Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments
Sean Hannity Show ^ | 8-20-03 | Sean Hannity

Posted on 08/20/2003 1:10:06 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed

US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Ccommandments from Alabama courthouse.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: aclu; roymoore; scotus; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 801-809 next last
To: All
If the Ten Commandmennt is removed, this country belongs
to the Devil ! Where is Bush ? and the Republicans ?
We know the Demoncrats are anti-god, but I expected the GOP
to defend the Ten Commandment, but I was wrong...
They don't care...they just don't care..

The ACLU runs this country.
681 posted on 08/20/2003 9:13:44 PM PDT by Orlando
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
The United States Constitution simply is not concerned with micromanaging the behavior of the high officials of the sovereign states that formed it. Would you have federal marshalls incarcerate a Supreme Court Justice that evangelized in his conversations with employees during business hours? Just exactly where do you find support in the Constitution for doing that? If the federal judges want to run their ranks like the anti-Spanish Inquisition, stamping out evidence of Christianity whereever it is found, so be it. But there is nothing in the Constitution that gives them the power to take the Inquisition to every corner of the country.

Moreover, to demean posting the 10 Commandments as "promoting particular religious views" is nothing more than the product of the ignorance of history, and the positive forces that brought civilization to its peak. One expects political leaders to lead, and there is no greater display of leadership than taking a stand against the hijacking of the Constitution by anti-religious extremists.
682 posted on 08/20/2003 10:32:14 PM PDT by Iconoclast2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: Orlando
The ACLU runs this country.

That may change. The reign of the little tyrant might just about be at its end. I don't know by what means it will end, but I sense that it will end--if not everywhere, than at least in some places.

683 posted on 08/20/2003 10:37:37 PM PDT by Kevin Curry (Put Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court--NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
That may change. The reign of the little tyrant might just about be at its end. I don't know by what means it will end, but I sense that it will end--if not everywhere, than at least in some places.

I agree. I think once a certain generation is out of power, this country may return to its foundations in Christianity which is essential for our country to survive.
684 posted on 08/20/2003 10:48:20 PM PDT by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
..maybe it's necessary to be an attorney to understand the vast difference between those two arguments...

Uh huh.

My friend, I've got lawyers as hunting mates, as band mates. I've seen too often, first-hand, the analysis paralysis that comes from their being trained to see both sides of an argument. It's why the profession is where it is, today. My respectful recommendation to you is, put the sophistry and over intellectualising aside, and go with your gut feeling on who's right, in this. Cheers, By

685 posted on 08/20/2003 11:55:02 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
The Supreme Court seems to be the deadliest enemy the Constitution has.
686 posted on 08/20/2003 11:57:19 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

This sentence would have been understood by The Founders to mean "Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion." Over the years, the courts have taken great liberties interpeting what constitutes such a law, however, it seems clear to me that the original intent was to forbid the formation of a state church ala the Church of England. The Framers detested the idea that their new government might favor one church over another as was the practice under The Crown.
687 posted on 08/21/2003 12:13:52 AM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Let's hope that the bad guys have awakened the sleeping giant.
688 posted on 08/21/2003 1:33:34 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; rwfromkansas
Regarding established religion, congress shall make no law, and the Federal courts uphold congressional law and protect peoples' constitutional rights. That's in the 1st amendment. Congress does not have the power to tell a state official anything about establishment of religion, even the religion of secularism.

To put it bluntly, it's a state matter if a religious symbol is placed in a state building. Congress can make no law regarding that, and the Federal court is not a lawmaker. But, since leftists want a more powerful court, their professors have been calling the constitution a breathing, living, evolving creature that can be changed, like playdough. They bring up the previous abuses of the Constitution as examples that that it is not a contract.

"It's already been violated, so since it has been raped in the past, it is a whore. Why not violate the whore some more?" This mindset is demented. Our rights are the same as a woman raped in Kosovo. It's sick.
689 posted on 08/21/2003 2:05:30 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: cartoonistx; Orlando
I am going to jump in here at the end of a very long thread (I admit having not read every comment)

My overall understanding of the argument here is that we are upset at the Supreme`s interpretation of the law - in this case the first amendment. Since language is not mathematics and laws rely on langauge (which is fluid and changes meaning over time) laws must be interpreted and reinterpreted. This means things can change.

For the sake of consistency (and unlike the RATS integrity requires that we be consistent) I very much demand the removal of that statue in accordance with the law as intepreted by the highest court in the land.

Thereafter, we should use the debate and the current polictical majority to change the individuals who are intepreting the law.

If we do not uphold the law, as interpreted by our highest court, we have lost the basis upon which our Republic was founded. Just because I may disagree with the way a law was interpreted, does not mean I will, like Slick Willy, let this local judge once again dessicrate the law of the land.

Remove the commandments, but keep them in safe storage. Work on changing the intepretations and then bring them back. That is the way the system works. It may be slow and frustrating, but it does work.
690 posted on 08/21/2003 2:22:02 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments

Let's replace it with a Golden Cow.


