Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[general_re]

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

Render unto Caesar, and all that jazz ;)

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.

In particular, it may not restrict the public square to one favored sect or creed, as Judge Moore did.

[WOSG]

The pro-freedom view is to let people have the freedom to express their views. Denying Judge Moore this freedom is anti-freedom.

[ClancyJ]

I could have 100 in my congregation within a year, just by saying stuff they wanted to hear.

What an utter waste of time. Not worth the time unless it is by saying stuff He wants them to hear.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I made the comment about "separate but equal" as directed at your comment about the Supreme Court decisions of the past somehow having that extra-special insight to the minds of the Founders. Clearly, the intent of the 14th Amendment was never to make the blacks "equal," in the honest-to-God-equal sense. Heck, look at school segregation in even the North before the 14th was passed and then after it was passed. It didn't change. No one expected it to change.

But besides this, why do we need any test at all for the "discrimination" against women or blacks in either of our examples? Assuming the schools are "equal," than the letter of the 14th Amendment has been met and there is no protection under the 14th. I got the impression from what you said about "separate but equal" that you would feel that segregated schools are unconstitutional. But assuming these schools received equal funding, why would they be unconstitutional? They are technically equal--to say they are "unequal" reads an intangible notion into the term "equal protection" that isn't present in the text of the document.

As far as "textualism" goes, it's not followed, and for good reason. Take what I said before as what I read the biggest hurdle for textualists, and that is the 9th Amendment. Either the 9th Amendment is read to mean essentially the same thing as the 10th--making it superfluous--or it is clearly stating that the Constitution is not to be read strictly within the "four corners."

Now, I tend to think that it makes little sense for the Founders to have written the 9th Amendment and then write the 10th Amendment and have them both mean basically the same thing. So then I'm left with the other possible reading of the 9th--that it is an invitation to extend the protections of the Constitution outside the "four corners" of the document. This is something with which I have no problem.

Besides this, the Constitution is written in vague, sweeping declarations. I think this was done intentionally. What is "speech?" What is "due process?" What is "cruel and unusual punishment?" To say that we should go strictly by the text in many cases is entirely unhelpful, especially when confronted with issues like "due process" or "equal protection."

Hey, there's a reason why people like Bork, Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist aren't pure textualists or originalists. It just can't be done and still always reach rational results. I can find you decisions by all of these Judges that completely abandons the text of the Constitution. Heck, Rehnquist even wrote a famous Right to Counsel opinion in which he states that the Court is going way beyond the text and the original meaning of the Constitution--but our society had evolved to the point where we considered certain rights to so fundamental that they must be constitutionally protected.

In the end, it's an interesting thought, but it just can't be done and still reach consistent, rational results.

[jethropalerobber]

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

well, you will always be able to safely claim that as your opinion.

[general_re]

This nation belonged to God, and now people are saying it’s a shock to even talk about his Commandments.

LOL - nothing like the smell of hyperbole in the morning. Judge Moore can tattoo the Commandments on his forehead and hire a squadron of airplanes to display them all over the state if he likes - what he can't do is use his office to promote them. If Pat thinks that's horribly oppressive, then he really needs to get out and travel some, so that he can come to understand what real oppression really looks like.

[jwalsh07]

Now you're dissembling. I've posted the same post to you several times discussing attempts by two of the authors of the 14th Amendment to Amend the Constitution applying the Establishment clause" to the states.

You asked for the cite in your typically wiseass mode and I shoved it right in your face.

Then you did a typical rolling 180 toward the anti Catholic bigot Blaine.

I have asked you the same question repeatedly and you're refuasl to answer it speaks volumes. But I will try one more time.

Why would two of the authors of the 14th Amendment support an addiitional amendment to the Constitution applying the "establishment clause" to the states if the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate same?

The point of this exercise is to establish that Cantwell and Everson were judicial activism writ large. Just like Roe, Doe, Lawrence et al.

[Viva Le Dissention]

That was exactly my point about the 6th Amendment--as I stated earlier, it clearly does NOT allow for appointed counsel. But yet this is now an unquestionable right in our society.

Do you really think that we should have a society in which the poor are left to fend for themselves in the judicial arena? Seeing as you said that it is a nice social policy, I would think the answer to that question is no. The result is that the 6th Amendment is expanded, as it should be.

To answer your question, I'm not really bothered by any recent "invention" of rights. See my discussion on the 9th Amendment. There may be a judicial decision that I don't like, but I'm never really concerned with a judiciary that jealously guards the liberties of the citizenry, as any "activist" court necessarily does.

[onemoreday]

......" the jack booted thugs remove ...."(?)...you say..." the jack booted thugs...(?)"
____________________________

what "jack booted thugs"...(?)

The "fact" that you even talk this way is proof-positive that the violence that RELIGIOUS IMMATURITY brings to a society is something that needs be guarded against.

