Chief Justice Moore and the 10 Commandments

This isn't true. If this WERE the law of the land, then wouldn't you imagine that at least one level of the court system would agree with him? As it is, every level has told him that what he is doing is not lawful, even his own Alabama Supreme Court. And without a Scriptural command to back up his disobedience, he is clearly in the wrong.

People keep shouting "federalism" and all, but over and over the courts have ruled against what people shout.

 

Groominator,

Excellent post, I couldent agree more

 

>>>>>>Nope. According to the federal constitution the states, and the people, retain the rights that it does not confer to the federal government. How the the justice building in the State of Alabama is decorated is not delegated by the federal constitution to the federal government. It is left with the State of Alabama. <<<<<<<<<

You make several mistakes in the above, KenH. First it is not a matter of decoration. Secondly, the state of Alabama is being sued. The constitution explicitly says that the Federal courts have jurisdiction in such cases. That has also been confirmed by many court decisions. So you are simply mistaken in your claim above. Here I am not talking about the eventual decision, but about what court has jurisdiction. It is quite clear in the Constitution that the Federal courts have the final say, anytime a state is being sued. No question about it. That is not only the law but is reasonable, since if a state is being sued, an impartial body should decide the case and not the state itself.

 

>>>>>>The courts of this land are increasingly contradicting themselves and launching into unjustified power grabs over issues in which they have no standing. A recent case was the sodomoy laws. That was a state matter. The federal government had nothing at stake in that. The state law did not violate any federal provision. <<<<<<<<

You really ought to read the court decisions rather than shooting from the hip in an area in which you have no expertise. As to jurisdiction, read my post above that was directed to KenH. The law is quite clear that anytime a state is sued, the Federal courts can decide the issue. That is explicitly in the Constitution.

 

>>>>>>So when the federal government comes into the court of Alabama and tells them something unrelated to the purview of the federal government, Moore is simply telling them to get lost.<<<<<

Moore is now suspended and will not be able to affect the outcome from here on. And you are mistaken about the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. It is remarkable how much lack of knowledge there is on the part of those who think as you do. The constitution itself shows that you are mistaken.

 

The Congress can take of this problem with the federal courts, if they have the intestinal fortitude -

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

- from Article III, Section 2

 

…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

’Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric

Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened….

[From George Washington, A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1989), 521-22.]

 

It is very interesting "who" is being accused of violating the Constitution. Moore is displaying a privately funded monument in a public place in accordance with his rightful authority. At no point has Congress, or for that matter Moore himself, sought to establish a state religion or set up a religious standard for dealing with the state of Alabama or its courts... nowhere has he sought to inhibit the free practice of religion either.

Check your US Constitution the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not to be found there... much less any language that equates to the current concept of what "Separation" includes.

So what we have is a religious "distinctive" being applied as the "law of the land" without ever being legislated while at the same time both the letter and spirit of the Constitution's text are being ignored in numerous ways.

Who is violating the Constitution here- The ones who read a religious precept into the law or those that hold to the law as written?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's clear to me that the Government is forbidden from respecting an establishment of religion, which we refer to as separation of church and state.

The religious endorsement exclusion precept is quite clear in the first amendment.

 

JohnV Said

It's clear to me that you are incorrect. There is no separation of Church ad state there. It clearly says that the state can not establish a state church or restrict anyones right to their religeous beliefs.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's clear to me that the Government is forbidden from respecting an establishment of religion,</font>[/QUOTE] Really? Where does it say "Government"? It says "Congress".

By your own statement, this is a religious doctrine... and by your own failure to show otherwise, you have proven that it is NOT law.

It is your side that is intent on an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise of religion by violation of the establishment clause.

Yes and no. However in either case it is equally true that those of your opinion are the ones who seek to inhibit the free exercise of religion in accordance with your personal religious convictions.

 

Sorry to disagree but, no. It does not say state. It says "Congress". By implication, you might conclude that it governs all of the Federal government but there is no lawful reason to apply this universally to all government at all levels.

The foundation simply is not there. Maybe they should try the Alabama state Constitution.

 

I stand corrected Scott J. Thanks.

