The Courts vs. the Constitution

ToogoodReports.com ^ | 08/28/2003 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[sheltonmac]

*ping*

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...Justice Moore needs the support of freedom-loving Americans everywhere...

[Princeliberty]

I think this shows once again how there are deep rooted
problems in the Conservative establishment.
Many of them are simply lap dogs for Republicans
and since the Republican establishment is distrubed
by this so are they.

Even though over 80% of Americans nationwide oppose
the removal of the 10 Commmandments even in
CNN's polls!

[AZFolks]

I strongly reccomend all to the book; "The Death of Right and Wrong." The author (Tammy Bruce) dissects the motives for the secularism that is spreading. In addition, I think Bill O'Reilly hit it right on in his "talking points" last night - if there is no religion, the basic fabric of society and morality falls apart. This allows one to glorify gay "marriage" while condeming the boy scouts, allows one to use the phrase "adolescent sex" instead of child abuse etc.

[ClearCase_guy]

The sculpture could be an artisic display. Moore can display those.
The sculpture could be an educational display. Moore can display those.
Moore is exercising his freedom of religion (using money that is his to spend by law). The Constitution protects this.
The National Legislature (Congress) cannot touch religious issues. The First Amendment decrees this.
The Federal Judiciary cannot enforce national laws which have not been written. Commonsense tells us that.

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.

[BlueMoose]

It's time to close the cafes in all government buildings.

[wasp69]

BTTT and *ping* right back atcha.

[sheltonmac]

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.

[4CJ]

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.

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)

[JohnGalt]

This is a states rights issue and a question of whether one believes in the logic and legitimacy of the 14th Amendment. Medved, who supports Ashcoft trumping states rights on state issues, is being consistent--even if he is wrong.

[xzins]

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

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.

[ClearCase_guy]

The Bill of Rights was written to statisfy the anti-federalists who feared a powerful national government that would dominate the states. The Bill of Rights is designed to restrict the power of the Government.

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.

[JohnGalt]

Must read:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/HardRight/HardRight.htm

"Anyone who stands up to the federal government in a good cause deserves praise and respect, and even in crude political terms it is useful for conservative Christians to be reminded that their government hates them. It is important, however, to distinguish between the defiant action taken by Judge Roy Moore—the only law west of the Chattahoochee—and some of the arguments that are being advanced to defend his cause..."

[MissAmericanPie]

There are merely a handful of Americans who grasp what the battle is about, and of those who do, only a handful who will actually protest by showing up, most won't even make a phone call to their congressman.

So are we worth saving? I don't know anymore. These incrimental steps of the Judiciary to wipe out all trace of our origin, and to socially engineer from the bench, cannot be called benign totalitarianism, only totalitarianism, and it will grow more abusive as time passes until it effects the daily life of all citizens and even then I doubt many will complain from inside their little boxes.

[xzins]

I agree with all you've written.

I don't agree that the Bill of Rights are not binding on the states.

What would be the point of Virginia agreeing to the first amendment, if, for example, they had no intention of recognizing the free speech rights of its citizenry?

[ClearCase_guy]

Virginia agreed that Congress should stay out of Virginia's affairs when it came to Speech or Religious issues. If Virginia wanted to restrict speech or exercise of religion by citizens of Virginia, then it could try it (at some risk to its elected politicians).

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.

[Protagoras]

Some folks don't make their judgements on things based on what others are saying.

[xzins]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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.

[ClearCase_guy]

"State" is a world which is broadly construed to mean a nation, a people, a government, a land, a realm, whatever. The 2nd Amendment is talking about the security and freedom of the nation which is establishing the Constitution.

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?