Chief Justice Roy Moore's Case Defending The Display Of The Ten Commandments In A Public Building

Court Watch at Eagle Forum ^ | August 15, 2003 | Virginia Armstrong

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

The U. S. Constitution's guarantee against an "Establishment of Religion" is not violated by the placement in the Alabama State Judicial Building's rotunda of a 2 ½ ton monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments and a variety of other quotes. To the contrary, interpretations of the Constitution by a U. S. District Court in Alabama and a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals do violate the Constitution. The monument was designed and commissioned by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in recognition of the moral foundation of the law.

1. This suit should never have gone to court. The plaintiffs complained that they found the monument "offensive," that it made them feel like an "outsider," that Moore was "using religion to further his political career," that Moore was guilty of a "shameless political use of religion," etc. None of these highly personal, subjective feelings qualifies as a "case or controversy"--the only type of action that Article III of the Constitution allows federal courts to hear.
2. There is no "law" involved in this case. A "law," by definition, commands, prohibits, or permits a specific action. Chief Justice Moore's installation of the monument does not command, prohibit, or permit any action by any party.
3. There is no unconstitutional "establishment of a religion" involved in the monument's creation and placement.

   1. The Ten Commandments as displayed in the Judicial Building are memorialized as a fundamental source of American and English law and Western civilization. A "law" and its "source" are not the same thing. The Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of our law are supported by a variety of large, influential religious groups--evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, orthodox Jews, and Mormons (for example). If the Ten Commandments per se constitute a "religion," which of these "religions" is "established"?
   2. Interrelationships between law and non-legal values, reflected in the Ten Commandments, are inevitable. "Without religion, there can be no morality: and without morality there can be no law" (top-ranking British judge Alfred Lord Denning, 1977). Reflecting this truth, the U. S. Supreme Court has correctly ruled that "This is a Christian nation" (1892, 1931).
   3. A "pluralism" of fundamental religious and legal values can extend only so far. Both federal courts ruling against Chief Justice Moore argue for religious "pluralism"--asserting a "history of religious diversity" in America (the Court of Appeals) and branding any effort by law to recognize a single definition of "religion" as "unwise, and even dangerous" and as "tending towards a 'theocracy'" (the District Court). But the courts call for the impossible. "Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and if they are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, they will be smuggled in surreptitiously and often unconsciously. Values are always in real or potential conflict. And the state inevitably favors some values over others" (American historian James Hitchcock, 1981). Thus, American law can be based on the Ten Commandments or on a non-theistic value foundation. There is no alternative. And if public acknowledgement of the former constitutes "establishment of religion," so does the latter.
   4. All of the Ten Commandments have a secular significance to the law. Even the first four Commandments, most directly involving Deity, reveal that there are a Higher Authority and Higher Law to which human law must be submissive--the only sure safeguard against tyranny by human government.

4. There is an unconstitutional establishment of religion created by the two federal court decisions.

   1. The District Court's assertion that the state "draws its powersfrom the people, and not God" is a religious position (an anti-theistic one). This assertion throws the power of the court behind a religious view in violation of the Establishment Clause.
   2. Both federal courts base their conclusions on the mythical "wall of separation" doctrine. This concept is not in the Constitution's text, is not supported by American history and tradition, and calls for the impossible (see #3b. and #3c. above). Because the mythical "separation" doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in 1947--156 years after the Establishment Clause was written, and therefore has no fixed content--federal courts have had to constantly re-define and create "tests" of "establishment." The most notably is the Lemon three-pronged test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971). Since 1971, various Supreme Court Justices have exposed the true nature of this myth and the "tests" it has spawned, describing them as "all but useless," "mercurial in application," "unhistorical," "non-textual," and productive of a body of Establishment Clause law that is plagued with "insoluble paradoxes" and "unprincipled, conflicting litigation." Despite these fatal flaws in the "separation" myth and Lemon test, both federal courts utilize them as the basic standards for finding against the Chief Justice and the monument.

In a 1798 letter to American military officers, President John Adams declared that "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other." Chief Justice Roy Moore's installation of the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building recognizes this truth. Chief Justice Moore does not violate the U. S. Constitution. The two federal courts who have ruled against him do.

