A CALL TO STAND WITH CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE

E-Mail recieved from Russ Fine ^ | 2003 | John Eidsmoe ,Professor, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - 10 Cs

[CobaltBlue]

This reminds me of a story told about a conversation between Leander Perez, "boss" of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, and Earl Long, then governor, about integration of the public schools in Plaquemines Parish.

Leander did't like it, and wanted to resist it, but Long quipped, "well, Leander, what are we going to do now that the feds have got themselves the ay-tomic bomb?"

Alabama already tried seceding from the Union once, and it didn't work. And Alabama already tried resisting federal court orders to integrate their schools, and let black folks register to vote, and that didn't work, either.

As a practical matter, the governor of Alabama, the Alabama attorney general, and eight of the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court intend to obey Judge Thompson, and, indeed, already have.

So I don't think we're going to have the grand confrontation you're hoping for. But even if you did, is this issue worth killing people for and worth dying for? Said issue being this particular copy of the Ten Commandments.

My guess is that everybody is putting up a big fuss hoping to get one more justice on the US Supreme Court to grant cert, BWDIK?

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Congress, the Court, and the Constitution congressional testimony instructing Congress to force the federal Courts into compliance with the Constitution.

Removing federal jurisdiction:

• Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003
• Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
• Religious Liberties Restoration Act
• Pledge Protection Act of 2003 .

Removing federal judges:

• Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny
• It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable
• Congress Must Curb the Imperial Judiciary
• WallBuilders | Resources | Impeachment of Federal Judges

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

AMENDMENT ONE Americans disapprove of federal court orderto remove 10 Commandments (77%!!)

260 RERESENTATIVES VOTED AGAINST THE UNLAWFUL COURT ORDER Federalism

[CobaltBlue]

Congress can't override the Supreme Court by passing a law that conflicts with their interpretation of part of Constitution. That requires a constitutional amendment.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

WASHINGTON – A leading scholar of the First Amendment says if he were Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, he would "rather go to jail" than allow the Ten Commandments to be removed from his court building.

In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, Dr. David Lowenthal, emeritus professor of political Science at Boston College, said the Founding Fathers would be appalled at the federal court order for the removal of the Ten Commandments monument.

"I would not want to go to jail," he said, "but if I had to, I wouldn’t give up on the principle" that Justice Moore is defending "that cuts across all lines that [concern] first of all, states’ rights, and ... the proper interpretation of the First Amendment."

To compare Moore’s refusal to bow to the atheist/left-wing/ACLU axis with George Wallace’s standing in the schoolhouse door to preserve segregation in 1962 is ludicrous, declares Lowenthal, author of the new book "Present Dangers: Rediscovering the First Amendment."

Furthermore, this "present danger," as he calls it, predates the uproar that began 40 yeas ago when the courts started chasing religion out of classrooms. For 70 years, he argues, the courts have willfully misinterpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in an attempt to banish religion from public life. Such court decisions betray "a gross misunderstanding" of the Constitution, Lowenthal says.

No 'Separation' Is Mandated

Contrary to federal court decisions, Lowenthal says, the First Amendment to the Constitution does not require "a perfect separation of church and state, that there be no vestige of religion in the state or in public life or in government." Furthermore, "even the [U.S.] Supreme Court has edged away from that view in recent decades."

Note that the phrase "separation of church and state" parroted by anti-religious extremists appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, a fact that many Americans miseducated by government schools do not know.

It is not only the First Amendment that is distorted beyond its meaning by the courts, but the Fourteenth Amendment as well. And that raises the question in this scholar’s mind as to whether the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction over the Alabama Supreme Court in matters of this kind. Lowenthal agrees with Moore that it does not.

Ratified after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment says that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or due process of law, the noted authority notes.

"The word ‘liberty’ there has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include" a meaning far beyond what was intended.

"You see, originally that was intended to simply make sure that blacks and whites were treated equally under the law, particularly in the Southern states after the Civil War," Lowenthal explained to NewsMax. "It was not meant for the Supreme Court to be the judge of what constitutes human liberty. That was left to the states just so long as they treated people equally." Thus, the court "has enormously expanded its authority over the states."

As for the decision by Moore’s colleagues on the Alabama Supreme Court to oppose him: "It seems to me that any state worth its salt would not submit to this kind of thing."

Lowenthal said: "Obviously Justice Roy Moore believes that it’s wrong. Otherwise he wouldn’t be doing this. He would bow down to the federal judiciary. But he doesn’t think that he has to. I don’t think so either."

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

You need to read the information presented within those links.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

The U. S. Constitution's guarantee against an "Establishment of Religion" is not violated by the placement in the Alabama State Judicial Building's rotunda of a 2 ½ ton monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments and a variety of other quotes. To the contrary, interpretations of the Constitution by a U. S. District Court in Alabama and a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals do violate the Constitution. The monument was designed and commissioned by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in recognition of the moral foundation of the law.

1. This suit should never have gone to court. The plaintiffs complained that they found the monument "offensive," that it made them feel like an "outsider," that Moore was "using religion to further his political career," that Moore was guilty of a "shameless political use of religion," etc. None of these highly personal, subjective feelings qualifies as a "case or controversy"--the only type of action that Article III of the Constitution allows federal courts to hear.
2. There is no "law" involved in this case. A "law," by definition, commands, prohibits, or permits a specific action. Chief Justice Moore's installation of the monument does not command, prohibit, or permit any action by any party.
3. There is no unconstitutional "establishment of a religion" involved in the monument's creation and placement.
   1. The Ten Commandments as displayed in the Judicial Building are memorialized as a fundamental source of American and English law and Western civilization. A "law" and its "source" are not the same thing. The Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of our law are supported by a variety of large, influential religious groups--evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, orthodox Jews, and Mormons (for example). If the Ten Commandments per se constitute a "religion," which of these "religions" is "established"?
   2. Interrelationships between law and non-legal values, reflected in the Ten Commandments, are inevitable. "Without religion, there can be no morality: and without morality there can be no law" (top-ranking British judge Alfred Lord Denning, 1977). Reflecting this truth, the U. S. Supreme Court has correctly ruled that "This is a Christian nation" (1892, 1931).
   3. A "pluralism" of fundamental religious and legal values can extend only so far. Both federal courts ruling against Chief Justice Moore argue for religious "pluralism"--asserting a "history of religious diversity" in America (the Court of Appeals) and branding any effort by law to recognize a single definition of "religion" as "unwise, and even dangerous" and as "tending towards a 'theocracy'" (the District Court). But the courts call for the impossible. "Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and if they are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, they will be smuggled in surreptitiously and often unconsciously. Values are always in real or potential conflict. And the state inevitably favors some values over others" (American historian James Hitchcock, 1981). Thus, American law can be based on the Ten Commandments or on a non-theistic value foundation. There is no alternative. And if public acknowledgement of the former constitutes "establishment of religion," so does the latter.
   4. All of the Ten Commandments have a secular significance to the law. Even the first four Commandments, most directly involving Deity, reveal that there are a Higher Authority and Higher Law to which human law must be submissive--the only sure safeguard against tyranny by human government.
4. There is an unconstitutional establishment of religion created by the two federal court decisions.
   1. The District Court's assertion that the state "draws its powersfrom the people, and not God" is a religious position (an anti-theistic one). This assertion throws the power of the court behind a religious view in violation of the Establishment Clause.
   2. Both federal courts base their conclusions on the mythical "wall of separation" doctrine. This concept is not in the Constitution's text, is not supported by American history and tradition, and calls for the impossible (see #3b. and #3c. above). Because the mythical "separation" doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in 1947--156 years after the Establishment Clause was written, and therefore has no fixed content--federal courts have had to constantly re-define and create "tests" of "establishment." The most notably is the Lemon three-pronged test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971). Since 1971, various Supreme Court Justices have exposed the true nature of this myth and the "tests" it has spawned, describing them as "all but useless," "mercurial in application," "unhistorical," "non-textual," and productive of a body of Establishment Clause law that is plagued with "insoluble paradoxes" and "unprincipled, conflicting litigation." Despite these fatal flaws in the "separation" myth and Lemon test, both federal courts utilize them as the basic standards for finding against the Chief Justice and the monument.

In a 1798 letter to American military officers, President John Adams declared that "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other." Chief Justice Roy Moore's installation of the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building recognizes this truth. Chief Justice Moore does not violate the U. S. Constitution. The two federal courts who have ruled against him do. SUMMARY: Chief Justice Roy Moore's Case Defending The Display Of ...

[CobaltBlue]

The Supreme Court has always held that their jurisdiction derives directly from the Constitution, and cannot be limited by Congress, except that Congress can establish inferior tribunals which have concurrent original jurisdiction, which it has done.

The three branches of the government are separate and co-equal. Congress makes the laws, but the Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of the Constitution.

In its sphere, the Justices of the Supreme Court wields as much power as the President does in his, and Congress does in theirs. Yes, those men and women in black robes were not elected, and not accountable to the people, which is exactly how the Founders wrote the Constitution. We don't have to speculate about what the Founders intended, they spelled that part out.

They are appointed for life precisely so that they will not be accountable to the people.

Their power is terrible, and awesome. If men were angels, there would be no need for them, but men are not angels.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

1. the Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of the Constitution
2. so that they will not be accountable to the people.

