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

To: VRWC_minion
Its Moore's intent regarding the monument that is on trial.

In part. Both his intent and his actions are under scrutiny here. Rightly or wrongly, case law is fairly clear that the state cannot act in such a manner as to promote one sect or religion over another, nor can it act in a manner intended to promote one sect or religion over another - which law, BTW, clearly applies to Judge Moore, his claims of exemption notwithstanding. Needless to say, this involves examining the actor's intent, which the legal system does all the time in a variety of cases. As I pointed out elsewhere, I will go to jail if I intentionally shoot you, but I won't if I accidentally shoot you - or, at the very least, I will face much lesser charges in the second instance. But in both cases, you get shot either way - the only difference between them in the eyes of the law is my intent.

140 posted on 08/21/2003 7:56:45 AM PDT by general_re (A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]


To: general_re
Attempting to gadge the intent of a monument to see if its acceptable is nuts and doesn't make sense legally. Its too arbitary.
143 posted on 08/21/2003 8:59:35 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 140 | View Replies ]

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