Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal

Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2003 | Associated Press

[Spiff]

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.

State constitutions must be framed in such a manner that the state governments are similarly restricted from trampling the rights of their citizens. A requirement for inclusion in the union for a state would be that the state constitutionis written similarly to the U.S. Constitution and that it limits the state government from enacting laws restricting freedom of speech, right to arms, etc.

My view is that of original intent of the Constitution - not the "living document" that too many people believe exists. I'm shocked that so many people were so ignorant of the original intent that they would let the incongruous 14th Amendment be written as it was and ratified (oh wait, it wasn't properly ratified).

[po'boy]

Everyone on this thread needs to watch a movie "Boondock Saints". In a nutshell, the story revolves around young Irish brothers, following a vision from God!

I may have to pop it in my dvd and watch it again, very entertaining.

[AndrewC]

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Since the case appears to be between a person and the United States and the case was not originally handled by the Supreme Court, Congress can tell the Supreme Court to butt out. It therefore appears that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter.

[Spiff]

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.

Official state religion doesn't mean that no other religion can exist. The precedent, again, is that at least one state had an official state religion when the Constitution was ratified. It was by their own choice that the official designation was later removed.

I, personally, do not want my state to have an official state religion. It is far easier to work locally, within my own state, to ensure that such a thing would not happen. As it is easier to work locally to effect other proposed legislation within my state. That is the design and the intent of the original constitutional model. That the original intent has been so warped over time that it is beyond recognition of even some FReepers is truly sad.

[Catspaw]

and those in which a State shall be Party

If you look at the case title, the state of Alabama is not a party to the action. Chief Judge Roy Moore is. Had Alabama been the party, the US Supreme Court would've heard this first, not last, in the appeals process.

[lugsoul]

This hypothetical requirement that state constitutions conform to the prohibitions in the Federal constitution - tell where that requirement is found in the constitution? And isn't that contrary to your entire point - that the Feds can't tell the states what to do?

You can backpeddle all you want - but why not deal with the issue on the Constitution we have, instead of one we might theoretically have? Since your requirement regarding state constitutions does not exist, do you take the position that a state can ban the exercise of a specific religion, and there is no Constitutional problem with that?

Oh - you seem to be picking and choosing between which parts of the Bill of Rights the states would be required to adopt and which they would not. How do you determine, for example, that the states would be required to include freedom of speech in their constitution but not the prohibition on establishment of religion?

Kind of funny that you rail against a "living Constitution," while you are rewriting it wholesale.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

It is far easier to work locally, within my own state, to ensure that such a thing would not happen.

I'm always amazed at this sort of ignorant statement - its as if you're too stupid to understand the sort of feudal and intense pressure which can be put on people at the local level. From local police and regulator harassment of you at home and work, to economic boycott, these people can put you down in ways that would shrink your circle of helpful friends and family to zero.

[Catspaw]

Official state religion doesn't mean that no other religion can exist.

And the converse is also true: it can mean that no other religion can exist. It is within the state's rights, in the scenario you have proposed.

Do you want a situation where persons who are members of the official state religion have preference over those who aren't, if one can buy a house and be forced to sell it, extending to the ability to get a job and keep a job, whether one can be educated based on whether one is a member of the official religion. And if it is the state that can designate the official religion and is the one to make laws relating to that official religion, they can also make the laws that could prevent or eliminate the public practice of other religions, and extend that to say that no other religion can be practiced in that state except the official religion and the federal government--Judicial, Executive, Legislative--cannot interfere.

[exmarine]

There is a difference between separation, on one hand, and the state favoring one religion over others, on the other hand. Surely you do not approve of the latter.

History militates against you and all the "metaphor" people. History is on my side, not yours. Tell me - where was this phoney doctrine for 175 years prior to 1947? Show me one ruling prior to that that embodies this phoney legal doctrine! The founders MOST CERTAINLY did not understand it as the secular/anti-Christian judiciary and ACLU understand it. Why is that? Why is it that Congress sanctioned the printing of the Aitken bible? This was a Christian nation when the Constitution was written and it is founded on Christian principles. If you don't like it, then call a Constitutional Convention. However, it is the LAW OF THE LAND, and no judge has the power to abrogate any part of it. You are right, the State cannot adopt an official state religion (by the way, the founders were referring to Christian denominations, not religions), but interference in the affairs of States, communities and people's right to freely exercise their religious liberty is a violation of Constitutional LAW. You need to read the free exercise clause over and over until it sticks in your craw. It says "Congress" shall make no law. Judges have no power in this regard according to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. If you don't like it, either call a new const. convention or propose an amendment - those are your ONLY options under the law.

[lugsoul]

Catspaw, he doesn't like the corner he is in - but he is well in it.

[lugsoul]

Is the 14th not part of the Constitution?

[exmarine]

Does the 14th abrogate the 1st?

[Catspaw]

It does seem to indicate that there should be no federal government--or at least it become a pick & choose, opt-in/opt-out deal for the states. If a state, for example, wants to reestablish slavery or deny women the right to vote, it appears, at least according to this theory, the branches of the federal government can have no say because that state opted out of those particular Constitutional amendments.

[lugsoul]

Oh - does the State have religious liberty? How can the State exercise religion? Can a State worship? No - a State can only direct, encourage, compel, endorse or prohibit how its CITIZENS worship. And you seem to believe that the State can do this without coming into any conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Hey, if that is your view, fine. Under the same argument, a State can ban a religion, ban freedom of speech, ban free association, etc. If that's the country you want, go for it. That's not the law of the land right now - according to anyone with the power to interpret it.

[exmarine]

Again, where was this phoney doctrine for 175 years? Answer plase.

[lugsoul]

No - it applies the dictates of the 1st to the various states.

[exmarine]

Oh - does the State have religious liberty? How can the State exercise religion? Can a State worship? No - a State can only direct, encourage, compel, endorse or prohibit how its CITIZENS worship. And you seem to believe that the State can do this without coming into any conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Hey, if that is your view, fine. Under the same argument, a State can ban a religion, ban freedom of speech, ban free association, etc. If that's the country you want, go for it. That's not the law of the land right now - according to anyone with the power to interpret it.

I misspoke - I meant communities and individuals, not States.

[exmarine]

Show me in the 14th amendment where the judiciary has the power to make any new laws (e.g. forced busing, taking plaques down from courthouses, enforcing politically correct cultural norms). Show me - I'm from Missouri. Again, read the Free Exercise Clause over and over until you get it into your head that judges HAVE NO POWER to take away my right to pray anywhere or anytime I want, with whomever I want, and put up Christian symbols in a Courthouse in my community. This is a power grab on the lines of a POLIBURO and these judges should be impeached immediately.

[AndrewC]

My point is that the Constitution overtly establishes that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of all. Congress by any law can limit it in some cases. ---the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Here is a link to the decision. D. C. Docket Nos. 01-01268-CV-T-N 01-01269-CV-T-N

[exmarine]

For the third time, where was this phoney doctrine for 175 years? Answer please.