Posted on 08/21/2003 9:53:39 AM PDT by Gargantua
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Judge Moore is about to be held in contempt of a court order demanding that he remove the statue of the Ten Commandments from in front of the courthouse where he has honorably served for years.
This fact raises an interesting question, and exemplifies a blatant contradiction as well as our modern-day courts' insitence on trying to legislate from the bench.
Our Congress is strictly and explicitly probitied by our Constitution from passing any laws prohibiting the free excercise of one's religion.
If Judge Moore's religion (Christianity) demands that he spread the Word of God (and it does), then the issuance of a legal order which deigns to prevent him this religious right is both unconstitutional and out of order in the extreme. It is also illegal, for it attempts to legally enforce a position of the Court which contravenes our Constitution.
If Congress can't pass a law restricting one's right to exercise his religion, then how can the courts try to enforce such a law?
Why did this court not demand that the words "In God We Trust" be removed from all U.S. currency? Why did this court not demand that all religious carvings and statuary be removed from all Government buildings (The U.S.Supreme Court, the Capitol, etc.)?
This court needs to be slapped down, hard, and Judge Moore is just the man for the job.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the taking of property by the government or its agents without due process.
If the purpose of the statue is to promote religion, then it is prohibited by the First Amendment.
The complete text of the Constitution can be found here:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Where in our Constitution does it say that?
It's funny watching you grope at straws as your own pretzel logic betrays you.
How about all those Founding Father's quotes on their having founded America as a Christian Nation? Even the U.S. Supreme Court stating that America is a Christian Nation.
Must really rot your garter. ;-/
How is preventing the government from doing something tyranny? Tyranny is when the government does too much. In this case the federal courts are preventing a state court from maintiaing a religous monument. Those federal courts are doing exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to do, prevent unnecessary government intrusion in the lives of the citizens.
I'm not sure what you mean by "(this is the BY WHAT LAW?)." Are you quoting Romans 3:27?
...does it not create an insurmountable problem if the mandate is to cleanse each and every expenditure of religious "taint"?
No, not insurmountable. If legistlators, executives, and judges act in good faith there should not be much effort at all. The Bill of Rights does not prevent citizens from doing anything; it only prevents government agents from doing things.
As I pointed out in another post, historically there is no problem with federal or state governments acting in a way to generally promote the institutions of religion. That historical truth was radically attacked in 1947.
I disagree. There were plenty of problems with the government promoting religious institutions. They, like other violations of civil rights, simply did not get adjudicated in the 19th Century. From the very earliest Establishment cases that came before the Supreme Court they have followed a fairly consistent interpretation.
"But I'd argue that is is a difference of degree rather than kind."
Careful, slippery slope (argument).
So how are the two different?
It depends on who "any building" belongs to. If Moore puts a statue in my front yard, he is taking my property. If he does it as a private citizen, then it is simple trespass. If he does it as a Judge, then it is a violation of the Due Process clause.
... your anti-Christian spew?
What anti-Christian spew?
They were explicit and forceful in their repeated insistence on the valid and intrinsic role of Christianity in America's viability as a free constitutional republic.
"Where in our Constitution does it say that?"
How about all those Founding Father's quotes on their having founded America as a Christian Nation?
I didn't see the quote from which said "we are founding America as a Christian Nation." Can you point that one out to me? Regardless, the law of our land is the Constitution, not a collection of quotes.
Easy. The federal judiciary is preventing the state government from serving its citizens. Surely the definition of tyranny can cover that case.
I'm not sure what you mean by "(this is the BY WHAT LAW?).
I am keeping the focus on the real issue, which is by what law - not fabricated court doctrine - can the federal court order the removal of this monument?
If legistlators, executives, and judges act in good faith there should not be much effort at all [to remove all religious "taint" from every government expenditure].
Welcome to a world engineered by the ACLU. People can be taxed at 50% or more, this money turned over to any private charity as long as its members have no avowed faith. Real good result. (/sarcasm off)
From the very earliest Establishment cases that came before the Supreme Court they have followed a fairly consistent interpretation.
If that is true, then the only Establishment cases came after they radically changed the definition of "establishment". That does not change the actual and original meaning of the first amendment.
Nice English... are you learning-challenged? That would explain your inability to understand the very simple words of America's Founding Fathers.
"I went down, down, down,
And the flames kept getting higher..."
