Skip to comments.Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal
Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.
[click link to read remainder of article]
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Another brilliant statement from a member of the American Taliban.
When the Constitution was ratified there was at least one state with an official religion. The SCOTUS would be wrong if they said that a state could not have a state religion just as they were wrong when they said Dred Scot was only property and that the imagined right to privacy in the Constitution prevented states from enacting laws against murdering babies.
What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you and your hypothetical SCOTUS not understand?
And why do you imagine that our nation's form of government is a judgeocracy or some crap like that and not a Constitutional Republic of several sovereign States? Where did you learn otherwise?
Well, the 14th Amendment prohibition on the state depriving any person of liberty, including 1st Amendment liberty derived from the language beginning "Congress shall make no law...", says your view is wrong. And so the SCOTUS has held for the better part of a century.
I hope you understand the implication of your argument. If "Congress shall make no law..." is the last word (despite later Amendments), then the state in which you reside can pass laws restricting free speech, freedom of the press and free exercise of religion - and there is no Constitutional problem at all with such laws.
That may be the country you want to live in, but it is not mine.
Ah, there it is. You're blinded by the "jurisprudence" on this issue. Tell me, if Dred Scot was still in vogue today - if the jurisprudence still upheld the Dred Scot decision - would you be here arguing that slaves are just property. No, instead you would recognize that the decisions on the issue from Dred Scot up until today were WRONG. Just as we are arguing that the distorted interpretations of the establishment clause and the ensuing decisions and enforcements are WRONG.
Just because the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution does not make them the final arbiter of whether the contract (the Constitution) is being breached or not. The contract was between the several States and the new Federal (not National - I really hope you will learn the difference) Government. The States are still sovereign and still have a say in the matter.
Your model would be like a group of companies contracting with a builder to build a skyscraper for them and then letting ONLY the builder's legal department be the final arbiter of whether the builder is meeting the contract or not. The companies would have no say when the builder uses the contract to continue collecting money from the companies and to start building all kinds of stuff in addition to the teetering skyscraper because the legal department keeps declaring the alterations and additional projects to be within the contract.
I don't know if the ACLU wsa involved, I think it was. Basically with the All Criminals Love Us, everything decent and good offends them, and everything evil attracts.
Then who is?
Then you reject the holding of Marbury v Madison, something which fixed what I consider a flaw in the Constitution.
Congress is now free to pass unconstitutional laws and your only recourse is to vote in new legislators who will repeal them.
No, I don't want a state or a national religion. However, that matter is, according to the Constitution, left up to the states themselves and not a federal issue.
If my state chose to pick an intolerable religion as the "official" state religion, then I might want to move to another state. Similarly if the state enacted gun laws restricting ownership of guns, then I would move to another state where the gun laws were more agreeable. The Constitution was designed to limit the Federal Government, not the state governments except in clearly defined and specified matters. The 14 Amendment and the twisting of the "equal enforcement of laws" has been one of the worst things to happen to the Constitution, our Republic, and our federal model of government. If they wanted to reaffirm that blacks had the same rights that everyone else has, they should have just said so. The 14th Amendment, as written, is a travesty.
In 100% agreement with your reasoning. And people of minority religions" should agree as well. Historical, absolutely.
Can any state legally prohibit speech criticizing the state government?
Can any state ban the practice of a particular religion?
Based on your argument, they can.
"The People" how? You've already eliminated the courts from having any say.
Well, I think that pretty much frames the discussion. You believe that state governments have the right to trample the liberty of their citizens, unfettered by the Federal government. And that view is shared by, well, practically no one.
For a Hindu, you sure post like a fundamentalist Christian.
The separation of church and state doctrine was invented in 1947 in the Everson ruling under Hugo Black. There is no mention of this in the Constitution or the Constitutional convention, and the nation thrived for 175 years before 1947 - precedent and the Constitution militates against this legal usurpation.
Let it be known that this metaphor was extracted from a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, who, (now ironically) - were worried about persecution from the govt! Jefferson was a full supporter of the Christian faith and attended services in the CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS! He invited the Marine Corps band to play worship! Some separation!
So what you're saying is that states can establish a religion (do you happen to have any legal citations on that?) and if you don't like it, the choice is to move? Your proposal seems to be that a state or states can establish that religion, persons of that religion move to that state and persons not of that religion move to a state in which their religion is the state religion, each religion congregating in a designated state. I would assume those who can't find a state in which their religion is a state religion have the option of converting or leaving the country.
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.