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

[FBD]

You could not cite a law.

>"If you simply ignore laws..."
-Again, what law????

>"....or court orders you think are wrong, you are no better than the Gay Marriage Criminals."<


-You compare the posting of the Ten Commandments to Gay Marriage ?????????????
The Ten Commandments are on the Supreme Court building!!!
The Supreme Court, and the Legislature both begins their work day with a prayer to God.

Ridiculous comparison, and you know it.

[FBD]

Hey there Sultan. Good to hear from you, FRiend. I cannot believe how some supposedly conservative people here, go out of their way to condemn Judge Moore, yet they cannot cite one law that he broke.

What's worse they seem to be willing to defend federal judicial tyranny, over states rights to free religious expression, and the acknowlegement of God.

It's unbelievable.

[FBD]

Moore introduced the following bill to Congress:

"The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004.”

The bill, (CRA), introduced in Congress on February 13th by former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, Alabama’s Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville), restricts the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States. The House version is H.R. 3799 and the Senate version is S. 2082.

Sec. 102 of this bill states:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

This means, that the federal judiciary would be prohibited from interfering with any _expression of religious faith by any elected local, state, or federal official. In other words, federal judges could not prevent the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public buildings or Nativity Scenes from appearing on court house lawns or "under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers being spoken in public schools, etc. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these matters.

The Constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government.

The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts.

[FBD]

"Why I'm standing up for the Ten Commandments in Alabama."


--"The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector.

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.

By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and my fellow justices have argued that they must act to remove the monument to preserve the rule of law. But the precise opposite is true: Article VI of the Constitution makes explicitly clear that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it, are "the supreme Law of the Land." Judge Thompson and the judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have all sworn oaths which bind them to support the Constitution as it is written--not as they would personally prefer it to be written.

By subjugating the people of Alabama to the unconstitutional edict by Judge Thompson, that public officials may not acknowledge God, the attorney general and my colleagues have made the fiat opinion of a judge supreme over the text of the Constitution. While agreeing with me that the Constitution is supreme, and that the opinion of Judge Thompson was contrary to the Constitution, the attorney general has argued that he must follow an order he himself believes to be in direct violation of the supreme law of the land.

One of the great influences on the Founding Fathers, common law sage William Blackstone, once pointed out that judges do not make laws, they interpret them. No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful.

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains--as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.

Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law."`
~
Judge Roy Moore

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Why I'm standing up for the Ten Commandments in Alabama."

Because I'm a political opportunist!

[FBD]

"No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution."

My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful."

[FBD]

"One can live in the shadow of an idea without grasping it." ~ Elizabeth Bowen

[Mudboy Slim]

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

And Judge Moore chose Alternative C in glorious fashion...do you really believe he has disqualified himself from future judicial appointments?! Nay, I'd say he's improved his chances fer advancement...a pretty wise man, if you ask me.

FReegards...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"I'm a political opportunist!"

Whatta coincidence, so is Judge Moore...and I'm here to see that I can do anything in my power to see him succeed in his righteous venture...MUD

BTW...Mr. Tipton, would I be wrong in assuming you weren't much of an Ollie North fan either, were you?!

[Mudboy Slim]

"One can live in the shadow of an idea without grasping it." ~ Elizabeth Bowen

Heh heh heh...MUD

[FBD]

In the case of John Beresford Tipton (and some of the others on this thread), that idea is the Constitution! :)

[FBD]

Thanks for the backup on #48 and 49!

[Mudboy Slim]

"Mr. Tipton, would I be wrong in assuming you weren't much of an Ollie North fan either, were you?!"

That don't make a lick o' sense, do it?! What I meant was, you probably don't like Ollie North...am I correct in that assumption?!

FReegards...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

No backup neccessary, yer handlin' yerself with aplomb...MUD

[John Beresford Tipton]

"you probably don't like Ollie North"

I haven't any opinion one way or the other about him,
haven't even thought about him since Brendan Sullivan was saying he was "not a potted palm."

[Mudboy Slim]

"...haven't even thought about him [Ollie North] since Brendan Sullivan was saying he was "not a potted palm."

Well, he's sorta a Regular Joe who took a stand and many of the BlueBlood Republicans like to belittle him becuz of his somewhat abrasive demeanor. I voted fer him as a write-in candidate fer Senator against Gentleman Jawn Wahnah in '02...Justice Moore seems to have a lotta the same characteristics that I find appealing. Sure, this issue he chose is sorta sensationalistic, but it gets an argument out there that needs to be had...where in the Constitution do you see something pertaining to the vaunted "Separation of Church and State"?! The Establishment Clause forbids the State from instituting a national religion...that ain't what's being debated here, my FRiend.

