Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[WOSG]

Great post. "The United States has always been founded on Judeo-Christian Theology if someone else thinks that it's offensive then they should move to a country where there not offended." True . . up until 1948 when the U.S.S.C. ruled religious instruction in public schools was unconstitutional.

I would add a question: Which group do you think have a keener sense of the real Constitution and the original intent of the Founders and authors of the Constitution and Amendments, The ACLU and Liberal Judges making these rulings *today* or the US Supreme Courts in the first 180 years of our existence?

[WOSG]

Good quoe. The original intent was *NOT* to forbid any 'helping hand' by Govt to religious sentiments as it does its business (eg as done with non-demoninational prayers in schools, or with Army chaplain) but to forbid the *establishment* of an Official Religion. The Founders had 200 years of sectarian violence in Europe as their historical memory and they wanted to obvious avoid it. They also had the memory of pilgrims, quakers, Catholics, etc., coming to practise freely from placed that coerced a particular public belief.

We need to restore the understanding of the 1st Amendment awa from this anti-religious gobbledegook that the ACLU has forced down our throats and back to an understanding of true religious toleration and mutual *acceptance* of voluntary religious sentiment.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Which group do you think have a keener sense of the real Constitution and the original intent of the Founders and authors of the Constitution and Amendments, The ACLU and Liberal Judges making these rulings *today* or the US Supreme Courts in the first 180 years of our existence?

But following this argument, do you contend that we should still have segregated schools and a doctrine of "separate but equal?" Or, for that matter, not have a right to appointed counsel in any criminal trial? After all, the 6th Amendment, quite clearly, was not intended to provide appointed counsel for criminal defendants--it only guaranteed the right of the accused to be defended by counsel.

While what you're saying might sound good on first blush, I think you take a lot of today's civil liberties, most of which were really flushed out in the 1950s-1970s, for granted when saying such things

[WOSG]

Does Judge Moore have 1st Amendment rights to express his opinion?

[WOSG]

. Namely, the 14'th Amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights by restricting how states may act, "

thus saith the Supreme Court .... since the 1950s or so.

"there is no protection from interference in secular ideas within the Bill of Rights that is akin to the First Amendment protection for freedom from interference with religious expression ..."

ON the contrary, the free excercise of religion clause and the freedom of speech clause are directly analogous.

Government may express an opinion on matters or might do things that encourage one idea, but may invoke no coercion in either sphere. The establishment clause further underlines that determination so there is no favored sectarian religion.

[ClancyJ]

So, you advocate throwing out God - who helped create, bless and protect this country from the beginning of its creation for other gods.

Wonder how that makes God feel? Would He still feel that America needs His protection? Would we still go to Him in prayer for our soldiers, our safety, the protection of this country against all enemies? Or would He say - "You kicked Me out of your country I blessed, and helped you preserve. Just ask those other gods to help you - I am through"?

What happens then during another crisis? How would we dare ask God for help? Is He just a safety net to be pulled out when we are stuck? Is there no responsibility to be on His side? Is it okay for Christians to treat God with disrespect in deference to the will of the unbelievers and kick Him out?


How easy for Muslims to take over this country and totally outlaw any religion except the Muslim religion when all these Americans kick God out for them. Maybe the Muslims are behind all this "taking God out of America".

This country was created to find religious freedom. The founders made sure in the formation of this country that there would be religious freedom. And, now we are to give up that right to please those that want God out of here for their own purposes. Don't you think there is a purpose behind the lawsuits? What could that purpose be?

Why the need to strip our institutions of any reference to God? And, they are doing it without providing the real reason. And the dupes in America are helping them under the guize of diversity.

I'm sorry - God was here to form this country - not Allah, not Budda or any of the other gods people want to worship. For us to kick Him out after all He has done is a travesty. Christians live with God in their lives - don't expect Christians to go about removing God.

[jethropalerobber]

Go back to DU if this is your opinion.

it's funny you should say that since the DU people are more pleased than anyone by the california recall.

[ClancyJ]

This guy is grandstanding BIGTIME

So?

Oh, I forgot - Christians are to stand meekly by and never stand up for their beliefs. Only the atheists, Muslims, Buddists and all others can speak with any authority.

Just maybe he means what he says. Hard for you to believe that a man could believe in his vows isn't it?

[apackof2]

CBN.com – Conservatives say the Supreme Court's sodomy ruling is just one more example of judicial activism in the courts, that the Court has gotten too powerful and is creating new laws instead of ruling on the existing ones. David Barton is an expert on U.S. history, and he says the High Court is exercising powers that the Founding Fathers never intended. CBN’s Pat Robertson recently spoke with David Barton on "The 700 Club." PAT ROBERTSON: The Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen. The eyes have been focused on the Supreme Court. Recent rulings by the court have shown how easily nine people, as a matter of fact, just five people, un-elected, can highjack the laws of an entire nation. Well, as history shows, America’s founders never intended the court to have that kind of far-reaching power. If you read the Constitution, it’s clear. David Barton is just an absolute treasure trove of knowledge about the early history of America, and he joins us now to share what he’s discovered about the early history of the Supreme Court. David, it’s always a joy to have you with us.

DAVID BARTON: Thanks. It’s good to be here.


ROBERTSON: I understand that the Supreme Court originally spent just a couple of weeks in session. How have they expanded their power? What did you find from your research that was the intention of the founders of the Supreme Court?


BARTON: Well, it’s interesting. The founders, when they drafted the Constitution, then gave authorization to have the U.S. Capitol. And in giving authorization for the U.S. Capitol, they laid the city as it exists today, and they even made plans for the Washington Monument back then when Washington was still alive. So they built the White House, the Capitol. They did not build a Supreme Court building. Not at all. So in the original plan, the Supreme Court was under the watchful thumb of Congress. As a matter of fact, in the original Capitol building, when the Supreme Court met, they actually stuck them in a closet. And so it’s kind of unfortunate the Supreme Court has come out of the closet.


ROBERTSON: Hey, that’s a nice place to be. Put them back in the closet.


BARTON: Originally they had a one-week term, and they were in a closet, and that was it. And then as the Capitol expanded, and we had the House move over to a different side, then the Supreme Court came out of the closet, and they got to be in the basement of the Senate. And that is where they stayed until 1935... And FDR in ’35 says, "Why don’t we get a separate building for the court?" And since then, they’ve felt like they are out from under the control of Congress, out from under any kind of jurisdiction.


ROBERTSON: What you’re saying is from your reading, and study and what I’ve seen, the same thing, is that they definitely were to be controlled by Congress. They weren’t this super-legislature that was striking down the laws of Congress.


BARTON: Well, significantly, in the Federalist Papers, it makes it real clear. And we hear today that we have three co-equal branches — the founders object to that. We had three co-sovereign branches, but they were not co-equal. The legislative branch was the most significant, the most important. That was the policy-making branch. The judiciary was the least important, and even in 1935 their term still only went six to eight weeks a year. It was not until you got Earl Warren in there. He said, "Let’s go nine months a year." And so now all the mischief of reviewing 7,000 cases and making a hundred rulings, et cetera, has come from that expanded time.


ROBERTSON: The interesting thing is that the appellate jurisdiction of the court is under the control of Congress.


BARTON: That’s right.


ROBERTSON: And not only that, the number of them, because we’ve had nine, then we had seven, and they went back to nine. And the Congress has the power to expand or contract at will.


BARTON: That’s right.


ROBERTSON: But they don’t seem to know that today.


BARTON: Well, they really don’t know that, and, interestingly enough, when Washington appointed the first justices, he only appointed five associate justices and one chief justice. So he starts with six, and, of course, they were experts. Three signed the Constitution, two ratified it, and one wrote the Federalist Papers. They knew what they were doing, but we’ve seen that change. And most people do not realize the only court in the United States that is constitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court. There is not a federal court in the land that is mandated by the Constitution. Congress tomorrow could pass a law to wipe out every federal judge except the Supreme Court, and it would be completely constitutional. And that was part of the control that Congress had over the courts. They were able to limit the jurisdiction over 200 times. Congress in the past has passed laws that say, we don’t want you guys dealing with [these things] — it could be abortion, it could be the Pledge of Allegiance, it could be anything. But Congress doesn’t do that now.


ROBERTSON: They’re so afraid.


BARTON: Yes.


ROBERTSON: They’re so afraid. I asked a group of them once, "Why don’t you do that?" And Millicent Fenwick of New Jersey, used to smoke cigars, she said, "Well, my colleagues don’t trust each other. They don’t trust themselves, so they want to refer these things over to the court for decision."


BARTON: Well in a political sense, it’s a lot easier to blame it on someone else; because whatever happens now, like with sodomy cases: "Hey, we didn’t have anything to do with that. The court did it."


