Ala. AG Won't Help Judge in Federal Fight

AP via Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | August 15, 2003 | Bob Johnson

[Lurking Libertarian]

Ala. AG Won't Help Judge in Federal Fight By BOB JOHNSON Associated Press Writer

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP)--The attorney general and Alabama Supreme Court associate justices are distancing themselves from the state's chief justice, who has pledged to defy a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's judicial building.

Chief Justice Roy Moore said Thursday he had ``no intention'' of obeying the order to remove the monument from the building, where he moved it in the middle of the night in 2001. He has said that the Ten Commandments represent the moral foundation of American law.

Attorney General Bill Pryor said Thursday he would refuse to help Moore violate the court order, which could result in contempt fines of about $5,000 a day against the state. He declined to say what specific action he would take.

At the same time, Moore's colleagues on the state Supreme Court met to discuss whether they can invoke a state law that lets a majority of the nine justices overrule an administrative action by the chief justice.

Senior Associate Justice Gorman Houston said the justices ``will take whatever steps are necessary'' to make certain that the state of doesn't have to pay fines.

But the justices took no immediate action as Moore prepared to file his initial pleading Friday with the U.S. Supreme Court to stop any removal of the monument.

Meanwhile, attorneys suing to remove the monument filed a complaint Thursday with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission accusing Moore of violating judicial ethics by refusing to obey a court order.

Supporters cheered Moore's claim that a federal court doesn't have the legal authority to make a state judge remove the monument.

``It's so rare to find someone who would make a stand,'' said Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, a national association of churches and pastors who have supported Moore.

Pryor said he personally believes the Old Testament laws can be displayed legally but that doesn't change his responsibility as attorney general.

``I have a duty to obey all orders of courts even when I disagree with those orders,'' Pryor said in a statement.

Moore's declaration came six days before the courts' Aug. 20 deadline for the 5,300-pound granite monument to be removed from the judicial building rotunda, where it is in clear sight of visitors coming in the main entrance.

With Christian groups planning several rallies over the next week to show support of the monument, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Barry Lynn, accused Moore of creating a circus out of the Ten Commandments issue.

``If Judge Moore can't in good conscience comply with a lawful federal court order, he ought to resign,'' Lynn said.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Latest developments.

[pogo101]

Pryor is right, legally. (Not that Pryor's stance in refusing to help Moore will help Pryor with biased Senate filibustering Dems -- even though it exemplifies Pryor's "following the law even when he disagrees with its dictates.")

[Lurking Libertarian]

Bump.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

The U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama recently served me, as Attorney General, with a certified copy of the injunction against Chief Justice Moore in the Ten Commandments case. Like others, I have awaited the announcement of the Chief Justice regarding his compliance with the injunction. Today the Chief Justice announced that he will not obey the injunction.

Although I believe the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and that they can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the U. S. Supreme Court building, I will not violate nor assist any person in the violation of this injunction. As Attorney General, I have a duty to obey all orders of courts even when I disagree with those orders. In this controversy, I will strive to uphold the rule of law. We have a government of laws, not of men. I will exercise any authority provided to me, under Alabama law, to bring the State into compliance with the injunction of the federal court, unless and until the Supreme Court of the United States rules in favor of Chief Justice Moore." Statement of Attorney General Bill Pryor Regarding Announcement of Chief Justice Moore that He Will Not Obey the Injunction of the Federal Court

In September 1998, General Pryor established the Constitutional Defense Division. Since then, the division has handled the ever-increasing number of complex civil lawsuits filed against the State of Alabama, its agencies, and its officials. Litigation assigned to the division has included class actions as well as cases presenting complex issues of employment law, state and federal constitutional law, civil rights, and voting rights.

Among its goals, the division seeks to preserve the ability of the State to conduct its business in a fair and constitutional manner free from interference by activist courts, federal agencies, and private litigants. Alabama Attorney General: Divisions of the Attorney General's ...

