Vanity: My Letter to Alabama Attorney General Pryor

Self | 11/11/2003 | Self

[farmer18th]

Dear Mr. Pryor:

Your actions with respect to Judge Moore confuse me.

Is "Thou Shalt Not Steal" offensive to you? (I'm glad I don't own property in Alabama)

Is "Thou Shalt Not Murder" problematic for you? (I'm glad I don't live in Alabama)

Is "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" hurtful to you? (I'm glad you don't know my wife.)

Is "Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness" repugnant to you? (I'm glad I never had to seek justice in your state.)

Is "Thou Shalt Have no Other Gods Before Me" distasteful to you? (What with lightning bolts and all, I'm glad I dont worship next to you.)

We are a nation of laws, Mr. Pryor, and not of men. I'm just confused as to which laws you follow.

[dirtboy]

We are a nation of laws, Mr. Pryor, and not of men.

And, in this case, Pryor was following the law as dictated by federal court. I personally disagreed with the ruling, but it's ludicrous to get after Pryor for not following the law.

[farmer18th]

but it's ludicrous to get after Pryor for not following the law.

The Nuremburg defense.

[dirtboy]

The Nuremburg defense.

That's not the point. I personally would have preferred that Pryor tell the feds to go stick it in their eye, just as I would love a state AG to tell the feds to stick it over any number of issues where they have usurped power. However, you say this: We are a nation of laws, Mr. Pryor, and not of men.

And the point is, the way the law is EFFECTIVELY structured now, what the federal courts say IS the law - so Pryor was following the law - and your point is off target.

[EternalVigilance]

..following the law as dictated by federal court.

At least you admit that these judges have become dictators.

Lawless dictators at that...

[farmer18th]

but it's ludicrous to get after Pryor for not following the law.

You must have an objection, then, to the Boston Tea Party.

[Texas Federalist]

Pryor's oath is to uphold the Constitution, not a perverse and utterly unsupported interpretation of the Constitution. It's his duty to obey that Law. Not the "law" decreed by a federal judge acting beyond the scope of his authority.

[dirtboy]

You must have an objection, then, to the Boston Tea Party.

Uh, dude, you're running in circles here. First you get after Pryor for not following the law when he was, and then you say I must have had an objection to the Boston Tea Party when I clearly stated twice on this thread that I wished Pryor had stood up to the feds. Please try to make your arguments consistent with what the other person is doing or saying.

[farmer18th]

but it's ludicrous to get after Pryor for not following the law.

You must also have an objection to Catholics who hid Jews during World War II. It was against the law, after all.

Is there any instance in which disobeying a federal court is the appropriate thing to do? Ever?

[dirtboy]

Pryor's oath is to uphold the Constitution, not a perverse and utterly unsupported interpretation of the Constitution. It's his duty to obey that Law. Not the "law" decreed by a federal judge acting beyond the scope of his authority.

Uh, TF, the point is, you can say that the appeals court ruling was unconstitutional and I can say that the appeals court ruling was unconstitutional - but that really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What matters in this day and age, in a system mandated by Congress, is that some dude seated on a federal appeals court said that the monunment was unconstitutional. I personally disagree. But it's absurd to get after Pryor with the line of attack the initial poster used - instead, a better approach would be to get Pryor as AG to stand up for the laws of his state.

[dirtboy]

You must also have an objection to Catholics who hid Jews during World War II. It was against the law, after all. Is there any instance in which disobeying a federal court is the appropriate thing to do? Ever?

Uh, dude, you really should read some of my other posts instead of dwelling on this one time and time again. And here's a hint - comparing a court decision over a monument to the 10 Commandments to the actions of a regime that killed tens of millions of people is very much over-the-top - and this is from someone who supported keeping the monument in place.

[farmer18th]

Uh, dude, you're running in circles here

Not really. I think you failed to understand the point of the original post. We ARE a nation of laws, but when one set of laws violate a higher law, we have a holy obligation to disobey. Pryor just wasn't man enough--or Christian enough--to engage in the sort of righteous defiance that characterized Daniel, Cromwell, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Bonhoeffer and thousands of others. Pryor belongs with those appeasers of history who couldn't rise to the standard of truth.

[Cicero]

We are a nation of laws, but I'm not sure the law required him to act as he did.

[dirtboy]

At least you admit that these judges have become dictators. Lawless dictators at that...

First of all, the judges are not dictators - they are simply part of a larger usurpation of power by the fedgov which was, last I checked, still elected, and a judge who oversteps his bounds can still be impeached. Second, lawless is not a focused term here - no matter what you and I might think, what the judge says is the final ruling on law since SCOTUS did not step in, under our federal system. So Pryor was just falling in with that system, and was following the law as he is conditioned to understand it. I would rather he stood up to the court and sparked a confrontation that would have forced SCOTUS into play - but he didn't.