ROBERTSON: Sure.


BARTON: And so, whether you’re anti-sodomy or pro-sodomy, now you’re off the hook with voters, and so it’s become real easy to defer things over; and that way you don’t make your constituencies mad, ‘cause you had nothing to do with it, which is gutless, basically.


ROBERTSON: Of course.


BARTON: But that’s what Congress should be doing is taking stands on policy, and it was interesting that, back in the beginning, our judges knew that. It’s very significant. One of the verses you used in this Operation Supreme Court is, "Give us judges at the beginning, lawyers as the first, then we’ll be a nation of righteousness," and our original justices, I mean, here’s a paper....


ROBERTSON: Tell me what they did in the early session.


BARTON: Can you imagine the original Supreme Court justices had a three-hour communion service in the Supreme Court. Now, this happens to be a newspaper from 1792, reporting the prayers that were going inside the Supreme Court. They never let a jury deliberate until they had a minister come in and pray over the jury, because they wanted the mind of God in the verdict. So, that’s original judges.


This happens to be the very first law book ever used in the United States. That’s done by signer of the Constitution, James Wolfston. He’s the original judge in the court, and he says that all human law must rest its authority on the authority of that law which is Divine. So we literally had Ezra 7:25 judges, judges who knew the law of God.


ROBERTSON: Well, you know I remember stories saying it never was intended that Christianity would be prostrated to the Muslims and the...


BARTON: That’s right.


ROBERTSON: ...whoever. I forget the exact quote. You probably know it better than I do.


BARTON: Well the story not only said that it would not be prostrated by other religions. Stories significantly said that it was the duty of government to promote Christianity. And at the time, the founding… people argue that today we’re pluralistic, they weren’t back then. That’s nonsense. They had over 30 different religions back then, we even had a founding father that was a Muslim, by the way. Francis Scott Key, who wrote "The Star Spangled Banner," led him to Christ, converted him; but we had a founding father who was a Muslim. It was always the intent to promote the laws of God, to promote the religious and moral standards of God’s Word.


ROBERTSON: It breaks my heart to see how they have departed from that original founding. How did it happen in your opinion? I’ve studied these things, too, but what have you found? Was there a turning point somewhere along the way?


BARTON: There was a turning point. We’ve been stewards of this nation. God gave it to us. He said, "You guys watch over it," and in the 20's and 30's when we told our kids, "You want to do something good for God? Be a pastor, be a missionary, but stay out of this secular stuff like law, and government and politics." So, you pull all of these godly people out of the legal profession, no more do you have the Daniel Websters and the John Quincy Adams and these guys arguing cases. Now you’ve got a whole different genre that comes in, and the Benchman Cardozas, and Rosco Powell, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and these guys that are very secularist in their approach, and now they take the court. And so that’s what’s happened as we’ve pulled Christians out of that arena…


ROBERTSON: Sure.


BARTON: And, so that’s what happened, and now we’re 20, 30, 40 years behind the curve. The Court is so far out of touch with where people are. We know there’s 78 percent of people want prayer in schools, and 74 percent want The Ten Commandments up, and 81 percent oppose homosexual relations. But that’s not where these judges are, and Scalia hit it in his dissent on the sodomy case. He said we have a culture in our law schools that is so hostile to these values that most Americans hold dear, and that’s because we pulled ourselves out of the arenas 60 years ago.


ROBERTSON: That was the so-called fundamentalists, Gresham Machen, down there at Princeton who pulled out, he told them "get out," you know, "touch not the unclean thing, come from among them and be separate." That was the rallying cry.


BARTON: That’s right. "Don’t be salt. Don’t be light." And, of course, that’s the preservative, and when you pull it out, it all goes rotten which is what we’re seeing now. We have allowed it to rot, because we got out of the arena.


ROBERTSON: David, I appreciate your clarion call. Ladies and gentlemen, if we can only go back to the way it used to be, and this is the way it is. This was a Christian country. It was founded by Christians. Make no mistake about it. This nation belonged to God, and now people are saying it’s a shock to even talk about his Commandments. David Barton is a great resource. We thank this dear friend for being here with us. You always inspire us. God bless you.

