Replies

"The rule of law means that no person, including the chief justice of Alabama, is above the law," Pryor said. "The rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders."

Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003 & Freedom Restoration Act have been proposed to educate the COURTS and reverse the nonsense expressed in judical opinions that are contrary to the Bill of Rights. This nonsense has taken the place of the Constitution and the RULE OF LAW. See AMENDMENT ONE - FREEPER rwfromkansas

"Remember, this is a place where they believe in states' rights," Green said. "So anytime the federal government tells Southerners what to do, they vehemently reject that and despise that. Alabamians would rather get a gun and fight than sit down at the table and discuss it sanely."

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

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.
1. 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"?
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
1. 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.
2. 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.

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

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."

If the Ten Commandments (given by God to direct the affairs of men)...arent worth fighting for
Then neither is the Constitution

As for Moore, Green said this is likely the beginning of a quest for higher office. With Riley hurting politically because of an unpopular tax proposal, Moore could situate himself nicely for a run at governor in 2006, Green said.

Yep.

Go Roy Go!

FYI, you would help these threads a great deal if you held off on posting your comments until a little more into the thread. I'm sure you worked hard on that, but honestly, that stuff isn't nearly as interesting as what other freepers have to say about the debate.

After signing the American Declaration of Independence, the new Congress appointed a committee to design a great seal of the United States. Committeeman Thomas Jefferson suggested the seal should include the children of Israel in the wilderness, led day and night by cloud and fire. Committeeman Ben Franklin suggested a more fitting image would be Moses, dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh in his chariot being swamped by the returning waters.

And the motto: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

The justices, who have the power to override Moore's administrative decisions, took the step after a federal judge threatened to fine the state $5,000 per day ... The governor, who is grappling with a budget deficit, said the fines could have added up to $1 billion within four months.

Huh? Wait a minute ...

5000 x 31 = 155,000
155,000 x 4 = 620,000

How do you get from 620,000 to $1 billion?

All I can say is Judge Roy Moore is a hero.

God Bless Roy S. Moore!!!!!

"Rebellion to tyrants is
obedience to God."

July 8, 1776..."Benjamin Franklin's suggestion for a seal and motto, characterizing the spirit of this new nation..."America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or to often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by christians;not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

Patrick Henry

I'm not religious - I do support Moore. Just remember history - the last time the Christians lost was not a pretty picture. It's no doubt in my mind that the anti-Christians think they are so superior to the Christians. My advice is to RESPECT HISTORY!

"...The justices, who have the power to override Moore's administrative decisions, took the step after a federal judge threatened to fine the state $5,000 per day.

(snip)

The governor, who is grappling with a budget deficit, said the fines could have added up to $1 billion within four months."

No wonder he's battling a budget deficit. At $5,000 per day, it comes to $600,000 after four months... a tad short of "$1 billion" - or am I missing something here?

thanks a bunch for linking to my post. :)

Bill Federer’s American Minute:
August 21, 2003
Born in Scotland, he was one of only six founding fathers to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. President George Washington appointed him a Justice on the Supreme Court. One of the most active members at the Constitutional Convention, he spoke 168 times. His name was James Wilson and he died this day, August 21, 1798. The first law professor of the University of Pennsylvania, James Wilson wrote: "It should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God.... Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine."

Its too bad John Hostettler's amendment has not passed. I disagree with Governor Bob Riley and Bill Pryor. I believe the law can be a good thing - but I must cure the gentlemen in question of a misapprehension - that judges are always right. When a court should issue an order contrary to the Constitution and the rights that inhere me, it is my solemn duty is to disobey that order. Why? Because I fear God more than the edicts of man. For me there is an absolute sense of right and wrong that guides my path. And surely removing our nation's religious heritage from public view as if it were something to be ashamed of,can NEVER be right. And that is why Messers Riley and Pryor, I do not submit to the notion we have a duty to follow an unjust and immoral act even if it has imprimatur of a court. We do not. Q.E.D

SPOTREP

HOSTETTLER STATEMENT ON COURT ENFORCEMENT FUNDING PROHIBITION

HOSTETTLER STATEMENT ON COURT ENFORCEMENT
FUNDING PROHIBITION