 

I believe you have agreed with me on this elsewhere. I've asked before if it's legal for Alabama to adopt legislation recognizing a State sanctioned religion, to which the response was 'no'. A state may not respect the establishment of religion. A state may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. A state may not abridge freedom of speech. A state may not abridge freedom of the press. A state may not abridge right of the people peaceably to assemble. A State may not abridge the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No State has the right to supercede the Constitution on these issues.

Nope, if Judge Moore wants to stand outside with a sign that contains the Ten Commandments, that's his contsitutional right, in freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. If he wants to purchase private peoperty to openly display the Ten Commandments, that's his right. If he wants to erect a billboard, purchase air time, or drive around with a sandwhich board on his roof that displays the Ten Commandments, that's his right. Individual free excercise is not at issue here, since no individual is involved. The issue here is a government entity publicly endorsing a display whos purpose is to endorse an establishment of religion.

 

As I understand the situation, the plan by the authorities is to remove the monument to a non-public area of the courthouse, but it will still be on government property - the federal Leviathan judge has approved this.

Why don't they just leave the monument and cover it up? Then leave it up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether such a monument on federal, state, or local government property is permitted. By the way, there are over 4,000 monuments to God's moral law, the Ten Commandments, throughout this country.

And, while they are at it, the U.S. Supreme Court can save time by going ahead and deciding if it is okay to have "In God We Trust" on government money.

Let the U.S. Supreme Court rule on these issues so there doesn't have to be a big brouhaha constantly on these subjects. It's time for the U.S. Supreme Court to show its hand.

 

I believe you have agreed with me on this elsewhere.</font>[/QUOTE] I don't recall having done so but you could be right.

Which might be pertinent if that was what was going on- it isn't. There is no evidence whatsoever that Moore is attempting to establish his sect as the state religion of Alabama.

But to the heart of the matter, several states did have state endorsed churches for a short period following the Constituition's ratification. Virginia's was Episcopalian. If I am not mistaken Mass. or Conn. was Congregationalists. So apparently the founders did not think it un-Constitutional.

John, This may be true according to individual state Constitutions or subsequent legislation but it is not established by the 1st Amendment. Of the Bill of Rights, only the 10th Amendment addresses the states at all.

Supercede? How can they supercede when they aren't even addressed?

No John. This is not the issue. If so, please tell me what religion Justice Moore is demanding that people be. Please show how this monument is an instrument of religious oppression. Who will be converted or feel the need to be converted because of the display?

This isn't about the Constitution or rule of law. It is about a bunch of whiners that are offended by Christianity in the public square.

I asked elsewhere but no one answered:

Again, by what authority are those outside Alabama empowered to foist their religious values onto the people of that state by telling them what can or cannot be displayed in their building?

 

Ben W, I tried to answer your message but your e-mail is blocked. Just wanted to say thanks for the kudos. I certainly hope we're not in the minority.

 

He's not trying to establish his sect as state religion. He is, however, trying to get the government to respect the establishment of a specific religion.

The Constitution of 1787 did not orignially include the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, was not ratified until 1791, four years after the Constitution was adopted. Churches that were State, County, and City run were considered illegal immediately thereafter. No case regarding its practice has ever been brought before the SCOTUS. However, in the late 1800's, they ruled against the practice of polygamy in Utah, when a person asserted he had the right to practice it under the first amendment.

That's not the case at all. Your right to free speech is federally guaranteed. Your State, County, or City cannot pass a law that says otherwise.

Again, incorrect.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. States no longer had a right to legislate the matter.

The 19th Amendment guaranteed the right of women to vote in all elections, not just Federal ones. Many states at that time had laws that forbad women from voting in State and local elections. They were all nullified by Amendment XIX:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The 24th Amendment forbids the barring of citizens from voting based on a failure to pay poll or other taxes. Even though it does not mention state and local elections, it has been interpreted to extend to the State and local levels.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

It's not an instrument of religious oppression. It's an instrument of religious establishment recognition. So says Judge Moore, who erected it.

I'm not a liberal. I'm fairly conservative. Having the view the SCOTUS (which , btw, has a conservative majority) is correct on the issue does not make one a liberal. Calling one a liberal for such a view is simple name calling. I don't want the Ten Commandments gone. I simply don't want my religious beliefs dictated to me by my government, be it state, local, or national. When the government does this, even in the manner attempted by Judge Moore, it lightly chips away at my individual freedom to practice my faith as I see fit.