JUDGE ROY MOORE NEEDS OUR HELP!

World Net Daily ^ | November 3, 2003 | Diana Lynne

[AnimalLover]

Justices won't hear 10 Commandments appeals

Moore faces trial next week on violation of judicial-ethics charges

The Supreme Court won't be deciding the outcome of the pitched battle over suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument.

Justices refused today to hear appeals seeking to put the 5,300-pound granite cube back on display inside Alabama's state capitol. WorldNetDaily reported the controversial monument nicknamed "Roy's Rock" was removed Aug. 28 from the rotunda of the Judicial Building in Montgomery after Moore was suspended by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission for refusing to comply with a federal judge's ordered removal. He is slated to be tried on judicial-ethics violations Nov. 12 before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary

[Gelato]

That is, splitting the hair...

[Labyrinthos]

Charter Of Massachusetts Bay (1629)

~Except the Charter was 170 years prior to the enactment of the First Amendment.

[Poohbah]

He answered the "could" question with a "could" answer.

No, he didn't--he very deftly transposed it to "would" without bothering to answer the actual question.

[hedgetrimmer]

James Madison, the author of the First Amendment, wrote that our duty to God takes precedence over our duties as citizens. This was reflected in his statement to the Virginia legislature when he concluded, "Before any man can be considered a member of civil society, he must be considered a subject of the Governor of the Universe." As Madison noted in A Memorial and Remonstrance, the reason for the First Amendment was to safeguard "the duty of every man to render to the Creator… homage."

[Gelato]

No, he didn't--he very deftly transposed it to "would" without bothering to answer the actual question.

HANNITY: could you end up in jail for this?

MOORE: Well, that's up to the judge, of course.

"Could" question. "Could" answer. No "would" about it.

[Labyrinthos]

And he and the other founding fathers were also smart enough to leave the word "God" and any reference to their personal religious beliefs out of the Constitution.

[Poohbah]

"Could" question. "Could" answer. No "would" about it.

Go take--and PASS--an ESL class before replying to me again, pal.

[hedgetrimmer]

So what? They never intended for the secularist to dictate a persons religious conscience. And even if they left the word "God" out of the Constitution, it is in plenty of state constitutions. The states fully upheld the notion that God had everything to do with the existance of the state, and the liberties He grants to the individual. The Constituion enumerates the power of the federal government only, not what states and individuals can or cannot think.

We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:

The preamble to the Alabama Constitution is NOT unconstitutional. It has been accepted for over 100 years. It is only a tryannical minority that wants to refute the origin of this country and the origin of individual rights as identified by our Founders. If they succeed, woe to us. Name a secular society that respects or respected the rights of man. There aren't any.

[Sandy]

Cite the law that the federal judge based the order to remove the monument on.

Is this a serious question? Lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts. The 11th Circuit decision was based on Supreme Court precedent, and the district judge was following the ruling of the 11th. It's pretty simple, really.

[Gelato]

Main Entry: would
Pronunciation: w&d, &d, d, 'wud
Function: past of WILL
Etymology: Middle English wolde, from Old English; akin to Old High German wolta wished, desired
Date: before 12th century
1 a : WISHED, DESIRED b archaic : wish for : WANT c (1) : strongly desire : WISH

Compare these sentences:

"Would you go to jail?"

"Could you go to jail?"

Notice that "could" addresses the possibility of jail. "Would" addresses a willful action that could lead to jail. In other words, "Would you really risk jail for your principles?" Judge Moore: "Yes, I would."

That is not what Hannity asked in the first question. The first question was about the possibility of jail. (Could you go to jail?) Moore said that was up to the judge.

In the second quote, Moore said he would go to jail: "if I go to jail, I go to jail." He WOULD go to jail, in the sense that he was willing to so if the judge ordered it. He would not cease his civil disobedience even if it meant going to jail.

The question you apparently wanted an answer to is, "Are you going to jail?" That question was not asked.

There's no hair left to split.

[Sandy]

I thought it was freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

That's cuz you're confusing the Free Exercise Clause with the Establishment Clause. Two different things.

[EternalVigilance]

ME: Cite the law that the federal judge based the order to remove the monument on.

YOU: Is this a serious question? Lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts. The 11th Circuit decision was based on Supreme Court precedent, and the district judge was following the ruling of the 11th. It's pretty simple, really.

You didn't answer the question. Name the law. What law did the federal judge use to determine that the monument couldn't stay where it was?

You can't cite one, because one doesn't exist; in fact it can't exist according to the First Amendment.

The judge issued a lawless edict.

[ClintonBeGone]

Roy Moore is toast. Perhaps he can take Larry Klayman's spot at Judical Watch. I bet he would be a fantastic fundraiser.

[Sandy]

Ah, I see you're not familiar with the concept of case law and binding precedent. Google up vertical stare decisis for starters.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm quite aware of what stare decisis is.

Are you willing to let that be the be all and end all of our form of government?

[MissAmericanPie]

Why would you respect an unconstitutional law when our founders advised rebelling against them? People in Germany obeyed Hiltlers laws, because something is a law is no excuse to comply with it.

None of the laws passed or rulings from the Supreme Court have been in line with the freedoms and restrictions in the Constitution. So therefore they should be considered void and of no effect to the citizen.

When we refuse to stand up for each other, the enemies of the Constitution win.

[EternalVigilance]

Roy Moore is toast.

All that statement proves is that you don't know a thing about Alabama politics.

[EternalVigilance]

It's not even an 'unconstitutional law'.

It is judges becoming a law unto themselves, which is even worse.

[EternalVigilance]

Do you perhaps think that Dred Scott should still be the law of the land?

I'm going to eat. I'll look for your reply later...

[MissAmericanPie]

Exactly, you get it. Some say Moore had an agenda, and object to him sneaking the monument into the building. I have to ask, whose agenda is more evil? Moore's or the Supreme's?