Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

He's not "deciding" anything. He's simply acknowledging a fact, namely that the ruling is illegal. And he's acting accordingly. It's not only his right, it's his duty.

It's no different from when a legislature passes an unconstitutional law. We are not bound to obey it, simply on their sayso. The law has to be constitutional before we are bound by it. The same goes for court injunctions. Otherwise, courts could amend the Constitution at whim.

He's simply acknowledging a fact, namely that the ruling is illegal.

There is no such "fact", only Judge Moore's opinion. While he is certainly entitled to that much, the fact is that we have a procedure for determining the constitutionality of some thing or another, and that process has determined that his display violates the Constitution. Now Judge Moore would simply like his personal opinion of the Constitution to override the legal authority of those who have the duty to make such rulings.

And if you let him, Roy Moore will have successfully carved out another privilege that I highly doubt he is willing to extend to those who come before him in the courtroom - the privilege of determining for oneself which court rulings one does and does not have to obey. A nice gig if you can get it, but I am rather skeptical that Judge Moore would look kindly upon me if I baldly applied what he is doing for himself to my own case as he pronounced a ruling in it. "Sorry Judge - your ruling is unconstitutional, so I'm not going to obey it."

Or perhaps not. How much luck do you think I would have in front of Judge Moore with that one?

There is no such "fact", only Judge Moore's opinion.

Of course there's a fact. I think we had this discussion on another thread a few months back where I believe you agreed that the Constitution's meaning is fixed, and not a subjective matter. Thus, it's meaning is a matter of fact, not opinion. Thus, one can only ascertain its meaning; one cannot "decide" it.

So either the 11th Circuit court is correct in its interpretation, or incorrect. If the latter (and all evidence points in that direction), then their ruling is objectively of no validity.

I am rather skeptical that Judge Moore would look kindly upon me if I baldly applied what he is doing for himself to my own case as he pronounced a ruling in it. "Sorry Judge - your ruling is unconstitutional, so I'm not going to obey it."

Or perhaps not. How much luck do you think I would have in front of Judge Moore with that one?

Irrelevant. If he issued an illegal order to you, you have the right and duty to disobey it, regardless of how he feels about it.

So either the 11th Circuit court is correct in its interpretation, or incorrect. If the latter (and all evidence points in that direction)...

So you assert. But the fact of the matter is that it is the 11'th Circuit who is empowered to determine it, not Roy Moore. In fact, Roy Moore swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the authority of the 11'th Circuit - how quickly that is discarded when it proves inconvenient!

Or perhaps not. How much luck do you think I would have in front of Judge Moore with that one?

Irrelevant.

Entirely relevant. Given that we have abandoned the notion of the "divine right of kings" these days, if Roy Moore has the right to choose which court orders he will sanction, then so too must I have that same right, and so must every other citizen. While I admit that this particular conception of "ordered liberty" is chock-full of liberty, it seems a bit light on the "order" part...

But the fact of the matter is that it is the 11'th Circuit who is empowered to determine it, not Roy Moore.

Wrong. The 11th Circuit court is empowered to make rulings based on the actual meaning of the Constitution, not on the basis of anything else. No one is legally obligated to obey an illegal ruling.

In fact, Roy Moore swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the authority of the 11'th Circuit

He swore no oath to uphold the authority of any court. You're correct that he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that oath is now in conflict with the ruling that was handed to him.

Given that we have abandoned the notion of the "divine right of kings" these days, if Roy Moore has the right to choose which court orders he will sanction, then so too must I have that same right, and so must every other citizen.

I didn't say that Moore or anyone else has the right to choose what orders he wants to obey. I said that he - and every other citizen - has the right and duty to disobey illegal orders.

No one is legally obligated to obey an illegal ruling.

No one appearing before the court is legally empowered to make a unilateral determination of same, either - why aren't you worried about that part of the law?

He swore no oath to uphold the authority of any court.

The existence and authority of the 11'th Circuit is a direct result of Article III of the Constitution, the Constitution being that which Judge Moore swore to uphold. Does Judge Moore's oath not apply to Article III for some reason? Are there other sections his oath doesn't cover? And does Roy Moore get to choose for himself which sections those are?

I didn't say that Moore or anyone else has the right to choose what orders he wants to obey. I said that he - and every other citizen - has the right and duty to disobey illegal orders.

