Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing

sierratimes.com ^

[Timothy Paul]

Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing By J.J. Johnson Please excuse the shocking title of this article. I will try to get past much of the rhetoric from both sides of the standoff about the en Commandments on display at the State Courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama. As thousands descend to Alabama's state capitol for prayer and defense of a 5300 pound rock, and legal scholars try to sort out the mess, many pundits wonder 'just what point is Chief Justice Roy Moore trying to make?' Well, here's one man's take on the matter: Despite all the historical documents from this nation's beginning, and despite everything we were taught from a young age, we are a more 'enlightened' people. We elected more 'enlightened' politicians who in turn appointed more 'enlightened' judges. And these all knowing, all powerful people, having more information at their fingertips than at any time in world history, have ruled that the basic rules of mankind that have been in place for at least 50 centuries have no place ; no legal standing in today's government.

...and that is the exact point Roy Moore is making.

The order to remove the Ten Commandments from public display at the Alabama Court Building is not the cause of a failed government, failed courts, or a failed people - it is instead, the result of it.

I will do my best here not to preach a sermon or sound like a right-wing zealot, but no one can tell me what is 'offensive' about those ten rules that are, in reality, the foundation of what was American law. But that's ancient history. We are more 'enlightened' today.

Being the greatest and most powerful country on earth, we don't need silly rules such as those ten. No, we have government today - which has become the new god. And we have finally come to a point where there just isn't enough room on the Grand Stage for two gods. Thus, the courts have consistently ruled in recent days that the 'Other God' must go.

And so, what if God does leave? What if he actually said, "ok, you guys win - and you're on your own"? That would make us a better country, wouldn't it?

Of course. And when folks like Jerry Falwell makes a statement on September 11 implying the God has removed his protective hand from us, we won't have to chastise him - since it would have been true.

And after such tragedies, we won't have national days of prayer, and prayer sessions in Congress while grieving over the dead because there will be no God to pray to. We told Him to get lost, remember? No, let us bow our heads and pray (and pay homage) to the New god of government. They will protect us from now on, and provide for all of our needs.

Let's not sing God Bless America anymore, since we really don't want him to. That's George W. Bush's job now. And let's remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, since we really don't trust him anymore. We've placed our faith in our money supply to Alan Greenspan.

And when it comes to religious symbols, we do our best to protect those in the war zone of Iraq, while throwing our own in the trash.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Word has it that a guy named Moses had gotten these ten rules straight from God himself. Even though e-mail wasn't around back then, God somehow downloaded them on to a couple of stone tablets. When Moses came back down from that mountain and saw the folks that were led out of slavery acting like too many of us today, he threw the tablets down, and they were forced to wander in the desert for 40 years.

But today, in the more enlightened America, we don't have to wander in the desert. We have military personnel to do that for us. And little by little, more will go and wander as well. You see, we have a new god now, and the whole world has become a desert.

So if and when we are plagued with earthquakes, violent storms, endless droughts, brushfires, or just people going crazy and shooting their co-workers or schoolmates, we'll call them "Acts of God", then plead to our new god (government) for our protection from all of these things. Yes, this new god is more to our liking. We can pray, and if the new god doesn't deliver, we can just vote him out of office (federal judges not withstanding). That Old God wouldn't let us do that.

Isn't it ironic that if everyone simply followed those rules, it would make not only that 5300 pound rock, but that entire building itself - irrelevant?

With the polls showing upwards of 77% of Alabamians, and the vast majority of Americans supporting the Ten Commandments being displayed at the courthouse, people are scratching their heads wondering, "why can't they just do what the majority wants?"

Answer: Because we asked for this.

We have long since slipped away from those tenants - and it's reflected in the people in government that represent us, enforce the laws, and rule on the laws. Yes, America - we didn't get the kind of government we wanted, nor the kind we needed. We get the kind of government we deserve.

