SUMMARY: Chief Justice Roy Moore's Case Defending The Display Of ... The U. S. Constitution's guarantee against an "Establishment of Religion" is not violated by the placement in the Alabama State Judicial Building's rotunda of a 2 ½ ton monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments and a variety of other quotes. To the contrary, interpretations of the Constitution by a U. S. District Court in Alabama and a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals do violate the Constitution. The monument was designed and commissioned by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in recognition of the moral foundation of the law.
- This suit should never have gone to court. The plaintiffs complained that they found the monument "offensive," that it made them feel like an "outsider," that Moore was "using religion to further his political career," that Moore was guilty of a "shameless political use of religion," etc. None of these highly personal, subjective feelings qualifies as a "case or controversy"--the only type of action that Article III of the Constitution allows federal courts to hear.
- There is no "law" involved in this case. A "law," by definition, commands, prohibits, or permits a specific action. Chief Justice Moore's installation of the monument does not command, prohibit, or permit any action by any party.
- There is no unconstitutional "establishment of a religion" involved in the monument's creation and placement.
- The Ten Commandments as displayed in the Judicial Building are memorialized as a fundamental source of American and English law and Western civilization. A "law" and its "source" are not the same thing. The Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of our law are supported by a variety of large, influential religious groups--evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, orthodox Jews, and Mormons (for example). If the Ten Commandments per se constitute a "religion," which of these "religions" is "established"?
- Interrelationships between law and non-legal values, reflected in the Ten Commandments, are inevitable. "Without religion, there can be no morality: and without morality there can be no law" (top-ranking British judge Alfred Lord Denning, 1977). Reflecting this truth, the U. S. Supreme Court has correctly ruled that "This is a Christian nation" (1892, 1931).
- A "pluralism" of fundamental religious and legal values can extend only so far. Both federal courts ruling against Chief Justice Moore argue for religious "pluralism"--asserting a "history of religious diversity" in America (the Court of Appeals) and branding any effort by law to recognize a single definition of "religion" as "unwise, and even dangerous" and as "tending towards a 'theocracy'" (the District Court). But the courts call for the impossible. "Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and if they are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, they will be smuggled in surreptitiously and often unconsciously. Values are always in real or potential conflict. And the state inevitably favors some values over others" (American historian James Hitchcock, 1981). Thus, American law can be based on the Ten Commandments or on a non-theistic value foundation. There is no alternative. And if public acknowledgement of the former constitutes "establishment of religion," so does the latter.
- All of the Ten Commandments have a secular significance to the law. Even the first four Commandments, most directly involving Deity, reveal that there are a Higher Authority and Higher Law to which human law must be submissive--the only sure safeguard against tyranny by human government.
- There is an unconstitutional establishment of religion created by the two federal court decisions.
- The District Court's assertion that the state "draws its powersfrom the people, and not God" is a religious position (an anti-theistic one). This assertion throws the power of the court behind a religious view in violation of the Establishment Clause.
- Both federal courts base their conclusions on the mythical "wall of separation" doctrine. This concept is not in the Constitution's text, is not supported by American history and tradition, and calls for the impossible (see #3b. and #3c. above). Because the mythical "separation" doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in 1947--156 years after the Establishment Clause was written, and therefore has no fixed content--federal courts have had to constantly re-define and create "tests" of "establishment." The most notably is the Lemon three-pronged test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971). Since 1971, various Supreme Court Justices have exposed the true nature of this myth and the "tests" it has spawned, describing them as "all but useless," "mercurial in application," "unhistorical," "non-textual," and productive of a body of Establishment Clause law that is plagued with "insoluble paradoxes" and "unprincipled, conflicting litigation." Despite these fatal flaws in the "separation" myth and Lemon test, both federal courts utilize them as the basic standards for finding against the Chief Justice and the monument.
In a 1798 letter to American military officers, President John Adams declared that "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other." Chief Justice Roy Moore's installation of the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building recognizes this truth. Chief Justice Moore does not violate the U. S. Constitution. The two federal courts who have ruled against him do.
HOSTETTLER STATEMENT ON COURT ENFORCEMENT
FUNDING PROHIBITION
By U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, July 2003
U.S. Rep. John Hostettler delivered the following statement regarding his amendment to prohibit federal funds for the enforcement of a federal court ruling that ordered the Alabama Supreme Court to remove a monument depicting the Ten Commandments:
"Mr. Chairman, in Glassroth v. Moore, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution by placing a granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State judicial building in Montgomery, Alabama.
