Posted on 08/28/2003 12:12:24 PM PDT by quidnunc
Judge Moore made no law.
Great point, so I emphasized it again for you. Myron the Druid played three-card monte with some "emanations" and a "penumbra" or two, and the worshippers of the federal judiciary lapped it up like kittens on a bowl of milk.
There's really no arguing with these people, because they'll never admit that they're wrong. Neither would Eschoir. ;-)
This is an easy one, unless you're a worshipper of the holy federal druids. Then, you've got to play Twister like ol' lugtroll here. ;-)
God created us as free men, granting us our Rights in the process. Free men wrote the Constitution to secure these Rights, instituting our American Government, which derives its Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
In the "government" of luggie, sinkie and Palpitations, the federal judiciary came before all else, which is why fedjudges should be able to carry anywhere, but the peasants must be restricted, and also why fictitious liens can be recorded against the State of Alabama, but certain other privileged types should be protected against fictitious liens. ;-)
"CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The phrase that governs all the rest of the sentence is " Congress shall make no law..." It is addressed to no other branch of government. Even if we make a giant leap to the view that the First Amendment was made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment, it is still not clear what application could be made of it. The 14th Amendment provides that " The CONGRESS shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." But how can Congress legislate about matters concerning which the governing phrase is, CONGRESS shall make no law? The obvious answer is that it can't.
That aside and even supposing the the 14th made the First applicable to the states, there was NO grant of power to the Federal courts to lay down rules as to what constituted an establishment of religion, what states governments might authorize regarding religion, how local governments might celebrate religious occasions etc. No such powers are granted to any branch of the federal government, including Congress, by the First Amendment.
For nearly 70 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the courts and and just about everybody else believed the First Amendment meant what it said, no more no less.It was not until the 1930's and 40's that the federal judiciary started to stick it's nose under the tent of state authority in the matter of religion and morals. The fed courts have hijacked a power not enumerated to them in the Constitution.
Judge Moore swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the State of Alabama and the Constitution of the United States.
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution says that congress shall make no law establishing religion OR prohibit the free exercise thereof.
The lawsuits filed against Judge Moore were not based on violation of any law. They were based on the lie of "separation of church and state".
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson".
Putting a memorial inscribed with the 10 Commandments is no different that saying "In God We Trust," "One Nation, Under God" or "God Bless America." Furthermore, it is very beneficial for our civil and political leaders to recognize that God is the ultimate ruler, not they. Judge Moore's memorial does this and that is good.
Exactly.
"Separation of church and state" is a lie proported by an activist court that has been allowed to go almost unchallenged until now. You'll notice that the higher courts pick and choose what it will or will not hear. Why do you suppose that is? This is a can of worms that they do not want to address because of the implications, not the least of which are:
Does the Judiciary have the right to usurp rights granted individuals under the 1st amendment?
Does the Judiciary have the right to usurp rights of the states granted them in the 10th amendment?
Does the 14th amendment grant them the right to do so?
The way things are now, the Supreme Court rules this country by edict and this was never intended by the founders.
Judge Moore is duty bound to uphold the Constitution of the State of Alabama and the Constitution of the United States. I believe he is doing just that when he defied the order of the federal court.
As previously mentioned, the Judiciary is but one of three branches of our government that the founding fathers anticipated that it could get out of control and impose its will on the people, and it has. The founders determined that the Executive and Legislative branches should oversee its actions to prevent abuse of Judicial authority. The Executive and Legislative branches have failed, for whatever reason, to do their duty to control the judiciary.
"Separation of church and state" is a lie proported by an activist court that has been allowed to go almost unchallenged until now. You'll notice that the higher courts pick and choose what it will or will not hear. Why do you suppose that is? This is a can of worms that they do not want to address because of the implications, not the least of which are:
Does the Judiciary have the right to usurp rights granted individuals under the 1st amendment?
Does the Judiciary have the right to usurp rights of the states granted them in the 10th amendment?
Does the 14th amendment grant them the right to do so?
The way things are now, the Supreme Court rules this country by edict and this was never intended by the founders.
Judge Moore was and is duty bound to uphold the Constitution of the State of Alabama and the Constitution of the United States. I believe he was doing just that when he defied the UNLAWFUL order of the federal circuit court.
Could you show me where it says in the Constitution that you have to be "taxed" to speak out under the 1st amendment?
Does the first amendment say, "You can speak, only if you pay taxes"? That is a pretty simple question for you.
Your complaint was about the IRS rule which does not confer exempt status to churches which engage in political action. Is that actually your complaint, or is it your contention that those sections of the tax code which provide for the taxation of any organization are unconstitutional? If not, your premise is flawed. Churches are not penalized for being politically active. They are rewarded for being politically neutral.
That is the way Liberals way look at it, but in reality, you penalize them because they are a danger to your liberlism. Once again, I ask you to find in the constitution where is says where you need to be taxed to exercise your first amendment rights of free speach? I see no reason for you to continue to dodge that question as you have been doing.
"what you liberals call it" - what do you call it? All organizations that are involved in political activity are taxed. Since you won't answer my question, it seems as if you think politically active churches should be tax exempt but the ACLU should be taxed. Why?
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.