We have become so 'enlightened' that we don't even know how to respect or enforce our own sovereignty. Millions cross our national borders illegally, and our leaders don't even have the will to call it illegal. As a result, we will eventually lose at least 4 southwestern states. I have all but given up trying to make it an issue anymore. We deserve it.

We have become so 'enlightened' that the only criteria for any judge to sit on a bench, despite all the other important decisions they have to make, depends on his or her willingness to sanction the killing of the unborn. Fine. We didn't want them to take the phrase "Thou shall not kill" seriously, anyway.

We have become so 'enlightened' that we fight to protect retirement schemes that we know will go broke soon, but that's okay since we've decided to let our grandchildren pay the bill. Then again, if they have no respect for that "Honor thy Father and Mother" thing when they grow up, why should they bother taking care of us?

We are so 'enlightened' that we find it acceptable to act pre-emptive, killing anyone we see fit to keep us safe, if we think they are a threat. Make sense, since we don't want God's protection anymore. We have to live this way now. We have enemies all around us and even within us we are told - because they envy us. They don't have the new god that we have, and they're jealous.

Gay Bishops are in, Boy Scouts are out, and sodomy has become a civil right, protected by the Constitution somewhere. Okay, I get it. According to our new god, the oldest industry on earth (agriculture) has become the most dangerous to the environment. And we all know that with all the craziness in schools these days, the last thing we need is prayer inside those buildings. Good thing we threw God out of there a long time ago. Just look at how much schools have improved since then.

Yes, for government's sake - let's get those Ten Commandments out of public view before something good happens.

And while we're at it, let's get all those crosses out of Arlington Cemetery. It's public property, you know. And tell all of our troops fighting overseas that worship service is history, turn in those pocket Bibles and as a matter of fact, they must all be atheists in those foxholes.

Let's do it right: Let us all come to an agreement that when the Bill of Rights was passed, they had no respect for any god, despite the fact that the Constitutional Convention was opened and closed with a Prayer to Almighty God. To Congress: Fire that priest we pay with our tax dollars to open and close each session of Congress with Prayer. We have a new god now, remember?

And one more thing: Let's not support Israel anymore, since their presence in the holy land is based on scripture, and our government's support would represent an 'establishment of religion'.

Hey ACLU and SPLC: Wanna take THAT one on?

Now, as for those people who have dedicated themselves to prevent the monument's removal, and those who have rallied to the cause - take a good look at them. That's what's left of the American ideal that was founded over two centuries ago - like it or not.

Make no mistake about it. If it weren't for too many trips already taken this year, I'd be there myself from 2000 miles away. Who knows - if the standoff in Alabama lasts, I may still be there. If I lived anywhere in Dixie, I would be writing this article from Montgomery.

Would I suggest others go? Let's put it this way: You don't even have to be a Christian, Jew or even a Muslim. God knows none of us have lived up the standards of all those rules, but it you believe the Ten Commandments should REMAIN the foundation on which this country is based, then take a drive down to Montgomery. Your fellow Americans are waiting for you.

And what about you, Mr. Bush? The silence from the White House is deafening. Is this only a "state issue" where the federal government should not get involved? If that were the case, we wouldn't be in this mess. I would not only pray for protection of the Ten Commandments, but that the President, during his fund raising travels, make a stop in Montgomery to visit with the Chief Justice, or maybe the people standing vigilant outside.

Odds are, they all voted for George W. Bush.

You see America: There is no sense looking for a legal loophole to save the Ten Commandments anymore, as God has no legal standing left in today's courts, government, or much of society. But the way things look from my piece of the world, perhaps it's time we invited Him back.

Just my opinion,

J.J. Johnson

[jwalsh07]

That no religion shall be established by law;

What law was established? Legislatures make laws in our system of government. At least, they used to.

that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship;

The Ten Commandments were given to the law giver, Moses, a Hebrew for the Hebrew people. The many sects, societies and denominations of Christianity have incorporated tham as well. Which one of those were given a preference in what law passed by the Alabama Congress?

that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship;

What Alabama citizen has been compelled by law to attend a place of worship?

nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship,

What Alabama citizen has been compelled to pay any tithe, tax or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship?

or for maintaining any minister or ministry;

Ditto?

that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state;

Anybody taking any tests in Alabama?

and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles

Any individual suffer any violation of these rights?

