The Courts vs. the Constitution

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

[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.

[Badray]

I apologize if I wasn't clear.

I know that the Cali State Constitution lacks that provision.

Are you saying that in one of the other threads that there was documentation that the provision was omitted because of the existence of the 2nd Amendment?

I always assumed that it was part of the Constitution because they were always loons or it had been removed recently.

Thanks for any info or guidance.

[tpaine]

Sheltons position, and the position of the 'states rights' advocates on this thread, is that a state has the power to ignore the religious freedoms noted in the 1st amendment. -- Not to mention any or all of the others.

Do you agree with Lee Shelton's position?
72 -tpaine-



I would tend to agree with you, but #10 seems to state the opposite.
76 -Sir-


At # 10, Sheltion is quoted:

"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:
-- [in Barron V Baltimore, 1833] -- "


The 'Barron' decision was made moot by the clear words of the 14th, 1868.

Shelton simply denies this fact, and I have never read any of his articles where he even attempts to refute the historical basis, or the constitutional legitimacy of the 14th amendment.

His usual 'argument' is like his above quoted bit of bull:

"the Bill of Rights is not binding on the states. That is made perfectly clear in the Tenth Amendment."

The man is blowing smoke.

[tpaine]

Idiotic statement, I'm arguing for enforcing our BOR's [at any level, fed/state/local], -- you want to limit them..
Such is life, indeed.
56 tpaine

...by the federal government. I'm arguing that it'd be wiser for states to be limited at the state level. So yes, that fully justifies my observation: Knowing how federal powers can be abused, I want to keep them limited. You obviously don't
-inquest-


I've repeated thruout this thread that I advocate enforcing our BOR's at every governmental level, -- fed/state/local.

Obviously you can't read, or, - you are playing more games. Lying games.

[inquest]

I've repeated thruout this thread that I advocate enforcing our BOR's at every governmental level, -- fed/state/local.

You just confirmed my statement again. You want the feds involved. I don't.

[tpaine]

It is my opinion [and the opinion of others], that Californias founding fathers omitted a RKBA's simply as a oversight. -- Or maybe they were too drunk.


It probably was so self evident to them, that they never gave a thought that someday there would be loony 'states rightists' trying to say otherwise.

[tpaine]

You are simply confirming the obvious.

You like word games, and aren't very good at them. Get lost.

[inquest]

And you like to throw out accusations of word games every time you can't make a rational counterargument.

Get lost.

You posted to me, if you remember. Did you think you could do so without my holding you to your own statements?

[Ethan_Allen]

I said:

"Actually, it may be that they are trying to say our roots are with Noah and not Moses and the Commandments: "

Looking over that site, I ran across this:

" . . . . On the 9th day of Adar II, 5700 (19 March 1940), the Rebbe arrived in New York on the SS. Drottningholm, and was enthusiastically welcomed by thousands of followers and many representatives of various organizations, as well as civic authorities. Immediately upon his arrival, the Rebbe publicized that it was not for his own safety that he had made the trip to the United States, but that he had an important mission to fulfill in this free and blessed country. This mission was to make America a Torah center to take the place of the ruined Jewish communities of Europe. The decade that had elapsed between the Rebbe's first and second visit to the U.S.A. left its scar on the Rebbe's constitution. His health had greatly deteriorated by his suffering and self-sacrifice. Nevertheless, the Rebbe threw himself at once, body and soul, into his new mission . . . . " http://www.sichosinenglish.org/general/chasidism.html (about half-way down the page)

""In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of 'justice and peace.'" -- excerpt from article entitled "New World Order Pledged to Jews," in the New York Times (October 1940)"

"The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God." -- American Institute of Judaism, excerpt from article in the New York Times (December 1942) - NWO Quotes http://www.penncrier.com/penncrier/pcnwoqut.html

Did I forget to mention this?

ABRAHAM AND THE COVENANT GOD MADE WITH HIM http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/garcia-john_p_01.html

and

JESUS IS ISRAEL http://www.preteristarchive.com/Jesus_is_Israel/index.html

[tpaine]

You've never 'held me' to my own statements. You can only imagine you have.

