Posted on 09/01/2003 12:46:50 AM PDT by goldstategop
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
-- First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
What does the First Amendment really mean – particularly in the context of the current, raging debate over the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama state judiciary building?
Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the Ten Commandments monument removed from the Alabama courthouse, believes it means no one can reference God in a government building.
Is he right? Not if you read and comprehend the clear and concise words of the First Amendment.
Most people understand it means:
the federal government has no business interfering in the individual free exercise of religion;
and that the federal government cannot declare an official, state religion. But it means more than that. The First Amendment clearly says the federal government has no business passing any law even addressing the issue of establishing a religion – not for it or against it.
Couple the First Amendment with the 10th Amendment, which says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Now you clearly have to see the federal government has no power to interfere in Alabama's affairs on this matter raised by the actions of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who brought the Ten Commandments monument into the judiciary building.
If Judge Thompson's ruling is permitted to stand, it will be the beginning of the end of any mention of God in the public square. Period. End of story.
It's amazing to me that so many otherwise sensible people cannot understand what is at stake in this conflict. It is profound. It is as monumental as any great debate this country has ever had. This is much bigger than the washing-machine-size granite monument in the Alabama courthouse.
Simply, we will not recognize America a decade from now if Thompson's ruling stands. It will open the floodgates of litigation that will strip the country of its national spiritual heritage. It will distort and destroy the meaning of the First Amendment. It will turn us from a nation established on the rule of law and self-governance to a nation ruled by men, ruled by elites.
This is big. This is very big. I do not exaggerate.
This is a national crisis. You may not think so because no one is losing life and limb in this conflict. But we are losing our freedom – and we have always sacrificed life and limb in this country's history for the preservation of freedom.
As Justice Moore himself puts it: "The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as 'the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.') Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: 'Can the state acknowledge God?'
"Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector. We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes 'the favor and guidance of Almighty God' as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's Supreme Court, I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment."
He continues: "By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order violated the rule of law."
I concur.
We must do everything in our power to see that Justice Moore prevails.
Well, don't be such a wuss. You're going to have to get along with the Constitution instead. If you want it changed amend it.
But it won't be as bad as you think. There will be no covernment coercion of religious belief; nor censoring of history, or of religion from the public square.
Do you really think that Justices Scalia and Thomas are just plain wrong about requiring states to observe First Amendment limitations? Do you think that they're just engaged in an unfair federal power grab?
until the rights in the bill of rights are legally repealed they are binding. It does'nt matter if the supreme court judges say that because there is a precedent saying so it makes it law or has the power to alter the constitution. The biggest problem in america with this is that there are many people that think only federal judges and lawyers can understand the constitution. If the people cannot understand the constitution how can the people they elect and those they appoint be held to it? The people would have to defer to lawyers and judges because they are incapable of understanding it for themselves. This of course transfers the power from the people to the laywers and judges who 'interpert' the constitution. That is hardly what the founding fathers had in mind.
Huh?
I don't think you can find an antecedent "basis" or "inspiration."
No force of law = no establishment.
There are atheistic governments that will assertively 'protect' you, try enjoying freedom in one of them.
Cut to the chase. Would you have sued for removal of the monument?
This is one of the most profound statements to come out of this whole affair. And it is so TRUE!
NOT, surely, on the plain meaning of the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments (and the last two were NOT 'incorporated' by the 14th, initially.)
It's more specific, he called it the moral foundation. I think he may have used the word "basis" in the CNBC interview I heard, which was when I started seeing him for what he really is.
From the ethics commission's complaint:
12. On August 14, 2003, Chief Justice Moore stated publicly that he would not comply with the injunction issued to him by the District Court. Among other things, Chief Justice Moore said in his statement in response to the Order directing him to remove the monument:As Chief Justice of the State of Alabama, it is my duty to administer the justice system of our state, not to destroy it. I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral foundation of our law. To do so would, in effect, result in the [be a] disestablishment of our system of Justice in this State. This I cannot and will not do!
Yes--but by using the term "moral" you have acknowledge that there is a God, of one sort or the other--because without such, there IS no definition of "moral."
Because we are not holding their feet to the fire. It is time we all called our member of congress asking that they impeach some of these out of control activist judges.
Not quite. The reason that they are doing nothing is that they are scared silly of the politics. They can't win--so they will hide.
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.