[jethropalerobber]

What the ACLU did to those Black people in California was to accuse them of being (collectively) so IGNORANT they didn't know how to punch the correct chad out of a BALLOT!

punch cards are inherently more likely to fail to register a vote, or to be spoiled by improper handling by vote counters - regardless of race.

the poster i was responding to had claimed the lawsuit to postpose the recall vote until these machines were upgraded was unamerican.

do you agree with that poster that it's unamerican to try to make sure votes are counted accurately?

[unixfox]

In certain situations, you damn right that's what I want. Sometimes you have to actually FIGHT to get what you want. I guess our forefathers should have just knelt to the english and licked their boots?

[apackof2]

Amen, ClaneyJ, amen

[floriduh voter]

Here's a picture of the monument in case the jack booted thugs remove it tonight under the cover of darkness. I think it would be a good movement for everyone to print pictures of the monument and take them everywhere, put them on signs, shirts and on their cars. Oh, and email and fax them to their congressman, the president and vice president.

[WOSG]

Okay. My point is (a) you can be a textualist and (b) you SHOULD be one, it will save us from very BAD decisions.

I think a rational basis test for gender-based discrimination cases is more than sufficient.
Furthermore, there is indeed rational reason for single sex schools, for differential treatment in several areas where men and women are indeed different. As for the extreme case stated:

"
So let's say your state passes a law stating that no women are allowed to attend any state accredited schools. State constitutions aside for the moment, do you honestly contend that the young ladies of this state would have no federal constitutional rememdy, since the 14th's original intent was not to protect women? "

The text grants equal protection for all, even though the intent was directed at freed negro slaves. Whether this is permissible or not would depend on the rational basis. You've given a fairly nutty case.
consider - more realistically - if the state decided to fund many single sex schools. If that had a basis due to this being suitable education for men and women, it should be acceptable.
And yet I would never support 'separate but equal' for the races. see?

Yet the more ready remedy is at the ballot box.

[WOSG]

How about "Its unamerican to be disingeuous" which is what the ACLU is being.

[floriduh voter]

ACLU's attorney Aleysa Khan, a muslim. She's following her religious beliefs by destroying ours with our legal system. When is America going to wake up?

[WOSG]

Yet it doesnt bother you that many of those recent "rights" like abortion etc. DO NOT REALLY EXIST in the Constitution????

The only real abrogation of Constutitional interpretation was the Pleesy v Ferguson line, wholly due to Southern segregationist Justices not living up to the words written in the 14th Amendment.

But imho the exception does not make the rule. Our consitutional interpretation has DIS-improved since 1963 not improved.

If you read carefully, yes, the 6th Amendment doesnt say taxpayers have to fund counsels for defendants.
Like Miranda, it's nice public policy but a Judicial court invention, not a Constitutional imperative.

[WOSG]

oops make that Plessy.

[ClancyJ]

I don't need religion for that. I have my mom to thank.

Yes, but you need religion. Otherwise there is no purpose and no future after death. Surely, you believe that you are above the animals. Surely you believe there is something after this life. And, if so, someone had to create it and someone is in charge of it. Would logically seem wise to me to find out about it and insure that you will get an opportunity for that next life.

On top of this, someone cared enough about man to create this next life and someone cared enough to insure that man could be worthy of being in the presence of that creator.

How? By sending His own Son to die for our sins so that we would be pure enough to abide in His presence. Because - it turned out that man could not keep the laws provided. They would break one or the other or many.

What would the solution be? You see God wanted us with Him that is why we were created in His image. So, He provided the way by sending His Son to die for us for a one time sacrifice that could make us acceptable to God.

What a gift! Such a pity for someone to go their entire life and never realize what a gift has been provided and why - so that man could be worthy and acceptable to be in God's presence in the next life.

Yet atheists think this is not worth believing. Can you see why God would cast them away if they turned down His Son who died for them? Can you imagine the rage in this God? He created us in His image and then sent His Son to die for our sins and allow us to be made acceptable and this is not worth their belief? All we have to do is believe and accept His gift.

Yet, this is far too much to ask of many. Guess they think they have a better option.

[jethropalerobber]

the Ten Commandments which just so happen to be a cornerstone of western law?

the basis of western law is largely roman.

christianity has played a very minor role. what contributions it has made over the years have mostly been shed by now as gross infringments of civil liberty (miscegeny, contraceptives, "blue laws", prohibition, gambling, adultery, etc.)

the 10 commandments have played even less of a role that christianity in general - in fact they have played no role. the only commandments mirrored at any time in US law were those already well established in western tradition before the rise of christianity.