Run along now.

[michigander]

It probably was so self evident to them, that they never gave a thought that someday there would be loony 'states rightists' trying to say otherwise.

Yeah, that shi... stuff happens. Sort of like a number of the states bowing down to the Feds. about the .08 DUI blackmail with the highway funds.

Here's another...

---

Constitution of Michigan of 1963
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
§ 6 Bearing of arms.
Sec. 6.

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

---

Strange, I don't see anything about "Every person" except (insert whatever class of folks here).

[Ethan_Allen]

and this..... (something I've discovered recently)



No man has seen God the Father face to face, and lived:

Exd 33:9 And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood [at] the door of the tabernacle, and [the LORD] talked with Moses.

Exd 33:10 And all the people saw the CLOUDY PILLAR stand [at] the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man [in] his tent door.

Exd 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face [FROM WITHIN THE CLOUDY PILLAR], as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Exd 33:12 And Moses said unto the LORD, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight.

Exd 33:13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation [is] thy people.

Exd 33:14 And he said, My presence shall go [with thee], and I will give thee rest.

Exd 33:15 And he said unto him, If thy presence go not [with me], carry us not up hence.

Exd 33:16 For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? [is it] not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that [are] upon the face of the earth.

Exd 33:17 And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

Exd 33:18 AND HE SAID, I BESEECH THEE, SHEW ME THY GLORY.

Exd 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

Exd 33:20 And HE SAID, THOU CANST NOT SEE MY FACE: FOR THERE SHALL NO MAN SEE ME, AND LIVE.

Exd 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

Exd 33:22 AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS, WHILE MY GLORY PASSETH BY, THAT I WILL PUT THEE IN A CLIFT OF THE ROCK, AND WILL COVER THEE WITH MY HAND WHILE I PASS BY: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Exd/33/20.html

Exd 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: BUT MY FACE SHALL NOT BE SEEN.




Now lets's fast-forward a little:



Gen 16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid [is] in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

Gen 16:7 And the ANGEL OF THE LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

Gen 16:8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

Gen 16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

Gen 16:10 And the ANGEL OF THE LORD SAID unto her, I WILL MULTIPLY THY SEED EXCEEDINGLY, THAT IT SHALL NOT BE NUMBERED FOR MULTITUDE. [Note the 'ANGEL OF THE LORD' says that HE will multitiply her seed.]

Gen 16:11 And the ANGEL OF THE LORD SAID unto her, Behold, thou [art] with child, and shalt bear a son, and SHALT CALL HIS NAME ISHMAEL; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen016.html#11

Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; AND he shall dwell in the presence of ALL his brethren.

Gen 16:13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, HAVE I ALSO HERE LOOKED AFTER [UPON] HIM THAT SEETH ME?

[Ishmael = "God will hear"

1) son of Abraham and Sarah's handmaid Hagar and the progenitor of the Arabian peoples....STRONG'S CONCORDANCE]





An ANGEL OF THE LORD also appeared to Samson's parents
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jdg/Jdg013.html#22



Jdg 13:20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on [it], and fell on their faces to the ground.

Jdg 13:21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he [was] an angel of the LORD.

Jdg 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, WE SHALL SURELY DIE, BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN GOD.

Jdg 13:23 But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands, neither would he have shewed us all these [things], nor would as at this time have told us [such things] as these.

Jdg 13:24 And the woman bare a son, and called his name Samson: and the child grew, and the LORD blessed him.



Now let's look at Jacob:

Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled A MAN with him until the breaking of the day.

Gen 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

Gen 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.

Gen 32:27 And he said unto him, What [is] thy name? And he said, Jacob.