NONSENSE REFUTED:

• The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78

• Congress, the Court, and the Constitution

[CobaltBlue]

One of the first things you learn in Constitutional Law class is that a lot of the things the Supreme Court decided about itself were not explicit in the Constitution, like having the power to declare statutes unconstitutional. That was something decided in Marbury vs. Madison (1803).

In theory, it didn't have to turn out that way, it could have turned out that the Supreme Court decided that it did not have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional. But if that were so, then Congress could do whatever it wanted and that would give Congress more power than the other two parts of the government.

So the Supreme Court has been doing it ever since, for the past 200 years. They don't always do what any particular person would like for them to do but that's the way litigation is. One side wins, the other loses.

And this is the greatest country on earth, the greatest country that ever was, and we have the greatest Constitution that ever was. Wanting to change the constitution because your side lost a case is just being a sore loser.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[Eastbound]

"That's my opinion, anyway."

And it's a good one. I would ask, though, how would you provide for redress where a large majority (i.e., 81 per cent in the case of the Monument) of the population felt in their bones that the supreme court was wrong on an issue and a constitutional amendment to over-ride the court's opinion was illegal?

Well, it proves that we are not a 'democracy' after all. But it also dis-enfranchises the will of We the People through representaive government in the resolution of hard grievances. Do we have a flaw in our system?

If we do, I would guess it would be in the unknown character and agenda of the appointed justices. Not only a flaw, but a time-bomb that could destroy our Republic. I can't believe the number of people who are split on this Monument issue. Not just politically split, but emotionally split. Some say, 'I agree, but the rule of law should prevail.' Others say, 'there is no rule of law on this issue. No law has been broken.' -- and they are both honest in their statements.

A dilemma, for sure. Puts me in mind of the two factions arguing the law two thousand years ago. One group following the rule of law when they enforced the penalty for blasphemy (and rightfully so), and the other group willing to suffer the penalty for following an unwritten, but higher law felt in their bones and unknown to the former.

It appears 'these bones are rising again' in Alabama.

[CobaltBlue]

If you are saying that it's worth taking out your gun and killing people over, I suggest you stop a moment and think through the ramifications of your actions.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again - the Alambama governor, the Alabama attorney general, and all eight of the active justices of the Alabama Supreme Court disagree that civil disobedience is called for here.

If violence breaks out, people will be hurt and maybe killed over whether a rock is moved from one place to another. Meanwhile, other displays of the Ten Commandments remain on display in public places in Alabama - Roy Moore had a plaque with them hanging in his personal courtroom when he was a trial judge and that was ruled to be legal.

If the judges who ruled against Judge Moore were wrong, well, sometimes judges are wrong. And sometimes they made a judgment call that you just don't like. Either way, does it rise to the level of crucifying Christ? To me, that seems mighty hyperbolic.

[Eastbound]

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that I worked for the BATF or the FBI?

Take five, have a cup of coffee, put your knee back in place and get back with me. ;->

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

One of the first things you learn in Constitutional Law class is - READ THE CONSTITUTION.

[CobaltBlue]

One of the first things you learn in Constitutional Law class is - READ THE CONSTITUTION.

LOL! You went to a different law school than I did.

My con law professor was Billups Phinizy ("Phin") Percy, Walker Percy's brother, of the old, monied, well-connected Percy family. Lots of US senators and governors and judges in that family. A wonderfully cynical man. Not an ounce of hokum in his makeup.

Law is what the judges say it is. Some judges are motivated by love of power, some by love of the powerful, some want to help the downtrodden, some see themselves as saviours of mankind, some see themselves as God's champions, some are cynical, some are reprobates, some are dishonest old crooks, most mean well but all are human and all are flawed.

There are over 500 books containing United States Supreme Court opinions. If you want to understand constitutional law, you'd better be prepared for a lot of reading, and pack your hip boots.

Even the ones who say they believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Rehnquist, really don't. They just have different ideas about how to run things.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Do we have a flaw in our system?"

If the issue at hand is strictly one of relgion and the First Amendment - and I don't for a moment believe it is - there is indeed a flaw in declaring that Congress shall make no law restricting the excercise of any given religion. I don't see how any civilized people can accomodate for every religion on earth without at some point discarding Natural Law. Seems like that is where we're headed.

In the case of Judge Moore's rendition of the Ten Commandments, I heartily concur with those who say he neither created nor violated any laws with respect to either the State of Alabama or The United States.

[Eastbound]

Thanks for addressing my point, Fester. I think it's a coin toss right now and the coin is still in the air. Folks who understand what is happening are choosing heads or tails on this issue based upon how they want to see it resolved. Apart from from the religious aspect, something else is at work here. Many are drawing their line in the sand -- a long-overdue backlash against federal encroachment. I'll be standing on the shore as well, hoping to see the riptide carry the federal octopus back out to sea where it belongs.

[Eastbound]

Ping, re: my last.