Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol
Ft. Worth Star-Telegram/AP ^ | 11/13/03 | AP

Posted on 11/13/2003 5:52:18 PM PST by ppaul

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7254764.htm







Posted on Thu, Nov. 13, 2003


Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol


Associated Press

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the state's position that the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds is not an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion.

Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man living in Austin, had sued to have the monument removed, calling it an endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs by the state government.

The state countered that the 6-foot tall red granite monument is more historical than religious, with key segments of law founded on the moral and cultural ethics provided by the commandments.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott applauded Wednesday's appeals court ruling.

"The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture," Abbott said Thursday. "The Texas monument has stood for over 40 years, and the court's decision affirms that the monument is entirely consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution."

The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument to the state in 1961.







TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 10commandments; 1stamendment; alabama; capitol; constitution; courts; creator; decalogue; firstamendment; founders; foundingfathers; gregabbott; law; laws; naturesgod; tencommandments; texas; usconstitution; vulgarity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
Guess all the Justice Roy Moore bashers are full of sh*t after all!
1 posted on 11/13/2003 5:52:19 PM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ppaul
bttt
2 posted on 11/13/2003 5:54:31 PM PST by righthand man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Well duh! ; )
3 posted on 11/13/2003 5:55:32 PM PST by TigersEye ("Where there is life there is hope!" - Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
:-}
4 posted on 11/13/2003 5:55:50 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenes
Is this smaller or larger than Judge Moore's "rock"?
5 posted on 11/13/2003 5:56:43 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man living in Austin

Sounds like a prayer life wouldn't hurt him at all.

6 posted on 11/13/2003 5:57:25 PM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Looks like it's soon going to be time for Sandra Day O'Connor to start looking at French public opinion polls again so she can tailor her ruling to fit their sensibilities.
7 posted on 11/13/2003 5:59:19 PM PST by CFC__VRWC (AIDS, abortion, euthanasia - don't liberals just kill ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
"The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture," Abbott said Thursday. "The Texas monument has stood for over 40 years, and the court's decision affirms that the monument is entirely consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution."

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott understands the Constitution!

8 posted on 11/13/2003 5:59:22 PM PST by Aquamarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Size doesn't matter right?
9 posted on 11/13/2003 5:59:24 PM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Diogenes
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott applauded Wednesday's appeals court ruling.

"The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture," Abbott said Thursday. "The Texas monument has stood for over 40 years, and the court's decision affirms that the monument is entirely consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution."

Going to SCOTUS now, two big rocks on state property. The one in Texas is constitutional, the one in Alabama is "unconstitutional".

Fifth and Eleventh Circuits at loggerheads, call in the "law makers". :-}

10 posted on 11/13/2003 6:00:04 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Of all days to have this news. I will pray for Judge Moore to be returned to his position.
11 posted on 11/13/2003 6:01:00 PM PST by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
Ten is still ten, right? Too much 'ink' on this total topic, IMHO.
12 posted on 11/13/2003 6:01:43 PM PST by jws3sticks (Hillary can take a long walk on a short pier, anytime, the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Just wonderin here. How does a "homeless" man afford to hire a lawyer to sue in Federal court?
13 posted on 11/13/2003 6:02:04 PM PST by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Guess all the Justice Roy Moore bashers are full of sh*t after all!

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

14 posted on 11/13/2003 6:02:12 PM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs (I have a plan. I need a dead monkey, empty liquor bottles and a vacuum cleaner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine
That's why I voted for him. It was either that or turn the state of Texas' top attorney position over to Tarrytown.
15 posted on 11/13/2003 6:02:40 PM PST by WinOne4TheGipper (Progressives- people who seek the right to child sacrifice (to the god of self- convenience).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Is this smaller or larger than Judge Moore's "rock"?

To me, it appears larger, and more "in your face" than Alabama's.
Of course, it's Texas-sized!


16 posted on 11/13/2003 6:04:00 PM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jws3sticks
Ten is still ten, right?

I hope so.

Too much 'ink' on this total topic, IMHO.

The Constitution bores you huh?

17 posted on 11/13/2003 6:05:12 PM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Here's the decision from the Fifth Circuit, Van Orden v Perry
18 posted on 11/13/2003 6:05:57 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Two Circuits with differing opinions should almost force the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, if it appealed, in order to reconcile the law. This could get very interesting now. Moore may be be avenged yet.
19 posted on 11/13/2003 6:06:18 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
Your comment grossed me out more than the one to which you responded.
20 posted on 11/13/2003 6:08:08 PM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Thanks for that document.
21 posted on 11/13/2003 6:09:12 PM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: will1776
That's why I voted for him.

