different from most of the others for two reasons: First, the defendant in the case is not a school official or a lower judge, but the highest judicial officer of a state, the Chief Justice of a Supreme Court. Second, the Chief Justice has refused to employ the specious arguments which are so tempting to conservative constitutional attorneys intent on winning their cases at all costs. Such lawyers often employ enemy arguments based on enemy assumptions in the hope of getting a technical "win," without considering the long-term implications for our nation of reinforcing bad precedent. Such lawyers consider it a victory when the Ten Commandments are allowed to stand because they were able to squeeze such a practice into the "Lemon Test" or because the court found the placement of the monument to be of purely historic significance.

Justice Moore refuses to use such arguments. He has staked his case, his career, his very life on a simple proposition: The Lord God of the Bible who gave us the Ten Commandments is the only source of law and authority under which our nation and its judges may govern. It is this very God of Scripture to whom our Framers appealed when they drafted the charter documents for our nation. These same Framers gave us a Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of which makes it clear that the federal government may not interfere with the Church, nor prohibit any individual from freely exercising their religious beliefs.

To be precise, 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. He is simply acknowledging the source of law, God Almighty.

This is the type of argument that makes the judges of the land quake with indignation. They are the gods of the land and do not like to be challenged. Like Pharaoh before Moses, Eleventh Circuit Court Judge Myron Thompson has hardened his heart, mocked, belittled, and even taunted the prophet who stood before him. Thompson and the Republican-appointed judges who ruled against Moore have forgotten God's warning to them:

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. (Psalm 2:10-12)

The true mettle and faith of many professing Christians may soon be tested. Where will they stand? If the Governor of Alabama stands with the Chief Justice, God's Law will remain publicly displayed in the gates of that state. As the Chief Executive over the federal government, President Bush may also be presented with a decision of far-reaching implications: Enforce the federal court and stand with the 11th Circuit Court in their opposition to the display of God's Law, or declare it invalid and stand with those who revere the God of our Constitution. Either way, America will have a constitutional crisis which opens the door for what is, from a spiritual perspective, arguably one of the two or three most significant Supreme Court cases in history.

The United States Supreme Court has discretion as to whether or not to hear a case. But where a significant conflict exists between jurisdictions, it is virtually obligatory that the Court help to resolve the matter. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari to hear the case, you and I will be living spectators to an unprecedented event.

Picture this: For the first time since the Founding era, a state Chief Justice with faith in God Almighty will stand before the Supreme Court and exhort them of their duty to God, to man, and to the Constitution. 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. Perhaps he will quote Scripture. Perhaps he will exhort these judges to "kiss the Son, lest He be angry." But whatever happens, it will be a defining moment in our nation's history.

Once again, America will be tested. Where will we stand? You can decide to stand with Justice Moore by appearing for the national rally which will be held at the Alabama State Judicial Building on August 16, or simply by praying that the Governor will reject the authority of the 11th Circuit Court to enforce this order.

One thing is clear: God has raised up Chief Justice Moore as a Moses to the children of these United States. He stands immovable because his confidence is in the Lord. He knows that the Lord of hosts will do battle for us. The same God who opened the sea with the blast of His nostrils to free the children of Israel is the same God who will defend all those who diligently seek him.

Perhaps because of this Moses of the American court system, we will someday live to see the same principle God gave to Israel, realized in the life of our own nation:

Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. Therefore saith the LORD, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies: And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin: And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counselors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city. (Isaiah 1:23-26)

Oh, that God would restore our judges as at the first. Oh, that we would be called a city of righteousness! Do you believe in the power of God? Will you stand with Him and the prophets of righteousness that He raises in our own land? Who is on the Lord's side?

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.

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 ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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[.]"

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.