The Ten Commandments Debate (Federal Judiciary Tyranny Alert!)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 9/01/03 | Joseph Farah

[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.

[c-b 1]

You are not paying attention, I did not mention anything about Judeo-Christian Values nor did I mention installing "shiny new judges." Impeachment is the only method for holding appointed judges accountable.

What is your solution to judges legislating from the bench?

[A2J]

How about in church? Maybe in compassionate service to community? Perhaps in evangelical activities?

How about in a public building, condoned by the public/owners of said building?

[A2J]

That's the nature of our adversarial legal system.

So the nature of our legal system is for courts to create laws from the bench merely by dictum? Where is the balance of powers in that?

You're a mad man to believe that that was the Fathers' original intent.

[risk]

You're unhappy with the case, so you want the values imposed.

If judges are impeached, new ones will replace them.

Today's problem isn't a legislation from the bench issue unless you're in total agreement with Moore. Hillary and you both think judges are legislating from the bench, evidently. That tells me there is some kind of weird balance happening. I'm not sure what it means, but I'll try to find out more about it later.

[DeaconBenjamin]

He said that our nation's laws are based on the 10 commandments without qualification. How does the source of this nation's laws speak to Justice Moore's view of his neighbors?

Alabamans may want a monument of any sort in their courthouse. Justice Moore made a name for himself when he clashed with Ira DeMent over the presence of the 10 commandments in his courtroom--not as an interior decorator.

[Scenic Sounds]

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.

Well, I don't want it thought that just some of our Supreme Court justices believe that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that states observe freedoms described in the First Amendment. They all do. It's no longer even considered an issue. For example, check out the majority opinion in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000). As you can see, that opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined in by Justices Scalia and Thomas (among others). The court held that the First Amendment's "freedom of association" precluded the State of New Jersey from enforcing a law which prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against gay scout leaders.

So, it was because of the argument that states must observe First Amendment freedoms that the Boy Scouts are permitted to refuse to hire gay scout leaders in New Jersey.

Do you think that Scalia and Thomas are just plain wrong about all this? ;-)

[risk]

The collective founding fathers would probably have ignored this case until they heard Moore on TV talking about the basis of our nation's laws. Then they would have come down on him like a ton of bricks. I'd bet the commandments would have stayed in the courthouse, but Moore would have been tossed out without a moment's hesitation.

John Adams might have liked Moore, but he would have been shouted down by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Paine would have ridiculed Moore, but I'm not sure if it would have been on the basis of his lack of Enlightenment era scholarship or his love for attention.

[risk]

>>> How does the source of this nation's laws speak to Justice Moore's view of his neighbors?

Good question! He believes that commandments 1-10 are encoded into the fabric of our laws. In other words, one place or another they are binding on us. So he thinks in California, I can be fined for violating a Sunday law from 100 years ago, or that if I profess to not believe in God, I can be put into the stocks. Now if he'd only uttered the word "inspired" instead of "based," none of this confusion would exist. But he carefully avoided such caution. He also carefully avoided limiting his discussion to Alabamans because he said the entire nation's laws were based on the 10c's.

[mrsmith]

You, like Judge Thompson, can't and don't cite any force of law or of coercion in Moore's monument.

'Lemon' sucks dude; you'll just wear yourself out twisting and spinning to defend it.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Noachian: Why then are the Subcommittees doing nothing?

c-b 1: 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.

If either of you wish to see Congress get cooking, you've gotta first see to it that they feel the heat.

Organize a group of your own. Or find a FReep organizer who'll do it for this cause and join in. This is the kind of chant I recommend you greet congress critters at every appearance you can muster, whether or not the targetted pols agree with you.

Curb -- Our -- Courts

Keep -- God -- Public

. . . repeat . . .

You'll embarrass the demigod and you'll stir the true conservative.

You sound like you're ready.

[risk]

Maybe you didn't read my earlier comments, but the 10c's rock doesn't bother me. Moore's faulty arguments about its significance are all that is at stake here. Lemon? I think Lemon is a great defense against the kind of demagoguery I see behind Moore and his proponents. The interesting factor here is the pressure level: the more people push for Moore-like ideology to be forced on Americans, the more secular Americans and religious Americans who believe separation of church and state protects their religious freedoms will push back. You can bank on it.

