Panel Rules Justice Moore Failed to Respect & Comply with Law; Judge removed from Supreme Court

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

More to follow

[4CJ]

And finally, Moore is correct that our 1st amendment acknowledges God. It uses the word "religion." Anyone knows that religion is about God. Specifically, we're told that Congress can't make any kind of law about God. It says that we can't tell someone else how to speak and, particularly, how to "freely exercise" their manner of speech and expression about God.

Obviously, the FEDERAL Courts are relying upon European/International laws, and our Constitution must be written in Greek. </sarcasm>

[Happy2BMe]

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people

More pseudo theology developed by people who preached a lot but read little out on the frontier. God isn't supposed to be sovereign - or don't Christ's own words count?

[Catspaw]

Thank you, dear, but I already have a dictionary.

[Happy2BMe]

" God isn't supposed to be sovereign - or don't Christ's own words count?"

If you are referring "Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.", Christ's words absolutely count.

It was Almighty God who was sovereign over Ceasar.

And in God's timing, Caesar fell.

Are you buying into "Separation of Church and State?"

[Modernman]

One thing that crosses my mind - isn't he engaging in exactly the kind of judicial activism that conservatives claim we hate?

Stop pointing out the glaringly obvious. Geez. Don't you know that Moore is the 2nd coming?

[Modernman]

Nothing says you have to be a lawyer to be a judge.

That used to be true back in the bad old days, but I don't think any state allows non-lawyers to hold the position of judge, and rightfully so.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your great post, xzins!

And finally, Moore is correct that our 1st amendment acknowledges God. It uses the word "religion." Anyone knows that religion is about God. Specifically, we're told that Congress can't make any kind of law about God. It says that we can't tell someone else how to speak and, particularly, how to "freely exercise" their manner of speech and expression about God.

Many courts, even the Supreme Court, have taken the establishment clause to reference only a belief in God or similiar such collective diety or dieties. This creates hostility toward religion by giving atheism the upper hand in all publicly funded endeavors.

IMHO it must be recognized (hopefully by future litigation) that atheism is tantamount to a religion under the law.

[Modernman]

IMHO it must be recognized (hopefully by future litigation) that atheism is tantamount to a religion under the law.

Certainly. Actively espousing the non-existence of God is just as much of a religious view as espousing God's existence. An atheist public official who wanted to put up a monument of his beliefs should also be prevented from doing so.

The best solution is for government to stay out of religion completely and we wouldn't be having these stupid fights.

[xzins]

see #620, para 4

Do those items mentioned have our government acknowledging God or don't they?

They are an elephant in the room, at the least, don't you think?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

The best solution is for government to stay out of religion completely and we wouldn't be having these stupid fights.

Indeed, I believe that is the intent of the courts - but until they take the necessary steps to avoid giving atheism an unfair advantage, IMHO, there will be no peace.

[Modernman]

Indeed, I believe that is the intent of the courts - but until they take the necessary steps to avoid giving atheism an unfair advantage, IMHO, there will be no peace.

I can't really think of an example where courts have allowed atheists to espouse, in a setting similar to Judge Moore's (i.e., in an official capacity) their religious views as to the non-existence of God. I'd be curious to hear of any examples, if you (or anyone else reading this) know of any.

[itsahoot]

I've never heard of a case where they were granted use of such facilities, and Christians were not.

San Diego, just a few weeks ago, judge barred the Boy Scouts frfom using a park based on his assertion that they were a religious organization.

[Reagan Renaissance]

"I think there is going to have to be a point when a President is just going to have to say no to the Supreme Court order."

This would be a Constitutional crisis beyond comprehension.

"I believe Judge Moores action is the begining of a rebellion against an overeaching judiciary."

This is definitely a possibility. Public officials have power only because it has been delegated by the people, or the power has been usurped. Democrats began systematically destroying the Constitution with the Federal Reserve Act, the XVI and XVIIth Amendments under Wilson. After Roosevelt effectively gutted the Supreme Court, the Court gradually became an arm of the Democratic Party rather than the guardian of the Constitution. The United States has been steadily moving away from freedom and our heritage as a Constitutional Republic ever since. America today barely resembles the country established by the Constitution of the United States. If the Founders returned, they would refuse to live here or immediately set about organizing an area of the country to secede from the union and begin drafting their own Constitution immediately.