You 're argument is one of collectivism. A collection of folks "feel" they have a right not to be exposed to religion in a public place. Kind of a marxian thought, no?

[onemoreday]

.....
....
I have also been reading some of the posts here in relationship to the prison-murder of the pedophile priest.

Many Christians expressed a sense of joy upon hearing this news.......(though many expressed dismay and also a sense of disappointment in the attitude of those expressing the "joy")

We also know Slavery in the United States was condonned on the grounds that it was acceptible in the Jewish biblical culture (as expressed in the Bible)

Now, putting these ideas together, I ask you, (based on your attitudes expressed so far)....

......COULD NOT some obvious "illegality" be "justified" based on the expression of these same Christian principles?.......i.e.........What if the Christians who felt the priest should have been executed removed him from prison and lynched him?......

My point, in general, is.....

isn't there something to be feared when a sense of "righteous" anger , or "righteous" superiority is unleashed in the name of GOD?.......

the issue of whether this monument is "up" or "down" seems less relevant than the feelings behind the issue, which it seems people are not fully expressing.

[Pahuanui]

What law was established? Legislatures make laws in our system of government. At least, they used to.

His decisions, in case you missed it, come with the power of the law, i.e., the state, and is thus binding under state law. He put the monument up. He was ordered to remove it, and refused to. This isn't rocket science.

You 're argument is one of collectivism.

No, my argument is calling a publicity-hungry, duplicitous buffoon a publicity-hungry, duplicitous buffoon, which is exactly what the judge is.

A collection of folks "feel" they have a right not to be exposed to religion in a public place. Kind of a marxian thought, no?

No. Glad I could clear that up.

[petitfour]

It appears your problem is with Roy Moore and not with a piece of rock. Would you feel uncomfortable being tried by a bunch of citizens of Alabama?

If I put up a rock in the Alabama Supreme Court building with the Ten Commandments and some quotes from MLK, Jr., and some quotes from Blackstone, and a few from the founding fathers on it, BUT I didn't say anything about my faith when I put it up, would that be an establishment of religion??????????

[jwalsh07]

His decisions, in case you missed it, come with the power of the law, i.e., the state, and is thus binding under state law. He put the monument up. He was ordered to remove it, and refused to. This isn't rocket science.

Well here's your problem in a nutshell. You slept through governemnt class in high school or were unlucky enough to attend a public school after the left hasd taken them over.

There are three branches of government. The legislative branch makes laws. The executive executes the laws and in the old days prior to the ascension of frogs as the dominant force in America, the judiciary decides arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.

So now that you've been given the short form, you have no excuses for misstating the powers of the judiciary, be it Judge Moore or any other judge in this COnstitutional Republic.

Now, once again perhaps you can list the name of one, just one, Alabam citizen who has had his rights, priveleges or immuniteis violated by the display of the Ten Commandments.

Failing that, you should just lay back and enjoy the slow boil.

[sinkspur]

If I put up a rock in the Alabama Supreme Court building with the Ten Commandments and some quotes from MLK, Jr., and some quotes from Blackstone, and a few from the founding fathers on it, BUT I didn't say anything about my faith when I put it up, would that be an establishment of religion?

I dunno. But Moore was asked to do something like that, and refused. He also, through his own words to the Federal Judge, made it clear that this was a religious monument.

If it were purely secular, surrounded by other secular displays, and the judge said it was secular, then it would be hard to argue it was religious.

[Pahuanui]

Well here's your problem in a nutshell. You slept through governemnt class in high school or were unlucky enough to attend a public school after the left hasd taken them over.

While it is indeed comforting to see that you have been mercifully left unmolested by the ravages of intelligence, it pains me to see you embarass yourself with fumbling attempts at legal reasoning. To whit:

So now that you've been given the short form, you have no excuses for misstating the powers of the judiciary, be it Judge Moore or any other judge in this COnstitutional Republic.

