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.
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....