 

 

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

HOSTETTLER STATEMENT ON COURT ENFORCEMENT
FUNDING PROHIBITION

By U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, July 2003

U.S. Rep. John Hostettler delivered the following statement regarding his amendment to prohibit federal funds for the enforcement of a federal court ruling that ordered the Alabama Supreme Court to remove a monument depicting the Ten Commandments:

"Mr. Chairman, in Glassroth v. Moore, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution by placing a granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State judicial building in Montgomery, Alabama.

"In the court's words, 'The rule of law does require that every person obey judicial orders when all available means of appealing them have been exhausted.' In this statement, Mr. Chairman, the court plainly shows that it believes itself to be the chief lawmaker whose orders become law.

"But, in fact, Mr. Chairman, this is inconsistent with both the Constitution in Article I, Section 7, and, in fact, Federal statute, which says that the United States Marshal Service shall execute 'all lawful writs, process, and orders' of the U.S. district courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal and the Court of International Trade.

"In reality, Mr. Chairman, the founders of this great nation foresaw this problem and wrote about it. And when they developed our form of government, they said this, according to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:

"'Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that in a government in which they are separated from each other, 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 capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, 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.'

"Mr. Chairman, given the fact that the judiciary has neither force nor will, it is left to the executive and the legislative branches to exert that force and will. We have heard tonight that the executive branch wants to argue the Newdow case that was spoken of earlier and may hear that the executive branch wants to argue in favor of the display of the 10 Commandments in that case.

"We will allow, therefore, the executive branch to leave these decisions in the hands of the judiciary who, a few years ago, concluded that sodomy can be regulated by the States, but most recently said that sodomy was just short of a fundamental right that is enshrined in our United States Constitution.

"But the framers of the Constitution never intended for the fickle sentiments of as few as five people in black robes, unelected and unaccountable to the people, to have the power to make such fundamental decisions for society.

"That power was crafted and reserved for the legislature, and one of the mechanisms that was entrusted to us was the power of the purse. Mr. Chairman, time and again I am sure that our colleagues are asked about ridiculous decisions made by the Federal courts, and many of us say that there is nothing we can do.

"Mr. Chairman, today, we can do something. We do not have to put our faith in the faint possibility that some day five people in black robes will wake up and see that they have usurped the authority to legislate and will constrain themselves from straying from their constitutional boundaries.

"Mr. Chairman, it might be suggested that we do not want this legislation to disrupt the judicial process in the interim between the Circuit Court of Appeals process and the Supreme Court.

"It is not my intention to do that tonight. In fact, I welcome the highest Court's review of this decision; and I say tonight that if they get it wrong, I will exercise the power of the purse again and defund the enforcement of that inane decision. Mr. Chairman, today is a great opportunity for us to learn the powers of the legislature vis-a-vis the judiciary.

"After this vote, Mr. Chairman, and the vote to de-fund the Ninth Circuit's decision to effectively remove the phrase 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, our constituents will ask us, 'Congressman, do we, your constituents, have a voice in these most fundamental decisions, and we do not need to wait on a new Supreme Court Justice who may or may not, today or tomorrow, inject common sense into the decisions of the Supreme Court?'

"Mr. Chairman, we will be able to tell them, 'Yes, you do have a fundamental say.' And it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I have offered this amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Act.

"This legislation is where we find any funding in any executive agency that would enforce the 11th Circuit's judgment in this case. My amendment would prevent any funds within that act from being used to enforce that erroneous decision in Glassroth v. Moore. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to withhold funds from any enforcement action related to a federal appeals court's decision that the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama judicial building is unconstitutional."

---

By a vote of 260-161, lawmakers last week OK'd an amendment by Rep. John N. Hostettler, R-Ind., to prohibit any money in the bill funding the Justice Department from going to enforcement of the controversial decision. House rebuffs court on 10 Commandments

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States secures rights against laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the United States Government. Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003

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

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

According to The Birmingham News, seventy percent of respondents support Chief Justice Moore's granite display, which includes the Ten Commandments, and statements from our nation's Founding Fathers that document America's Christian heritage. Only twenty percent disapprove of the monument's display, which was privately funded by Chief Justice Moore, and cost the taxpayers of Alabama nothing. The other ten percent were unsure. Tom Gordon, "Poll: Most back Moore on Ten Commandments," The Birmingham News, September 15, 2002

Police would not estimate the size of the crowd, which appeared to be several thousand people, possibly as many as 10,000.

