Warning – Serious Item! U10 Commandmensts judge Moore is an egomaniacal huckster)

ESPN Page 2 ^ | August 26, 2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

[lugsoul]

Which 1st Amendment right?

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.

[dirtboy]

None of those judges relied on the doctrine of "separation of church and state." Those who claim they did are either (a) misinformed or (b) trying to mislead.

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.

[dirtboy]

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 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.

[lugsoul]

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?

If you follow Moore's words, the answer is no. There ain't nothing American about that.

[Jim Robinson]

How did Judge Moore misinterpret or violate the first amendment?

[dirtboy]

Based on his own opinion in the Moore case, Myron Thompson would've ruled the same way on this case. Hudspeth ain't a better judge than Easterbrook, though, and if you think that based on this one article you need to do a little homework.

So basically it boils down to the judge, or, in effect, the rule of men, not law. Thanks for making my point for me.

[quidnunc]

Jim Robinson wrote: And I'd say we're defending our rights from those who are trying to destroy them. And I see you've listed many of them in your reply.

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.

[lugsoul]

"Whatever powers or rights cited in this case were created from whole cloth, not the Constitution."

How would you know that if you don't know what they relied upon?

[TomServo]

The people are the final arbiter.

Bump...

[Jim Robinson]

Yes, they have the right.

[lugsoul]

That is a remarkable twisting of my words. What I said is exactly to the contrary. 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.

[dirtboy]

If you follow Moore's words, the answer is no. There ain't nothing American about that.

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?

[GrannyAnnie]

applauds

[dirtboy]

That is a remarkable twisting of my words. What I said is exactly to the contrary.

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.

[lugsoul]

That was not my question. My question was: do they have a right derived from the Constitution? Judge Moore concedes that they have a right - he just claims that they get the right to worship their God from his God.

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.

[dirtboy]

How would you know that if you don't know what they relied upon?

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.

[lugsoul]

It is entirely consistent. Try reading the opinions.

[Stone Mountain]

What if the decision in question, made by a federal court regarding a state matter, is not based on law but on the whims of judges?

As I mentioned before, just because you and Judge Moore don't believe that the decision was based on law doesn't meant that the decision isn't binding. That was my point. I still believe that the high moral ground for a judge lies in upholding the rule of law, even if he disagrees with it or the reasoning that led to it, and finding legal ways to challenge what he disagrees with.

[Lost Highway]

The people have the final authority bump.

[Jim Robinson]

Hoisted on your own petard. No individual group of people, say the ACLU, have the right or power to deprive the rest of us of our constitutional rights. The ACLU (or none of the other groups you listed) have the power to nullify the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees certain free speech and religious rights to ALL of the people, not some of the people. If the ACLU is offended by that, then that's just too damned bad.