Posted on 12/10/2002 10:56:29 AM PST by 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.
"I find that Judge Thompson's order violates the Constituition's ban against government prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
You are exactly right. The Federal government has no business in this case, it is entirely a state issue. Furthermore, it is the custom in Alabama that the Chief Justice chooses the decor. What they choose is irrelevant, be it a monument of the Ten Commandments or a statue of Ra. The only thing that matters is how they issue their rulings. So long as those are based on the secular written law of the state, no one has any legitimate gripes.
Here's another slant: There are religions that claim a single god. There are those that claim multiple gods. Atheism is a religion that claims zero gods. (There are groups that acknowledge Atheism as a religion and "practice" it as such. You can find them on the web. Atheism definitely complies with some of the traditional definitions of religion.) So, to strip government of every form of "religion" is to establish the religion of Atheism, a defacto violation of the Constitution.
It's also grossly inaccurate. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, which is diametrically in opposition to segregation. Indeed, the 14th Amendment was the official follow-up to the Emancipation Proclamation, being a constitutional prohibition against slavery.
Meanwhile, those who would (deliberately, it seems) misinterpret the 14th Amendment to extend federal jurisdiction over all matters originally reserved to the states use it as a basis for supporting the usurpation of state powers (what used to be called the "states' rights" issue) explicitly protected under the 10th Amendment.
For what it's worth, "perverse" seems to be a pretty good word for it to me.
Do you think he's in a minority ?
And just what is a "rogue state"? One which exercises its constitutionally protected powers?
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST STATES ESTABLISHING A RELIGION.
If you think I'm wrong, please give me a citation. I cite the 1st and 10th Amendments.
There are SC cases that seem to support an expanded (and thus judicially contrived) interpretation of the 14th Amendment to extend federal jurisdiction into realms previously reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. But they are cut from whole cloth, and not consistent with the wording or intent of the 14th Amendment.
And therefore, they are subject to being overturned by the "legislative body" (i.e., the Supreme Court) that drafted them in the first place.
To quote the most eloquent source on this matter, I present Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
'Nuff said.
In Fact several of the states had "State Religions" when the constitution was ratified. I don't remember which, but apparently they all dropped them voluntairly.
I didn't suggest anything. I just posed the question. By your answer, however, it would seem that the federal government would be determinative.
But as I stated earlier. Most state constitutions have provisions prohibiting such an act.
Until then, your interpretation is meaningless, and you are irrelevant.
There - my statement is as authoritative as yours.
That's the issue that will be before the Supreme Court when/if they take the case, which is very likely.
It's a good question, and gets to the heart of much of what's wrong with America today.
"Rogue states" aren't the problem. We have a rogue federal government on our hands. This is the one thing the authors of the Constitution feared above all else, that the federal government would become a new "tyrant". A surprising amount of their dialog and writings from the period make their concerns emminently clear on this point.
The federal government would be "determinative" by overreaching its authority, a common problem these days. Under constitutional law, however, the feds have no jursidiction in religious cases. I can't put it more plainly than the 1st Amendment does.
As an aside, it's refreshing to have this out for discussion, and I consider it important to reiterate that I do NOT personally support religion in government at any level, but fail to find any constitutional proscriptions against it at any level below the federal.
At least you didn't say "Resistance is futile".
As long as I won't be assimilated, it's cool. :)
(BTW, I'm a real fan of your work in the Senate, Chancellor. ;^)
Correct me if I am wrong, but at the time the Constitution was written, several states did have established religions.
You're not wrong. In fact, the big controversy of the day was whether or not states should tax citizens to support churches. The debates were particularly furious in Massachusetts and Virginia.
These controversies were resolved at the state level, and, as far as I know, were never acted upon by Congress and were never brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Constitution only refers to the federal government's "ban against government establishment of religion". It makes no reference to what the states can or can't do regarding religion.
Why? Are you an atheist? Why is it so hard for you to understand that the U.S. Constitution only refers to the federal government's role in establishing religion. It makes no reference to what state, county, or city governments can or can't do in regard to religion.
Then perhaps the time has come for the courts to "unmuddie" it.
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.