Lowering the bar on profiles in courage (Former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore comes to Portland)

THE OREGONIAN (dead fish wrapper) ^ | 02/29/04 | Steve Duin

[lilylangtree]

Go Judge Roy go!

[FBD]

Tenth Amendment:
"Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people"--that's us.

[daler]

"Actually Moore was removed for refusing to obey a federal court order, not for acknowledging God."

And if you happen to be conservative, refusing to obey a federal court order will get you shot at sunrise, unlike liberals (SF Mayor, for example) who are CELEBRATED for ignoring such orders.

[COEXERJ145]

The idiot mayor of SF should be thrown out of office the same as Moore. He is in violation of the law just as Moore was.

I might be a bit more on Moore's side if he wasn't out there milking his "fame" for all it's worth.

[sinkspur]

But, what's Moore going to say when Massachusetts allows gay marriage, then goes to Alabama and demands that Alabama recognize the marriage?

Alabama will point to the Defense of Marriage Act, and, I predict, the Supreme Court will throw it out.

What would Moore do then, when his own state will be FORCED to accept gay marriages, even if they don't want to?

It won't matter what Alabama decides. The 14th amendment will force Alabama to accept these gay marriages, even if they don't perform any themselves.

[FBD]

Here's what Alan Keyes said about the Federal order to remove the Ten Commandments.

By the way, COEXERJ145, you are aware that the Ten Commandments is on the walls of the Supreme Court, yes?

Alan Keyes speech defending Chief Justice Roy Moore

---

"....Because I've learned something from America's history and heritage, from the long struggle of my own folks in America for equal rights and citizenship. Here's what you learn: you don't keep a right unless you're willing to stand up for that right!

And there will be those who will come against these brave folks, and they'll point the finger and they'll say, "We went to the federal judge, and the federal judge said to take it down," and they'll stand and look them in the eye and say, "We're going to keep it up."

And they'll say, "You lawbreakers! You violators!" But tell me. Which do you think is higher? A federal judge's ruling that has no foundation in law or constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, clear on the face of it?

When the federal judges follow the law, when the federal judges respect the Constitution, then they represent the majesty of law. When the federal judges disregard the Constitution, they speak for no law, they speak for no one but themselves.

And when they seek to impose their personal whims upon the states and the representatives of the people of the states, they are not imposing law, they are imposing dictatorship!

And on this day, above all, as we commemorate those who died at the beginning of our fight against the dictatorship of terror, let us remember that there are battlefields far flung across this globe, white crosses growing row on row of Americans who died in the fight against dictatorship on far-flung battlefields. If they died abroad, you can bet that we will stand firm here!

The federal judges, the federal courts have usurped the right and power of the people explicitly granted to them by the Constitution. But let us think a little further: how have they used this usurpation? To what end have they practiced this abuse?

To the end of driving prayer from our public schools! To the end of banishing the acknowledgment of God from festivals and our games and all our gatherings as a people! To the end of making sure that from one end of this land to another, there would be imposed a regime of atheism at every level of our public life!

But I'll tell you. Is it a coincidence that since this usurpation began, we have seen a rising tide of violence and crime and drug abuse in our schools? That since this usurpation began, we have watched the disintegration of our family life and the destruction of our sexual mores? That since this usurpation began, we have paid billions and billions on the crime problems and the health problems that result from the moral disintegration of our country?

For decades, we have paid the price!

And following the wisdom of our Founders--who said that we should not, for light or transient causes, call into question those in authority over us--we have borne it with patience, we have paid the bills, we have paid the billions in taxes. In spite of all the consequences that we could see, we have suffered while evils were sufferable.

But now they come against us to tear from the very walls of our courthouses those laws and commandments which we have so tried to instill into the hearts of our children! And before the very face of those children we have instructed in this law, they wish us to stand by while contempt is shown for the law of God, which is the basis of all moral discipline and true self-government!

I think it is clear: we must tell it to the courts, and we must tell it to our representatives, "Yes, we are a patient and long-suffering people. Yes, we will suffer while evils are sufferable. But this evil is intolerable, and we will suffer it no more!"

Now, I think that I would be a little worried about the consequences of all this, if I didn't have a pretty secure knowledge that our Founders were, contrary to the propaganda of a lot of the left-wingers and other people, our Founders we actually very prudent, very wise individuals--prudent and wise enough to have put together a Constitution that has not only stood the test of time, but includes elements within it that address contingencies that, at their time, they probably thought were unimaginable.

And I think one of the contingencies they thought was unimaginable was the idea of a federal judge getting everybody to tear the Ten Commandments off the walls of the courthouse. I mean, you could tell how it never occurred to the founding generation this would be a problem. If it had, I don't think that they would have etched the Ten Commandments in stone up there at the Supreme Court of the United States. You can't get 'em off without effacing the building. I doubt they would have put it together that way.

I also think that they couldn't imagine it--they wouldn't have put a wonderful quote from Leviticus 25:10, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land, and to all the inhabitants thereof." They wouldn't have etched it in the middle of the Liberty Bell, knowing that you could only get it out with a blowtorch!

It never occurred to them that this free people would ever suffer the indignity of an assault that denied our right to speak the name of God Almighty!

It never occurred to them--but nonetheless, they did provide us with a remedy.

And it's a wonder to me that, over the course of the last several decades, so many people who pretend to be lawyers and to know all about this and that, they stand before the American people acting as if the ultimate authority on everything constitutional is the Supreme Court. You realize, don't you, that just from a simple logical point of view, this couldn't possibly be true. First, because we all know (I think we still learn it in school) that we have three branches of government--the legislative, the executive, and the judicial--and under the Constitution of the United States, they are three equal branches.

Now, it doesn't take too much sense, does it, to realize, if I make a contract with you that says we're equal partners, and then there's a clause in there that says that you get to interpret it and I don't, who's the superior partner: me or you?

So, it doesn't make any sense. If the Supreme Court actually stood all by itself, interpreting the Constitution according to its whim, we wouldn't have three equal branches of government, we'd have a dictatorship of the judges!

And not only was this not intended, it was explicitly warned against by Jefferson, by Adams, by Madison. They held up the danger of such judicial tyranny in order to make sure that down through all the generations of this country's history, we would be warned against such abuses...."

[mrsmith]

Moore was removed for refusing to obey a federal court order to not acknowledge God in the foyer of the courtroom.

Moore is peacefully drawing attention to the harsh and arbitrary rulings of the federal courts on religion.

I dont understand why that bothers people.

[Welsh Rabbit]

The toll of that righteous stand? Infamy? Poverty? Dishonor? Heavens, no. How about celebrity and speakers' fees. How about Saturday's "Profile in Courage" award from the Constitution Party of Oregon...... You might say we've lowered the bar on what passes for sacrifice and paying a price for one's beliefs.

LOL! How can the Duin twerp type that with a straight face? Does this atheist Marxist really expect anyone to believe his major beef with Moore getting the award has anything to do with what the concept of the true meaning of courage, or what being removed from the bench cost Moore financially or personally? He was at a Constitution Party banquet; it's a forgone conclusion he will be in opposition to everything at the event. Why doesn't he write an article that addresses why Moore's political ideals are wrong and his are right? Can't he make a convincing case for his side that is supported by the Constitution? Funny how these "progressives" always seem to need an irrelevant side tangent to fill 3/4 of their columns...

[Servant of the 9]

What Moore did was just exactly as wrong as what the Mayor of San Francisco is doing now.

No one is entitled to ignore a law or a lawful court order just because they think it is wrong.

So9

[mrsmith]

No offical can be allowed to ignore a law or a lawful court order and keep his job.

Judge Moore lost his job.

[Welsh Rabbit]

Does this atheist Marxist really expect anyone to believe his major beef with Moore getting the award has anything to do with what the concept of the true meaning of courage, ...

[FBD]

>"Moore is peacefully drawing attention to the harsh and arbitrary rulings of the federal courts on religion."

Right on. Please read Alan Keyes speech on this issue:

http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/03_09_11rallyga.htm

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Maybe it was the timing"

Yes, the circus had closed.

[FBD]

Your NIC says it all FRiend. You (apparently) are also not aware that the Ten Commandments are on the Supreme Court building???

