Ala. AG Won't Help Judge in Federal Fight

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

[Robert_Paulson2]

He said half went to experts and consultants,

---

I wonder how many of them worked for Coral Ridge Ministries or TBN associates of jay sekelow?

[.30Carbine]

2. ORIGINAL INTENT: THE FRAMERS DID NOT INTEND THE SUPREME COURT TO BE THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF ALL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

The doctrine of original intent holds that the legislature--not the judiciary--is the "predominant" branch5; that the judiciary was the "weakest" of the three branches of government.6 To the Founders, the opinion that the Supreme Court was the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional issues was "never proper,"7 and a "dangerous doctrine"8 which would lead to the judiciary becoming a "despotic branch."9 They were concerned that the federal judiciary would usurp all the powers from the States.10 This was the system of checks and balances implemented in the Constitution. Recall the Dred Scott decision in 185711 wherein the Supreme Court held that "a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a state of the United States." In other words, black slaves were not "persons" protected by the laws of the United States. In a collision of the federal branches, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and the Congress passed the 13th amendment. Lincoln disregarded the Dred Scott decision because he did not wish to resign the future of the country "into the hands of that eminent tribunal."12 In other words, a century ago, our leaders believed that both the President and Congress had the Constitutional authority to pass "constitutional" laws or orders without waiting for Supreme Court review. And the President and Congress could disregard or overrule Supreme Court decisions that were contrary to natural law, like the Dred Scott decision, by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and by passing the 13th Amendment, respectively. This was the original intent of the Framers concerning the checks and balances of our national government. Imagine the Dred Scott Court in the late 1800's declaring the Emancipation Proclamation "unconstitutional" or that the 13th amendment was not a "proper exercise" of Congress' powers.

Source

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'll put it like this - anything over a million for both the legal side and the expert side combined is so outrageous that it shocks my conscience - and that would cover everything. In his instance, I bet he has a small coterie of "oh so holy" hangers on that benefit handsomely from the extreme generosity of the State of Alabama.

[Robert_Paulson2]

from the worldnet daily article linked from : Linked from the ACLJ site (sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice)

"I believe the judicial building is the right place for such a monument," Novak told U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's court.

Novak went on to assert that the framers of the Constitution wanted to acknowledge as the source of all individual liberties the Judeo-Christian God.

"The blessings of liberty will not be present unless there is a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. Otherwise it is like a comet that blazes and is forgotten," said Novak, an expert on religion and culture. "The government should consistently note the source of that belief, because if it weakens in public it becomes ineffectual."

But Edwin Gaustad, a professor emeritus of history and religion at the University of California Riverside, disagreed, saying James Madison and Thomas Jefferson – the two men most responsible for the First Amendment – believed government and religion ought to be kept as far apart as possible.

"Chief Justice Moore was saying that it was written to protect the role of God in government, that the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect the government to make public proclamations on God," Gaustad said. "I disagree. It was to protect the religious liberties of the citizens of the new nation."

"If you consult any reputable historian, they would find it a gross misstatement of the purpose of the First Amendment," he continued. "It is to protect the religious liberties of its citizens, not promote a public piety."

(lots of the "true conservatives" around here don't buy this)MY COMMENT

Moore had the monument, along with other references to God, installed in the rotunda of the Judicial Building six months after he was elected chief justice in 2000.

Plaintiffs have testified earlier that Moore has made the Judicial Building more of a church than a courthouse.

During Gaustad's testimony, Judge Thompson asked him if it would help if "there was a disclaimer at the bottom of the monument saying, 'We're not compelling anyone to believe.'"

"The disclaimer would help. Moving it to private property would help more," said Gaustad.

Attorneys gave their closing arguments yesterday. There was no word on when a ruling was expected.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District 508 US 384 (1993)

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring in the judgment.

As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 586 -587 (1992), conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test," but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so. See, e.g., Weisman, supra, at 644 (SCALIA, J., joined by, inter alios, THOMAS, J., dissenting); Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 655 -657 (1989) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 346 -349 (1987) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 107 -113 (1985) (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting); id., at 90-91 (WHITE, J., dissenting); School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 400 (1985) (WHITE, J., dissenting); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 282 (1981) (WHITE, J., dissenting); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , [508 U.S. 385, 399] 134-135 (1977) (WHITE, J., dissenting); Roemer v. Board of Pub. Works, of Md., 426 U.S. 736, 768 (1976) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment); Committee for Public Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 820 (1973) (WHITE, J., dissenting).

