Click on image to view full size
Posted on 08/24/2003 7:22:03 PM PDT by Gdzine
The supreme court of the United States already has the ten commandments. Read my comments to find out more
Every century or so, some intellectual or another tries, e.g., the Jacobins after the French Revolution, Lenin after the Russian Revolution etc . . . .
Roy Moore, in his capacity as Head Justice, by his statements, and the placement of the tenets of Judeo-Christian beliefs in the rotunda of the Justice building, effectively defined the concept of God for the State of Alabama, in conflict with article 3 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
The very voice of Moore itself. "If you're not an Exodus-venerating Christian, you're not really a citizen."
The mouthpiece for the Southern Poverty Law Center made the same argument that you do, on Fox News. But notice where that argument leads.
First we had hate crimes, which I thought should have been declared unconstitutional. Murder is murder, and whenevr has there been a "love" murder (O.J. Simpson excluded). But now, in this argument, we have hate thoughts. The Ten Commandments becomes unconstitutional because of the thoughts in the mind of the person who commissioned the statute?
It is hard for me, as a First Amendment lawyer, to imagine a clearer violation of that Amendment. What was in the mind of the Chief Justice of the United States who commissioned the two (or three -- see other posts on the third one) memorial of the Ten Commandments placed on and in the Supreme Court building?
How shall we try that case? Have a reliable medium (played by Whoopi Goldberg) channel his spirit and testify as to his intent?
I am not arguing for the truth of every word spoken by Chief Judge Moore. I AM arguing that the First Amendment, as written, does not forbid the display of the Ten Commandments -- not in Alabama, not in D.C., not anywhere else in the nation. Moore's rhetoric is simply and clearly irrelevant to the constitutional question presented.
Whenever I see any lawyer in any case pounding the table over a part of the case that is irrelevant to the logical outcome, I know that lawyer is engaging in what we call "poisoning the well." Such lawyers are trying to trick the judge, or jury, into a false decision. By their very tactics, such lawyers are tacitly admitting that their case is weak and that their clients deserve to lose, on a fair understanding of the facts and the law.
Don't buy into such an argument, my friend. You are much to bright and able to be had by such a cheap trick.
Billybob / John
The Constitution does not outrank the Ten Commandments. Nor, in the secular world, do the Ten Commandments outrank the Constitution. However, the Commandments are a bedrock part of the history of British law, that after the American Revolution became American law -- with a few adjustments such as dispensing with the monarchy.
My point is that the First Amendment did not require forgetting, or at least hiding in a closet, the very real and relevant religious parts of our history. For a century and a half, the Amendment meant no such thing. For the Supreme Court then to change the meaning of the Amendment to forbid such things is a double wrong. It is a violation of the oath of office to defend the Constitution, which judges take like other public officials. It is also an attack on the most basic right which all citizens have -- to amend the Constitution when we choose, or to leave it standing as is for the next generation.
That's an awfully short explanation of a very complex subject. Does that make sense to you?
Billybob / John
Not only that, but in my post to you, I discussed the relevancy of the Judge's words and actions as the Head Justice in Alabama, and as those words and actions apply to the Alabama State Constitution, not the Federal Constitution; article 3 of the Alabama State Constitution of 1901 (the current constitution) to be specific. Moore was suspended by his own Court, not the Feds.
There is no need for a medium to figure out Judge Moore's intent, it's clearly stated in his speech dedicating the monument, I provided the quote.
Thanks,
LG
There is a big difference between assigning intentions VS. assigning intentions to objects.
I'm sorry if you cannot see the difference but its totally nuts and bizarre if we are going to use this as the method to determine if objects are objectionable in the public square.
Lets apply the test to something other than religious so that you can remove anti-religious bias and see what your advocating more clearly. Lets assume I commissioned an artist to produce Clinton and Monica in the act of nonsexual relations (BJ) and place this in the public square. My intentions given to the artist are to keep it accurate and historical. Lets further assume that all who see it believe it to be pornographic. Using this knew standard of determining the intentions of the author would require it be left in the square because the object isn't guilty.
Seriously, the intentions argument goes to the individual not the art. If the individual is guilty of promoting a religion then remove him. If the object in and of itself is judged as religious then remove it.
So if we remove Moore and the next judge who takes his place thinks the monument he commissioned is historical then we can return it ?
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and that no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive, separate public emoluments or privileges, but in consideration of public services.
Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.
<STRONG>Section 3. No person within this State shall, upon any pretence be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping God in the manner most agreeable to his own conscience; nor be compelled to attend any place of worship; nor shall any one ever be obliged to pay any tithes, taxes or other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry.
Section 4. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Section 5. No person shall be hurt, molested or restrained in his religious profession, sentiments or persuasions, provided he does not disturb others in their religious worship.
Section 6. The civil rights, privileges, or capacities of any citizen, shall in no way be diminished or enlarged, on account of his religious principles.
Section 7. There shall be no establishment of religion by law; no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State.
Section 8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
Section 9. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions from unreasonable seizures or searches; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
Section 10. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation, and have a copy thereof; to be confronted by the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and, in all prosecutions, by indictment or information, a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense shall have been committed: he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor shall he be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by due course of law.
Section 11. No person shall be accused, arrested, or detained, except in cases ascertained by law, and according to the forms which the same has prescribed; and no person shall be punished, but in virtue of a law, established and promulgated prior to the offense, and legally applied.
Section 12. No person shall, for any indictable offense, be proceeded against criminally by information; except in cases arising in the land and naval forces, or the militia when in actual service, or by leave of the court, for oppression or misdemeanor in office.
Section 13. No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any person's property be taken or applied to public use, unless just compensation be made therefor.
Section 14. All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.
Section 15. No power of suspending laws shall be exercised, except by the general assembly, or its authority.
Section 16. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishments inflicted.
Section 17. All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient securities, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident, or the presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of "habeas corpus" shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety may require it.
Section 18. The person of a debtor, where there is not strong presumption of fraud, shall not be detained in prison, after delivering up his estate for the benefit of his creditors, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law.
Section 19. No ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be made.
Section 20. No person shall be attainted of treason or felony by the general assembly. No attainder shall work corruption of blood, nor forfeiture of estate.
Section 21. The estates of suicides shall descend or vest as in cases of natural death; if any person shall be killed by casualty, there shall be no forfeiture by reason thereof.
Section 22. The citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance.
Section 23. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State.
Section 24. No standing army shall be kept up without the consent of the general assembly; and, in that case, no appropriation of money for its support shall be for a longer term than one year; and the military shall, in all cases, and at all times, be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Section 25. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Section 26. No title of nobility, or hereditary distinction, privilege, honor, or emolument, shall ever be granted or conferred in this State; nor shall any office be created, the appointment of which shall be for a longer term than during good behavior.
Section 27. Emigration from this State shall not be prohibited, nor shall any citizen be exiled.
Section 28. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.
Section 29. No person shall be debarred from prosecuting or defending any civil cause, for or against him or herself, before any tribunal in this State, by him or herself, or counsel.
Section 30. This enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people: and to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, or any transgression of any of the high powers herein delegated, we declare, that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.
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.