The Ten Commandments vs. the U.S. Constitution

ToogoodReports.com ^ | 08/21/2003 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[sheltonmac]

By defying a federal court's order to remove a public display of the Ten Commandments from state property, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has been compared to the late Gov. George Wallace. Apart from the fact that both men were taking a stand against what they believed to be the unconstitutional federal encroachment upon the sovereign rights of their state, the similarity ends there.

Wallace, as you may recall, blocked the doorway of a schoolhouse in 1963 to protest a federal judge's decision to force the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa to admit two black students. Justice Moore simply wants to acknowledge the one set of written laws that, more then any other, has profoundly influenced our modern legal system.

The controversy generated over Justice Moore's decision to place a two-ton monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on state grounds is founded on a myopic view of the First Amendment. Some are under the impression that the actions of this rogue judge violate the sacred wall that separates church and state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In a recent column entitled "Atheists, Activist Courts and Constitutional Ignorance," I pointed out the common misconception many Americans have in believing that the First Amendment applies to the states. Many argue that the ratification of the 14th Amendment forced all states under the umbrella of the Bill of Rights, but that just isn't the case.

As late as 1922, in Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek (259 U.S. 530), the Supreme Court held that "neither the 14th Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states any restrictions about 'freedom of speech'..." That interpretation radically changed in 1925 with the Court's ruling in Gitlow v. New York (268 U.S. 652): "For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press—which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress—are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment from impairment by the States." The bottom line is that because of an activist Supreme Court, displaying the Ten Commandments on state property is now considered an egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution.

You may disagree with my assertion that the so-called "separation of church and state" does not apply to the states, but even if it did, no intelligent argument can be made that displaying the Ten Commandments on public property constitutes an "establishment of religion." On the contrary, any court decision that deems such an act unconstitutional is itself unconstitutional in that it "prohibits the free exercise thereof."

It will be interesting to see how the federal government handles this potentially volatile situation in Alabama. Will armed U.S. marshals be sent in to oversee the monument's removal? Will Justice Moore be arrested? Will the state be fined thousands of dollars per day as long as the offensive monument remains in its present location? Can we look forward to the federal courts seizing even more power and strengthening their stranglehold on the rights of the states?

This is the kind of government tyranny our forefathers had hoped to avoid. Had they foreseen the effects that federal courts would have on our freedoms, the framers of the Constitution might have included a provision explicitly limiting their powers. But then again, hindsight is always 20/20.

Fortunately, there is a glimmer of hope. This past Saturday over 4,000 people converged on the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery to show their support of Justice Moore's principled and constitutional stand. They sent a message that black-robed elitists in the federal judiciary cannot thwart the will of the people.

You can be sure that civil disobedience has not been eliminated as an option, and if people decide to prevent the removal of the monument, they will be well within their rights. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."

If it does come to that, I certainly hope and pray that those people will have the courage to stand firm in their convictions. After all, God's law preceded our constitution by several millennia. Perhaps it's time we get in touch once again with our roots.

[sheltonmac]

*ping*

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

"I pointed out the common misconception many Americans have in believing that the First Amendment applies to the states"

No! This is a false argument. An idiot's argument. If the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution did not apply, then STATE governments could impose religion on us at a local level, which is not true.

The honest argument is that there is no Constitutional prohibition on an individual employed by the government from expressing his personal religious belief.

[GOPMark]

Actually there is a strong original intent argument that states could applyu state religions, considering many states had some kind of state official religion AFTER ratification. Not that It hink its a GOOD idea to have state religion, cause it's not, but strict constructionism may very well support the OPTION of such

[supercat]

If the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution did not apply, then STATE governments could impose religion on us at a local level, which is not true.

Actually, weren't there some official local and state religions at the time the Constitution was ratified? They faded out by the time of the Civil War, but at the time of the original ratification I believe official state/local religions were recognized in some places.

[SedVictaCatoni]

The honest argument is that there is no Constitutional prohibition on an individual employed by the government from expressing his personal religious belief.

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the circumstances of Judge Moore and his stone.

[SedVictaCatoni]

Actually, weren't there some official local and state religions at the time the Constitution was ratified? They faded out by the time of the Civil War, but at the time of the original ratification I believe official state/local religions were recognized in some places.

Yes, that's quite true... at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, Congregationalism was the official religion of the State of Connecticut.

