Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore...

[John Cole]

Elwood,

No, I mean he ran for the post on a pro Ten Commandments platform. Just dwell on the absurdity of that a bit.

Q: "Why are you running?"

A: "I'm in favor of the Ten Commandments."

[brad]

US supreme court has ten commandments displayed

btw, since when does US federal district court have jurisdictrion over alabama supreme court building?

[blueboles]

I was under the impression that it did not. But could someone that knows enlighten us?

[elwoodblues]

The Federal Courts have jurisdiction here because the State court violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The language of the First Amendment has been interpreted to apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The First Amendment was first applied to the States (I think) in 1925 when the Supreme Court declared in Gitlow v. New York that: "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 Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States."

Later, in 1940 in Cantwell v. Connecticut, the court held that the protections against the establishment of religion also applied to the states. The court wrote: "We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws."

[Cyrus]

Good post.

And let's not forget that greed is the very foundation of capitalism! Coveting success, social status and money is the driving force behind greed. This guy wants to see greed outlawed?!

"10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. <font color="blue"> Coveting is just fine --- no crime here</font> "

[adios]

According to Roy Moore the issue is about whether or not God can be acknowledged in public sector in the state of Alabama. From the article by Moore:

"We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment."

Furthermore Moore has this to say about the issue:

"The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

Moore is stating that the State of Alabama has every right to acknowledge god while the Federal courts say that the State of Alabama does not have that right, apparently even if it's in the Alabama State Constitution. Looks like an issue regarding the dividing line between Federal sovereignty and state sovereignty to me.

In God I Trust

In God I Trust
Why I'm standing up for the Ten Commandments in Alabama.

BY ROY S. MOORE
Monday, August 25, 2003 12:01 a.m.

MONTGOMERY, Ala.--The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"
Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector.

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.

By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and my fellow justices have argued that they must act to remove the monument to preserve the rule of law. But the precise opposite is true: Article VI of the Constitution makes explicitly clear that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it, are "the supreme Law of the Land." Judge Thompson and the judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have all sworn oaths which bind them to support the Constitution as it is written--not as they would personally prefer it to be written.

By subjugating the people of Alabama to the unconstitutional edict by Judge Thompson, that public officials may not acknowledge God, the attorney general and my colleagues have made the fiat opinion of a judge supreme over the text of the Constitution. While agreeing with me that the Constitution is supreme, and that the opinion of Judge Thompson was contrary to the Constitution, the attorney general has argued that he must follow an order he himself believes to be in direct violation of the supreme law of the land.





One of the great influences on the Founding Fathers, common law sage William Blackstone, once pointed out that judges do not make laws, they interpret them. No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful.

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains--as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.





The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.
Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Moore is stating that the State of Alabama has every right to acknowledge god while the Federal courts say that the State of Alabama does not have that right, apparently even if it's in the Alabama State Constitution. Looks like an issue regarding the dividing line between Federal sovereignty and state sovereignty to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

US Constitution Article 6 Clause 2 (the parts in blue are the relevant words):

<font color="blue"> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; </font> and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, <font color="blue"> shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding </font>

[adios]

Which precedes the ammendments that Moore cited when he wrote:

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.
Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.

Are we talking about a treaty made by the US here?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Are we talking about a treaty made by the US here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, the 14th Amendment has been routinely interpreted to apply the protections of the First Amendment to the states through its Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause reads: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The word liberty has been interpreted to include the protections of the first amendment. Thus, to simplify, we can fairly read the 14th Amendment to say "nor shall ALABAMA deprive any person of THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT without due process of law."

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
US Constitution Article 6 Clause 2 (the parts in blue are the relevant words):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did you cite US Constitution Article 6 Clause 2. What does that have to do with it then?

[ QUOTE ]
The word liberty has been interpreted to include the protections of the first amendment. Thus, to simplify, we can fairly read the 14th Amendment to say "nor shall ALABAMA deprive any person of THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT without due process of law."

[/ QUOTE ]

Referring back to Moore's wrote:

"The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

Apparently the Thompson and Moore are in agreement regarding the issue which is “Can the state acknowledge God?”

In the complaint brought by the ACLU no mention of the 14th amendment was made and all the reports I’ve read about Thompson’s order (which I haven’t found text for) indicate that Moore was violating the 1st amendment.

ACLU Complaint

So methinks that the 14th amendment that you’ve introduced into the mix here wasn’t considered as a relevant issue in the original complaint, the decision by the Federal courts, or by Moore. Looks to me like Moore and the Federal courts are at odds with interpreting the 1st amendment.