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.
Originally the Bill of Rights was not binding to the states. Justice Story, one of the first Chief Justices of the US Supreme Court, in 1833 wrote Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in which he says:
The First Amendment concerning religion is generally divided into two clauses: the Establishment Clause - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;” and the Free Exercise Clause - “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At the time of adoption, and for over a hundred years after, the Bill of Rights was construed to apply only to the federal legislature. Gradually, the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were extended to the state governments by the Supreme Court through the application of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which was passed after the Civil War. The Free Exercise Clause wasn't extended to the states until 1940, and the Establishment Clause wasn't extended to the states until 1947.
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?
The Constitution of the United States was never meant to limit the states but to limit the Federal Government.
What is the breaking point on a Court Order?
That's what I would like to know. I tend to draw the line at whether or not a ruling violates the plain language and original intent of the Constitution. The federal judge in this case clearly crossed that line.
It ranks up there, when I learned about the crime about abortion. Where its not about the baby but the right of a woman. My wife a choice woman, until I explained to her, that its about the woman having a choice to have the child. The child being unable to live outside the womb therefore dies. The question being, if its a child or not is the issue. Her jaw dropped........(Although there might be science now to change everything.
Man I am moved. I love this. I wonder if this is a a Republican stance? How do we get back to this??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I believe the problem resides in the creation of elected senators.
What's wrong?
Its not suppose to be this way.
If I'm wrong, then what's "not supposed to be that way"?
This is the great problem.
If, as you say, I'm wrong, then there is no problem. There is only a problem if I'm correct.
Better that "my country, love it or leave it", which is what we'd wind up with if we allow the federal courts to keep going on the course they're going.
for the paine free answer, please see my post number 99
-#99-
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.
The judge would overturn on the basis of an unconstitutional infringement of our RKBA, which is, of course, based upon the act of ignoring Art V!. Violations of the 14th might even cited, depending on the specifics of the case.
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. 99 -akston-
I agree. Thank you for making part of my point, Hugh.
Loony tunes, baseless remark. Everything I have posted in my years on FR defends our U.S. Constitution, not our federal government.
I also attack state & local governments when they ignore & violate our basic Constitution/BOR's. -- Who would not, save for the loony 'states righters'?
- a marxistly centralized land in which an Oregonian tells a South Carolinian how to run his local affairs - over the real Constitution, which preserves the independence of each state that the Founders saw as valuable.
No one in Oregon is dictating to the Carolinas.. This is just more of your loony hype.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The point of Article VI was to make clear that those provisions which do apply to the states, have the force of law within each state. That's what makes it different from the Articles of Confederation. Under those articles, there were also provisions that applied to the states, but they didn't have the force of law, because the Confederation was regarded as little more than a treaty organization, like NATO.
Although, it's insignificant to this issue.
Judge Moore didn't institute an Alabama State church in any city. No one in Birmingham had to sign up for the Church of the Celestial M. and no one passed a law establishing 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.