[thtr]

The first Amendment of the Constitution is the exact opposite of the First Commandment in the Bible. One says that you can worship only the LORD God; the other says that you can worship ANY God.

[fightu4it]

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or to often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

Patrick Henry

[jwalsh07]

No! This is a false argument. An idiot's argument. If the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution did not apply, then STATE governments could impose religion on us at a local level, which is not true.

Not at all. The states managed to write amendments into their Constitutions prohibiting the establishment of state relgions long before the SCOTUS "idiots" built a Wall of Separation out of whole cloth.

If you'd like I can show you documents that attest to the fact that 16 times since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Congress attempted to begin the process of amending the Consitution to apply the First Amendment to the states as well as Congress. It failed every time. Wanna know why?

Enough people feared an overly strong central government.

By the way I don't think the First Amendment "establishment clause" applies to the states at all. That is a constraint on the feds unlike speech and the written word which are individual and inalienable rights granted by the Creator.

[MarthaNOStewart]

The real issue behind this is NOT SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, it is about changing HISTORICAL FACT. IF WE AMERICANS ALLOW THIS, our criminal justice textbooks will have to no longer mention God. CRIMINAL JUSTICE, SEVENTH EDITION BY JAMES A. INCIARDI is most widely used introduction textbook used in colleges today. On Page 43 under COMMON LAW it shows how The Ten Commandments were a large part of England's common law established by justices (not legislatures and laws)decisions using biblical scripture. The Duke of York handed to colonists of Pennsylvania the laws in form of EX: Original Criminal Code of 1676 BASED ON TEN COMMANDMENTS. It became origin of America's Criminal Justice Laws!!! Allow them to remove this reminder and they'll remove the truth from textbooks so college students won't know how much influence God had in establishing America and its LAWS!@!

[MarthaNOStewart]

Please ignore the accidental BLUE LINK on my last post, it does not represent anything.

[forktail]

Well PH aside that is completely wrong.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist. He did not believe in any religion but did beieve in God. George Washington was far more interested in Freemasonry than he was in Christianity. The Freemason's "pirate-like" deomcratic outlook on Religion is certainly what the Framers had in mind and if you disagree please look at The Federalist (Papers).

[lawdog]

Regarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit.

[Tauzero]

"Well PH aside that is completely wrong.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist. He did not believe in any religion but did beieve in God."


No, not competely wrong. In fact, exactly right, when it comes to Thomas Jefferson.


Thomas Jefferson believed Jesus gave us the most sublime ethical code ever known (his word that -- sublime), and considered himself a christian, in the most meaningful sense of the word (paraphrase of Jefferson again), i.e. as a subscriber to the ethical doctrines of Jesus as put forth in the gospels.

But certainly he didn't think much of most of the self-described Christian sects of his day.

[Maelstrom]

That's the other problem.

It's just a stone, not a religious establishment, not really even a religious item.

It's merely a statue with a Biblical theme. Truly underlining the extent of anti-religion within the court system rather than emphasizing any separation between government and religion.

[comnet]

Bill Federer’s American Minute:
August 21, 2003
Born in Scotland, he was one of only six founding fathers to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. President George Washington appointed him a Justice on the Supreme Court. One of the most active members at the Constitutional Convention, he spoke 168 times. His name was James Wilson and he died this day, August 21, 1798. The first law professor of the University of Pennsylvania, James Wilson wrote: "It should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God.... Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine."

[NWO Slave]

Source:
Montgomery Advertiser

Ten Commandments Case index of articles

EDITORIAL
Justices must find mettle to intervene

Pryor notifies Judge Thompson of vote

[Noachian]

This is the kind of government tyranny our forefathers had hoped to avoid. Had they foreseen the effects that federal courts would have on our freedoms, the framers of the Constitution might have included a provision explicitly limiting their powers. But then again, hindsight is always 20/20.

The Founding Fathers would have done what what should be done today: Subject the unelected SCOTUS justices to direct elections by a Constitutional Amendment. That's the only way to break the stranglehold the activist/elitist court has over the people.

Some may say that electing Justices will lead to Socialism or worse, but isn't that where we're heading now? The people have a right to shape their own destiny, and that can't be done with unelected justices who come from a law school culture and change Constitutional law as they see fit.

[narses]

Ping. What says the Catholic Caucus?