691 posted on 08/21/2003 2:31:53 AM PDT by putupon (Only read headlines & captions or your head will get too fat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
One expects political leaders to lead, and there is no greater display of leadership than taking a stand against the hijacking of the Constitution by anti-religious extremists

...or pro-religious extremists.

692 posted on 08/21/2003 4:36:09 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster
I think the sentence means simply: (Congress shall make no law respection an establishment of religion) Congress shall make NO law REGARDING (that deals with the subject of) an (any) establishment (enterprise) of religion.

It would help to get webster's dictionary OF THAT Time and see why this would not be supportable.

Alt Reading A: Congress shall make no law that deals with the subject of any enterprise of religion.

Alt Reading B: Congress shall make no law that deals with an ESTABLISHING of a particular religion (as an official national religion.)

Either way, that isn't what's happened in Alabama.

By the way, I appreciate your open-mindedness.

693 posted on 08/21/2003 5:13:44 AM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Now you want something else to be the final rule, although you haven't articulated that yet that I've noticed.

PErsonally, I would like to see Congress limit the scope of courts from ruling on certain religious areas.

694 posted on 08/21/2003 5:48:33 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Blaine was the champion of nativist, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant prejudice," Jeffries said, "and his amendment was hostile to any use of government money for any religious use anywhere ever. It attempted to foreclose any possibility that Catholic schools would get public money. The public schools were Protestant and the Blaine amendment went so far as to say that the amendment was not meant to prevent the reading of the King James Bible in schools. Catholics opposed private reading of the Bible because they believed unguided reading could lead to error. So they didn't want their children in the public schools. The Blaine amendment was trying to preserve the informal establishment of Protestantism as the official American religion."

Dean John Jeffries - University of Virginia Law School

Blaine was not the author of the 14th Amendment

695 posted on 08/21/2003 5:56:39 AM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: cartoonistx
Judge Moore sees it a saying: Congress shall make NO law respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

There are different types of establishments. We can have an eating establishment, a printing establishment, etc. This uses the following definition of the word "establishment." (See red)

Main Entry: es·tab·lish·ment Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish-m&nt Function: noun Date: 15th century 1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution

In other words, the interpretation is this:

(paraphrase) "When it comes to any religious institution, enterprise, endeavor; the Congress can make NO law whatsoever."

As you can see, there is nothing grammatical or lexical that prevents that interpretation.

The only issue is what was the intent of the framers. Which definition (or both) did they intend?

Did they institute a HANDS OFF policy regarding any religious subject?

696 posted on 08/21/2003 6:14:28 AM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
I wonder if you would have said that to our founding fathers rebelling against a tyrannical govt. I bet you would not have said so. Hypocrite.

The Founding Fathers were rebelling against an unelected, unrepresentative system. Our system is not like that. People unhappy with the judicial system in this country have a whole host of ways to respond- constitutional amendments, electing a government that will appoint better judges etc. Refusing to follow the orders of a judge who was legitimately appointed by our system is tantamount to saying the entire system is illegitimate.

697 posted on 08/21/2003 6:27:55 AM PDT by Modernman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
. . . or pro-religious extremists.

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, this country was established and settled by gun-totin' Christian zealots.

On the other hand, in matters of government, the most notable atheist and pagan contributions inlcude the Soviet Union, Communist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Castro's Cuba, and Hitler's Germany.

You live and breathe free because of the efforts and sacrifices of gun-totin' Christian zealots. If you had been born in an atheist/pagan paradise at any time in the last century, you would have known gross deprivation, misery, and quite possibly an early liquidation courtesy of the great atheist/pagan state "newer and better proletarian/volk" extermination machine.

I only wish the ACLU and their siamese twin libertarian brethren would settle an isolated island together somewhere. Within a generation it would be "Return to Pitcairn Island" complete with mass murder and cannibalism.

On the bright side, none of the citizenry would have to suffer the intolerable and insufferable placement of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments in their courthouses and extermination camps.

698 posted on 08/21/2003 6:28:55 AM PDT by Kevin Curry (Put Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court--NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: Badray
You are putting an awful lot of (excuse the word) faith in an institution that has reversed itself 127 times beginning with the Warren court.

"The law must be stable, but it must not stand still."

Justice Roscoe Pound (1870 - 1964)

A Supreme Court that never reversed itself would be a meaningless institution.

699 posted on 08/21/2003 6:31:51 AM PDT by Modernman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The only issue is what was the intent of the framers. Which definition (or both) did they intend? Did they institute a HANDS OFF policy regarding any religious subject?

The intent was to disempower forever and always the federal government from interfering with states and individual citizens in matter of religion, i.e., no establishment of a national religion and no interference whatsoever at state levels and beyond in matters of religion.

700 posted on 08/21/2003 6:34:09 AM PDT by Kevin Curry (Put Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court--NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 801-809 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson