Judge (Moore) Appeals Call to Remove Decalogue

AP ^

[Dallas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. --

Chief Justice Roy Moore filed notice Tuesday in federal court that he will appeal a judge's order that he remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.

"Federal district courts have no jurisdiction or authority to prohibit the acknowledgment of God that is specifically recognized in the Constitution of Alabama," Moore said in a statement announcing the appeal.

Moore's spokesman, Tom Parker, read the statement at a news conference Tuesday in front of the 5,300-pound granite monument.

"For a federal court to say we cannot acknowledge God contradicts our history and our law," Moore said in the statement. He did not attend the news conference.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order found the monument violates the Constitution's ban against government establishment of religion and gave Moore 30 days to remove it.

One of Moore's attorneys, Phillip Jauregui, said part of the chief justice's appeal would be based on the argument that Thompson did not have jurisdiction.

But an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen, said plaintiffs would win again on appeal.

"I think what we heard today echoed of George Wallace," Cohen said. "He said the federal courts have no authority to order him to do anything Alabama law doesn't require him to do. Whatever views Moore has about this, federal law is supreme."

The notice of plans to appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta was filed in federal district court in Montgomery.

Moore moved the monument into the rotunda in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001, with a film crew from Coral Ridge Ministries documenting the event. Moore, a conservative Christian, attracted national attention as a circuit judge in Gadsden when he refused to remove a wooden Ten Commandments display from a courtroom wall. During his campaign for chief justice, Moore was often referred to as "The Ten Commandments judge."

A lawsuit was filed in October 2001 by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three Alabama lawyers who said the monument violated the constitution.

During a weeklong trial in October, Moore testified that he believes the Ten Commandments to be the foundation of American law. He said he installed the monument, which also includes quotations from historical figures, partly because of his concern that the country has suffered a moral decline over the past 40 or 50 years as a result of federal court rulings, including those against prayer in public schools.

[Imal]

[rwfromkansas posted] It still holds up, as the court decisions did not expand the 14th Amendment to apply to it until decades after it was ratified. Early court decisions after the 14th Amendment realized the Amendment has no bearing here.

True enough. The only part of the 14th Amendment that might be considered relevant in this case is Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This can be, and has been, twisted to imply federal jurisdiction over matters otherwise reserved to the states (see the Tenth Amendment), however, that is clearly NOT what this amendment establishes. There is no language in the amendment that expands the powers of Congress or the federal Executive whatsoever, except for specific enforcement of the provisions of the amendment.

The "equal protection of the laws" clause may be misinterpreted to have bearing on the matter of states and religion, but, to be reasonable, such an argument must demonstrate that state acts regarding religion somehow abridge equal protection under the law.

I have seen nothing in this case that suggests that this is the cause for action, nor that there is any valid cause for action.

As far as I can determine, there is no valid case here.

[Catspaw]

This is what you said:

It's well established that any seperation of church and state only applies at the federal level. States are supposed to be able to do whatever they want.

If "states supposed to to be able to do whatever they want," what is to prevent them from establishing a religion, or to give preference to one religion over another?

[Dallas]

The Supremes will ultimately decide if their opinions matter, or not....

[rwfromkansas]

I have read some online before. I have a Word doc with info on them, but am too lazy to look at them right now.

[Dallas]

If "states supposed to to be able to do whatever they want," what is to prevent them from establishing a religion, or to give preference to one religion over another?

States have their own constitutions which set the parameters. Some states (like Texas) are stricter than the U.S. constitution in protecting against discrimination.

[newgeezer]

Name the specific religion being promoted by this display for which this Judge is accused?

Um, I think you misunderstood me. The "judge" to whom I was referring was the "judge" mentioned in the passage I quoted. That would be the "judge" who declared the monument is unconstitutional. That "judge" is attempting to make law to (quoting from the Constitution) "prohibit the free exercise thereof."

[Catspaw]

State constitutions can be amended,usually in an easier process than the federal government. If a state constitution was amended to permit the establishment of a religion, or to give preference to one religion, would it stay a state matter or would it become a federal matter?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The good Judge Moore and his minions - such fine men, eh?

News Release

Leader of Christian Family Association Attacks Local Religious Leader

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 19, 1998

CONTACT: Amber Khan

Executive Director Dean Young Calls Rabbi Sidney Vineburg "leader of forces of darkness"

(Washington, D.C.) The president of The Interfaith Alliance expressed dismay today at the news of an unwarranted verbal attack upon a respected Green Bay, Wisconsin rabbi who is co-president of the organization's Northeast Wisconsin group. On Sunday, March 15th Rabbi Sidney Vineburg, co-president of the Northeast Wisconsin Interfaith Alliance, was verbally attacked by Christian Family Association (CFA) Executive Director Dean Young at a restaurant in Green Bay, Wisconsin where Rabbi Vineburg was invited by local members of the CFA to meet with Alabama Judge Roy Moore.

Judge Moore, the Alabama State Circuit Court Judge from Etowah County who gained national attention when he refused to remove a plaque of the Ten Commandments from his court room and insisted on opening his court with clergy-led Christian prayers, was invited to Green Bay by the CFA. The Christian Family Association is trying to build support for their campaign to have a marble statue of the Ten Commandments placed in front of the local courthouse.

When Rabbi Vineburg arrived at the restaurant, Young confronted him, launching into a vitriolic diatribe denouncing Vineburg as "a leader of the forces of darkness" while describing himself as the "forces of light" and then demanding that Rabbi Vineburg leave the restaurant. "I was shocked and dismayed by the attack since I have a good relationship with the local members of CFA and particularly since they invited me to have lunch with Judge Moore," said Rabbi Vineburg. " I was even more surprised because it came from a person who claims to be a leader of religious people."

Calling for a renewed commitment to civility in our public debate, Reverend Dr. J. Philip Wogaman, President of The Interfaith Alliance called upon Young to refrain from demonizing members of the clergy and other people of faith who disagree with his positions on public policy matters. "This type of uncivil behavior represents a mind set that is not only inappropriate for people of faith who honestly disagree, but is simply un-American," said Wogaman. "Attacks like this poison our public debate and divide communities. Rabbi Vineburg sought an open and honest dialogue with Judge Moore but was greeted with intolerance. Of course Rabbi Vineburg supports the Ten Commandments and to prayer; but this is not the issue. This is about the imposition of religious images and symbols on those who do not share them, but who are our fellow citizens."

"The aim of the Northeast Wisconsin Interfaith Alliance is to promote the healing and constructive force that people of faith can have in the public debate by drawing upon our shared religious principles," said Rabbi Vineburg. "We believe that our diversity is what makes us a great nation and we will redouble our efforts to work toward those goals in light of this incident."

Established in 1994, The Interfaith Alliance is a national, non-partisan grassroots organization with local Alliances in over 100 communities in 36 states and a national membership drawn from 50 different faith communities. TIA is building a mainstream, faith-based movement that seeks to unite people of faith to promote the positive and healing role of religion in the civic debate.

###

List of Press Releases

Act Now | Get Updates | Contact Us | Join TIA

About Us | Legislative Advocacy | Local Alliances
Press Room | Religious Resources | Religious Right

[Txslady]

lol

[Imal]

The decision by the district court starts off right out of the gate by stating:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

This, of course, is the essence of their opinion: that the 14th Amendment extends the restrictions placed upon Congress in the 1st Amendment to the states. As I have stated in earlier posts, I consider this to be a very thin argument, at best. Such an interpretation effectively holds the 10th Amendment moot in the face of the 14th Amendment, an interpretation which is not supported by the wording of the 14th Amendment itself.

It will be interesting to see whether or not the current Supreme Court supports this broad interpretation of the "anti-slavery" amendment.

[Diverdogz]

What is Rabbi Vineburg's problem? Doesn't he know this is a Christian nation /sarcasm>

[nicmarlo]

Um, I think you misunderstood me

Ooops, sorry, I did. I profusely apologize. : )

[Dallas]

Do you think the U.S. would allow a state to secede ?...LOL

[Catspaw]

What is Rabbi Vineburg's problem? Doesn't he know this is a Christian nation /sarcasm>

I remember this as a fairly ugly moment, and Dean Young went after Rabbi Vineburg in the presence of not only members of the county board who were to vote on putting the Ten Commandments on the courthouse grounds, but also in the presence of the press. The movement to put the Ten Commandments all but died that day.

[Catspaw]

There have been threads around here about a new secession movement.

However, you didn't answer my question. Want to tackle it now?

[Zack Nguyen]

"I think what we heard today echoed of George Wallace," Cohen said. "He said the federal courts have no authority to order him to do anything Alabama law doesn't require him to do. Whatever views Moore has about this, federal law is supreme."

Comparing the fight to keep the Ten Commandments on display to George Wallace's desperate fight for racist segregation is so perverse I can't find the words.

[Dallas]

I don't know what you want. I did answer the obvious.

The U.S. would never allow a rogue state to implement what your suggesting.

[Zack Nguyen]

By extension, the federal courts and their authority are a creation of congress.

Then no federal employee, military or civilian, should be allowed to carry their Bible to work and read it? No mention of the name "Jesus Christ" should be stated at any time in a federal building, because that would be a clear establishment of a nation-wide religion?

The logical outreach of your opinion simply does not work. Besides, Judge Moore is a state judge, not federal.