A CALL TO STAND WITH CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE

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

[CobaltBlue]

With respect to this particular case, I don't think it's fair to say that people are choosing heads or tails based on how they *want* it to be resolved.

I know that litigation is a crapshoot, for the most part, but sometimes there's just not much question as to how it's going to play out. Odds are 99-1 against the US Supreme Court granting certiorari and reversing the trial judge, IMHO.

You need four member of the Supreme Court to grant certiorari (thanks Catspaw) and five to reverse. Count the votes. Do you have them?

[Eastbound]

"You need four member of the Supreme Court to grant certiorari (thanks Catspaw) and five to reverse. Count the votes. Do you have them?"

Doubtful. But if this becomes a severe national security issue, I expect the president will resolve it. Happened before. Not making any bets, but I'm still choosing 'heads' on the 10th Amendment and pitching my tent on the beach. How about you?

[.30Carbine]

Among the most vital issues facing American jurisprudence are (1) whether our legal system may acknowledge the Higher Law of God as the source and measure of our laws; (2) whether the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the State of Alabama from acknowledging God and His law as the moral foundation of law; (3) whether the State of Alabama (and the 49 other states) are distinctive and viable entities in the American constitutional system or whether they are merely closely supervised subdivisions of a national government; and (4) whether it is ever appropriate to disobey the order of a federal judge.

The most astute observations and concise historical analysis on the subject to date. Must reading for scope and precedent of interposition.

[Sam Cree]

"Well, it proves that we are not a 'democracy' after all"

Luckily, we are not, IMO, at least not a "pure" democracy.

[CobaltBlue]

But if this becomes a severe national security issue, I expect the president will resolve it. Happened before.

No, the President does not tell the Supreme Court how to vote. That's a separation of powers issue. Not making any bets, but I'm still choosing 'heads' on the 10th Amendment and pitching my tent on the beach.

I have no idea how the 10th Amendment can be brought up at this late date with respect to this particular case, as I've already said. As for "pitching my tent on the beach," again, I have no idea what you mean by this.

As for "severe national security" issue, no, I see no reason for insurrection. If you're serious, then you're talking about armed violence, and that's clearly unwarranted.

[Zack Nguyen]

...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.

Excellent point. What we have here is a perversion of the original meaning of the 1st Amendment. The secularists will not stop until every last vestige of the Christian faith is erased from public life, thus (in their mind) eliminating the accountability of God's transcendent moral code.

[Eastbound]

" . . . I have no idea what you mean by this."

Yes, I know. In context with my other replies, it should be clear. I'd like to go back to my first reply to you and see if I can get an un-equivocated response from you on how you would resolve a perceived grievance by 81 per cent of the people? Thanks.

[CobaltBlue]

how you would resolve a perceived grievance by 81 per cent of the people?

I already told you how I would resolve it. According to the rule of law, which means obeying a lawful order from a legally constituted court, even if I thought it was wrong.

If you don't agree, then you can try peaceful non-violent protest, or you can try violence, but in the end it's gonna come out the same way. The rule of law is going to prevail.

[Dante3]

BUMP

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

I think it's a coin toss right now and the coin is still in the air.

The Constitutional Republicans have the argument(s)¹, the populace², 260 legislators³ , legislation⁴, and instructions⁵ to force the black robed tin horn dictators in federal courts into compliance with the U.S. Constitution. All they lack is a spine. Perhaps, 2004 will supply them ONE⁶.

1. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 , AMENDMENT ONE - FREEPER rwfromkansas , AMENDMENT ONE Legal Scholar Says Founding Fathers Back Justice Moore on Ten Commandments , Federalism And Religious Liberty: Were Church And State Meant To Be Separate? , Reply To Judge Richard A. Posner on The Inseparability of Law and Morality , The Faith of the Founding
2. AMENDMENT ONE Americans disapprove of federal court orderto remove 10 Commandments (77%!!)
3. Federalism
4. Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003 , Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Religious Liberties Restoration Act , Pledge Protection Act of 2003
5. Congress, the Court, and the Constitution , 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
6. AMENDMENTS 1,9,10 - Roy Moore: In God I Trust

[Eastbound]

" I already told you how I would resolve it. According to the rule of law, which means obeying a lawful order from a legally constituted court, even if I thought it was wrong.."

As I mentioned earlier, that's a rightous stance too. Do you think this particluar 'law' is wrong?

[CobaltBlue]

I agree with Judge Ruegemer's opinion, as expressed here:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/4069931.html

[gogeo]

Law is what the judges say it is...

In the end, government (including the judicial branch) is what we say it is.

[gogeo]

If you don't agree, then you can try peaceful non-violent protest, or you can try violence, but in the end it's gonna come out the same way. The rule of law is going to prevail.

I do not confuse the rule of law with the ruling of judges, as you seem to.

[gogeo]

If you don't agree, then you can try peaceful non-violent protest, or you can try violence, but in the end it's gonna come out the same way. The rule of law is going to prevail.

Also, it appears there's a little bit of confusion about the meaning of, "The consent of the governed."

[MissAmericanPie]

So where do we report?

[Eastbound]

Fair enough. Thanks. Here's an interesting quote from your link:

"Alabama might have learned from officials in Grand Junction, Colo., he said. They created a Cornerstones of Law and Order plaza and added replicas of the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Plymouth Compact, preamble to the Constitution and parts of the Bill of Rights."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Alabama monument have a few of these founding documents (in part, at least) on the sides of the monument? If so, wouldn't that show the historic connection? I know it is difficult to tell, in that the media has gone to great lengths to only show close-ups of the edited rendition of the Commandments.

[Eastbound]

"Perhaps, 2004 will supply them ONE6."

Yes, I hope so too. It's difficult to believe that we've allowed a handful of pre-disposed appointed ones to smear the ideals of freedom, bringing to naught the intent of our founding fathers and the blood of patriots -- even to our present military. Was it our trust that was at fault or our failure to respond when we should have down through the years? Probably both. Yes, perhaps 2004 will end the erosion and initiate a restorative process. To maintain our free, Sovereign Republic, we have no other option.

[CobaltBlue]

Apparently, according to the trial judge, Judge Moore refused to allow the word of man to be given a display equal to that of the word of God. He said that God's word must be given special prominence.

The one in Colorado is like the one at the US Supreme Court. Moses and the Ten Commandments aren't given special prominence.

Prefering one religion over all other religions is fine in your church but not fine in a government building.

[CobaltBlue]

Nobody's confused about "the consent of the governed."

You may not like everything the government does but the only way to change is 1) through the political process, or 2) through the legal process, or 3) violence.

I don't think violence is going to get you very far, personally. I'd say work to change the laws.