A CALL TO STAND WITH CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE

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

[PleaseNoMore]

There were indeed quotes from secular sources engraved on the sides of the monument.

[PleaseNoMore]

http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Appendices%20B%20and%20D.htm

I hope that linked.

[CobaltBlue]

I can't find a photo of the Colorado display but I've linked the ones on the US supreme Court building.

[PleaseNoMore]

What is offensive about that monument? It is clearly visible that there are quotes from secular sources on it. Is it the fact that the sources state that the Ten Commandments are ONE of the historical influences of America's laws?

[CobaltBlue]

I don't think Roy's Rock is offensive, personally, but I agree with Judge Thompson that the way it is displayed has the appearance of exalting religion, in particular the Judeo-Christian religion, and is not at all about man and law or history or art, as some have suggested.

[Eastbound]

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

Yes, there lies the crux of the matter. A question of jurisdiction. Early state governments had no injunction against flavoring its judiciary with religious tenets, according to what I've read in the past weeks.

When and WHY did the federal court system decide it could bypass the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments using a portion of the 14th, when it was clear from the beginning that the 14th was only operational in corporate federal zones (fictional federal states) and not in the union of Sovereign states proper?

Sovereigns already filed their claim for rights in the D of I and Constitution (which includes the first 10 amendments) and didn't need a 14th Amendment to grant them -- and definitely didn't agree to allow the 14th Amendment to abridge them or the Amendment wouldn't have been passed. :-<

(As an aside, don't you think it strange that the unalienable rights and the Sovereign Citizenship of slaves were not recognized by a simple act of Congress, rather than create a fictional nation to grant them a lesser status with the 14th Amendment?)

Now the 14th is being used to control the union of states by over-riding three prior Amendments. I thought it was unconstitutional to pass any law or amendment that was repugnant and not in pursuance (destructive) to the founding documents.

I consider what the federal judiciary is doing now is an overt grab for total municipal power. Time to put these buzzards back in their cage lest the over-shadowing of their wings block out the Light of Liberty completely.

[PleaseNoMore]

I disagree with Myron Thompson's opinion. I do not see how Moore's placing the monument in the rotunda, which is "off limits", so to speak, to any other group is in any way prosetylizing. Given the fact that there were statements from secular sources supporting the historical fact that the Ten Commandments have influenced our laws I see nothing "preachy" at all about it.

[CobaltBlue]

I learned about incorporation of the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment in a semester long class devoted only to that, and we barely scratched the surface. There is simply no way to summarize it in a paragraph or two.

As a practical matter, it's a done deal. It's been done for many decades. That doesn't explain it, but for purposes of this discussion I don't really want to start lecturing on the history of incorporation.

Probably the only way around it would be 1) a series of constitutional amendments or 2) a revolution.

Going at it through invidual justices or judges isn't going to work. No president gets to appoint more than one or two, some appoint none, and you can't really predict what they'll do once they're on the bench. Once there they have tenure for life.

[CobaltBlue]

How is the rotunda "off limits"? Judge Moore put his statue there, and you think that was OK. Why shouldn't anybody else be allowed to put statues there?

[PleaseNoMore]

Myron Thompson also said in his opinion "That reasonable observer would also know that the Judicial Building rotunda is not a public forum, and that other groups may not place their own displays in the rotunda." Why? I don't know. Do you?

[Eastbound]

" . . . you can't really predict what they'll do once they're on the bench."

Yes, that brings us full circle, relating to my original question on the resolution of grievances. Thank you for your remarks.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Why do we bow to federal blackrobes in matters beyond their Constitutionally limited jurisdiction?

Because they say so?

Because they cite Marbry v. Madisom et al. when SCOTUS blckrobes pulled a power play once and more upon a time?

Why would SCOTUS rule that they are not all powerful?

Why do the legislative and executive branches play along when SCOTUS and lesser courts rule clearly in violation of our RATIFiED Constitution?

Because of blackrobes self-justifying doctrine of stare decisis reinforcing unConstitutional rulings until judicial unlawfulness becomes doctrine because they say so?

Our Rule of Law is failing because blackrobes act unlawfully - with no basis in law or Constitutional authority. Our Law of the Land is being mocked as it is repeatedly ignored and violated to fit unelcted politicians' social agendas guided by admired or envied European trends. Our RATIFIED Constitution is being ruled away by bench fiat as we sit by and let blackrobed tyrants order us about to suit their utopian agendas called case law. These very men and women violate their oaths of office and "good behavior" terms of office when they rule unlawfully, flagrantly unConstitutionally.

It is passed time that we demand blackrobes' impeachment and removal from office - with total loss of their gravy train of full pay and benefits for life in their comfy perversion of retirement, a status created by who else, themselves.

Did the 1861 War of Northern Aggression amend by force of arms amid serial slaughter our written, RATIFIED Constitution voiding our 9th and 10th Amendments, 20% of our Bill of Rights, such that federal jurisdiction is unlimited, supreme and all powerful because federal blackrobes say so?

[.30Carbine]

I don't think Roy's Rock is offensive, personally, but I agree with Judge Thompson that the way it is displayed has the appearance of exalting religion, in particular the Judeo-Christian religion, and is not at all about man and law or history or art, as some have suggested.

The one in Colorado is like the one at the US Supreme Court. Moses and the Ten Commandments aren't given special prominence. Prefer[r]ing one religion over all other religions is fine in your church but not fine in a government building.

______________________________________________________________

The greatest monuments to American jurisprudence - indeed, to her founding principles - are found not only carved in stone, but enshrined in her documents - the very documents from which the quotations of Moore's stone memorial are taken. These parchment monuments to our heritage are in America's government buildings everywhere throughout this land, framed, preserved, cherished, and protected.

Will you remove the Declaration of Independence from every government building in which it is framed and honored because it gives testimony to "the Creator, Nature's God, the Supreme Judge of the world, and Divine Providence"?

Will you remove the Constitution because its Signers noted that they were affixing their names "in the Year of our Lord"?

Or will you hide in a closet the Treaty of Paris of 1783, that document which codified American independence in the eyes of the world, written and signed by John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, which opens with the extremely specific religious words, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity," and also closes by citing the date, "in the year of our Lord"?

Memorialized in George Washington's First Inaugural Address are his words of acknowledgment and thanks to the One True God in whom he and (as he states) his fellow countrymen owed homage and allegiance. Would you remove these words from this document, or the document itself from our National Archives in Washington D.C. because the Father of this Nation did not also include thanks to Allah, the Mother-goddess, Molech? -

[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

Will you remove John Adam's Inaugural Address, itself a memorial to the Christian foundation and character of this nation? -

I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.
...And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.

Those who are "offended" by the Ten Commandments monument which Chief Justice Roy Moore placed in the rotunda of his courthouse are also offended by every memorial - stone, wood, or paper - which enshrines our Christian founding and our God-given freedom. They are haters of all that America is, of all she has ever been, and it is their hate that spurs them on in their efforts to destroy our foundations. Why do you defend them?

[gogeo]

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.

I'm increasingly pessimistic that another civil war can be averted.

[jwalsh07]

Nice one, the Colonel is pretty much right on.

[Eastbound]

A good, informative summary, .30Carbine. Thanks.

"Those who are "offended" by the Ten Commandments monument . . ."

With the ACLU and the Dees money machine (SPLC) leading the pack. Where will this end if this cannibalistic effort to feed the abundance of lawyers in the U.S. continues?

Japan has 1,600 attorneys. That's one attorney for every 10,000 people.

The U.S. has 1,600,000 attorneys. That's one attorney for every 175 people.

We have become a nation besieged by lawyers who are replacing the rule of law with the tyannical agenda of a minority emanating from all three branches of government.

A conspiracy? Nope. Just an open declaration of war against the American people by the feral gummint, which continues, without abatement, to use the 'offenses against the laws of nations' clause (through treaty laws) as its instrument to seize total municipal power -- jurisdiction..

(Disclaimer: Yes, there are thousands of honest lawyers who are fighting for the preservation of what we have left.)

[CobaltBlue]

The Supreme Court rotunda isn't a "public forum."

Public forums are places that have been traditionally used for public speeches, like sidewalks and parks and public squares. Some governments set aside special places for free speech, like town halls.

Anybody has the right to speek in a public forum.

But you don't have the right to use any and all government buildings for the purpose of free speech.

[CobaltBlue]

I don't agree with your statement of facts. The Supreme Court has never held that all expressions of faith in God should be purged from the public record.

The line that is crossed is the endorsement of one particular faith, which is typically Christianity. But there are cases involving endorsement of other religions, e.g., in the Kiryas Joel case the problem was endorsement of Orthodox Judaism.

I don't believe that government should be involved in endorsement of any particular religion. Expressing a belief in God is not endorsement of any particular religion.

[.30Carbine]

I don't agree with your statement of facts....I don't believe that government should be involved in endorsement of any particular religion.

Whether or not you agree with or believe it, my post (and the worthy article which inspired it) quoted some very specific examples of our Founding Fathers' writings - codified in law and preserved for posterity - which did, in particular, raise the Christian religion above all others.

If the Founders of America - the writers, signers, and champions of her Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights - did acknowledge the Christian God above all others, on what basis can you argue that it is now "unconstitutional" to do so - other than that you "don't agree" with the facts? Hardly rational.

[CobaltBlue]

I've read a lot of essays by Catholics who would like for the government to be run according to the principles of the Catholic church, and a lot of essays by Protestants who would like to see the government run according to the principles of the various Protestant churchs, and even some essays by Moslems who would like for the government to be run according to the principles of the Moslem faith.

On the other hand, what I've read by the Founding Fathers convinces me that they wanted to avoid sectarianism in government, that America was founded to get away from the sectarianism in Europe. They were greatly dismayed when the British established Catholicism as the official religion in Canada. That was one of the last straws that lead to the American revolution. The only way to avoid sectarianism is to avoid establishment of religion.

Given the vast differences between the various Christian churches, I don't think it's possible to endorse "Christianity" as the official religion of the US, it would lead, inevitably, to sectarianism. Which is why the Founding Fathers avoided references, for the most part, to Jesus, and spoke only of God. Search as you will, you will find almost no references to Jesus in public documents by the Founding Fathers.