[EternalVigilance]

The First Amendment clearly and simply forbids the federal government from making any laws in this area. Ergo, it is the Federal judges who are the lawbreakers in this instance.

Those like Judge Moore who are actively opposing their lawless orders deserve our support and protection.

[dirtboy]

We ARE a nation of laws, but when one set of laws violate a higher law, we have a holy obligation to disobey.

I personally think the monument should have stayed. However, my opinion really doesn't matter for squat, except to the extent that I try to convince enough other people to act to elect officials and appoint judges who will effect change. Pryor in his position followed the law of the land, which, for all its flaws, is still better than anything else on the planet. I would have preferred a confrontation, but this wasn't the best time or place to challenge federal power. That day will come and hopefully soon, but we need to be on solid ground for it.

[lugsoul]

What law did the Federal judges make? Cite to it.

[dirtboy]

The First Amendment clearly and simply forbids the federal government from making any laws in this area.

Actually, I would postulate that it is the 10th, not the 1st, that applies here. And the 10th is basically roadkill in this day and age, although some are administering CPR to it, and it has shown a few signs of life.

Ergo, it is the Federal judges who are the lawbreakers in this instance.

That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. Until such time that we change the intellectual makeup of the citizenry, the government and the judiciary, what the judge says is the law.

Those like Judge Moore who are actively opposing their lawless orders deserve our support and protection.

Judge Moore did not pick his battlefield well, IMO. There will be a better case in the future on which to make a stand.

[EternalVigilance]

...lawless is not a focused term here

Then let me focus it for you:

Congress is forever banned from making laws in this area. Read the First Amendment with your mind unclouded by modern liberal revisionist thinking. For a federal judge to dictate in such a way based on nonexistent law which in fact cannot exist is tyrannical and 'lawless'.

[EternalVigilance]

Judge Moore did not pick his battlefield well, IMO. There will be a better case in the future on which to make a stand.

Go run and hide then.

[EternalVigilance]

While you're hiding in that cave waiting for a better battlefield, say hello to Pryor for us.

[dirtboy]

Go run and hide then.

Quit being an ass and alientating those who agree with your basic premise. There will be a better situation in the future to stand up to the federal judiciary.

[lugsoul]

Cite to the law that the Federal judges made.

[Texas Federalist]

Wrong. No act of Congress, nor the Constitution itself, gives the judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution. The judiciary claimed that power in Marbury v. Madison. Even after that decision, the Constitutionality of each law was considered independently by Congress before it was passed, and the executive branch before it was enforced. It was not until the years leading up to the New Deal that Congress and the executive branch began abdicating their responsibility to act as a check on judicial interpretation.

What you and I say is unconsitutional may amount to a "hill of beans", but Pryor is a member of the executive branch who has a duty to independently consider the Constitutionality of a law before he enforces it. In this case he has decided to punish Judge Moore for obeying the Consititution.

[dirtboy]

Congress is forever banned from making laws in this area.

No act of Congress was involved here, so your point is pointless.

Read the First Amendment with your mind unclouded by modern liberal revisionist thinking.

Now, apply the 14th and the question is, has an omnicient judiciary been created? That is a far more profound question than anything contained in the personal attacks you level at me.

For a federal judge to dictate in such a way based on nonexistent law which in fact cannot exist is tyrannical and 'lawless'.

Once again, I see nothing in the First which applies here. This is a state with a religious monument in its courthouse, which is a 10th Amendment issue, not a 1st.

[TheOtherOne]

Saving a life and saving "Roys Rock" are not quite the same.

Moore deserves to be fired and will be if justice is served.

[Texas Federalist]

"Actually, I would postulate that it is the 10th, not the 1st, that applies here."
_______________________________

While you are right that the 10th applies, the 1st also does. The district court's order amounted to an infringement of free speech. It was illegal.

[farmer18th]

I would have preferred a confrontation, but this wasn't the best time or place to challenge federal power. That day will come and hopefully soon, but we need to be on solid ground for it.

I hope the day will come, but the point I ask you to consider is that it never will come if we engage in a slavish submission to bad law. The example of the American Revolution is one of uniform, righteous defiance in the face of bad laws. Disobedience gets attention. It galvanizes. It enlightens. A bold defiance on the part of Pryor would have aroused the sleeping conscience of a nation. Conservatives like Pryor put the nation to sleep.

[EternalVigilance]

He's not going to get fired, he's going to get promoted by the sovereign citizens of Alabama.

[farmer18th]

Trivializing the Ten Commandments as "Roy's Rocks" means you are afraid of the language enscripted on the stones themselves. Which of the commandments are you afraid of and why? Are you a defender of murder, or just covetousness? Do you believe in the pagan gods of savage cultures or the one true God? Are you capable of a substantive dialogue on the subject or are you more of an Al Franken type?