Johnny Cash
;-/
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations. The battle is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, ALMIGHTY GOD! Give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry of the Constitutional ConventionI can only assume that that is a misquotation of Patrick Henry's speech to the 3rd Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775 which concludes:
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!Please correct me if I'm wrong.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/libertyordeath.html
How are the citizens of Alabama who are not Christians or Jews served by a large religious monument in the middle of the state Judical Building? For that matter, how are Christians and Jews served? Is it one of the duties of government to remind us of the commands of God, as written in the book of Exodus, translated by King James's men, and edited by Roy Moore?
I am keeping the focus on the real issue, which is by what law - not fabricated court doctrine - can the federal court order the removal of this monument?
Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia
TITLE 42 , CHAPTER 21 , SUBCHAPTER I , Sec. 1983.
Now that you've gotten in yet another ad hominem attack, can you please point out where, in the Consitution itself or in the remarks of a delegate who attended the Constitutional Convention, it says that they founded America as a Christian Nation?
The federal judiciary is preventing the state government from serving its citizens.-NutCrackerBoy
How are the citizens of Alabama who are not Christians or Jews served ... ?-Looking for Diogenes
Wait. Let's agree to the principle.
Tyranny = oppressive power exerted by government.-Merriam-Webster
What would you call it if the federal judiciary ordered the police all over the country to stop arresting crooks? That would be tyranny, right? It would be necessary then to ask: By what law does the court do that?
If you agree with the principle, we can proceed to how this order hurts the citizens of Alabama and all such orders are hurting citizens all over the country.
Please don't reduce everything to an argument where any restriction on any level of government is always deemed good and it cannot possibly be hurting citizens. Don't force me to reduce every argument of citizens being hurt to their having certain rights taken away.
Agreed
What would you call it if the federal judiciary ordered the police all over the country to stop arresting crooks? That would be tyranny, right?
No, that would be bad policy, maybe dereliction of duty. The federal government already says that states may not arrest crooks unless they are read their rights. Is that tyrannical? No. What was tyrannical was when states arrested citizens and deprived them of their rights.
The 'Miranda Rule' is an attempt to secure civil rights while still aloowing police to arrest crooks. It isn't perfect, but it strikes a balance between different needs in society: civil liberties and personal security.
Now you could argue that a citizen has a right to live free from crooks, so that any policy which gets rid of more crooks is beneficial regardless of what other rights are trampled in the process. The Bill of Rights stands in direct opposition to that argument.
Likewise you could say that religion is a good thing and so more (state supported) religion is better, no matter what other rights are trampled in the process. Again, the Bill of Rights stands against that line of reasoning.
Likewise you could say that religion is a good thing and so more (state supported) religion is better, no matter what other rights are trampled in the process. Again, the Bill of Rights stands against that line of reasoning.
Whoa, whoa, please, not everything is about individual rights! You rejected the word "tyranny" but there must be some word for what the federal government would be oppressively doing if it hampers a lower government entity such as a state so that it (the lower entity) cannot do what it needs to do?
Do you disbelieve in any state sovereignty, only national? It is not metaphysically possible for the federal government to oppress a state?
The Tenth Amendment was effectively repealed when the North Defeated the South in the Civil War. The Constitution today is meaningless, every important word or concept has been redefined. The individual, which was once so protected by the Constitution, is now an impediment to the "social good".
And our Supreme Court will not now, nor will they ever, render a Constitutionally correct argument again. (If they do, it will be serendipitous)
It's over, folks, we'll not reinstate the actual meaning of the Constitution through voting. (IMHO)
The first nine amendments to the Constitution are all about individual rights. It is the duty of every level of government to ensure that they are not violated.
The Tenth Amendment affects the role of States in areas not otherwise prohibited. This is an area of the law I am not as familiar with. However, this particular case involves the actions of one individual. His institution, the Supreme Court of Alabama, has overridden his action, so there is no state vs. federal issue. If the legislature and governor passed a law mandating Decalogue monuments in courthouses, that would be a different matter.
Speaking generally, the Federal government could certainly act tyrannically towards its citizens, almost everyone of whom is also a citizen of a state or district. I'm not sure how it could act tyrannically towards a state government, other than declaring war. Let's not turn this into a Civil War thread.
OK. I can steer clear of a direct states' rights argument while still advancing my case.
Sure, the federal judge cites the First Amendment as the pitiful justification for the wrongful decision to order the monument removed. Part of my aim must be to defend Judge Moore against this scurrilous charge.
However, it is also fair for me to make a direct case against what the federal judge Thompson did, the essential by what law? question. There is no requirement for me to cast that action as an individual rights infringement. Let me be clear: I do not accuse Thompson of infringing anyone's individual rights! And yet I adamantly protest his action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.