[irishtenor]

The rule of law (Constitution) also says that the states rule on anything not specificly in the US Constitution. Article Ten, I do believe. This is exactly what he has done.

[Thane_Banquo]

The rule of law (Constitution) also says that the states rule on anything not specificly in the US Constitution. Article Ten, I do believe.

Right, I agree, which is why I tend to side with Moore on the Constitutionality of the monument. But the Constiution also states that the federal courts are to interpret exactly what the Constitution says, and it gives them the force of law. The courts in this case sided against Moore, which we have to accept unless it is egregiously erroneous.

Egregiously erroneous would mean an order to kill all Christians, or something like that. It would not mean an order to move a monument.

Do you want a nation where we are allowed to ignore court orders simply because we do not agree with them?

[MHGinTN]

The entire 'exercise' is one of state's rights v federal usurpation of those rights held at state level. As things stand now, the SCOTUS 'self-appointed philosopher kings' have nullified state's rights by subjugating any state law to federal cancellation through the various federal districts.

One of the reasons this is getting gnarled up relates to the misdirection of 'Christian' principles and state's rights versus Federal oligarchy. It does no harm to Christianity to make a stone icon to the Ten Commandments inappropriate to a Courthouse (though that is precisely where they should be displayed, as well as in schools and public-use locations), but it certainly effects our collective liberty for the federal judiciary to continue cancelling the states' laws duly on the books.