[EternalVigilance]

The federal judge's order was based on nothing except bad precedent which is itself based on nothing but the ACLU and their fellow-travelers' agenda to drive God from the public square in America, contrary to original intent.

They read the first Amendment, and where it says 'white', they say it says 'black'.

[EternalVigilance]

No act of Congress was involved here, so your point is pointless.

Obviously, the fact that the courts cannot just make up laws from whole cloth goes over your head.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Congress is forever banned from making laws in this area.

The 14th Amendment extended the reach of the 1st Amendment to all government agencies, including states.

In the context of the 1st Amendment, 'law' is considered to include an action or policy.

Judge Moore therefore may make no law nor perform any action in his role as a government official respecting an establishment of religion. Establishing a large religious monument prominently in a government building was a clear violation of the First Amendment

[farmer18th]

Saving a life and saving "Roys Rock" are not quite the same.

By the way, did it ever occur to you that those who saved Jews during the Holocaust were responding to the commandments which you have designated "Rocks." Are you stone-headed or just a coward?

[Viva Le Dissention]

oh, come on. I think you need to climb down off that moral high horse you've got there.

Listen: there are plenty of conservatives that think that the government has no business tinkering in religion. Furthermore, although you are trying to rally the troops with stirring visions of the Founders, there were plenty who also shared the view I mentioned above, most notably Madison.

So enough already.

[TheOtherOne]

He's not going to get fired, he's going to get promoted by the sovereign citizens of Alabama.

You are half right. He will get fired, but then he will get voted to a higher office.

[lugsoul]

You said he "made" a law. What "law" did he make. Cite to it.

[TheOtherOne]

Are you stone-headed or just a coward?

Is your faith so shallow that you need a rock?

[EternalVigilance]

Now, apply the 14th and the question is, has an omnicient judiciary been created? That is a far more profound question than anything contained in the personal attacks you level at me.

Perhaps you mean omnipotent; and yes, they now think they are omnipotent. Patriots who believe in limited government will fight to show them their error.

My personal attack on your desire to put off the fight until conditions are more suitable in your opinion was mild. I must have hit a sore spot though.

[farmer18th]

oh, come on. I think you need to climb down off that moral high horse you've got there.

I wasn't aware that defending ancient laws against theft, murder, adultery, and perjury required a particularly "high horse." You must be riding on a pig of some sort.

[Viva Le Dissention]

You're characterising someone who disagrees with you as a thief and a murderer, or at least someone who condones such actions. I call that a high horse.

[EternalVigilance]

The Ten Commandments displayed in a public building does not establish a state religion. It requires the blotting out of vast portions of American history to believe that particular bit of Leftist propaganda.

Sorry to see so many FReepers who have allowed themselves to be propagandized so thoroughly by the Left that you will help them forward their agenda.

[farmer18th]

Is your faith so shallow that you need a rock?

Yes. We are incurably evil. As Doestoevsky said, (refering to the French Revolution), "without God, all things are possible." He was refering here to the sort of attrocities we have witnessed in the last 200 years when people forget those axiomatic truths CARVED IN STONE. Jesus would carve them on your heart. Is there a place for them there?

I repeat the question: are you a defender of murder, adultery, theft, covetousness or perjury? Which one of those laws offend you and why?

[Texas Federalist]

". . . the question is, has an omnicient judiciary been created? . . .

Perhaps you mean omnipotent;"

Perhaps he meant omniverous . . . or amphibious. Nothing he's said has made much sense so far, so why not?

[TheOtherOne]

Trivializing the Ten Commandments as "Roy's Rocks" means you are afraid of the language enscripted on the stones themselves.

I think a course in logic is warranted. Your conclusion that I fear the language of the commandments is based on nothing but your imagination.

"Are you capable of a substantive dialogue on the subject or are you more of an Al Franken type? "

LOL, kinds like the pot calling the kettle black, ehh?

[EternalVigilance]

He made a law that said the Ten Commandments can't be publically displayed in the court in Alabama.

Are you dense?

Now cite the law that Judge Moore broke.

[TheOtherOne]

Is your faith so shallow that you need a rock?

Farmer1th: Yes.

I do not have that same problem. I understand your fear now.

[EternalVigilance]

Carnivorous, perhaps?

LOL...

[lugsoul]

No, he didn't. He issued an injunction granting the relief requested by the Plaintiffs, which was the removal of the monument on the grounds that its placement - along with Moore's stated intent behind the placement - violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment - according to binding SCOTUS precedent - as determined by application of the Lemon Test as required by binding SCOTUS precedent.

Now, let's see if you can articulate an argument that any part of that is incorrect.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Judge Moore himself said that the reason he placed the monument in the building was to advance religion. Not for historical purposes. Not because he thought the 10 Commandments are a nifty ethic code.

It is no different then if he placed a large crucifix in the courthouse rotunda. Oh, but perhaps you wouldn't consider that to be an establishment either.