Posted on 08/28/2003 8:50:50 PM PDT by xzins
;)
Iffy. The State of the Union Address comes to mind--it's always a political speech, and no one even thinks of saying the President doesn't have the right to use the government megaphone to advocate specific policies, legislation, et cetera.
OK, then you have to toss Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution out.
Whoops, you can't.
It says what it says.
And what it says is unenforceable.
Since all constitutions must pass review, it is instructive that this one was not found in violation of the US Constitution.
Because the preamble is unenforceably vague. If you try to argue that it IS enforceable, and that it DOES impose a religious test for an office, at which point it violates Article VI, Section 3.
It tells us that the culture of interpreting the 1st Amendment was different in 1901.
No, it tells us that Judge Moore's reliance on the preamble as enforceable law to the point of overriding the US Constitution is defective.
It seems that Moore has sole discretion over whatever is placed in the rotunda although he did grant requests made by two other people/groups to place two large plaques in the area as well. One depicted the bill of rights while the other was a plaque commemorating MLK Jr.
Whenever I detect thinly veiled condescension aimed at Southerners, Christianity and good ol'-fashioned morality, I always know I have encountered a Yankee whose pedigree is woefully lacking.
Nope. I disagree.
There's no way the reviewers missed the preamble. The judicial culture that review it was different than today's judicial culture. It was OK back then, and it isn't today. Things have changed.
How could they see it fine in 1901, but you think it violates Art 3 in this era?
My guess is that they considered a religious test to be a requirement that one be of a certain sect. In other words, an establishment of religion.
Wow. Such a firm, factual rebuttal of my argument.
Moore's accomplished his goal. I fail to see why his supporters are upset.
Whenever I detect thinly veiled condescension aimed at Southerners, Christianity and good ol'-fashioned morality, I always know I have encountered a Yankee whose pedigree is woefully lacking.
I don't do "thinly veiled condescension." I am a devout Catholic who probably practices more morality than the average Southerner does.
As for condescension...the only Southerners I've known who spoke ill of anyone's "pedigree" were the product of four generations of intermarriage between first cousins, since they wouldn't DREAM of polluting their "pedigree" with the inferior blood of non-family members.
There's no way the reviewers missed the preamble.
They didn't.
There is nothing wrong with the preamble. The problem is in (for the third time) Judge Moore's stated interpretation of it, which directly conflicts with Article VI of the United States Constitution. If an interpretation of an otherwise constitutional state constitution conflicts with the US Constitution, then the interpretation is wrong. If you are unable to see that, then maybe you're letting your desire to see a certain outcome (one that Moore himself apparently does not desire to see) overcome your logic.
The judicial culture that review it was different than today's judicial culture. It was OK back then, and it isn't today. Things have changed.
Wrong answer. Moore is using a bizarre interpretation that has never, ever worked--or, for that matter, ever been tried with a straight face in any courtroom of the United States.
How could they see it fine in 1901, but you think it violates Art 3 in this era?
One more time: there is nothing wrong with the Constitution of Alabama. The problem is in the specific interpretation that Judge Moore is attempting to use, which overrides the Constitution of the United States. That interpretation
My guess is that they considered a religious test to be a requirement that one be of a certain sect.
Then they would have said precisely that, not a "religious test." You're arguing that one must profess a belief in God in order to hold office or public trust in the state of Alabama.
OK, newsflash for you: Mr. Clinton's penis in Ms. Lewinsky's mouth meets the definition of "sexual relations," no matter what definition of "is" you care to employ. Likewise, requiring someone to profess a belief in God to hold office or a public trust is a "religious test."
I know you didn't just say that I must arrive at the current interpretation or I'm reading the document wrong. Please tell me you didn't say that.
I didn't say that. If you can't read English, then I would suggest not arguing legal interpretations with me.
I said that if an interpretation of an otherwise constitutional state constitution creates a conflict with a specifc clause in the US Constitution, then the interpretation in question is not correct.
I'm arguing that the natural word meaning and grammar of the preamble says that "the people appeal to the Almighy God for guidance in setting up their constitution."
Therefore, any oath to SUPPORT that constitution MUST conclude that those are "just throw-away words from a bygone era" or that they must be taken seriously. If throw away words, then there is an admission that they mean something uncomfortable; If serious words, then we must deal with the uncomfortable fact that one is vowing to support the notion that there is an Almighty God.
As to your Catholic piety, I do not doubt your devotion to that religion, but I would question your devotion to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Lastly, I am a transplanted Southerner and only take the online moniker of 'Cracker' to confuse. My lineage traces itself to the North, well above the Mason-Dixon, and all of my relations are still trapped in that decaying area of the country.
There may well be, as you suggest, some progeny in my family born of an incestuous relationship, but I know of none. I only brought your pedigree into question because of an obvious lack of good breeding that shines brightly throughout your postings.
That part is not in dispute. Your interpretation is very far off-kilter with a specific clause of the US Constitution, and that is the problem.
Therefore, any oath to SUPPORT that constitution MUST conclude that those are "just throw-away words from a bygone era" or that they must be taken seriously.
No, it means that they're part of the preamble, which (that nasty old common law again) is not a legally enforceable portion of the document; again, this is a principle dating back to before there were Crown colonies over here.
If throw away words, then there is an admission that they mean something uncomfortable;
No, it means that they're not in an enforceable part of the document.
If serious words, then we must deal with the uncomfortable fact that one is vowing to support the notion that there is an Almighty God.
Then you're insisting that there is a religious test for holding office in the state of Alabama, and your interpretation is a DIRECT (hello!) violation of the United States Constitution, Article VI, Section 3.
One more time: if you walked into any court of law in America at any time in our history and made that argument...well, at best, you'd get laughed out of the courtroom. At worst, you would get fined, and THEN get laughed out of the courtroom.
Therefore, it cannot be true that merely acknowledging Almighty God is not the same as establishing a religion.
It's not establishing a religion...but the question here is NOT whether it's "establishing a religion." It's whether it's a "religious test."
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.