After the rally hundreds of people walked several blocks to the judicial building, where they lined up to view the monument inside. Some debated with about 35 atheists holding a counterprotest across the street. Thousands Rally In Support Of Ten Commandments Monument

 UPDATE: The open letter to Justice Roy Moore received 33,000 signatures(as of 19Aug03) since it was launched on Friday! 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 in this landmark case. http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter

 

 

[varina davis]

BTT

[RonF]

"Thus, American law can be based on the Ten Commandments or on a non-theistic value foundation. There is no other alternative." Gee, and what about all those religions that are not based on the Ten Commandments? Not to mention that there were numerous Deists among the Founding Fathers, who believed in God but believe that His will was communicated to men not though revelation but through observation of natural law.

Which is not to say that Christianity didn't have an enomous influence on English and American law. But to say that there's no alternative between Christianity and non-theism is absurd.

A granite monument to the 10 Commandments in the rotunda of a Federal Court building smacks of "establishment", although it's not like the government building churches or paying the clergy of a particular denomination. But if I were Buddhist or Hindu, I'd wonder what kind of justice I'd see in the courts inside. Seems to me like the judge wants to promote the influence of Christianity in the courts over other religions, which is something the government should not be doing. Something like this belongs on private land, not government property, in my view.

[RonF]

I have another question. Much is made in the above statements that a) the judge spent private money on this, so this is O.K., and b) the intent of the amendment to the Judiciary act is to keep the executive branch from spending money to enforce the court order to remove the monument.

Does that mean, then, that it's O.K. if a group came up with private money to have this monument removed? After all, it wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything, and it would be in accordance with a legal court order.

I would, of course, want to hold off until all of the judge's appeals were exhausted.

[concerned about politics]

The plaintiffs complained that they found the monument "offensive,"

I find the entire anti-Christ religion offensive; child sacrifice for the goddess (A woman that kills her child through abortion believes that her child will be released back into the cosmic force. The aborted child that is released into the cosmos is believed to be awaiting reincarnation. The soul of the child is believed to be simply "free floating" while it awaits a willing mother.
Erecting an altar for an aborted baby; burial; bleeding the blood from an aborted baby onto the earth in honor of "mother earth;" the sewing of baby garments; renewed devotion to a living child in memory of the aborted child; planting a tree; and visualization are just a few of the post-abortion rituals associated with abortion reparation.
Most post-abortion rituals involve a purifying of the aborted woman. During this ritual "cleansing" the aborted woman is encouraged to imagine her aborted child's soul ascending into the cosmos to share in the cosmic life force. Female friends may participate in the ritual cleansing by offering affirmation in the form of poetry or song. A woman will often bless herself (remember she thinks she is a goddess) after her abortion to regain a pre-abortion state of grace. The purification, the freedom from guilt and sin, that post-aborted women know they need is an inner purification)

I'm offended by earth worship (At the Rainbow Gathering we see body painting artists, merchants and craftspeople with colourful clothing, jewellery, pottery, books, and sculptures. We see juggling, sword dancing, and magical rituals. Anything goes at gatherings as long as you respect nature and other people.
Gaia, the Goddess of Earth; The whole planet Earth behaves as if it is a single living organism. Here they celebrate the four elements of Earth, Water, Air and Fire:
Earth - The Body-love Mud Dance. A young woman covers her body with mud and then washes it off in a clear river.
Water - Tranquil Float. A young woman floats nude down a tranquil river on an air mattress.
Air - Ritual Dance. A naked woman dances in a meadow of flowers.
Fire - Symbol of Life and Energy. A body painting in a pattern of flames)

I'm offended by the homosexuals refering to themselves as equal. In my opinion, they're people with a sick butt fetish. How is a man lusting after another mans anal cavity "normal?"
I think most people could think of much better uses for their tax money than building a monument to dead homosexuals and IV drug users in the form of a pagan god of sodomy, an Aztec God called Quetzalcoatlonce ,who worshipped with human sacrifice. AIDS is killing millions, just as their God requires.