Most Americans living today, and that includes most Freepers, still believe we are a free people living under the Constitution. It is no secret that a significant portion of our population is functionally illiterate. How many illiterate Americans have any meaningful understanding of the Constitution, especially given the views and curriculum of public schools operated by government?

Clearly Freepers are not illiterate, but if you screen the views expressed on this website, it is clear that there are either significant numbers of posters whose function is to cloud and confuse the issue or a significant number of conservatives whose depth of knowledge regarding the Constitution and many of the issues confronting Americans today is either very superficial or they are more interested in gossip and chat than meaningfully contributing to the debate. At best the views expressed on this website are widely divergent.

By way of example, I will pose a question: Is a patriot some one who values and would defend freedom? Or is a patriot some one who is loyal to country, and in our case loyal to the United States? Should a patriot's loyalties be to the government of our country as expressed by Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court or should those loyalties be to the Constitution and in opposition to the conduct and administration of the laws as handed down by the Court, Congress and enforced by the President when their actions contradict the Constitution? Paraphrasing, is it my country right or wrong regardless of what the law does to my freedom, or is my duty to my country to protect the Constitution and my freedom?

There is a great deal of brain-washing in history. I submit that government's first duty is to not encroach on my freedom and to protect my freedom first and foremost. National security begins with our freedom, not from threats from foreign interests. It will irresistable for government to usurp my freedom if it feels its first duty is to protect me from foreign dangers. Our duty to ourselves is protect ourselves from foreign dangers and to simplify the coordination of this effort, we use government as a tool. The entire Constitution is a tool to restrict government to protect our individual freedoms. The Constitution is not a tool to establish government to protect us from foreign or domestic dangers. Security is only one of the tasks assigned to government. But security is not the reason government or the Constitution exists. How ignorant are we that we can forget the immortal words from the Declaration that tells us the reason that government exists at all? "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I would suggest that a substantial number, perhaps as much as two-thirds, of the present laws under which the United States is operating are in fact not Constitutional except in the eyes of self-aggrandizing governmental officials. Who is the patriot here? Roy Moore who is acknowledgeing that the First Amendment includes the phrase, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" or the federal judge and the other justices of the Alabama Supreme Court who are choosing to ignore that particular clause at this particular moment in time?

There is a revolution that is going to come to America within the next two decades. No one knows yet whether we are going to use the tools provided in the Constitution to take our country back by ballots, or whether some of us are going to exercise our God-given rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and secede from the United States to establish our own country peaceably or whether one of these two events above is going to lead to a settling of these issues with bullets.

Those who believe the US can continue under the status quo indefinitely into the future are wrong and are living in a dangerous fantasy.

[Modernman]

San Diego, just a few weeks ago, judge barred the Boy Scouts frfom using a park based on his assertion that they were a religious organization.

Sounds like that has to do with the fact that they're a religious organization rather than a Christian organization. Individual Boy Scout troops are backed by different religious groups, including Jewish, Hindu, Muslim groups etc.

[ppaul]

The court had no choice. He failed to perform his duties within the law.

B.S.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I'd be curious to hear of any examples [of atheism given an unfair advantage], if you (or anyone else reading this) know of any.

I really don't want to throw this thread off topic but here's a few: resistance to mentioning intelligent design theory in the classroom or textbooks, the finding that the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is unlawful, the exclusion of religious symbols for historically religious holidays in public venues – in particular, Christmas and Easter.

[dts32041]

Why, just because the law is written in gobbly gook so the average hi school grad from the 1950's can't understand it, that makes a lawyer superior some how.

That actually makes a lawyer a bigger con artist than a politician, sorry most politicians are lawyers aren't they.

So what makes a lawyer judge superior to the slave masters known as politicians.

[Ff--150]

With Oligarchy and Sovereignty you are on the right track. Look up feudalism and you will have stepped in :o) it and now the name-calling will really begin.

[E Rocc]

I've never heard of a case where they were granted use of such facilities, and Christians were not.

San Diego, just a few weeks ago, judge barred the Boy Scouts frfom using a park based on his assertion that they were a religious organization.

Personally I disagree with that decision, but it's not the point. Are Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, or Atheist groups allowed to use the park while the BSA is not?

-Eric