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

Skip to comments.

Ten commandments in AL: Midnight Removal Deadline Remains, Says People For the American Way
releases.usnewswire.com ^

Posted on 08/20/2003 3:36:00 PM PDT by chance33_98

Supreme Court Denies Judge Moore Plea For Stay; Midnight Removal Deadline Remains, Says People For the American Way

8/20/03 5:37:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk, State Desk

Contact: Peter Montgomery of People For the American Way, 202-467-4999

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a last-minute plea by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to stay a federal court order requiring the removal of a massive Ten Commandments monument Moore installed in the rotunda of the state's judiciary building. The high court's decision not to intercede today does not necessarily indicate whether or not the justices will agree to review the case in the future.

"It is time for Roy Moore to end his constitutional game of chicken and agree to uphold the rule of law," said People For the American Way Foundation President Ralph G. Neas. "If he continues to deny the authority of the federal courts, other Alabama officials must take action. It is outrageous for the state's chief justice to declare himself above the law."


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: athiests; pfaw; purge; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last
"It is outrageous for the state's chief justice to declare himself above the law."

But ok for Clinton to do it...

1 posted on 08/20/2003 3:36:00 PM PDT by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
If he continues to deny the authority of the federal courts, other Alabama officials must take action.

What gives a federal court authority over any state official?

2 posted on 08/20/2003 3:37:17 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
And when do you suppose they'll come cart away the sculpture of Moses and the Ten Commandments from the U.S. Supreme Court building?

3 posted on 08/20/2003 3:38:03 PM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
I wish someone would put a web-cam on the monument so we can all watch the fun tonite.
4 posted on 08/20/2003 3:38:46 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Free Miguel, Priscilla and Bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Exactly. I would LOVE to see O'Connor try to explain why it's not OK for Judge Moore but it's perfectly fine for the Supreme Court.
5 posted on 08/20/2003 3:40:27 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Are we conservatives, or are we Republicans?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
And when do you suppose they'll come cart away the sculpture of Moses and the Ten Commandments from the U.S. Supreme Court building?

And don't forget the beautiful paintings in the US Capitol Building: Washington Praying at Valley Forge, Pocahontas Being Baptized. And the rotunda of the Capitol has George Washington ascending into Heaven.

6 posted on 08/20/2003 3:42:11 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Free Miguel, Priscilla and Bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
"People for the American Way"

What a collosal joke, in very poor taste!

7 posted on 08/20/2003 3:42:31 PM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
See this thread for pictures and descriptions of the three Moses and Ten Commandments displayed at the U.S. Supreme Court. I'd sort of like to know why it's ok at the USSC, but not in Alabama?
8 posted on 08/20/2003 3:43:05 PM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Not only that, but all the crosses and Stars of David in the Arlington National Cemetery! Last I heard, the ACLU wants all crosses off of public land.
9 posted on 08/20/2003 3:43:38 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Go Fast, Turn Left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
do you know where I could get pictures of these pieces of art?
10 posted on 08/20/2003 3:44:24 PM PDT by MatthewViti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Exactly. I would LOVE to see O'Connor try to explain why it's not OK for Judge Moore but it's perfectly fine for the Supreme Court.

The 11th Circuit's decision in this case (written by a Reagan-appointed judge) explains in some detail why Moore's monument is different from the Supreme Court's and from another 10 Commandments display which the 11th Circuit upheld two weeks earlier.

11 posted on 08/20/2003 3:44:39 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
These people won't be satisfied until they've completely outlawed anything even hinting of Christianity--and yet, the 10 Commandments are the very basis for many of our laws today. What ever will they do, to erase that, I wonder?
12 posted on 08/20/2003 3:45:54 PM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
What gives a federal court authority over any state official?

Article VI (the Supremacy Clause), and the Fourteenth Amendment, for starters.

13 posted on 08/20/2003 3:46:26 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MatthewViti

The Apotheosis of Washington
Constantino Brumidi
Fresco
1865
Rotunda

14 posted on 08/20/2003 3:47:42 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Free Miguel, Priscilla and Bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket

Baptism of Pocahontas
John Gadsby Chapman
Oil on canvas, 12' x 18'
Commissioned 1837; placed 1840
Rotunda

15 posted on 08/20/2003 3:49:28 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Free Miguel, Priscilla and Bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Ignorance and Cowardice.
16 posted on 08/20/2003 3:50:03 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Not exactly. State officials are not part of the Federal Government. They appear no where on a Federal Government organizational chart. They may not be conscripted to do the Federal Government's bidding. See New York V United States, 504 US 144.
17 posted on 08/20/2003 3:51:14 PM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
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.


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

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

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

18 posted on 08/20/2003 3:52:21 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Real soon, it will be illegal to teach your children any religion, mention anything religious in public, or so much as say you are of a certain religion...just like in the old Soviet Union.
19 posted on 08/20/2003 3:52:26 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (Helping Mexicans invade America is TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Oh, and the Washington Monument has the Latin phrase "Laus Deo" (“Praise be to God”), inscribed on the capstone at its highest point
20 posted on 08/20/2003 3:52:47 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Free Miguel, Priscilla and Bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 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