I think the monument holding the 10 Commandments of decency and morality is a heck of a lot safer, as well as more human oriented, and historically correct, and not paid for by tax dollars, than the gods and goddessess used by the pagan left. If the left can worship their demons on public land, the judge should be able to worship the Great I Am as well. Equal protection under the law.

[RonF]

Here's an interesting quote from Judge Moore:

We must acknowledge God because our constitution says our justice system is established upon God. For (the Federal judge ruling against him) to say "I can't say who God is" is to disestablish the justice system of this state.

Judge Moore worries me with this statement. My copy of the Constitution mentions God (or any deity or supernatural force) exactly zero times. I sure hope he reads his other law books a lot more closely than he seems to have read the Constitution. Seems to me he's more worried about his religous ideas than he is about accurately interpreting the law. Not a good thing for a judge.

[RonF]

The District Court's assertion that the state "draws its powers from the people, and not God" is a religious position (an anti-theistic one).

Nonsense. This is not a religous position, but an accurate reference to the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note it says "We the People". The People established the Constitution, not God. The Constitution was founded on the principle that it is the rights of the governed to determine the powers of a government. There is no mention that those powers come from God. To try to twist a reference to the Constitution into a religious position is quite devious.

[RonF]

On one of my earlier posts: I edited out the fact that the quote I supplied about God being in the Constitution came not from anything you posted, but from an interview he gave on NBC's Today Show. Sorry.

[hocndoc]

First, Judge Moore decorated an Alabama State building, not a federal building.
Second, if I were Buddhist or Hindu, I'd hope that the Judges paid special attention to "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

[hocndoc]

I believe that the Judge was speaking of the Constitution of the State of Alabama.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

American Family Association - AgapePress news Supporters came in cars, vans, and buses from various states across America to take part in the Saturday morning show of support for Moore and his stance. James Jones drove more than 11 hours from New Braunfels, Texas, for the two-hour rally. He says Christians cannot afford to be silent on the issue.

[concerned about politics]

Judge Moore worries me with this statement. My copy of the Constitution mentions God (or any deity or supernatural force) exactly zero times.

He's referring to his state Constitution.

[concerned about politics]

There is no mention that those powers come from God. To try to twist a reference to the Constitution into a religious position is quite devious.

What about the rights endowed to us by our creator? It doesn't say givin to us by Darwin.

[Southack]

"A granite monument to the 10 Commandments in the rotunda of a Federal Court building smacks of "establishment"... - RonF

No, it doesn't smack of "establishment", nor is it located inside a Federal Court building.

The 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law..."

Well, Judge Moore isn't Congress and he's made no law respecting any establishment of religion.

Moreover, the 1st Amendment says that government is prohibited from interfering with anyone else's freedom of religious expression, even when they are government employees and even while they are on government property (e.g. crosses, crescents, and stars on grave markers).

And such displays aren't just in Alabama's Supreme Court Building, either...

http://architecture.about.com/library/graphics/uscourt01-at.jpg http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg

Moses holding the Ten Commandments sculpted in Italian marble inside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.

Moses as sculpted into the Chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.

[onedoug]

It's not religion. It's Art!

[concerned about politics]

Moses holding the Ten Commandments sculpted in Italian marble inside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.

Moses as sculpted into the Chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.

We should sue to have them torn down. That ought to shut them up.

[hocndoc]

Hou about that! I don't think I've met Mr. Jones, but I'm proud of him.
And, we have something in common: I hitched a ride with the Bexar Co Republicans for an 11 hour drive to Albuquerque early this month to tell the Dems to behave.

[concerned about politics]

The judge could retaliate and do that, you know. If he can't have stuff in his room, neither can the SC or congress. "Fair is fair."

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

It's not religion. It's Art!

And if it were homoerotic art, the sodomites and their Democrat acolytes would be _________________ to prevent removal.

[jwalsh07]

btt