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
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:
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.
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
The following explains why judge Myron Thompson is wrong:
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
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.