If you can point out to me how the practical effect of effecting the first proposition is in any way, shape or form different from the practical effect of the second - particularly when we simply let people decide for themselves which court orders are "legal" - then I'm most interested to hear it. What it sounds like to me is that, so long as I wrap myself in the Constitution, I can avoid any ruling I don't like.

[No one is legally obligated to obey an illegal ruling.]

No one appearing before the court is legally empowered to make a unilateral determination of same, either - why aren't you worried about that part of the law?

They're "legally empowered" to acknowledge reality. In any case, it doesn't really matter whether or not they've unilaterally determined anything. The law is the law, regardless. All they're doing is following it.

The existence and authority of the 11'th Circuit is a direct result of Article III of the Constitution, the Constitution being that which Judge Moore swore to uphold.

Yes it is, and nowhere in that article are federal courts empowered to rewrite the Constitution. As I said above, they're empowered to make rulings based on the Constitution.

If you can point out to me how the practical effect of effecting the first proposition is in any way, shape or form different from the practical effect of the second - particularly when we simply let people decide for themselves which court orders are "legal" - then I'm most interested to hear it.

First of all, again I didn't say they could decide for themselves which orders are legal. The orders are either legal, or they're not legal. If they're not legal, then people have the right to disregard them.

As for the question about "practical effects", it's of course true as a practical matter that if you disobey a court order, legal or illegal, the courts have ways of making life unpleasant for you - that is, unless you can convince enough of your fellow-citizens that the order is, in fact, illegal.

They're "legally empowered" to acknowledge reality. In any case, it doesn't really matter whether or not they've unilaterally determined anything. The law is the law, regardless. All they're doing is following it.

Perhaps I should be clearer - Judge Moore is in no way legally empowered to second-guess a higher court. Why doesn't that concern you? Because you happen to agree with him on this issue? What about when someone else makes the same claim about a court ruling you happen to like?

As I said above, they're empowered to make rulings based on the Constitution.

Including, I presume, the 14'th Amendment and the Establishment Clause. Or is that an exception to Judge Moore's oath too? ;)

First of all, again I didn't say they could decide for themselves which orders are legal. The orders are either legal, or they're not legal. If they're not legal, then people have the right to disregard them.

The reason we have courts in the first place is because, every once in a while, there is a disagreement about what is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. If the law and the Constitution were never the subjects of disagreement, we wouldn't need courts at all - unless, that is, you are offering your services as a sort of Delphic Oracle about legality and illegality. And as much as I respect you, I think I will have to decline...

So then we swing into what appears to be you wanting to turn that difference of opinion into an affirmative defense that empowers people to act in any way they see fit, regardless of what the courts say about it - I apparently don't get to decide which court orders I obey, I just get to decide which are "legal", and then presumably disobey the "illegal" ones. And it is a decision, unless you are claiming that your insights are always and invariably the correct insights - in which case, I look forward to how you will deal with all those usurpers who are claiming that their special insight is better than yours wherever you happen to disagree :^)

But as I said, I don't see any practical difference whatsoever in terms of the effects of those two positions. The first one says that I'm simply not going to obey any laws or court rulings that I don't like, whereas the second says that I'm not going to obey any laws or rulings that are "illegal". And who gets to determine their illegality? Why, I do, of course. And the practical effects are exactly the same in both cases - in both cases, you allow the individual to decide for themselves which laws they will or will not obey. And that's not order, or republic, or liberty - it's simply anarchy.

...the courts have ways of making life unpleasant for you - that is, unless you can convince enough of your fellow-citizens that the order is, in fact, illegal.

Which brings me right back around to an earlier point - why bother having courts or laws or Constitutions in the first place? I'll just take a poll about whether something I want to do is "legal" or not, and then we can skip this whole mess right from the start....

""These are not religious icons. Good grief - it is a piece of stone with the Ten Commandments written on it. How does that mean the government is saying all should believe the Ten Commandments? Why are you so afraid of the mention of God? You are probably not even in Alabama and probably would never even see those pieces of stone. They are the historical basis of our judicial system. To take them out and ban them in reality is taking God out and banning Him. Why?""

If it isn't a religious icon why are you so bothered by its removal. I am not afraid of the mentioning of god I just don't want the government endorsing it, by placing religious icons in government buildings it is. If the ten commandments are bases of our laws why isn't adultry illegal. The bases of our laws is something know as common law and our for fathers ability to read human nature. They understood that a religious government can not ensure freedom for all.