Gen 32:28 And he said, THY NAME SHALL BE CALLED NO MORE JACOB, BUT ISRAEL: FOR AS A PRINCE HAST THOU POWER WITH GOD AND WITH MEN, AND HAST PREVAILED. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen032.html#28

Gen 32:29 And Jacob asked [him], and said, TELL [MEl I pray thee, THY NAME. And he said, Wherefore [is] it [that] thou dost ask after my name? And HE BLESSED HIM there.

Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [i.e., the face of God.]: for I HAVE SEEN GOD FACE TO FACE, AND MY LIFE IS PRESERVED.

Jacob just said he had seen God, A MAN, face to face, and survived. But no man can see God face to face, and survive. Was Jacob a liar? Not likely........



Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].


Jesus Christ was THE ANGEL OF THE LORD who was seen by Moses and Hagar and Samson's parents, and A MAN who wrestled with Jacob, because it is He....



Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:



It was Jesus Christ who named Ishmael and it was He who lent His name to Jacob, because Israel means to rule with God ('El' meaning God.), which is what He is doing now....


KJV English Concordance for "sit thou on my right "


Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat022.html#44

Mar 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Luk 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Act 2:34 For DAVID IS NOT ASCENDED INTO THE HEAVENS: BUT HE SAITH HIMSELF, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

You probably knew that, but it was a revelation to me; maybe it will help someone else.

[inquest]

You've never 'held me' to my own statements.

Of course I have. You've repeatedly stated that you want the federal government to have such powers over state laws, and then denied that that's the issue. It's all on display for anyone to read.

Run along now.

As you've said to other posters who in the past have become irritated with you: You stop, I stop.

[tpaine]

tpaine:
You've never 'held me' to my own statements.
-89-

Of course I have. You've repeatedly stated that you want the federal government to have such powers over state laws



Typical of your lies.
I've repeatedly stated that I want our Constitution/BOR's to be enforced over all fed/state/local government abuses & violations of law.

[inquest]

And you want the federal courts enforcing this view over the states, is that not correct?

[tpaine]

Typical of your lies.
I've repeatedly stated that I want our Constitution/BOR's to be enforced over all fed/state/local government abuses & violations of law.
-93-


And you want the federal courts enforcing this view over the states, is that not correct?
-inquest-



Only as the Constitution itself requires, my boy.
How would you have it?

[inquest]

How would you have it?

I'd have it that the states police themselves, just as the national government is expected to police itself. A state that goes astray will lose business, investment, and residents. When federal courts go astray, however, the problem becomes more serious.

[tpaine]

tpaine:
How would you have it?


I'd have it that the states police themselves, just as the national government is expected to police itself. A state that goes astray will lose business, investment, and residents. When federal courts go astray, however, the problem becomes more serious.
-96-

Ah yess.... The old, 'my state, love it or leave it' dodge.
-- And if you don't want to leave your 200 year old family homestead, -- well we of the new moral majority can write some laws to 'encourage' you to do so.

-- You will have no appeal because your U.S. Constitutional rights do not apply to folks of your ilk.. So it is decreed.

[leprechaun9]

What is the breaking point on a Court Order?

As an extreme, if the Supreme Court ordered a government official to commit murder, would the order have to be followed?

I keep thinking about the Nurenberg Defense, i.e., I was only following orders!

[H.Akston]

This bit about the bill of rights being binding on the states is always confusing, largely because of the judicial BS that has been handed down from justice hugo black about the 14th Amendment incorporating the bill of rights into the states' constitutions.

I prefer to come to my own conclusions, not driven to some outcome like justice black was. The clear cut facts are that the Constitution says in Article VI that the Constituion is binding on the judges in every state. That means all judges. Not just federal ones. Therefore, while the state legislatures might legally try to infringe on the right to bear arms, for example, a state or federal judge would have to overturn such a state law if a state was sued by one of its citizens for his right to bear arms.

There is no need for the 14th amendment to "incorporate" (a bs word) the bill of rights. Article VI already makes everything in the Constitution binding on the judges in every state.

[xzins]

Good point.

But it really doesn't matter what a judge says. I realize that for legitimate self-defense I need a gun.

And I have a right to self-defense.....from God.