"In the court's words, 'The rule of law does require that every person obey judicial orders when all available means of appealing them have been exhausted.' In this statement, Mr. Chairman, the court plainly shows that it believes itself to be the chief lawmaker whose orders become law.
"But, in fact, Mr. Chairman, this is inconsistent with both the Constitution in Article I, Section 7, and, in fact, Federal statute, which says that the United States Marshal Service shall execute 'all lawful writs, process, and orders' of the U.S. district courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal and the Court of International Trade.
"In reality, Mr. Chairman, the founders of this great nation foresaw this problem and wrote about it. And when they developed our form of government, they said this, according to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:
"'Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.'
"Mr. Chairman, given the fact that the judiciary has neither force nor will, it is left to the executive and the legislative branches to exert that force and will. We have heard tonight that the executive branch wants to argue the Newdow case that was spoken of earlier and may hear that the executive branch wants to argue in favor of the display of the 10 Commandments in that case.
"We will allow, therefore, the executive branch to leave these decisions in the hands of the judiciary who, a few years ago, concluded that sodomy can be regulated by the States, but most recently said that sodomy was just short of a fundamental right that is enshrined in our United States Constitution.
"But the framers of the Constitution never intended for the fickle sentiments of as few as five people in black robes, unelected and unaccountable to the people, to have the power to make such fundamental decisions for society.
"That power was crafted and reserved for the legislature, and one of the mechanisms that was entrusted to us was the power of the purse. Mr. Chairman, time and again I am sure that our colleagues are asked about ridiculous decisions made by the Federal courts, and many of us say that there is nothing we can do.
"Mr. Chairman, today, we can do something. We do not have to put our faith in the faint possibility that some day five people in black robes will wake up and see that they have usurped the authority to legislate and will constrain themselves from straying from their constitutional boundaries.
"Mr. Chairman, it might be suggested that we do not want this legislation to disrupt the judicial process in the interim between the Circuit Court of Appeals process and the Supreme Court.
"It is not my intention to do that tonight. In fact, I welcome the highest Court's review of this decision; and I say tonight that if they get it wrong, I will exercise the power of the purse again and defund the enforcement of that inane decision. Mr. Chairman, today is a great opportunity for us to learn the powers of the legislature vis-a-vis the judiciary.
"After this vote, Mr. Chairman, and the vote to de-fund the Ninth Circuit's decision to effectively remove the phrase 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, our constituents will ask us, 'Congressman, do we, your constituents, have a voice in these most fundamental decisions, and we do not need to wait on a new Supreme Court Justice who may or may not, today or tomorrow, inject common sense into the decisions of the Supreme Court?'
"Mr. Chairman, we will be able to tell them, 'Yes, you do have a fundamental say.' And it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I have offered this amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Act.
"This legislation is where we find any funding in any executive agency that would enforce the 11th Circuit's judgment in this case. My amendment would prevent any funds within that act from being used to enforce that erroneous decision in Glassroth v. Moore. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment
The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to withhold funds from any enforcement action related to a federal appeals court's decision that the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama judicial building is unconstitutional."
By a vote of 260-161, lawmakers last week OK'd an amendment by Rep. John N. Hostettler, R-Ind., to prohibit any money in the bill funding the Justice Department from going to enforcement of the controversial decision. House rebuffs court on 10 Commandments
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States secures rights against laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the United States Government. Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003
The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause' and the `freedom of speech clause' which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .'. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role. ...It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not." --Ron Paul 13 August 2003, Federalist No. 03-33, Wednesday Chronicle
The following explains why judge Myron Thompson is wrong:
The electorate must demand that Congress act in accordance with the testimony presented in Congress, the Court, and the Constitution According to The Birmingham News,
seventy percent of respondents support Chief Justice Moore's granite display, which includes the Ten Commandments, and statements from our nation's Founding Fathers that document America's Christian heritage. Only twenty percent disapprove of the monument's display, which was privately funded by Chief Justice Moore, and cost the taxpayers of Alabama nothing. The other ten percent were unsure. Tom Gordon, "Poll: Most back Moore on Ten Commandments," The Birmingham News, September 15, 2002
Police would not estimate the size of the crowd, which appeared to be several thousand people, possibly as many as 10,000.
After the rally hundreds of people walked several blocks to the judicial building, where they lined up to view the monument inside. Some debated with about 35 atheists holding a counterprotest across the street. Thousands Rally In Support Of Ten Commandments Monument
UPDATE: The open letter to Justice Roy Moore received 33,000 signatures(as of 19Aug03) since it was launched on Friday! We encourage every American Patriot, who believes as our Founders did that our Constitution should not be subject to the vagaries of an activist Leftjudiciary, to sign an open letter in support of Chief Justice Roy Moore's defense of religious liberty and states' rights in this landmark case. http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter
Moore is not your typical judge. After graduating from West Point he served for five years in Vietnam before entering law school at the University of Alabama. Prior to his first judicial appointment in 1992, he studied full-contact karate, won his first kick boxing match, and completed a five-month trek across the Australian outback.