""There has been absolutely no attempt to make others believe anything - but only the attempt to have the freedom to keep the ability to mention God, display where we wish, do as we wish.""

This is first step in making a religion an offical government one. No one ever said you can not mention god anywhere you want. If you want to go into a government building and yell "I love God" more power to you. I just don't want the government doing it. Would you be OK with Penticles, pentigrams, muslim and any other religious icon being placed in the same building? If you had to go into a courthouse, say in Ohio, and it that courthouse where references and symbols of Wicca would you be alright with that or would you feel intimidated that you might not be treated fairly.

""This judgement was made by a federal judge who ignored the Alabama constitution and made a ruling that then is supposed to supercede the constitution. Now, the judge is supposed to ignore his vows and follow this law based on nothing to get you the outcome you want""

No state constitution can supercede the federal constitution.

""No, afraid not. I don't care about whether the Ten Commandments are displayed there - but I care about the federal government telling us where we can mention God, how we practice our holidays, how we are to teach our children that they cannot give a friend a Bible at school - it must be "outside" school. Religious freedom? Why are we to give up our religious freedom?""

I don't believe the government can tell anyone where they can and can not mention god. As far as one student giving another a bible, as long as the recepient doesn't have a problem with it why should anyone else. I would have a problem with a government official doing it.

""In the last few years we have lost the ability to mention God or Jesus in a school function, we have lost the ability to have a prayer at sports events, our schools can have any weird kind of club they want, but nothing with Jesus or God mentioned in it. A prayer club? Forget it. What message does that send to those children believing in God? What about their feelings?""

As an individual or as a group you should have the right to mention god anywhere you like as long as you are not making others do it. I don't see anything wrong with a pray group at school either as long as the school doen't resrict other religions from doing it. I've been in many school clubs and the school never had a problem with them as long as they are not breaking the law or forcing others to attend. A private club is a private club but government buildings are not private all must use them.

""will speak of "we" if I want, because remember - I still have a few places I can use freedom of speech.""

You can use the word "we" but you are one person so the proper word is "I" when saying something that you believe. If you feel the need to say "we". Then I can say that we feel that you are wrong and should not be allowed to put religious icons in government buildings.

""Or, am I to ask you what I can say now too? Man, you anti-religious crowd are demanding people aren't you?""

You have no idea what religion I am.

""Besides, I am not just talking about me - I am talking about those that think like me - and, in fact, that is the majority in this country.""

Apparently not that is why the ten commadments are to be removed in Alabama and in Delaware. My wife is a teacher and she can not mention god or any religious idol unless it is in reference to history or other religions.

The reason we have courts in the first place is because, every once in a while, there is a disagreement about what is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional.

Yes, and it is their job to resolve such disagreements. That's why the agents of the state are predisposed to bring their rulings into force. But that doesn't change the fact that the law itself has a fixed meaning, and that therefore it's not whatever they say it is, even if they are actually able to enforce their (per)version of it.

I apparently don't get to decide which court orders I obey, I just get to decide which are "legal"....

You still misunderstand. An illegal order is illegal regardless of whether or not you've "decided" this fact.

I'll just take a poll about whether something I want to do is "legal" or not, and then we can skip this whole mess right from the start....

You'd have to do considerably more than take a poll. You'd actually have to get people to face the consequences of helping you out, knowing that there's no guarantee that their efforts will be successful.

What's the difference between that and civil disobedience against a law they simply don't like? Not much, except that they're doing so secure in the knowledge that the law is on their side, even if the authorities are not. The purpose of having law is to provide a common standard of reference regarding what we've agreed to allow and not allow.

Interesting.

Let's see how we got here.

Me: "You're obviously a prime example of someone who's hostility towards the ACLU is born out of ignorance. The ACLU has been the leading advocate for, and defender of, freedom of religious expression."

You: "Provide examples".

Me: "For examples of the ACLU defending freedom of religion, take a peek at post #46."

You: "I feel I can safely disregard anything you say, just for your love of the ACLU."

Thank you for proving my point :-)

You're obviously a prime example of someone who's hostility towards the ACLU is born out of ignorance.

Nah, my hostility's born out of hostility.

This would go a lot easier if you would just admit I'm right ;)

But that doesn't change the fact that the law itself has a fixed meaning, and that therefore it's not whatever they say it is, even if they are actually able to enforce their (per)version of it.