Please read Alan Keyes speech on this issue:

http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/03_09_11rallyga.htm

>..."And I think one of the contingencies they thought was unimaginable was the idea of a federal judge getting everybody to tear the Ten Commandments off the walls of the courthouse. I mean, you could tell how it never occurred to the founding generation this would be a problem.

>If it had, I don't think that they would have etched the Ten Commandments in stone up there at the Supreme Court of the United States. You can't get 'em off without effacing the building. I doubt they would have put it together that way...."

..."Every now and again, it would be good for the judges on the federal inferior court benches to remember that it's in the hands of Congress. If Congress woke up one day and decided to do it, there would be no federal inferior courts at all, because the Constitution doesn't say they have to set up those courts, it just says they may from time to time do it.

But [Article 3, Section 2] then goes on to specify the jurisdiction and the cases, and then a few cases where the court, the federal judiciary, has original jurisdiction. And then it says quite clearly that it will have, in all other cases, appellate jurisdiction. (So, original and appellate.) And here are the key words: "subject to such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Isn't that interesting?

So, all of these folks who are telling us, when it comes to determining the boundaries of the power of these federal judges, we just have to get down on our knees and hope for better dictation from our judicial dictators.

We need to look back at them and tell them that they are wrong, that we can still read the Constitution, and that, according to the Constitution of the United States, there is in fact a check against judicial tyranny, and when they assert authority over subjects and in areas that the Constitution has barred to them and the federal government, then the representatives of the people can stand up and place a strong wall of separation--not between church and state, but between the courts and our liberty."

[tpaine]

Tenth Amendment: "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people"

But, what's Moore going to say when Massachusetts allows gay marriage, then goes to Alabama and demands that Alabama recognize the marriage?

Alabama can point out that acts repugnant to constitutional principles are void.. -- There is no delegated power to force political/religious marriage concepts upon other States.

Alabama will point to the Defense of Marriage Act, and, I predict, the Supreme Court will throw it out.

Then Alabama refuses to obey the USSC on the same grounds.

What would Moore do then, when his own state will be FORCED to accept gay marriages, even if they don't want to?

How would this 'enforcement' take place? Could the feds arrest the Government of Alabama?

It won't matter what Alabama decides. The 14th amendment will force Alabama to accept these gay marriages, even if they don't perform any themselves.

Ludicrous. The feds would cave as long as Alabama did not use their powers to violate the rights of individual Alabama or US citizens.

[FBD]

>"Actually Moore was removed for refusing to obey a federal court order..."<

I ask everyone:
What law did Judge Moore break?
Don't just say, "Well a Federal judge ordered him to remove the Ten Commandments. (which are on the Supreme Court)

Cite the law that was being violated.

Where is it? Who passed it? Name it!!!
You can't, because he didn't break any law!!!
.......................................


As Alan Keyes said,

http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/03_09_11rallyga.htm
.....................
"...When you get, as the county commissioners here have gotten, a letter from the ACLU that tells you that "well, we noticed that you are respecting God, we noticed that you are respecting His law, we noticed that you have placed an inscription of His will on the walls of your courthouse, and that's violation," I hope folks will do just one thing for me: that they'll turn around, whether it be to the ACLU or anybody else, and ask them to cite the law that is being violated.

Where is it? Who passed it? Who made it so?

We are fighting all over this country. I stood with Justice Roy Moore in Alabama, and as he came under assault from those who said that, somehow or another, he was violating the law, I raised the same question: what law?..."

[FBD]

Please read Alan Keyes comments that I posted on #36.

And now I ask you again:

What law did Judge Moore break?
Don't just say, "Well a Federal judge ordered him to remove the Ten Commandments. (which are on the Supreme Court)

Cite the law that was being violated.

[FBD]

Re; the gay marriage issue:

excellant reply!

[Servant of the 9]

Don't just say, "Well a Federal judge ordered him to remove the Ten Commandments.

Irrelevant.
If a Federal Judge orders you to do something, you have three choices, do it, file an appeal and win, or be in Criminal Contempt of Court.

If you simply ignore laws or court orders you think are wrong, you are no better than the Gay Marriage Criminals.

So9

[sultan88]

Judge Moore stood up for God. The libs hate that. Therefore, Moore had to go. I really liked what Alan Keyes had to say!!