Replies

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.

Look: We are debating what SHOULD BE, not what IS, in this debate of whether Judge Moore's display really is or is not Constitutional. We *know* a Judge has ruled against Moore. that is what is. He based it on recent precedential law. Case closed? Nope, because he is wrong.
I think the ruling is against what SHOULD BE the proper Constitutional reading. History, the text, definitions, and common sense are on our side. The only things not on our side is recent jurisprudence, the ACLU and the secularized culture that's forgotten what we were about in 1789.

Saying that 'this is the law' in this context is more of an argument from authority than a conclusion.

Saying that Brennan got a majority to make this stuff suddenly illegal when before it wasnt in this context is thus better than saying "this is the law", as it describes better the real historial context.

But who am I to "rule" on rules of debating points. I just happen to think that's the reality that got us here.

"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. "

If we could fix the establishment clause understanding at Everson or so, I would not be unhappy. It would at least avoid the Brennanite extremism inherent in some recent rulings.

Sometimes "the law" is an ass. Right?

Since the law in this case, the Constitution, has not changed, and since the judiciary is bound by prior decisions itself, these decisions are not law but are examples of misfeasance by the judiciary and all who have so ruled should be impeached.

These people took an oath to the Constitution. They have not abided by their oath and for that reason should be impeached and removed from office.