United States v Roy Moore: The Most Important States' Rights Case in Decades

PatriotPetitions.US/Federalist.com ^ | 8-15-03

[Dog Gone]

That's true, but this Republic is only a couple hundred years old. I'm a lot more comfortable with a rule that keeps all religion out of the courtroom than one which allows the current favorite in.

[gdani]

Regardless of how we conjecture WHY someone - particularly a dead someone who cannot correct us if our conjecture is wrong - made a statement which was recorded, they still said it. On the record. For prosperity.

Copying and pasting quotes is as great a thing as the Internet. After we look up the relavant recorded quotes, we copy and paste them so as not to get the quote wrong.

Sure, they said it. But at this point we're often times left with a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking about what the person may have really meant. In relation to even the last 100 years, we unfortunately have precious little info about most of the Founding Fathers & what they really thought.

Cutting & pasting quotes left & right does little to educate and often times mis-educates because they are often taken so badly out of context & it paints a woefully inadequate picture.

It also doesn't allow for evidence that a person may have later changed their mind or evidence that politicians then -- just like now -- say one thing & do another.

I mean, if recordkeeping, etc in 2003 was the same as it was 200+ years ago, people in the year 2203 might be left with the impression that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a conservative

[Lurkd Long Enough]

"The Quran doesn't have a lot to do with western thought in general and American history in particular. "

That's all well and good, but consider what the consequences are if the supreme court sides with Moore. Do you honestly believe that the judgement by the current court will limit future "expressions of judges" to "icons of western thought and american history?"

Of course not.

[Windcatcher]

(shrug)

If people in CA want to dope themselves silly, I sure won't stand in their way. No better way to thin the herd of the stupid than to let them do it themselves. Put a cap on what kind of medical care they can receive if pot or other drugs are in their system, so we clean ones don't get saddled with their medical bills. Treat the substances as alcohol when dealing with liability. Get in an accident and you're on dope? It's *your fault*, regardless of the circumstances.

I think they should nix seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws too, for the same reason (if people want to cull themselves from the herd, let them). Legislate mandatory limited tort for injury cases where seatbelts or helmets weren't in use and cap medical care if necessary, but by God, people should be made to be responsible for *their own* actions.

What sickens me is if someone's kid wants to say The Lord's Prayer in school, well, then, it's off to war the Libs go. I call that H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

[cake_crumb]

"Sure, they said it. But at this point we're often times left with a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking about what the person may have really meant. "

Agreed...but Monday morning quarterbacking does not change the wording of the quote. If taken literally, as worded, and not subject to interpretation, the wording of the quote must stand, as is, on it's own.

Mondy morning quarterbacking of the Constitution has given us people who BELIEVE that the Constitution is an evolving document.

No one's going to believe Arnie's a conservative as long as that quote about being ashamed of being Republican during the impeachment trial goes down in history.

[bereanway]

Believe me, if the Islamicists get to the point where they're erecting Quran memorials in federal and state facilities neither you nor I will be very comfortable at all (nor will we be having this discussion).

[gdani]

If people in CA want to dope themselves silly, I sure won't stand in their way....

Well, that answers the question about drugs. How about gay marriage (if/when a state law gets passed) and assisted suicide? Again, those are both states' rights issues.

Maybe you are completely consistent across the board on states' rights. (I'll admit that I'm not & I think it makes me the same as about 99% of other people, whether they know it or not).

[tpaine]

The issue is about constitutional rights and states rights. Does the federal government, in this case federal courts, have the authority to over ride the constitution of a state.

The USSC's ~job~ is to decide on [interpret] the constitutionality of laws, whichever level [fed/state/local] of government makes them.

Judge Moore says no. I say no. It will be a very sad thing if the Supreme Court again disregards their mandate, the interp of the constitution, and rules on how they think things should be.

You agree that the supreme court can intrepret our U.S. Constitution law, but cannot judge upon those of the states?
Not so. States are bound to our supreme 'Law of the Land'. [see Art. VI.]

It will be time to look for a different place to live.