FReegards...MUD

[FBD]

This speech below, by Alan Keyes appears to be above the ability of some on this thread to comprehend. (those that stand in the shadows of great ideas, yet cannot grasp them) But here’s hoping against the odds, that some of this might actually get absorbed:
(The underlined and highlighted bold emphasis is mine)

Alan Keyes on Judge Roy Moore, and the Ten Commandments

“…The Constitution and the Bill of Rights withholds from the national government the power to address in any lawful fashion the issue of an establishment of religion. And it, by the Tenth Amendment, reserves for the states and the people of the states the power to address that question. That means, by the way, that though these folks don't want to hear this--because this is a phrase they hate to hear; they especially hate to hear it from me because I'm one of the few people they can't accuse of racism when I raise it.

The Bill of Rights, actually, in this instance, protects a state right, a right of the states in the sovereign element which they have retained under our Constitution, another little fact everyone wants to forget. Okay?

And what the first phrase of the First Amendment protects is not an individual right. Individuals have no power to make laws. What it protects is a power of government, and it reserves that power of government to the states and to the people of the states.

Now, that, by the way, means--and here's where we get to Roy Moore and lawbreaking--that, by the way, means that even if you accepted the incorporation doctrine, what's enjoined upon the state officials is to respect those rights, privileges, and immunities that are established in the Bill of Rights. That's the argument they make.
Well, it turns out that one of the rights established in the Bill of Rights is the right of the states and of the people of the states to deal with the issue of religious establishment without dictation or interference from the federal government.

Now, if you're Roy Moore and a federal judge tells you that you must surrender this right of your state, surrender this right of your people, then you must look him in the eye and say, "By the law of Alabama and by the Constitution of the United States, I must say, 'NO, SIR!'"

And in case people are still confused, I would remind them that the doctrine that not only do you have the right to refuse an unlawful order, but in the most touchy situation imaginable--that of our military--can you think of a situation in which discipline is more important than in the midst of war? And yet, in the midst of war, the lowliest private soldier in our military not only has the right, he is under an obligation to refuse an unlawful order. And we're to say that what a private soldier in the army has a moral obligation to do is not the obligation of the highest officials in our states, when they see the rights of our states and our people being trampled underfoot by those who have illegitimately usurped the power reserved to the states in the Constitution?

Do you know what it means when you take an illegitimate power and call it your own, like someone who ascends to a kingship by illegitimate means, and then, all by your lonesome, answering to no one, you wield that power in an abusive way?

They call it tyranny."

[Mudboy Slim]

"What it protects is a power of government, and it reserves that power of government to the states and to the people of the states."

Whatever happened to the proposed DEVOLVEMENT of Power from the Federal Leviathan and back to the States, Localities, and Individuals?! What would it take to make THAT a higher priority in the upcoming election?! If a given State wants to provide Daycare fer its citizenry, why don't they institute it at the State Level and quit trying to make it a Federal Program?! If it's a good idea, I'm sure working age Americans will flock to the State...if not, maybe the program dies out fer lack of interest!!

We could easily take care of any number of Federal Programs by block-granting the funds to the States fer the next five years, and cut the funding by 20% per year while the States choose to fund the program or let it die after five years.

FReegards...MUD

[tpaine]

Keyes has been giving essentially this same speech for the many months.. I replied to this some time ago at post #52 of the thread below:
CPAC 2004: ALAN KEYES' SPEECH Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067421/posts?q=1&&page=52

Keys said:

There was a reason why that phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," was the first phrase in the Bill of Rights -- -- What it says is, there can be no federal law that deals with the subject of religious establishment.

Wrong, Alan.. It deals with legislators making no law about "respecting AN establishment of religion".
'AN' establishment, not 'THE' establishment of religion.
Big difference in meaning.
'An establishment of religion' is any teaching, precept, dogma, or object relating to any specific religion.

What it means, therefore, is that if you're sitting on the federal bench, you've got no lawful basis for addressing or interfering with this issue.

Wrong again, -- if some lawmaking body is writing law that favors the principles of one religion over another, they are violating the rights of non-favored citizens by ignoring the 1st.. The courts can redress such violations.

But no, no. [Some say,] "Alan, it's in the Constitution!" Well, as I recall, it's that very phrase they use in the Constitution to usurp their authority. So, frankly, the separation of church and state and this mythology they talk about--scour the document, you'll find it nowhere in there.
What you will find is a clear statement in the First Amendment that this power is withheld from the federal government,

The BOR's applies to ALL lawmaking bodies in the USA, Alan, as you well know..

and a clear statement in the Tenth Amendment that "all those powers not given to the federal government, or prohibited in the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people." --

-- With the clear understanding that the supremacy clause & the 14th both say the States are bound to honor the US Constitution & BOR's.
It is ludicrous to see a major political figure like Keyes claim that states are free violate our individual rights. -- I'd like to see him defend the CA assault weapon prohibition on this basis, for instance..

[FBD]

James Madison disagrees with you:

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. ... The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."- James Madison