Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

AP on Fox News ^ | 8-21-03 | AP on Fox News website

[general_re]

But Lemon had nothing to do with the 14th amendment, so how's that going to help me?

Gotta connect the dots. Rulings that apply the First to the states via the 14'th, particularly the establishment clause, plus a ruling that lays out the standard for determining if something runs afoul of that clause. Put it all together, and what do you end up with?

Roy Moore in hot water, that's what...

[inquest]

What about being a religion for the purposes of the establishment clause? If government wanted to promote a lack of belief in a Creator, would that be constitutional?

[general_re]

You know as well as I do that "not necessarily" is a sophist statement.

I didn't produce the mess that is First Amendment law - don't shoot the messenger ;)

[jwalsh07]

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be applied to the establlishment clause as evidenced by the 16 attempts after it's ratification to amend the Constitution applying the First Amendment to the states. It failed every time, never got out of Congress.

[commonerX]

"If you define Communism, Socialism, Nazism, etc. as 'religions', you've more of less expanded the term religion to meaninglessness, to 'any set of beliefs'."

Communism, Socialism, Nazism are types of governments, they can still have a religious base upon where they draw there decissions.

The Difinition of Religion via Websters:
Reverence for the gods, holiness, in a system of religious belief.

A belief in a devine or supernatural power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s)of the universe. Expression of such belief in conduct and ritual.

Any specific system of belief and worship, often invovling a code of ethics and a philosophy.

Any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system.

The state or way of life of a person in a monastary, convent, etc.

Any object of conscientious regard and pursuit.

[inquest]

Rulings that apply the First to the states via the 14'th, particularly the establishment clause...

...are invalid if they can't explain their reasoning. If they can't explain how actions of the type Moore took violate the actual provisions of the 14th amendment - and none of the ones you cited even attempted to do so - then they don't have a leg to stand on. Of course, they have the raw force of the state, but I thought we were supposed to have "evolved" beyond the notion that might makes right.

[WOSG]

NO it doesnt "have to be". I send money to the Govt, they dont give me anything back except roads.

But Judge Moore is the administrator there and has the right and duty to manage the site. Why cant he dispense in a way that expresses a religious sentiment, so long as it is voluntary and non-coercive? And what if the money itself was not the issue, and was donated?

Keeping coming back to strawman and evading the questions shows imho that you really deep down AGREE that this is a harmless and non-coercive display. Your *feelings* of animosity for whatever reason are driving you to try to repress what Judge Moore is expressing, but logic would force you to conclude that indeed this is alike oher permissible and legal behavior. SO you strain at gnats.

The question you keep evading is "Who is harmed by this display?"

[general_re]

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be applied to the establlishment clause...

Possibly. Kind of moot - it applies now.

I still believe that Lemon will be revisited - it's rather sloppy, which makes it potentially kind of draconian in the wrong hands. But I don't think that whatever replaces it will go far enough to protect what Judge Moore wants to do. Then again, who knows how things will turn out 40 years from now?

[general_re]

If they can't explain how actions of the type Moore took violate the actual provisions of the 14th amendment...

I'm not sure I follow you - what are you looking for that you're not finding?

[lugsoul]

That question is fraught with other questions. If you wanted to go by original intent, then it seems clear that the protection of atheism was probably not intended. But the promotion of lack of belief could come into conflict with the free exercise clause. I would not characterize it as "religion" for purposes of the establishment clause.

[WOSG]

I think much of the prolem is that notion that recent judicial opinions (eg since 1963) is "First Amendment law" as opposed to more accurately "what Federal Judges have recently opined on the First Amendment".

Then you dont have to "own" that mess at all - it's a mess created by the Brennanite Liberal Judges!

[general_re]

I think much of the prolem is that notion that recent judicial opinions (eg since 1963) is "First Amendment law" as opposed to more accurately "what Federal Judges have recently opined on the First Amendment".

All court rulings have the force of law, even the ones before 1963. Some of those have been overruled, and are no longer good law, but in their day they were just as much law as the stuff we have now. I think your main objection is that you prefer the law as it used to be, rather than as it is now - a position not entirely devoid of merit.

