Judge: Monument must go

A last-minute request that the Ten Commandments shrine be allowed to stay put while a higher court reviews the case was denied Monday by a federal judge who accused Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore of pursuing a legal strategy bent on public confrontation.

The decision leaves intact the Wednesday deadline that Moore remove the 2½-ton monument from its prominent spot in the lobby of the state judicial building in Montgomery.

But Moore's attorneys responded quickly Monday afternoon and asked a federal appeals court to review the decision.

"We have filed something with every court we possibly can within the last two business days," said Phillip Jauregui, an attorney for Moore.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, in his 10-page order Monday, said Moore declined two earlier opportunities to keep the stone in place while the legal fight raged on.

Moore on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block lower court rulings that the marble monument is an affront to the Constitution's ban against state-sanctioned religion. He has said openly he will defy the order to remove it.

While Monday's ruling is a relatively small legal development, Thompson's opinion shines a light on Moore's strategy.

"It can be reasonably inferred from the Chief Justice's filings that he may actually want a direct confrontation between federal officials and himself personally," Thompson wrote in a footnote. He said he would "not be a party to any extra-judicial machinations of the chief justice."

Moore has championed the issue for years, saying the monument is a proper display of the moral foundations of American law.

Moore's lawyer disagreed with Thompson's assertions that the chief justice ignored previous opportunities to keep the monument in place during the appeal. Jauregui said a court order at the beginning of the case allowing it to stay was ended over Moore's objections.

"We are pursuing all of the available remedies so the chief justice is not placed in the position of having to choose whether to follow Judge Thompson or whether to follow his oath," Jauregui said.

Thompson could impose hefty fines against the state if Moore defies the order, a penalty he said Monday was designed to avoid the "public disruption" of a "stand in the courthouse door."

Ayesha Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is hopeful other state leaders will step forward to carry out the judge's order. "Everybody is hoping that other state officials rise to the occasion and save Chief Justice Moore from his own foibles and also save the Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars that they don't have right now," Khan said

SUMMARY: Chief Justice Roy Moore's Case Defending The Display Of ...

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.

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.
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.
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.
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

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.

HOSTETTLER STATEMENT ON COURT ENFORCEMENT FUNDING PROHIBITION

HOSTETTLER STATEMENT ON COURT ENFORCEMENT
FUNDING PROHIBITION