[rottweiller_inc]

"the enumeration in the Constitution, of certin rights (i.e. the 14th amendment), Shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Amendment 9. That being said the bill of rights at least the first 10 were always applied as rights of the people. The states agreed to extend these rights to the people when they ratified the Constitution. By the same token the first amendment contained a specific provision applying to congress, not the states, barring the federal congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting (even if it it means probihibiting by means of doing nothing when judges prohibit) the free excecise of religion. In order to claim that the 14th extends the rules governing the federal government to the states you'd have to do away that part of the first, the 10th (which reserves any rights not specifically given to the federal government for the states), and the 9th which prohibits adding rights which deny those set fourth already unless they're repealed first.

[risk]

Maybe you can explain how this will help America?

[c-b 1]

The question isn't whether or not I am unhappy about the case, the question is: What business is it of the Federal Government how the State of Alabama decorates it's buildings?

True if judges are impeached new ones will be appointed, if they know they will be held accountable, they may judge constitutionality based on original intent.

Judges aren't legislating from the bench? What would you call the decision of the 9th Circuit Court, in San Francisco, decistion, that the Second Amment is not an individual right, it was put in place so that the National Guard could be armed?

[mrsmith]

I bank on just the opposite. Most people don't like being treated like idiot children by the government- when they are aware of it.
Cases like this show the folly of using the Lemon test's bogus "wall of separation" to outlaw displays which can merely be inferred by a critic to have force of law, instead of the Constitutional standard of having force of law.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, there's no question that amendments to the Constitution do change the Constitution. That's, of course, their purpose.

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?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

You want an explanation on how it helps America?

Perhaps, from the first, you could see the danger in the state acting as God.
Would be gods see Him as competition.

[risk]

Again, the decor didn't bother me, it was the justification that bothered certain citizens of Alabama, who succeeded in persuading a higher court that Moore's intent was out of bounds. Moore could have kept the 10c's, but he was intent on having a big deal made over it. He got his wish.

Judges can be rendered neutral by having their cases overturned, as well. Since you probably think Thompson was unconstitutional and I do not, we have an interesting dilemma that proves my point: sometimes the judge will interpret the law in a way that is unfavorable to one segment or more of the population. Even the constitution is apparently not plain enough. But I maintain that the constitution is clear on both issues (1st amendment exclusion clause and its application to a random citizen of Alabama) and the second amendment. My complaint is that people selectively decide to interpret the constitution as they see fit. I see those who refuse to recognize the protection the exclusion clause provides to the Sufi muslim living in Alabama as equally willing to legislate from the bench as the 9th circuit court's inability to read English in the second amendment. So there you have it.

>>> Judges aren't legislating from the bench?

I don't think I said that. I said that they're balancing each other out in some weird way that I need to understand better. But the 9th court made me laugh out loud when it ruled against literal interpretations of the 2nd. amendment! I've been pretty clear on this already, though. I like the lemon law, and I think it protects me the nonbeliever, and the Hawaiian dude who worships the polynesian way, and the Hindu who really loves Vishnu, and the muslim who likes his own version of Jehova. Because hey, we're not just Christians anymore.

[c-b 1]

I have been organizing and stirring.

[risk]

>>> Perhaps, from the first, you could see the danger in the state acting as God. Would be gods see Him as competition.

But I don't believe in God, so how does this persuade me? I also reject your notion that the state is taking on the role of God here. The state is bypassing the issue to depend on rationality and discourse in the enactment and enforcement of our laws, thereby preserving each individual's right to practice his own religion as he sees fit. Practicing religion is not defined as legislating according the one edition of the Bible or the other's 10c's. The government does not need to make a statement about God's existence to accomplish its commitment to religious neutrality, nor does it need to obstruct individual religious expression. Linking the Lemon laws to religious oppression is not immediately possible, albeit it has probably been improperly imposed from time to time.

Again, how will bringing the Judeo-Christian God's denominationally-specific versions of the 10 commandments to bear on our laws help America? How will taking specific doctrines out of the Bible without other rational argument make our nation stronger, more egalitarian, or more secure?