Since you are ignorant of the details, I'll make it plain to you: he had a religious monument erected on public property. He was instructed by a higher court to remove it, and denied this request with on legal grounds. His denial carries with it the force of the state. No one here, other than you and perhaps the voices in your head, is claiming that he created a law in the manner that the legislature does.

Now, once again perhaps you can list the name of one, just one, Alabam citizen who has had his rights, priveleges or immuniteis violated by the display of the Ten Commandments.

Why would I? None of the legal decisions having to do with this case are based on or reference the violation of any individual Alabama citizen's rights.

Failing that, you should just lay back and enjoy the slow boil.

You've been too long outside your hospitial oxygen tent. Your lower brain functions are even less efficient than normal.

[VRWC For Truth]

Bump for a good read.

[sinkspur]

isn't there something to be feared when a sense of "righteous" anger , or "righteous" superiority is unleashed in the name of GOD?.......

I suspect there'd be a different attitude if Roy Moore was a Black Muslim, plastering Muslim iconography all over the Alabama Judicial Building.

That Geoghan thread opened my eyes. Rejoicing over the death of even a heinous criminal in graphic terms is decidedly un-Christlike.

But, I got smeared for agreeing with Pope John Paul II who had the audacity to actually PRAY for the 9/11 hijackers.

[Torie]

That is all very interesting. The monument might have been OK if Moore kept his mouth shut. I suppose a court could say that although Moore thought it was religious, he was wrong, and thus the monument is OK. Actually, I don't think the federal court cared much about what Moore said. The monument was going period because it was viewed as ineluctibly religious, and while old stuff might be grandfathered as a practical matter, new stuff isn't.

Using oral statements to decide one way or the other strikes me as going down the wrong road in any event, because in another case, the statements could be self serving, and such statements are ephemeral anyway. What is also clear, is that the law is a mess in this area. And the sad thing is that I don't know how to make it much better.

[exnavy]

Sorry, your wrong.

[exnavy]

The ten commandments are the basis for all our laws, and our constitution, and it is God that gives you all the rights contained in the bill of rights, not gubment.

Those comandments should be posted in every courtroom, law office, and gubmint building in the land, prominently and perminently.

[exnavy]

Gods word tells us to pray even for our enemies. We christians don't "hate" other religons. What we hate is sin. Worshiping a false God is sin. Most of us love and pray for all, I mean ALL the unsaved. Anyone who has not proclaimed Jesus Christ a personel savior, has no chance of eternal life.

[Pahuanui]

The ten commandments are the basis for all our laws, and our constitution, and it is God that gives you all the rights contained in the bill of rights, not gubment.

No, they're quite clearly not. Several of them conspicuously and blatantly violate the bill of rights, and are incompatible with a free people.

Now, what were you trying to say?

[AndyMeyers]

One of the problems most everyone today has is the sentiment expressed in this thread - that the US Supreme Court is the ONLY and FINAL authority on interpreting what is "constitutional" and what is "unconstitutional".

The US Constitution established three, distinct, co-equal branches of government - the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. There is (or was supposed to be) a "check and balance" between them. If one branch has the authority to overrule either or both other branches "co-equal" and "checks and balance" goes out the window.

The Constitution gives to each branch of government the power to "interpret" the Constitution as it applies to each.

The Supreme Court, particularly beginning with and since the Warren Court, has gradually usurped the Legislature’s and Executive’s authorities. Unfortunately, since the Executive and Legislative branches are elected by the people and the Judiciary is not, the first two branches tend to allow the Judiciary to "fade the heat", so to speak, and rule on controversial issues, lest the President, Senators or Congresspersons be removed from office in the next election. Case in point, the Campaign Finance Reform Act. Congress passed it and Bush signed it in expectation that the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional.