Maybe he'll run for the Senate next time.

22 posted on 11/13/2003 6:12:34 PM PST by Aquamarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
No problem, Some text from the decision.

The guiding principle is government neutrality toward religion in the sense that a state cannot favor religion over non-religion or one religion over another. Yet neutrality is not self-defining. It does not demand that the state be blind to the pervasive presence of strongly held views about religion with myriad faiths and doctrines. Nor could it do so. Religion and government cannot be ruthlessly separated without encountering other First Amendment constraints, including its guaranty of the free exercise of religion.

Such hostility toward religion is not only not required; it is proscribed.9 Justice Kennedy’s observation in Allegheny bears emphasis: it is not the case that the Establishment Clause is so inelastic as to not “permit government some latitude in recognizing and accommodating the central role religion plays in our society.”10

It is equally important to remember Justice Goldberg’s famous observation: Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion. . . .11

It is now time for Scalia to put the stake through the heart of Lemon once and for all. Kennedy will probably side with Scalia, the only question is what will Madame O'Connor of European more precedetn fame do????

23 posted on 11/13/2003 6:14:39 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Could this be the 'event' Judge Moore referred to in his recent diciplinary hearing?
24 posted on 11/13/2003 6:15:43 PM PST by Not_Who_U_Think
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Torie; farmer18th; Looking for Diogenes
Now what? :-}
25 posted on 11/13/2003 6:19:10 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Not_Who_U_Think
Sorry, I don't know.
26 posted on 11/13/2003 6:19:29 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Guess all the Justice Roy Moore bashers are full of sh*t after all!

No, Mr. Moorer insisted he was placing it because it was the religious basis of our country and that was what was prohibited.
The Federal Circuit Court was clear on that.

If he had placed it, as the Texas copy was placed, as "a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture" it could have stayed.

It was not the Ten Commandments that were prohibited, but the Ten Commandments placed for religious reasons.

So9

27 posted on 11/13/2003 6:21:05 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
alright!
28 posted on 11/13/2003 6:21:29 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
A worthless argument if ever there was one. The Ten Commnadments is both inherently religious and at the same time historical. The two can not be separated. Read the decision, your claim that religion must be total separated from the church is at odds with the 5th Circuits opinion.

On to the Kings and Queens of America for the royal decision!

29 posted on 11/13/2003 6:25:07 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
A worthless argument if ever there was one. The Ten Commnadments is both inherently religious and at the same time historical.

Yes, it is both, but the issue is what Mr. Moore claimed as the reason he placed it. That is what got him busted, his big mouth.

So9

30 posted on 11/13/2003 6:27:45 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I thought you might be interested.
31 posted on 11/13/2003 6:27:58 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
Not for a second. It is a done deal, get the rock out of the court house, get rid of the AL Chief Judge. All done. Just a quip, not a biggie.
32 posted on 11/13/2003 6:31:55 PM PST by jws3sticks (Hillary can take a long walk on a short pier, anytime, the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
What got Roy Moore busted was that he deliberately flouted a valid order of a federal court.
33 posted on 11/13/2003 6:33:29 PM PST by The Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC
Yup. This is heading to SCOTUS. We're developing quite a split in the circuits.
34 posted on 11/13/2003 6:34:43 PM PST by July 4th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
HLL, you've gotta admit that the contradictory logic is maddening. One monument OK, another monument not OK.

"God save the court" is OK. "In God we Trust" is OK.

In your heart, you know that these decisions defy balancing on the head of a pin.
35 posted on 11/13/2003 6:36:09 PM PST by xzins (With deepest respect to General Boykin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jws3sticks
When you're only capable of see one side of an issue it's pretty easy to make a decision isn't it?
36 posted on 11/13/2003 6:38:56 PM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
It was not the Ten Commandments that were prohibited, but the Ten Commandments placed for religious reasons.

I don't understand this. Judge Moore has insisted the 10 commandments are the underpinning of our law in the U.S., they are religious period.

It is perposterous that a precept can not be religious and at the same time be used judiciously as a basis for law. Just because the man points out that they are religious and are a basis for our law he gets banned by a bunch of skewed thinking irreligious zealots...

37 posted on 11/13/2003 6:39:15 PM PST by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
seeing
38 posted on 11/13/2003 6:39:20 PM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The constitutional law on separation of church and state is a mess, and I suspect always will be. There simply is no overarching bright line test available that I know of by which one can separate what is really not a state endorsement of a particular religon, or religions, or religion in general perhaps, from that which really is. Moreover, references to religion are simply too entrenched in our culture, and have a long historical pedigree.

The constitutional test for church/state separation is and will remain one of sort of like the test for pornography - one knows it when one sees it. The test was a will remain highly fact dependent, and therefore ideosyncratic. In that regard, the courts will continue to try to parse motive (here the motive by way of some rather tortured analysis was found to be secular and benign), an exercise which is typically a rather unsatisfactory point of departure in this realm.

SCOTUS won't take this case, or any other like it, I suspect, for a very long time, until there is a clearer and more profound disagreement between the circuits as to some more generalized application of law that SCOTUS can sink its teeth into. By the way, your point of view that the first amendment is limited to a proscription of the establishment of a state religion, has long since been rejected by SCOTUS, and will continue to be. That approach is a legal corpse that will not be reanimnated.

What SCOTUS will continue to wrestle with are applications where government fiscal appropriations are involved, such as with schools, government subsidies of faith based charities, and the like.

That is my take of the matter anyway.

This opinion invalid to the extent it is wrong.

39 posted on 11/13/2003 6:40:12 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
Yes, it is both, but the issue is what Mr. Moore claimed as the reason he placed it.

The motive for placing the Ten Commandments at any public institution is the same. They represent the Christian/Judeo history of this nation. The decalogue is God's commandments. There's no getting around that.

The only question remaining is which way 5 human beings vote in Washington DC. Something not quite right about that.

40 posted on 11/13/2003 6:41:39 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Torie
This opinion invalid to the extent it is wrong.

Nice disclaimer. :-}

I think my position is a bit more nuanced than you described but I'm thinking SCOTUS takes this one. We'll see.

41 posted on 11/13/2003 6:44:57 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Maybe I have this rather unrealistic point of view that SCOTUS prefers to avoid tarbabies, unless and until there is a compelling reason in their mind to just hop in and do it. If this area of the law isn't a tarbaby, I don't know what is. Sorry if I over-simplified and stereotyped your position. I did not mean to do that. Indeed, I don't like to do that to any poster.
42 posted on 11/13/2003 6:49:06 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Torie
No problem. I wasn't castigating, just gently prodding. :_}

I don't know how they can avoid the entire issue. They've already taken the appeal from the ninth on the Pledge of Allegiance. After taking that, how can they turn a blind eye to what Americnas will see as bipolar postions of two different courts?

That was rhetorical by the by, no need to respond to it.

43 posted on 11/13/2003 6:52:02 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Whats your take on the anti-fillibuster fillibuster?
44 posted on 11/13/2003 6:53:20 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
It is all political. Will it gain the GOP much traction? I doubt it, unless and until there really is a widely perceived crisis arising from court vacancies, and then the issue could cut both ways. Swing voters tend to prefer the contestants to compromise, which means if they have their way, that only moderates need apply to choke point judicial slots. That would be a pity. I tend to enjoy the legal sparring of the more ideologically committed, and I think such sparring strengthens and enriches not only the law, but the public square. But then I am a lawyer.

Of course, I would prefer there be majority for the Torie reading of what is the true right path, which is itself ideosyncratic - activist in some applications of the Constitution (suspicious of "states rights," robust when it comes to trying to make the voting and political process "fair," and this nation one seamless economic unit, for example, and hands off in many other areas.

There is much to be said for dumping the 60 vote requirement in the Senate. Of course, someday, that will bite conservatives in the ass if it is done away with. Democracy is a bitch, and I love it.

45 posted on 11/13/2003 7:02:59 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
key segments of law founded on the moral and cultural ethics provided by the commandments.

This is an interesting distinction. A lot of lefties believe that anything referred to as "morality" is no different from religion.

Of course, quite a few of us who believe in God, believe the same thing. i.e.: morality comes from following God's law.

But the secular law can and should treat them as separate concepts. "Thou shalt not steal" is unambiguously a moral concept, whether you believe it comes from God or not.

I guess I don't have a point. Just making an observation that has some bearing on the fight to keep the Ten Commandments from being removed from public life.

46 posted on 11/13/2003 7:22:07 PM PST by irv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: navyblue
In Austin there are plenty of leftist lawyers that would jump at a chance like this.
47 posted on 11/13/2003 7:22:17 PM PST by ChefKeith (NASCAR...everything else is just a game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Where would a homeless man get the funds to sue??
48 posted on 11/13/2003 7:26:06 PM PST by PeyersPatches (I AM intestinal fortitude)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
My grandmother used to say, "I wouldn't have in my hand what you just had in your mouth."
49 posted on 11/13/2003 7:28:00 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Guess all the Justice Roy Moore bashers are full of sh*t after all!

I knew it all along did'nt you ?

50 posted on 11/13/2003 7:28:39 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson