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.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Jefferson and Madison supported laws requiring the honoring of the sabbath under penalty of law.
Jefferson spent from the public treasury to build missions and supply them with the word of God.
52 of 55 founders of this country were unabashed Christians who were informed by their bibles and their God.
The Constitution regobnises and pays homage to the the fourth commandment in it's admonition to the executive not to do business on Sunday.
The men who signed affixed their signatures directly below the words "In the YEar of Our Lord".
The wall of separation was built by Justice Black, not Thomas Jefferson and the frogs in the slow boil pot go merrily on their way boiling while the Blacks of the world continue to usurp powers never granted to them in the COnstitution.
Have a nice swim.
Well, I understand the argument. I guess you understand that that argument was rejected a long, long time ago in favor of the argument that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (it came after Amendment 10) requires that states honor some of the freedoms described in the First Amendment.
I guess, if we wanted to, we could do a U-turn and allow states to ignore freedoms described in the First Amendment, but how many people really want to do that?
And where exactly is that?
And what, exactly, makes you so much more imminently qualified than a state supreme court justice?
Are you Johnny Cochran?
Apparently, "reason and argument" isn't enough for the SCOTUS to strike down such "reasonable" state anti-abortion laws.
While I may not agree with Moore's confrontational style, this is a pure states' rights case, not a religious case.
And you'll probably end up thanking God for it.
Then where would you live? In the Northeast? DC?
No, the argument has been that the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment has limited the power of states and that some of those limitations require states to observe limits described in the First Amendment.
That's not what he said at all.
He said that if an individual, such as Risk or yourself, can't stand the fact that should the PEOPLE of a state where you reside decide to embrace religion as the foundation of their laws, then YOU have the choice to either stay or leave.
I don't believe people would want to touch the First Amendment but they would probably want their soveriegnty back, which the Fourteenth Amendment steals from them.
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.