[jwalsh07]

Then again, who knows how things will turn out 40 years from now?

Certainly, Reynolds and Everson after it used a President's letters as precedent. President's don't make laws, Jefferson did not author the First Amendment and Presidents letters to Baptist Ministers are not precedent for SCOTUS to interpret the law.

However, under that scenario President Bush's letter's to various ministers on faith based institutions could one day be cited as precedent for all sorts of mischief that would light the tails of the left and libertarian right's tails on fire.

Sad to sy, I don't have 40 years left but I'll chuckle now just in case it bears fruit.

The 14th amendment point may be moot but it is illustrative of how judges make law and "Walls Of Separation" based on whole cloth. Justice Black was a good wall maker but as a jurist swron to uphold the Constitution and the intent of it's authors, he sucked.

Amend it, don't bend it.

Sorry but I was listening to Reverend Al the other day. Couldn't resist.

[lugsoul]

I answered your question directly. Your efforts to ascribe other views to me fail.

You are the one avoiding questions. If this monument presents no constitutional problem, would it be okay to purchase it with taxpayer funds?

[lugsoul]

1017. That was the answer.

Your claim would be that the Establishment Clause is meaningless unless someone's free exercise was also violated. If that were the case, they wouldn't need both.

[inquest]

I'm looking for some kind of argument to show that the promotion of a religious view by a government official, at the exclusion of religious views from others, violates the actual words of the 14th amendment. Not this "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" nonsense, where we go from 14th amendment to free-exercise clause, and then from free-exercise clause to establishment clause, then from establishment clause to Roy Moore. I want to know how he violated the text of the 14th.

[WOSG]

I still believe that Lemon will be revisited - it's rather sloppy, which makes it potentially kind of draconian in the wrong hands. But I don't think that whatever replaces it will go far enough to protect what Judge Moore wants to do.

A point of agreement at last. I'd go further of course: Lemon is wrong. The 'intention' part of the test raises a *host* of problems, many of which we've discussed (Burkhas in or out). The other parts are wholly subject to abuse as you mention. But the key is - the Test rally has no basis in the Establishment clause text, in the original intent, or in the understanding of establishment of religion as held by the founders and Judges for the first 150 years of the nation's life. It's a Judicial act of legislation.

As for the 10 Commandment display, it should be permissible under any Judicial regimen that properly allows a place for official recognition in voluntary, open ways of religious sentiment or religious heritage on our culture. It's a monument of historical significance and does not coerce or require any set of beliefs by citizens. It should be as permissible as "under God" in the pledge.

I like the Scalia quote because he is basically accussing the court of overruling Lemon but keeping it around as a cudgel. It should and someday WILL be overturned. If it's not overturned, I fear for the Republic!

[general_re]

Justice Al Sharpton - there's a scary thought ;)

Certainly, Reynolds and Everson after it used a President's letters as precedent. President's don't make laws, Jefferson did not author the First Amendment and Presidents letters to Baptist Ministers are not precedent for SCOTUS to interpret the law.

Maybe. The Federalist Papers aren't law either, but they pop up in court decisions all the time. When it comes to original intent, you have to make do with some rather limited sources. We could scrap original intent as a guiding doctrine, but that's not quite where I think we want to go either. Not that original intent has ever stopped any justice from achieving his preferred result, of course...

[general_re]

I want to know how he violated the text of the 14th.

Who said he did? Did I? That certainly wasn't what I intended to intimate - Judge Moore has run up against the Establishment clause, not the 14'th. The 14'th is merely the vehicle that causes the Establishment clause to apply to him in the first place, the First Amendment being one of those privileges and/or liberties that the 14'th mentions people shall not be deprived of by the various states...

[general_re]

As for the 10 Commandment display, it should be permissible under any Judicial regimen that properly allows a place for official recognition in voluntary, open ways of religious sentiment or religious heritage on our culture.

"Voluntary, open" - see, we weren't that far apart after all ;)