IT CERTAINLY LOOKS LIKE A "GRAVEN IMAGE" TO ME...

.....but, the word "god"......(a word whose "meaning" has NEVER been addressed),

.....i mean, "when someone says 'I believe IN GOD'.....what DO they MEAN?"

I bet most people who say they "believe" .... simply assume that others who would say "that" have the same "notion" of GOD....something that is highly unlikely.

So, please don't be "religious" for ME!......or think there is some GREAT SIGNIFIGANCE to this "graven image" to ME!"

What we call the "bible" is a "translation" (by someone) OF the "bible"

"GOD" is word translated from it.........What DID THEY, who wrote it, intend that "GOD" mean?.....PROVE IT

[ClancyJ]

ACLU's attorney Aleysa Khan, a muslim.

My light bulb just came on!

Maybe we need to investigate the background of those in the ACLU and those "unbelievers" to see where they are really coming from. Maybe the assault on our country and our freedoms is already beginning.

What I fear with the Muslims is their hatred of other beliefs. Therefore, they will not allow others to believe in God - publicly or privately - if they can find a way to control. I thought that meant governmental control by being elected - maybe it just means through the legal process by using lawsuits to strip away God and allow for the accension of their god - allah.

[ClancyJ]

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

Great point!

[jwalsh07]

Either the 9th Amendment is read to mean essentially the same thing as the 10th--making it superfluous--or it is clearly stating that the Constitution is not to be read strictly within the "four corners."

The Ninth Amendment was a constraint on the federal government , not a license for the federal courts, the third branch of the federal government, to make laws.

Or as Judge Bork once said, the Ninth Amendment is "...no more interpretable than a waterblot on the Constitution."

[Viva Le Dissention]

allow for the accension of their god - allah.

You are aware that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, right?

[moneyrunner]

I have suggestion for a replacement for the monument. A tasteful sign: The Ten Commandments

The Basis for the American Common Law

Were removed

As a result of a lawsuit

by the

ACLU

The

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

And

AND THE FOLLOWING PLAINTIFFS:

STEPHEN R. GLASSROTH

MELINDA MADDOX

BEVERLY HOWARD

Who claimed in a court of law that they found the monument offensive.

Perhaps the sign should be encased in glass and lighted so that it may be read at night.

[Viva Le Dissention]

The Ninth Amendment was a constraint on the federal government , not a license for the federal courts, the third branch of the federal government, to make laws.

You're arguing my first point--that the 9th Amendment is essentially the same as the 10th. I find it very difficult to believe the Founders would include a superfluous amendment, so I don't buy that explanation.

[floriduh voter]

This evening, they were already using a different spokesperson from the aclu who happened to be a bald headed male. I guess they wanted to "hide" the woman for PR reasons. I'm afraid they are going to work the legal system and bomb us too. They are intolerant and guess what? We were here first, I mean WAAAAAAAAY FIRST and they're just here to destroy America as we know it.

[ClancyJ]

Afraid not. God does not advocate killing of all non-believers. God is not a God of hate but of love. There is no love seen in the Muslim faith.

By their fruits you will know them. I have seen plenty of the fruits of Muslimism. I look daily at the news reports and see innocent children being sent to die for adults who sit back and live for hate.

I see the teaching of radicals that 70 virgins await their "sacrifice" if they will kill innocent men, women and children.

I see no condemnation of these practices by Muslims. If these were Christians doing such - you would see them stopped because they are disrespecting God and the Christian religion.

[m1-lightning]

by what right doeas Judge Moore enjoy the power of the state to promote his religion, while simultaneously denying that freedom to others?

For one, the ten commandments is not a relgion. It's a historical document, though this one is a replica of course. So some religions picked up on this and use it in their religions. It was a precedent set for society. Even if it was an old man smokin peyote that thought it up, several of those commandments are used today in modern laws in different interpretations and less definite. Let me ask you this: If the christians worshipped the color blue, and this judge wanted the walls in the halls painted blue, would that be unconstitutional?

How is he denying freedom to others? What freedoms do they have under the Constitution that prevents him from displaying the ten commandments?

Since when can a court make laws and enforce them? I must be misunderstanding but I always thought the laws were created by a legislative branch or a "general assembly" and laws were enforced by the executive branch or the department beneath the executive. This court order crap is an undermining of the other two branches. This governemnt was created to prevent one branch from having more power than the other. It looks like the judicial branch can just do whatever they want. Who can stop the supreme court if they rule everything unconstitutional? Since FDR, the courts have been loaded with liberal judges and they have destroyed any values this nation was founded on by twisting words to thier "interpretation"

[floriduh voter]

I wrote something that got timed out. But, in summary, they are going to attack us through our legal system and with bombs. It's our country but they want to dominate the world and America would be a big prize for allah.

[rwfromkansas]

Am here. I have done all I need to do.

I am taking a break from these threads to relax.