If states are allowed to violate our constitution, there would soon be no good place to go.

[Dog Gone]

It doesn't even have to be Islamicists. There is plenty of room in this country for the free expression of whatever religion anyone espouses. I just think that the government should shy away from it.

In fact, I think the Constitution demands that.

[cake_crumb]

What IS Moores's defense, if not on historical grounds? I've only read SOME of these cases. (obviously not the findings on this one) The successful ones were won on historical grounds.

All these suits are hard to keep up with.

[cake_crumb]

"It doesn't even have to be Islamicists. There is plenty of room in this country for the free expression of whatever religion anyone espouses. I just think that the government should shy away from it"

Yeah...there's one in Ohio where some teenager and the ACLU are suing for the right to put up a giant statue of a penis because the kid says he's started his own penis worshipping religion. Even though he's the only member of it, he says it's his right to erect his statue alongside the Ten Commandments.

This stuff is why I opt for the historical/cultural argument whenever possible.

[gdani]

Yeah...there's one in Ohio where some teenager and the ACLU are suing for the right to put up a giant statue of a penis because the kid says he's started his own penis worshipping religion. Even though he's the only member of it, he says it's his right to erect his statue alongside the Ten Commandments.

Actually, the suit in Ohio involves one guy in his 60s or 70s & the suit is to remove the Ten Commandments monuments totally, not to display his on the same grounds. A suit he filed after the school rejected his penis monument. (I have a feeling it was more to make a point instead of him being an actual....uh....penis-worshipper).

[Windcatcher]

I have no doubt that certain states would make gay marriage and assisted suicide legal. As long as I'm free to pick up and move, I don't have a problem with it. I know it sounds trite; it's indeed hard to pick up, change jobs, sell the house, etc., but if it's really important to you (or me) to bring kids up in a moral environment then I guess we have to act on our moral standards.

If I had kids and PA legalized gay marriage, I'd immediately start looking at jobs in NC, SC, AL, MS, etc. Personally I'm favoring SC. By the same token, however, I think states should be completely free to do whatever they wish vis-a-vis abortion. I have no doubt states like NJ would allow it, just as I have no doubt states like SC would like to outlaw it. I think the end situation would be that we conservatives would congregate in the South, and we'd prosper, too (being of stronger moral fiber and more productive).

[Victoria Delsoul]

Signed.

[cake_crumb]

"(I have a feeling it was more to make a point instead of him being an actual....uh....penis-worshipper)."

LOL...I sort of got that impression too, but you never know about people. The point of demanding he be allowed to erect his statue beside it was to have the Ten Commandments taken down. He found them offensive and didn't care what others thought. He therefore found an effective counter offense. (no puns intended)

Devious. Effective. Almost brilliant in a sophmoric way. That must be why I keep thinking it was a teenager.

[gdani]

I have no doubt that certain states would make gay marriage and assisted suicide legal. As long as I'm free to pick up and move, I don't have a problem with it.

Your views re: states' rights are the rare exception among many, including Freepers. (I don't mean that in a bad way, just an observation).

Which is why I tend to bring up the medicinal marijuana, etc examples whenever some people start talking about states' rights. Jim Crow laws are also a good example of throwing a firecracker into a discussion about states' rights.

[gdani]

Devious. Effective. Almost brilliant in a sophmoric way. That must be why I keep thinking it was a teenager.

Teenagers are a pain-in-the-ass but in a much different way. Their methods of being a pain-in-the-ass tend to not be so well thought out.

[Lurkd Long Enough]

Ah, but the firecrackers are what makes things interesting.

[cake_crumb]

"Teenagers are a pain-in-the-ass but in a much different way. Their methods of being a pain-in-the-ass tend to not be so well thought out"

You'd be surprised at how devious and well thought out the plans of teenagers can be. Sometimes, their plans are even successful.

[cake_crumb]

I thought Vermont already passed a law recognizing same sex civil unsions. Not legal marriage, per se, but civil unions giving almost the same benefits as marriage.

Which made me wonder why you kept asking that same question.