Though he has traveled widely, Moore has never strayed from his roots in Etowah County, Alabama. Growing up in what he called a “poor Christian home” and admiring a father who “lived what he believed,” Moore learned to honor God, cherish family, and love his country. Following law school, he served as deputy district attorney in Etowah County and later established his own private practice. In 1992, he was appointed Circuit Judge of the 16th Judicial Circuit, where he gained notoriety for displaying a plaque of the Ten Commandments. Then in 2000, Moore was elected to serve as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. A devout Christian and father of four children, Moore is not surprised by the controversy that has surrounded his public service. “When you do what you believe, you are going to run into problems,” he says.
Recently, PBS commentator Bill Moyers commented on Christian conservatives like Moore. “[F]or the first time in the memory of anyone alive,” he writes in a commentary posted on PBS’ website, “the entire federal government—the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary—is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.” The root cause of Moyers’ concern appears to be Christians who take their role in politics seriously: “And if you like God in government,” he added, “get ready for the Rapture. These folks don’t even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader [Tom DeLay] say that the Almighty is using him to promote ‘a Biblical worldview’ in American politics?”
What Moyers and others liberals are so bothered about is not Christianity, but true Christianity, biblical Christianity, activist Christianity. Moore’s opponents—three Alabama attorneys represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State—see references to God on a monument as a threat to the establishment of the official state religion, atheism. Morris Dees, the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, even went so far as to call Moore “a religious nut.” After all, Moore is a man who, wearing his judge’s robes, can often be found citing one of his trademark poems: “Choosing godless judges, we’ve thrown reason out the door/Too soft to put a killer in a well-deserved tomb, but brave enough to kill that child before it leaves the womb/ . . . you think that God’s not angry that this land is a moral slum?”
One of Moore’s attorneys, Herbert Titus, the former dean of the law school at Regent University, said Moore’s judicial philosophy is really quite simple. Moore believes that there is a “moral foundation of law with the acknowledgment that God is the source of that foundation.”
Moore could not be more right. The sad truth is that most Americans, brainwashed by the government school system, don’t even know that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution had no concept of the so-called “separation of church and state” that is so prevalent in today’s court system. As William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, has stated, “The separation of church and state is a metaphor based on bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of judgments, and it should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
When the First Amendment was being debated, the phrase “separation of church and state” was never used by the 90 men who framed it. “The First Amendment restricts only Congress,” says Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries and founder of the Center for Reclaiming America. “It was created to restrain the federal government.” Many Founding Fathers, including Patrick Henry and George Washington, refused to sign the Constitution unless it had a set of protections for the people against a potentially all-powerful federal government.
“Once we let the government believe it is the source of our liberties, we are never safe,” says Dr. Kennedy. The Declaration of Independence states the purpose of government very clearly—to secure God-given “unalienable rights.” That is the primary justification Thomas Jefferson gave for having government. Thus, apart from a recognition of God-given rights, there is no legitimate foundation for government. Indeed, government cannot be secular, because government’s purpose is to secure rights—and blessings—that come from God. And if government cannot be secular, why should we expect our elected officials to be secular?
Dr. Kennedy’s description of the true Christian statesman bears repeating here.
· First and foremost, a Christian statesman is one who repents of his sins, believes the gospel, trusts in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and invites God by His Spirit to dwell in his heart.
· Secondly, a true Christian statesman seeks to live a life guided by God’s Word and desires to make his days count for the kingdom of God.
· Finally, a true Christian statesman is one whose public and private conduct is guided by a bedrock set of principles that will not be compromised for personal or political gain. Such a person rises above partisan politics and makes the overall welfare of a nation his first priority.
In short, says Dr. Kennedy, a Christian statesman is someone whose commitment to Christ and love of country compel him to stand for truth and righteousness in government. Such a person recognizes that individuals (as well as nations) will ultimately give an account to God and are dependent on Him for prosperity and success.
Need a good picture of a Christian statesman? Then take a look at Roy Moore.
And to Justice Moore I say, “Keep on fighting the good fight.” You are not alone. As another fearless defender of the Constitution once said: “In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength” (Robert E. Lee).
by David Alan Black
http://www.southerncaucus.org/213.htm excellent post.