The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. See, e.g., Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 679 (1984) (noting instances in which Court has not applied Lemon test). When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it, see, e.g., Aguilar v. Fenton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985) (striking down state remedial education program administered in part in parochial schools); when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely, see Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding state legislative chaplains). Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs "no more than helpful signposts," Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741 (1973). Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him.

For my part, I agree with the long list of constitutional scholars who have criticized Lemon and bemoaned the strange Establishment Clause geometry of crooked lines and wavering shapes its intermittent use has produced. See, e.g., Choper, The Establishment Clause and Aid to Parochial Schools - An Update, 75 Calif.L.Rev. 5 (1987); Marshall, "We Know It When We See It": The Supreme Court and Establishment, 59 S.Cal.L.Rev. 495 (1986); McConnell, Accommodation of Religion, 1985 S.Ct. Rev. 1; Kurland, The Religion Clauses and the Burger Court, 34 Cath. U.L.Rev. 1 (1984); R. Cord, Separation of Church and State (1982); Choper, The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment: Reconciling the Conflict, 41 U.Pitt.L.Rev. 673 (1980). I will decline to apply Lemon - whether it validates [508 U.S. 385, 400] or invalidates the government action in question - and therefore cannot Join the opinion of the Court today.

[.30Carbine]

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
Patrick Henry

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

SHUT UP AND SIGN THE PETITION IN POST 18

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'm sorry - this isn't Madagascar - I don't go for ancestor worship like you folks do. You want to try for something other than a trite sound bite?

[.30Carbine]

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
James Madison

[lugsoul]

How many threads is this that the Moore supporters have started today? 6?

[jwalsh07]

But Edwin Gaustad, a professor emeritus of history and religion at the University of California Riverside, disagreed, saying James Madison and Thomas Jefferson – the two men most responsible for the First Amendment – believed government and religion ought to be kept as far apart as possible.

Thomas Jefferson, as a state legislator, voted for laws respecting the establishement of religion.

Now what?

[.30Carbine]

[I]n 1776 immediately following America’s separation from Great Britain, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were placed on a committee to design a seal for the new United States. Both of them separately proposed featuring Moses prominently in the symbol of the new nation. Franklin proposed “Moses lifting his wand and dividing the Red Sea” while Jefferson proposed “the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.”
David Barton, Wallbuilders, from his Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments

[Theodore R.]

I said yesterday on a post here that Judge Moore would next week look over his shoulder and find few if any allies standing behind him. He will be forced to acceded to the national liberal behemoth. People are just not concerned about the Ten Commandments or anything else of a spiritual nature, I am afraid. It's all "what's in it for me" that motivates the public.

[Theodore R.]

No matter what liberal decision that Pryor makes in this case, he will still not gather the support of the Senate Democrats blocking his nomination. Surely, he is not so blind as to think that siding against Judge Moore in this case will endear him to Senators Leahy and Schumer.

[habs4ever]

Until I learned about his connections to some tv preacher hucksters, I may have agreed with your sentiments.Not any longer, when we also learn about the enormous financial costs incurred,by taxpayer Alabamans, for Moore's act of judicial activism.For such negligence, he deserves impeachment.

This case, IMO, is not about religion, but money, and political ambition, and good ole fashioned...graft.That's why it is on my radar screen.Not a thing to do with bashing christians, but bashing hucksters abusing power and taxpayers.

[cornelis]

want some, none, or a measure of separation between religion and law

What is the basis of just law?

[Robert_Paulson2]

I continue to read posts asserting that Jefferson was a Christian, not a deist, and a supporter of a state declared to be one that was Christian. We can play dueling quotes if you like, but I just don't see his LOVE of Christianity as the religion of our state. Perhaps we should consider that he was a politician that lied in his public pronouncements, but affirmed the truth of what he believed in his private conveyances. I do not believe that he supported establishing state religions.

---

"The hocus-pocus phantasy of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." - Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson s Works, Vol. IV, 360, Randolph's ed.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779.

"[The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Works, Vol. IV, p. 365, Randolph's ed.

---

I have only two simple questions for you that will end the matter of Jefferson and religion between you and I.

1. Do you believe Jefferson actually wrote and spoke these words?
2. Do you believe he meant them?

---

I think he both wrote/spoke those words and MEANT them. My guess is, you don't.

[Van Jenerette]

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." - Patrick Henry

I like this...I think I will post this in my college classroom!

[.30Carbine]

Senators Leahy and Schumer?

Don't get me going! ( ;

[.30Carbine]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963871/posts