(Most of the following is taken from Congressional testimony - "Congress, the Court, and the Constitution"):

The judicial power to invalidate the actions of other branches was widely understood at the founding to be ''departmental'' or ''coordinate''—a power of ''functional review'' enabling the judiciary to pronounce authoritatively on the constitutionality of laws touching on the integrity of the courts' own functions, for instance where a case concerns jurisdictional issues, standards of evidence, or the provision of simple due process.

This limited version of judicial review was all that was either exercised or claimed for the Court by John Marshall in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, which many claim established the federal judiciary as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.. Actually, the legislative and executive branches have a like authority to have the ''last word'' on those constitutional questions bearing on the exercise of their own powers, arising from the provisions of the Constitution addressed to themselves. Thus, that same John Marshall, for instance, held that the reach of Congress's power over commerce among the states was to be controlled authoritatively not by the judiciary, but by the people through democratic processes: such are ''the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

The terms of the First Amendment address themselves to the Congress and not to the judiciary, and in no way would an infringement of one of the rights therein have an adverse effect on the proper functioning of judicial processes. Moreover, if the First Amendment had been expected to be the subject of routine judicial enforcement, we would expect the subject to have come up frequently in the First Congress that debated and drafted the Bill of Rights. In "From Parchment to Power: How James Madison Used the Bill of Rights to Save the Constitution", (1997) Robert Goldwin, there is no mention that the subject of judicial enforcement of the Bill arose at all. The point of the Bill of Rights was not to trigger judicial review, but to weave a love of liberty into the American political culture. According to Goldwin:

[T]o the extent that these principles of free government [in the Bill of Rights] have become a part of our ''national sentiment,'' they do, indeed, often enable us, the majority, to restrain ourselves, the majority, from oppressive actions. That is the import of the first five words of the Bill of Rights: ''Congress shall make no law'' that attempts to accomplish certain prohibited things. It means that even if a majority in Congress, representing a majority of us, the people, wants to make a law that the Constitution forbids it to make, we, all of us, superior to any majority, say it must not be done, because the Constitution is the will of all of us, not just a majority of us.

Whatever uncertainty there might be about whether the First Amendment is gathered into the scope of judicial review, there is NO UNCERTAINTY whatever about the proposition that, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment was intended to restrain ONLY the national government and not the states or their subdivisions. And, among scholars who do not hold a prior commitment to judicial activism, a second proposition is virtually settled as well: that the Fourteenth Amendment changed nothing about that fact.

On the Supreme Court the debate has gone all the other way, so that Justices Scalia and Thomas no less than their more liberal brethren act unquestioningly on the basis of twentieth-century precedents that declared that much of the Bill of Rights is selectively "absorbed" or "incorporated" into the terms of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But these precedents are worse than doubtful: they represent a plain usurpation of power by the Court, and they ought not to be respected, on or off the Court, by anyone who regards the Constitution as superior to "constitutional law."

To the extent Justice Moore holds that the federal judiciary has no authority in the matter he is right. Whether or not he may or may not be violating the Alabama Constitution or laws is another question, but one that is not at issue regarding the federal judge's opinion.

[petitfour]

Hey. You forgot to answer my other question. Would you feel uncomfortable being tried by a bunch of citizens of Alabama?

[sinkspur]

Would you feel uncomfortable being tried by a bunch of citizens of Alabama?

Absolutely not.

[Maelstrom]

"If the Churches don't display them, why should the government display them? "

The point of this exercise is obviously beyond your grasp.

Why should you be allowed to breathe?

Their display means nothing...their removal is what holds inherent meaning.

[Maelstrom]

"Moore abhors all religions but the Christian one."

I don't give a damn what Moore says. I've already told you the underlying meanings concerning the monument in clear and unambiguous form.

"Would you have a problem with a Muslim Supreme Court Justice (there is one, in one of the Western states) erecting a monument to the Koran in a public building? "

Irrelevant to the debate.

but

NO...with the caveat if the portions of the Koran advocating the murder, conversion, or taxation of those who aren't Muslim were included, or other exhortations for adherents to punish others in the monument.

I would have a problem with the ACLU attempting to remove it.