What good is knowing that there's a fixed meaning if nobody agrees with you about what that fixed meaning is? I note that, despite the apparent fixity of God's Word, there are thousands of different sects, each one differentiating itself from the others by some interpretive exercise thereof. And if there is no unity there, how can we hope to do better with man's word? Shall we simply declare Judge Roy's notion of its meaning to be the correct one and impose it on everyone else? Or are we better off settling for some sort of resolution mechanism, as limited and imperfect as it may be?

An illegal order is illegal regardless of whether or not you've "decided" this fact.

Except that there are just so darn many versions of what's legal or illegal to choose from. I could just do what Judge Moore did, and argue that I don't have to obey someone else's notion of it, but I don't think the results of that are likely to be appealing to most people.

The purpose of having law is to provide a common standard of reference regarding what we've agreed to allow and not allow.

That, and and an extra bonus insofar as the law gives us all something new to argue about. It's a win-win ;)

What good is knowing that there's a fixed meaning if nobody agrees with you about what that fixed meaning is? I note that, despite the apparent fixity of God's Word, there are thousands of different sects, each one differentiating itself from the others by some interpretive exercise thereof.

Fortunately, the Constitution was written in somewhat more precise language than God's Word. It was also written in 200-year-old English, not 5000-year-old Hebrew. As an added bonus, we have additional writings from those who wrote it, to give us some additional insight into what was meant, whereas we have little objective insight into the mind of God. We mostly just have to rely on our own faith to flesh that out.

But all that aside, whether we're talking about the Word of God or last week's zoning ordinance, there exists an actual fixed meaning to the law in question, whatever that meaning is. I assume we can agree on that much.

From there, it's simply a matter of whether a ruling from a judge is in line with it or not. If it is not (not "if someone has determined that it is not", but if it is not), then the ruling is invalid. Maybe people won't know right away that it's invalid, but that doesn't in any way alter the fact that it is.

From there, it's just a matter of whether you agree that the ruling is not in accord with the law. If you do, then naturally you're going to conclude that Justice Moore is obligated to follow it. If you don't, then...I'm not quite sure what you'd say. What if you could be convinced that the 11th Circuit court is wrong? Would you still be arguing that he's obligated to follow a ruling that you know for a fact is unconstitutional? Would you likewise argue that one is obligated to obey an act of Congress that you know is unconstitutional?

[The purpose of having law is to provide a common standard of reference regarding what we've agreed to allow and not allow.]

That, and and an extra bonus insofar as the law gives us all something new to argue about.

You're quite wrong there. Imagine the discord that would result from having no standard of reference at all. Law removes sources of disagreement. The disagreement you see now is merely residual.

From there, it's simply a matter of whether a ruling from a judge is in line with it or not. If it is not (not "if someone has determined that it is not", but if it is not), then the ruling is invalid. Maybe people won't know right away that it's invalid, but that doesn't in any way alter the fact that it is.

It sounds so easy when you put it like that, doesn't it? If it's invalid, we ignore it. Mary says it's valid. Betty says it's invalid. Who's right? Shouldn't we all be able to look at it and instantly know its meaning, if it's that simple? For that matter, if it's so clear and obvious, why are there still people disagreeing with you about the meaning of the Constitution? Why is it that you seem to have a handle on its objective meaning, but I don't? Why do so many fail to do what you imply ought to be easy to do?

What if you could be convinced that the 11th Circuit court is wrong? Would you still be arguing that he's obligated to follow a ruling that you know for a fact is unconstitutional? Would you likewise argue that one is obligated to obey an act of Congress that you know is unconstitutional?

We all, in a democratic republic, have a moral obligation to work within the system for peaceful change. I dispute right off the bat this contention that there is any way of knowing "for a fact" that something is Constitutional or not, other than in the sorts of law-school hypotheticals where the law is literally antonymous to the Constitution - the sorts of hypothetical cases that don't actually exist in reality, IOW - but setting that aside, Judge Moore has a legal means of recourse available to him. He may appeal to the Supreme Court for relief, and if that fails, he may appeal to the public at large to amend the Constitution to reflect his interpretation, such that it will be clearer that his preferred interpretation is the correct interpretation.

