[Looking for Diogenes]

Intent is an important factor in the law. The Archtect of the US Supreme Court building said his intent was to portay our heritage of "fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East." Moore said his intent was to reflect "the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men."

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law in all 50 states, even Alabama. You may not believe that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights binding to state and local governments, but the US Supreme Court does and has since at least 1947. You are free to fight for the repeal of the 14th Amendment if it offends you.

A policy or act is the same as a law, insofar as the Bill of Rights is concerned. If a policeman confiscates the press run of a newspaper he is not creating a law but he is still violating the 1st Amendment.

This judge, acting in his official capacity as an officer of the court and an agent of the government, violated the U.S. Constitution. As a private citizen he could have erected the same monument on private property and there would not have been a violation. The First Amendment rights of Roy Moore, private citizen, are intact. The Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Alabama does not, as an official, have any First Amendment rights.

[TigersEye]

Intent is an important factor in the law. The Archtect of the US Supreme Court building said his intent was to portay our heritage of "fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East." Moore said his intent was to reflect "the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men."

Isn't that the same intent expressed in the Alabama State Constitution? And the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..." That sure sounds like it speaks of the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men.

You may not believe that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights binding to state and local governments...

AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

One of those privileges and immunities is this:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But aparrently you think the 14th, which holds the States to the fed. Const., somehow exempts the federal Courts from it. Well, it does say "Congress shall make no law..." so I guess there is no prohibition on the Federal Judiciary.

This judge, acting in his official capacity as an officer of the court and an agent of the government, violated the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Myron Thompson? Yes! The judges of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? Most definitely. But then they are not the States or Congress so the U.S. Constitution isn't binding on them. I don't see how repealing the 14th Amend. would change that but I guess that's where the magic is.

The Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Alabama does not, as an official, have any First Amendment rights.

What?????????????