ELEVENTH AMENDMENT COMMENTARY - Suits Against State Officials- 1537 The Constitution of the United States of America

Justice Souter predictably argued that federalism was best defended by the state attorneys general. Souter wrote, "Thirty-six of them and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners in these cases, and only one State has taken respondents' side." Id., at 1773. (That one State, on the respondents' side, by the way, was Alabama, represented by me….The Supreme Court as Guardian of Federalism

Constitution

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:

SECTION 1

Equality and rights of men.

That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

SECTION 2

People source of power.

That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

---

The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause' and the `freedom of speech clause' which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .'. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government. Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The tenth amendment reserves to the States respectively the powers not delegated to the United States Government nor prohibited to the States. Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003

The Supreme Court's federalism, like Gaul, falls into three parts. One set of cases and doctrines revolves around "moral federalism"--that is, the authority of state and local governments to regiment or, as the case may be, improve their citizens' social mores. A second set of cases governs the national entitlement state. The central question in this arena is the extent to which the private beneficiaries of the welfare state may sue in court to enforce federal rights, mandates, and policies against the states. A third set of cases and doctrines deals with the regulatory state--that is, the authority of the states and the national government, respectively, to muck around in the economy. The justices' record in those areas is mixed. With respect to moral and social questions, the states appear to enjoy judicial permission to regulate as they see fit--unless they offend Barbra Streisand's sensibilities (for example, on homosexual rights or the death penalty), in which case they run the risk of nationalist judicial injunctions. AEI - News & Commentary

UNLESS THEY OFFEND THE B.S. OPINION OF FEDERAL JUDGES WHO SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role. ...It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not." --Ron Paul 13 August 2003, Federalist No. 03-33, Wednesday Chronicle

• Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny
• It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable
• Congress Must Curb the Imperial Judiciary
• WallBuilders | Resources | Impeachment of Federal Judges

The following explains why judge Myron Thompson is wrong:

• Federalism And Religious Liberty: Were Church And State Meant To Be Separate?
• Reply To Judge Richard A. Posner on The Inseparability of Law and Morality
• Memorandum of Law on the Constitutionality of Posting the Ten Commandments in Public Places

The electorate must demand that Congress act in accordance with the testimony presented in Congress, the Court, and the Constitution

...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.... The judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

...It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. ... from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78

Why bother voting when the judiciary can knock down laws like so many bowling pins? The Case for Impeaching Rogue Judges & A Republic, If You Can Keep It

[xzins]

invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God,

Those words are at the beginning of the constitution of Alabama.

In this case, I agree with Moore. If that's in his constitution and he's sworn to uphold it, and it's not been declared unconstitutional, then he has written authorization to formally recognize God.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

I have a deep and abiding belief that there is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about the public display of the Ten Commandments and disagree with the court’s mandate to remove them. The fact that the Ten Commandments are chiseled into the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet, according to this ruling, cannot be displayed in the Alabama Supreme Court is a direct constitutional contradiction.

It is a sad commentary on the current culture when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public and, at the same time, my cabinet and I have been criticized for gathering in my office and holding voluntary Bible study before work hours. Holding Bible studies and reflecting upon the very foundation of our moral traditions should be encouraged in today’s society, not discouraged.

I have talked with Attorney General Bill Pryor and he shares my determination to pursue every course of legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of all Alabamians, including Chief Justice Moore, while, at the same time, ensuring that the rule of law prevails.

Chief Justice Moore is filing extraordinary petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the right way to challenge Judge Thompson’s ruling. I call on the Court to act quickly to consider these filings." Governor's Press Office - State Capitol ^ | August 14, 2003 | Gov. Bob Riley

 

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Watch for the howls - LOL.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Separation of Church and State, Barry Lynn

Take a slow boat to COMMUNIST CHINA.

