Posted on 08/28/2003 5:14:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
A judicial ethics panel has suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for his refusal to obey a federal court's order to remove a monument displaying the Ten Commandments on public property. This action was anticipated, but it only seems to have strengthened the resolve of Justice Moore and thousands of other concerned citizens.
What has been surprising are the responses from conservatives who support the court's ruling and who have lashed out at Justice Moore. Michael Medved, the radio talk show host dubbed America's "Cultural Crusader," has accused Moore of flaunting the rule of law and taking a position that could lead to anarchy. Quin Hillyer of the Mobile Register, writing in the National Review, called Moore "an oddball and a zealot," a judge with a "messianic complex and a thirst for tactical martyrdom and the publicity it brings."
As I pointed out in my last column, one fact that is all too often overlooked is that the Bill of Rights is not binding on the states. That is made perfectly clear in the Tenth Amendment. Even the Fourteenth Amendment failed to extend the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. It wasn't until the mid-1920s that the Supreme Court began using the "due process clause" argument to force the states to abide by constitutional limits that up until then only applied to the federal government. Such is the case in Alabama.
The problem with allowing this court ruling to stand is that it weakens the safeguards we are supposed to have against the tyranny of a strong, centralized government. When the Constitution was ratified, it was done with the understanding that the various states would retain most of their sovereignty. The Constitution was carefully written so that the powers of the federal government would be, according to James Madison in Federalist No. 45, "few and defined," while the powers remaining to the states would be "numerous and indefinite."
Regarding the Ten Commandments monument, the message that the federal judiciary is sending to the rest of America is that while it is wrong for a state judge to ignore the ruling of a higher court, it is perfectly acceptable for a higher court to overstep its bounds and violate the Constitution. It's bad enough that we have to deal with that kind of arrogance and hypocrisy from our elected representatives. Why should we accept that kind of behavior from judges?
No court decision—from the Supreme Court on down—has the ability to alter the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Just as the legislative and executive branches must function within the boundaries set forth in that document, so is the judicial branch prevented from expanding the scope of its own powers.
Justice Moore and thousands of other concerned citizens have taken a stand not only for religious liberty, but also for the rights of the people of Alabama to govern themselves. When a federal court steps in and decides that a public display of the Ten Commandments constitutes an establishment of religion, and that a state has no business acknowledging God, it is violating the First Amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Justice Moore needs the support of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. What happens in Alabama could very well have lasting effects all across the nation. Already, a lawsuit is underway in Texas to force the removal of a King James Bible displayed outside the Harris County Courthouse.
In a little over 200 years the United States has turned into an oligarchy run by the judicial elite. It's nice to see that in a few pockets of this country the spirit of freedom and independence lives on.
The Wall between church and state is a concept born in a letter by Thomas Jefferson long after the Constitution was written. In the 20th Century it became a tool to force atheism on our society, despite Madison's explicit statement that the Constitution was not intended to favor atheism. I think this could be tantamount to Dred Scott -- a turning point where The People decide the courts are going the wrong way on a divisive issue.
In the 20th Century it became a tool to force atheism on our society...
I think you're right, and the Constitution is supposed to protect us from that just as much as it is supposed to protect us from the establishment of a national religion.
The US Supreme Court agreed:
The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. ... The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument.Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
Chief Justice Marshall, Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 7 Pet. (32 US) 243, (1833)
This strikes me as inaccurate.
I'm a huge supporter of Moore, but this line of reasoning isn't helpful, in that it makes the opposition appear incapable of recognizing common sense.
It is only common sense that the Constitutional Amendments would have been a futile exercise if they weren't considered part of the Constitution itself.
Most of the Bill of Rights is written in general language to preserve the peoples rights from ANY government intrusion. The First Amendment is notable for SPECIFICALLY saying that CONGRESS has no say in religious matters.
The federal judiciary has no constitutional standing to inhibit Judge Moore.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, there were (and continued to be) established churches within states. I believe Rhode Island had an official established church. I believe other states did as well.
So, Virginia liked the First Amendment just fine. The First Amendment allowed Virginia to call the shots, and kept the Federal Government out of the picture.
As I understand your argument, this 2nd amendment ONLY applies to the Federal Gov't telling me I cannot own a weapon.
Your argument is that this amendment does NOT apply to a stae government which could could confiscate my weapons and be totally correct.
What do you think they mean by the word "state" above?
No matter how you look at it, this amendment is either: (1) The national constitution prescribing freedom of gun-bearing so "states" can protect themselves. OR, it's (2) The national constitution prescribing to everyone how the "national state" proposes to defend itself by having citizens with the freedom of gun-bearing.
The Second Amendment does not mention any government body. Not a National body (Congress) nor a lower body (state government). The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is given to "the people" and it cannot be infringed.
It is a terrible misreading of the what I have been posting to see this as only applying to the Federal Government. I have no idea where you are getting that. As I have said, the Bill of Rights limits the power of government (usually ANY government) over the the people. The First Amendment is notable for specifically limiting the power of the Federal Government (Congress). The Second Amendment explicitly declares that "the people" have a right which cannot be infringed (by any body). How much clearer do you need it?
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.