"What do you mean by the "rule of law"? Anything a court says?"
When you are a member of that Court system, yes, I expect you to comply with the orderly process as proscribed in State's statutes.
"My own opinion is that the Court that issued the order has no authority to issue such an order dealing with the erection of a monument in a State, and so such order is null and void. Just my two cents."
In this case, the Chief Magistrate of the State Court is the defendant, the citizens who filed the charges need to have a venue to air their grievances. How far do you think they would have gotten filing the same complaint in Moore's Alabama Court system? r do you think that the citizens of Alabama have no venue and no recourse in this matter?
Scary thought.
Moore is the government, as such, he has no inalienable rights.
Well, in his status as a human being he does, but in his capacity as the supreme magistrate of the State of Alabama he has certain POWERS.
"Amendment X
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.
The question is, then, what specified, delineated Constitutional authority does the Federal Government have to meddle in such affairs of the State of Alabama?
...do you think that the citizens of Alabama have no venue and no recourse in this matter?
Anyone can file a lawsuit in Federal court, including any citizens of the State of Alabama. No one has been denied that recourse in this case. But in order for a suit to be successful, the federal court should have a basis for jurisdiction and there should be a valid legal claim upon which relief can be granted. IMO that neither requirement was ever logically met.
Even if you can answer the question as to what authority there is for your proposition that the Constitution requires the states to prohibit "lack of respect for the beliefs of at least a portion of the people of Alabama" I am curious to know why you think that forced REMOVAL of a historical monument shows impartiality, but erection of the same by a state official does not. Are you making the assertion that ONLY absence of historical monuments honoring God shows impartiality, and that the presence of the same does not? If so, what evidence do you have that the Founders ever thought such a thing at the time the Constitution was adopted?
Cordially,