[xzins]

The U.S. Supreme Court must either decide that section of the Alabama Constitution is now unconstitutional which is has never before been declared to be, even though constitutions must be submitted for approval prior to statehood; or it must decide that Moore is recognizing "God" who is recognized in his constitution.

My personal opinion is that Moore pursues a valid course.

I also think it's viable to pursue the 10 commandments on display as a matter of free expression, provided that any other form of expression is permitted in government buildings. That is, one cannot arbitrarily provide all expression EXCEPT religious expression. That violates both equal protection and free exercise.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

In September 1998, General Pryor established the Constitutional Defense Division. Since then, the division has handled the ever-increasing number of complex civil lawsuits filed against the State of Alabama, its agencies, and its officials. Litigation assigned to the division has included class actions as well as cases presenting complex issues of employment law, state and federal constitutional law, civil rights, and voting rights.

Among its goals, the division seeks to preserve the ability of the State to conduct its business in a fair and constitutional manner free from interference by activist courts, federal agencies, and private litigants.

Perhaps not the wisest use of state money. They're spending a lot to ram down a social agenda.

True conservatives scream bloody murder when liberals set up special divisions to cram through liberal social views.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Gimme your best exit strategy for Moore, short of a gun in the mouth...

That one's easy - cruising a highway rest stop in a drunken stupor after being removed from the bench......

[pogo101]

When I say in #2 that Pryor is legally correct, I'm referring to his stance on Moore's refusal, pending Moore's appeal (if one is heard) to SCOTUS, to remove the monument. I hope no one, by contrast, is challenging Moore's right to make that appeal. It's just the "what do we do with the monument in the meantime" part that is the legal sticking point. Barring a stay from the 11th Circuit or an extraordinary writ pending appeal from SCOTUS, the law generally requires an lower-court injunction to be obeyed until a higher court vacates it. (And usually, contempt fines, etc. for disobeying an injunction will be upheld EVEN if a higher court later determines that the injunction should never have been entered.)

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So, where did $125,000,000.00 in legal and expert witnesses go, who got it, who was ensuring how it got spent?

[Robert_Paulson2]

I wanna know where that 125 large.large came from to begin with?
is that the benjamins moore has received, or claimed as an expense?

maybe bob larson will cast the devil out of pryor on televsion or something?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Moore claimed that as an expense. He said half went to experts and consultants, and the other half to the legal end. Thats enough to pay 62 lawyers a million dollars each, and to pay 62 experts a million dollars each.

All of that came from the taxpayers of Alabama, if you believe Moore.

[jra]

bttt

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

For the last decade, The Federalist has followed the judicial tenure of Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who was sued by the ACLU in 1995 -- to no avail -- because he displayed the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opened his court with prayer. Two years ago, when this outstanding Patriot was sworn in as Alabama's Chief Justice, he declared, "God's law will be publicly acknowledged in our court. [It is my duty] not only to maintain the honor and integrity of the court system and the judicial branch, but to restore and preserve the moral foundation of our law."

Chief Justice Moore not only keeps the Decalogue in his courtroom, but in 2001 he installed a monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Justice Building featuring a relief of the Ten Commandments, engraved with quotes from our Founders. At the dedication of that monument, Justice Moore declared, "To restore morality we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs. From our earliest history in 1776 when we were declared to be the United States of America, our forefathers recognized the sovereignty of God."

That, of course, prompted a federal lawsuit by the ACLU claiming violation of the First Amendment's so-called "separation clause" (based on the erroneous assertion that Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists proclaimed that the Constitution ensured all manner of "separation of church and state").

Despite the fact this case has received only marginal media attention, we believe it is the most important test of federalism in decades, not only of federalism as detailed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but also of the First Amendment's restriction that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which has been stretched by Leftjudicial activists beyond recognition. This case should be of utmost interest to any American who is a Christian and/or a constitutional constructionist.

Defending the protection of the state from federal jurisdiction in this case, Justice Moore testified, "The basic issue is whether we will still be able to acknowledge God under the First Amendment, or whether we will not be able to acknowledge God." But U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson would have none of that and ordered the monument removed.

Justice Moore took his case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, protesting that "...Federal district courts have no jurisdiction or authority to prohibit the acknowledgment of God that is specifically recognized in the Constitution of Alabama," but Judge Ed Carnes upheld Thompson's ruling. Carnes wrote: "Any notion of high government officials' being above the law did not save [states' rights proponents] from having to obey federal court orders, and it will not save [Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore] from having to comply with the court order in this case. ... If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail."

Apparently, Judge Carnes relied on the same adulterated version of our Constitution used by Thompson. Our copy still says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which applies to, well, Congress, not Chief Justice Moore, who was elected to state office by the people of the state of Alabama. The only parties in this case involved in "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion are the ACLU and their Leftjudiciary minions.

Chief Justice Moore has appealed the 11th Circuit Court ruling to the Supreme Court, declaring: "We must defend our rights and preserve our Constitution. ... To prohibit the acknowledgment of God upon Whom our justice system is established is to undermine our entire judicial system. We will defend this display in the judicial building vigorously. It is an acknowledgment of a sovereign, holy God Whose laws superintend those of man. We will not retreat from that position, because it is true."

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has noted previously, "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights."

Ironically, in the Supreme Court, the Ten Commandments are etched in a marble relief above the Justices' bench, for indeed they are the moral foundation of American law.

Thompson, meanwhile, renewed his demand that Chief Justice Moore remove the monument by August 20 and threatened "substantial fines against Chief Justice Moore in his official capacity, and thus against the state of Alabama itself, until the monument is removed."

Stepping into the fight in late July, Congress voted 260-161 for an amendment to defund any effort by U.S. Marshals to remove the monument. "None of the funds appropriated in this [bill] may be used to enforce the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit," said Rep. John Hostettler.

The foundational question all constitutional constructionists should be asking: On what legitimate constitutional grounds can a federal judge lodge demands, punishments and fines against chief judicial officers in the several states -- or does the federal bench now assume that the states are nothing more than administrative agencies of the central government -- rather than federally separated governments subject to their own constitutional sovereignty?

To assess the importance of this case, consider this evaluation from 11th Circuit Judge Carnes in his ruling against Chief Justice Moore: "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years."

We encourage every American Patriot, who believes as our Founders did that our Constitution should not be subject to the vagaries of an activist Leftjudiciary, to sign an open letter in support of Chief Justice Roy Moore's defense of religious liberty and states' rights.

Link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter

[.30Carbine]

``I have a duty to obey all orders of courts even when I disagree with those orders,'' Pryor said in a statement.

Pryor apparently sees America as a Judical Oligarchy rather than a Constitutional Republic.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- passed yet?
Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003 -- passed yet?

---

Those of us who wish to see a nation joined with religion, will want to do what these laws submitted to the house propose.

Those of us who don't, won't.

This will be played out in the Courts, and the judge will either get his way, be forced to obey, or resign and take a "christians and the law" program on TBN...

As long as it does not violate the lemon test, it will be allowed. And if it is found to violate that test, it will be removed.
Some folks don't like the lemon test.
Some folks would like to see it enforced in every religious state on the planet, starting with the arab/islamofascists.

A monument to the Koran would not fly at this juncture, in Alabama. Neither I suspect, would a posting of the 600 plus prohibitions of the Torah.

I beleive the monument might stay on a "historical law document" basis, if the judge were to allow other items as above. He won't. I think the issue is much like the cross on mt. soledad in san diego. To keep it up there, the governmental property had to be ceeded to a non profit org.

I would like to see a poll amongst freepers, to clarify how many of us want some, none, or a measure of separation between religion and law... perhaps the powers that be would allow it, for curiosity sake. I am guessing about 50 percent are against religion state assocation, 32-35 clearly for it, and the balance, somewhere in the middle...