Failing that, he has three options. One, obey the law as it exists, rather than as he prefers it to be. Two, face whatever penalties exist for failing to obey the law. Three, leave. Those are his choices, and mine, and yours. My personal preference would be for Judge Moore to embrace legal reality as it is, rather than acting in accordance with how he thinks it ought to be - I don't like seeing anyone punished for simply being wrong - but that is his decision, and I frankly don't have too much sympathy for a man who has traversed the ground from being simply wrong to being willfully wrong.

Either way, he has no right, legal or moral, to exempt himself from a law that binds everyone else by mutual agreement. We all enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to us by God, the Constitution, and each other, but incumbent upon that is the obligation to respect the institutions that we have created in service to those freedoms. And if Judge Moore finds that he is unable to freely and fully honor those obligations as a public servant, then he neither deserves nor will have his position for much longer.

Imagine the discord that would result from having no standard of reference at all. Law removes sources of disagreement. The disagreement you see now is merely residual.

Completely disagree. We have now exactly the same disputes as existed before the law - the law merely provides a means of peacefully resolving those disputes. Now I invoke the law when I find you in possession of my ox, rather than simply bashing your skull in as I might have done in a simpler time. ;)

It sounds so easy when you put it like that, doesn't it? If it's invalid, we ignore it. Mary says it's valid. Betty says it's invalid. Who's right? Shouldn't we all be able to look at it and instantly know its meaning, if it's that simple? For that matter, if it's so clear and obvious, why are there still people disagreeing with you about the meaning of the Constitution? Why is it that you seem to have a handle on its objective meaning, but I don't? Why do so many fail to do what you imply ought to be easy to do?

You're continuing to read more into my statements than there actually is. I didn't say that the task of determining what the law says is easy or that its meaning is obvious. I said that its meaning is fixed. Can you at least agree on that much, that the law has a fixed meaning, even if that meaning is not immediately clear?

I dispute right off the bat this contention that there is any way of knowing "for a fact" that something is Constitutional or not, other than in the sorts of law-school hypotheticals where the law is literally antonymous to the Constitution - the sorts of hypothetical cases that don't actually exist in reality, IOW

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You're saying that, at least in "law-school" theory, there can be a case where a law or court ruling is obviously unconstitutional, but that it'll never happen in reality? So in other words, there's a certain range of possibilities within which rulings can legitimately fall, and if they fall outside of that range, then we can say it's "obviously" unconstitutional. And furthermore, you're saying that in reality it'll never fall outside of that range. Well then in that case what's the whole deal with judicial review in the first place? Why not just allow representative bodies to pass whatever laws they like, since they would never pass anything that's "obviously" unconstitutional, since everyone can see that it's unconstitutional.

The alternative view, which I take, is that it is indeed possible to "know for a fact" what the law says, even if it's not immediately obvious in a particular case.

We have now exactly the same disputes as existed before the law - the law merely provides a means of peacefully resolving those disputes. Now I invoke the law when I find you in possession of my ox, rather than simply bashing your skull in as I might have done in a simpler time.

Except now I know that it's against law for me to be in possession of your ox in the first place, whereas before it was a purely subjective matter. Without the law, who's to say that it was even "your" ox to begin with? So yes, the law has prevented a dispute from arising, even if it doesn't prevent all disputes. The ones that remain are, as I said, residual.

Of course, if you're a lawyer, or even if you have an interest in following legal disputes, it's going to appear to you that law is all about conflict, because that's the aspect you've focused on. But by focusing on it, you're taking for granted the extent to which law prevents disputes from arising. It's the absense of disputes which proves its success, and of course absence is the hardest thing to see.

I said that its meaning is fixed. Can you at least agree on that much, that the law has a fixed meaning, even if that meaning is not immediately clear?

And my rejoinder is the same - what is the practical value of a fixed meaning if it is essentially unknowable? You keep returning to this notion of fixed meaning of the law, but knowing that there exists such a thing, or even thinking that you know what it is, is useless unless you can persuade others to ride that train along with you. And how is your claim of fixed meaning distinguishable from everyone else's - how is an interested outsider supposed to know whether your notion of fixed meaning is correct or not?

You say that the law has a fixed meaning - I say, great. Now what? Where are we supposed to go from there, and how do we know it's the right direction?

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You're saying that, at least in "law-school" theory, there can be a case where a law or court ruling is obviously unconstitutional, but that it'll never happen in reality? So in other words, there's a certain range of possibilities within which rulings can legitimately fall, and if they fall outside of that range, then we can say it's "obviously" unconstitutional. And furthermore, you're saying that in reality it'll never fall outside of that range.

