Posted on 08/28/2003 12:12:24 PM PDT by quidnunc
-snip-
Judge Roy Moore, the publicity-seeker who put the 2.5-ton Ten Commandments in the Alabama state courthouse, declared Monday that he could disobey the direct order of a federal judge because "judges do not make laws, they interpret them." Since, Moore continued, an interpretation can be wrong, therefore he may defy a judicial order. So presumably Judge Moore also thinks that if he sentences a man to prison, the man can declare that the interpretation might be wrong and walk free? It's exactly the same logic.
Moore further said that the First Amendment precept, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," does not apply to him because "I am not Congress." Drag this incompetent lunatic out of the court quickly, please. Anyone with entry-level knowledge of Constitutional law knows that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to state governments; that a 1937 Supreme Court decision specifically declared that the First Amendment binds state officials like Judge Moore.
As a church-going Christian — TMQ was in this church on Sunday — I find it deeply embarrassing when Christianity is associated, in the public eye, with hucksters like Moore. I find it embarrassing, too, when Christians supporting Moore's hunk of stone suggest that a big object in a public square is what matters, rather than the power of God's message itself. Anyone who needs to look at a big object in order to believe, doesn't really believe.
And consider that in the same state, Alabama, where the Judge Moore sideshow is getting nonstop media attention, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is risking his political neck to campaign for tax-law changes that would increase taxes on the well-off while exempting everyone who makes less than $17,000 annually. Gov. Riley phrases the campaign in religious terms, saying, "According to our Christian ethics, we're supposed to love God, love each other and help take care of the poor." How come this pure and admirable Christian sentiment gets no media attention while the egomaniac with the hunk of stone in the same state's courthouse enjoys round-the-clock coverage?
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.go.com ...
Does the State of Alabama get to decide for itself what the U.S. Constitution means? Do all 50 states get to decide that? This is not a reserved power - not since the passage of the 14th.
The point is, the feds simply did not have jurisdiction in this matter under the 10th. Whatever powers or rights cited in this case were created from whole cloth, not the Constitution.
The 14th does not allow the re-invention of the amendments proceeding it, only their application to the states. Having a monument to the 10 commandments is nowhere akin to having the State of Alabama establish a state religion or compel someone to pray or worship, which is the threshhold where the 1st coupled with the 14th would kick in.
If you follow Moore's words, the answer is no. There ain't nothing American about that.
So basically it boils down to the judge, or, in effect, the rule of men, not law. Thanks for making my point for me.
Hoist on your own petard!
Those groups which are I mentioned are antithetical to everything which I believe, but they are still part of "the people".
There are a couple names for "the people" taking the law into their own hands and acting outside the system — one is revolution and the other is anarchy.
Which is which often depends upon your perspective.
We have in place a system of laws and checks and balances which has served us well for over two centuries.
It may not be perfect but over time excesses are practically always self-correcting.
The one iron-clad duty of every judge is to uphold the law, not disregard it or make it up as he goes along as Roy Moore is doing.
How would you know that if you don't know what they relied upon?
Bump...
Moore's comments were not on trial here, just a monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court.
A better question - Do American citizens of the Hindu faith have a Constitutional, 1st Amendment right to freely exercise their religion? What about Buddhists? Taoists?
Please demonstrate to me how having a monument to the Ten Commandments in a state courthouse restricts the respective rights to worship of those religions. Maybe they're worried that bolts of lightning will come from it (like the climatic scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark) and burn down their houses of worship?
Yeah, right.
The only difference between the decision of Hudspeth and the decision of Thompson is that they were faced with two very different cases. From everything in the Thompson decision, if he was faced with the facts in the case before Hudspeth he would've made the same call.
Sure, we end up with one monument on state property allowed to stay in place and the other removed. Yeah, that's consistency, all right.
He is most decidedly not standing up for the 1st Amendment rights of anyone who is not a Christian or a Jew. His words, not mine.
How about just reading the 10th and getting back to me? The point is, the fedgov decided a long, long time ago that they did not have to bother with that pesky 10th Amendment. You can base a legal decision upon previous decisions built upon that foundation of sand, but it still is not rooted in the Constitution, and is therefore a usurpation. But you're a liberal, so I don't expect you to understand the concept - you applaud usurpation masked as progressivism.
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.