One Nation Under God? (PJB on Moore)

WorldNet Daily ^ | September 1, 2003 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[ninenot]

Eloquence unlimited.

[Ff--150]

In the last 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has erected a judicial dictatorship over a nation of 280 million, usurping powers never granted to it by the Constitution. Possessed of a deeply anti-Christian bias, that court has progressively de-Christianized America and established state atheism as our national religion.

The judges are royalty and are above the Constitution.

Sorry, folks :-(

[ninenot]

Well, that certainly is THEIR opinion.

[quidnunc]

Quote:

It is time for a counter-revolution to overthrow this rule of judges and restore our Constitution.

Is Taliban Pat talking sedition here?

Whatever the case it is, as Shakespeare wrote, "(A) tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

[4integrity]

'The judges are royalty and are above the Constitution'.

...only if we, the people, continue to allow these judges to overrule the Constitution. Many Americans have not been "tuned in" to this issue. Judicial elections/appointments do not get a lot of coverage. Each of us MUST begin to enlighten our friends, neighbors, families and urge all to write, call Congress/Senate/Pres and mostly, VOTE for judges who believe in and will support the Constitution as intended by our Founding Fathers. We cannot afford to be lax; our country is at stake.

[thegreatbeast]

"Under the Ninth and 10th Amendments, our Constitution reserved to the states and the people all powers not specifically ceded to the national government. Can anyone believe the Constitution gave to federal judges, who did not even exist in 1789, power to order sovereign states to tear down monuments that had God's law, the Ten Commandments, engraved upon them? Does anyone believe the Constitution would have been ratified, had the free and independent states understood they were ceding such powers?"

Is that so hard to understand? Do you disagree with his reasoning? Let's hear it.

[sirchtruth]

Whatever the case it is, as Shakespeare wrote, "(A) tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

The clueless ignorant arrogance of some who put themselves before others.

[Ff--150]

Many Americans have not been "tuned in" to this issue

The judiciary is literally nobility--(that's a secret we're not supposed to know?)

[quidnunc]

thegreatbeast wrote: ("Under the Ninth and 10th Amendments, our Constitution reserved to the states and the people all powers no specifically ceded to the national government. Can anyone believe the Constitution gave to federal judges, who did not even exist in 1789, power to order sovereign states to tear down monuments that had God's law, the Ten Commandments, engraved upon them? Does anyone believe the Constitution would have been ratified, had the free and independent states understood they were ceding such powers?") Is that so hard to understand? Do you disagree with his reasoning? Let's hear it.

The point is moot, and has been ever since Marbury v. Madison.

[DoughtyOne]

Just who and what is Judge Moore defying?

The First Amendment, declares U.S. Judge Myron Thomson. But that amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Was Chief Justice Moore really trying to establish a Church of Alabama when he had placed in the rotunda of the courthouse that monument of the Decalogue? What church?

Pat is right on target here.

Here is the full Ammendment I text:

Amendment I

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.

1. Judge Moore did not establish a religion, through edict or statute.  
2. He did no coerce anyone to join a religion.
3. He did not set up a penalty for non-compliance.
4. The Appealate Court is therefore infringing upon his first ammendment rights of free speech.
5. He petitioned the Government for a redress of grievances and was denied.
6. Further, he did all this in a peaceable manner.
7. For this he has been suspended from his employment.

Moore's rights have been violated in seven different ways, and that's before we even get into the issue of state's rights.

[f.Christian]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972219/posts?q=1&&page=101

To: lugsoul

Jusge Moore is standing up for the rights of all. Religious freedom is for all.
Free speech is for all. The first amendment is for all. The ACLU is trying to
restrict our freedoms to only what they approve (atheism).



129 posted on 08/28/2003 3:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND...
ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)

[american spirit]

Anything to do with what B.A.R. stands for?

[sirchtruth]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

What LAW did judge Moore make that respects a religion?

It appears judge Thomson has declared and prohibited the free exercise thereof.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. It just may be that Moore will still win out here. He should immiediately file the largest single civil rights law suit in US History. I think it would be an exellent example for the ACLU to watch, the taking down of the Separation of Church and State org. They're next!

Seems to me RICO could apply here also. This is a concerted effort across state lines to deny civil rights. The government should by rights pick up this case on his behalf BTW. They are supposed to when civil rights have been infringed upon.

The Justice Department should buy a clue.

[inkling]

God's "followers" sure are spending a lot of time venerating an inanimate object. It's ironic (not to mention blasphemous) that Judge Roy Moore turned a sculpture of the Ten Commandments into a modern-day equivalent of a golden calf. Idolatry anyone?

[Jason_b]

when our own coins tokens say "In God We Trust"?

I'm sorry everyone. I'm a stickler for accuracy.

[Mears]

Doughty,you always are able to put into words what I am thinking.

I'd love to see this carried forward as a civil rights issue.The sad thing is the Supreme Court may rule in the other direction and interpret the First Amendment the way that the ACLU does and that really frightens me.

This country survived and prospered beautifully using Judeo-Christian values and how on earth can anyone complain about that?

If it works,don't fix it!

[PleaseNoMore]

If you can't see that it is about more than the monument then you are blind.