No, what I'm saying is that cases where the language of the law is clearly in opposition to the language of the Constitution are few and far in between. What you see instead is what you see before you in this case - two competing interpretations of the law and the Constitution, both with evidence and logic to support their positions, and where the final verdict is entirely dependent on one's interpretation of the law, the Constitution, and Judge Moore's actions. You say that we can find a "fixed meaning" to know which interpretation is correct, but how will we know what that "fixed meaning" is? And that's the part you're glossing over so far - yeah, great, there's a fixed meaning. Now, what is it? How do we know that's the actual "fixed meaning", and not simply your opinion of it?

Except now I know that it's against law for me to be in possession of your ox in the first place, whereas before it was a purely subjective matter. Without the law, who's to say that it was even "your" ox to begin with? So yes, the law has prevented a dispute from arising, even if it doesn't prevent all disputes.

All we've done is reduce from possession being ten-tenths of reality to it being nine-tenths of the law - possession was ownership way back when, and mostly, it still is. Now we invoke the law to resolve a dispute over who should possess our ox, and use the state to impose our wills on one another, instead of taking up pointy sticks to impose our wills on each other, but the dispute is still the same. And so is the end result - I have an ox, and you don't. The means have changed, but the disputes haven't, and neither have the results, other than the obvious fact of fewer concussions ;)

Ruh-roh - don't look now, but the state of California is about to try promoting some religion over and above everyone else's. What will we use to stop them? Hmmm - maybe we shouldn't stop them at all. After all, it's California's elected representatives who want to put this into action, and they certainly aren't Congress. Well, hopefully, they won't turn the living room of anyone we know into a "sacred site"...

:^)

And my rejoinder is the same - what is the practical value of a fixed meaning if it is essentially unknowable? You keep returning to this notion of fixed meaning of the law, but knowing that there exists such a thing, or even thinking that you know what it is, is useless unless you can persuade others to ride that train along with you. And how is your claim of fixed meaning distinguishable from everyone else's - how is an interested outsider supposed to know whether your notion of fixed meaning is correct or not?

Let's look at an example that hopefully we can agree upon: the 2nd amendment. I think it's likely we can agree that this amendment actually does prohibit the federal government from interfering with people's right to own and carry personal firearms, regardless of whether they belong to the National Guard or whatever the self-serving liberal interpretation is. Not merely that it should do so, but that it actually does do so, as a matter of objective fact. And that furthermore, the federal government has violated and continues to get away with violating this amendment. Agree?

Hope springs eternal, they say ;)

I think it's likely we can agree that this amendment actually does prohibit the federal government from interfering with people's right to own and carry personal firearms...

Point of order: the language of the Constitution is not in accordance with your interpretation of it. You say "personal" arms, but I see no textual support for such a position - the Constitution makes reference to a "right to keep and bear arms" without qualification, in absolute terms.

However, because you are a sensible person who recognizes that rights in a society consisting of more than one person cannot possibly be absolute, you have chosen to draw a line across what is essentially an absolute right if read literally, as a means of restricting it. But why "personal" arms? I say that the right to keep and bear arms includes land mines and artillery pieces, albeit not nuclear warheads or anthrax, but you don't include artillery and land mines in your reading of the Second like I do. And there's where the argument starts, and where the Constitution fails to guide us, fixed meaning or not - we both agree that rights cannot be absolute, despite the apparent language of the Constitution, and we both agree that a line must be drawn. But what we disagree about is where exactly that line should be drawn.

And that's the crux of the problem with Roy Moore, and the crux of the problem with the Second Amendment, and where the Constitution utterly fails to guide us. This is, I think, by design on the part of the framers, so that we could evaluate for ourselves where that line should be drawn - they knew they couldn't anticipate every future development, and so they left the language such that we could use it as a guide, not as a rigid menu of options.

There's the real underlying problem, in a nutshell - where do we draw the line, whether with guns or with religion? And that's not a Constitutional question, it's a political one. It can't be a matter resolved solely by referring to the Constitution - the Constitution can't tell us whether the Second means only personal arms, or whether it means tanks and airplanes. So we have to fight amongst ourselves about where the line should be drawn. For now, that fight is over, and Roy Moore is on the wrong side of the line. Perhaps someday the line will shift, but for now, he's out of luck.