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.

[tpaine]

You agree, and it does matter.


Why do you WANT states to have the power to violate our individual rights?

[inquest]

It's not possible for states to "violate" that which doesn't apply to them in the first place.

[djf]

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national government.

Hamilton, Federalist 28.
There are many more examples

[tpaine]

the BOR is specifically stating that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. -pgy-



Why do you WANT states to have the power to violate our individual rights to religion/speech/press/assembly/petition?

How about the 2nd? Can states violate that?

[tpaine]

"The U.S. Constitution only prohibits the federal government from banning guns --"
25 -smac-


Inquest, do you agree that states can violate our 2nd amendent?
32 tpaine

It's not possible for states to "violate" that which doesn't apply to them in the first place.
-inquest-

Word games. -- You agree that our RKBA's can be violated by states.

Be ashamed.

[pgyanke]

Do I have to respond to someone who obviously didn't read what I wrote before? What's the likelyhood you'll read it this time? If you want your answer, read the post you responded to one more time and try again.

[tpaine]

My post was clear enough.

You contend that 1st amendment rights can be violated by states. This is not true.

Obviously, you do not have to respond.

[inquest]

Word games. -- You agree that our RKBA's can be violated by states.

Never once said that. Our rights exist regardless of what the Constitution says. This whole silly little dispute simply has to do with the powers of the federal government, not with the question of whether rights are inviolable. Knowing how federal powers can be abused, I want to keep them limited. You obviously don't. Such is life.

[pgyanke]

*Sigh*

My post clearly said that the Bill of Rights apply to all citizens and all levels of government EXCEPT where noted. The Founding Fathers were not afraid of religion, just a national one. They clearly said that the Congress (the law-writing body of our national government) has no jurisdiction when it comes to religion and backed up their justification in their writings and speakings.

Since the other amendments speak strictly to rights of the people and states, they apply as they are written.

I was wrong... people do need to have words written in plain English explained to them.

[JudgemAll]

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.

Let me see, a judge protests peacefuly, wants to discuss the truth further through his protest, yet we are shutting him up and calling him leading to anarchy?????

This is over the top.

[Sir Gawain]

Add me to your ping list.

William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth

[tpaine]

Obviously, you've never read the other rights enumerated in the first amendment.
Or, -- is there some penumbra you see that separates them from the 'Congress shall make no law' line?

[Sir Gawain]

If the 2nd Amendment automatically applied to the states, it seems like any state that had an RKBA amendment would simply be redundancy. Why do states have RKBA amendments if they're covered under the BOR already?

[atlaw]

"Why do you WANT states to have the power to violate our individual rights?"

I suspect its because the cause of the moment is furthered by a draconian interpretation. If California passed a law prohibiting Christians from speaking on city sidewalks, you'd be hearing a different story. Just a guess.

[GrandMoM]

BUMP

[tpaine]

Word games. -- You agree that our RKBA's can be violated by states.

Never once said that.

Yep, and thats another of your play on words, -- because you support Sheltons position, which has that view.

Our rights exist regardless of what the Constitution says.

Of course they do. This is not the issue.

This whole silly little dispute simply has to do with the powers of the federal government, not with the question of whether rights are inviolable.

The 'states rights dispute' is not silly. You deny the basic principles of individual freedoms by saying states have the power to ignore them.

Knowing how federal powers can be abused, I want to keep them limited. You obviously don't.

Idiotic statement, I'm arguing for enforcing our BOR's, -- you want to limit them..
Such is life, indeed.

[AnalogReigns]

The fact of the matter is every state, with Virginia being the first, ALREADY each had their own "bill of rights" built into their state constitutions. The federal constitution was modeled on the protections of rights already in various state constitutions. The founders were not concerned with their own states becoming tyrannies, as much as they were of a central federal government becoming tyrannous.

A state government could be controlled by its citizens, whereas a large central federal government, with a huge standing military and law enforcement apparatus is more to be feared.

The current kind of government which the U.S. Government is, is exactly what the founders sought mightily to avoid.

[tpaine]

If the 2nd Amendment automatically applied to the states, it seems like any state that had an RKBA amendment would simply be redundancy. Why do states have RKBA amendments if they're covered under the BOR already?
53 -Sir G-


Some states wrote their constitutions before our U.S. Constitution was ratified.
-- As we can see, in 1848, CA wrote their constitution in the assumption that there was no need to enumerate such an obvious right.
'They' were wrong because we now have a federal government violating our RKBA's, and thus a USSC thats afraid to slap down CA's obvious violation of the 2nd.
Go figure.

Whats really incredible is that some 'conservatives' claim that CA has the power to prohibit guns.

Do you Sir?

[tpaine]

tpaine:
"Why do you WANT states to have the power to violate our individual rights?"


I suspect its because the cause of the moment is furthered by a draconian interpretation. If California passed a law prohibiting Christians from speaking on city sidewalks, you'd be hearing a different story. Just a guess.
54 -atlaw-

Great ironic point.

I suspect there would be blood on those sidewalks, in short order.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

If the 2nd Amendment automatically applied to the states, it seems like any state that had an RKBA amendment would simply be redundancy. Why do states have RKBA amendments if they're covered under the BOR already?

Many State constitutions contain language very similar to that of the U.S. Constitution and are thus redundant. Many contain language even more explicit concerning establishment or promotion of religion. In short, most constitutions of States which were not the original 13 colonies were modeled after the U.S. Constitution.