Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FBD
What Moore did was just exactly as wrong as what the Mayor of San Francisco is doing now.

No one is entitled to ignore a law or a lawful court order just because they think it is wrong.

So9

29 posted on 02/29/2004 2:33:20 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Servant of the 9
No offical can be allowed to ignore a law or a lawful court order and keep his job.

Judge Moore lost his job.

30 posted on 02/29/2004 2:40:23 PM PST by mrsmith ("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Servant of the 9
Your NIC says it all FRiend. You (apparently) are also not aware that the Ten Commandments are on the Supreme Court building???

Please read Alan Keyes speech on this issue:

http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/03_09_11rallyga.htm

>..."And I think one of the contingencies they thought was unimaginable was the idea of a federal judge getting everybody to tear the Ten Commandments off the walls of the courthouse. I mean, you could tell how it never occurred to the founding generation this would be a problem.

>If it had, I don't think that they would have etched the Ten Commandments in stone up there at the Supreme Court of the United States. You can't get 'em off without effacing the building. I doubt they would have put it together that way...."

..."Every now and again, it would be good for the judges on the federal inferior court benches to remember that it's in the hands of Congress. If Congress woke up one day and decided to do it, there would be no federal inferior courts at all, because the Constitution doesn't say they have to set up those courts, it just says they may from time to time do it.

But [Article 3, Section 2] then goes on to specify the jurisdiction and the cases, and then a few cases where the court, the federal judiciary, has original jurisdiction. And then it says quite clearly that it will have, in all other cases, appellate jurisdiction. (So, original and appellate.) And here are the key words: "subject to such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Isn't that interesting?

So, all of these folks who are telling us, when it comes to determining the boundaries of the power of these federal judges, we just have to get down on our knees and hope for better dictation from our judicial dictators.

We need to look back at them and tell them that they are wrong, that we can still read the Constitution, and that, according to the Constitution of the United States, there is in fact a check against judicial tyranny, and when they assert authority over subjects and in areas that the Constitution has barred to them and the federal government, then the representatives of the people can stand up and place a strong wall of separation--not between church and state, but between the courts and our liberty."


34 posted on 02/29/2004 2:53:28 PM PST by FBD (...Please press 2 for English...for Espanol, please stay on the line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Servant of the 9
Please read Alan Keyes comments that I posted on #36.

And now I ask you again:

What law did Judge Moore break?
Don't just say, "Well a Federal judge ordered him to remove the Ten Commandments. (which are on the Supreme Court)

Cite the law that was being violated.
37 posted on 02/29/2004 3:30:02 PM PST by FBD (...Please press 2 for English...for Espanol, please stay on the line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson