Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal

Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2003 | Associated Press

[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.

[snip]

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]

[Redbob]

Once again illustrating (a) the importance of getting Estrada confirmed to the 11th Circuit, and;
(b) making d@mn sure that Alberto Gonzalez doesn't get appointed to so much as dogcatcher.

[mabelkitty]

States can endorse a religion.

Nobody wants to address that.

They would rather wait until all the Muslims have voting power, and then bring it to a vote.

[Spiff]

Finally, one thing should be clear. A bunch of people here continually reference the Declaration of Independence. I love the Declaration of Independence. But it is NOT THE LAW.

No, but the principles set out in the DofI are the basis for the law. If you contradict what you set out to do in the first place (form a government that recognized that men are bestowed inalienable rights by their creator) then you're obviously doing something wrong - something not within the original design. This concept of an infallible group of life-appointed judges dictating from the bench is wholly alien to the DofI and the Constitution.

[exmarine]

Yes, and everyone can see how much classs you have with your namecalling like a 4 year old. It seems 3 fingers are pointing back at you when you accuse me - you hypocrite. My comment was directed at every liberal judge who usurps powers not given by law, and who rules that babies can be killed in the womb. I live in America - I don't answer to you. I hereby challenge you to call me a coward or lowlife to my face or call me a disgrace to my uniform - you must feel real safe with your namecalling in your little cocoon behind your computer - no doubt you are one of those guys who cut people off on the freeway while using sign language. Do you have a bumper sticker on your care that says "Horn broke, watch for finger?" Tell you what - anytime you think you are MAN ENOUGH to say those words to my face, just send me a private e-mail and we'll try to set it up.

[exmarine]

Oh and by the way, I just LOVE IT when people like you get resentful and angry. An old proverb says that it's better to give a resentment than get one.

[exmarine]

This line from your profile says it all:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell - Mr. god-hater reprobate himself. That says alot about you pal.

[rwfromkansas]

Read the debates on the First Amendment's adoption and then get back to me.

[rottweiller_inc]

Fine. You decide for yourself what the Constitution says and means. You're a little supreme court. Forget what over 200 years of what some pretty smart people have written.

The constitution was written in simple language not in some 800 page document that only a lawyer can understand. Why is it people such as yourself 1) don't believe us simple folk can read such a thing and know what it says 2)That after reading something like the 14 words in the second amendment we can still not know what it means and require an interperter.

[exmarine]

Is the holding of slaves as property an unchanging absolute moral principle? Or did the Supreme Court have the right and obligation to change this after the passage of time?

Is this the question? The answer is that slavery has always been wrong as our D of I clearly states. If this issue had been raised in 1787, a republic would have been impossible. However, that is no excuse, and it resulted in the most bloody of wars. The framers acknowledged that chattel slavery was wrong but were perplexed as to how to deal with it. The Supreme Court didn't abolish slavery, War, Lincoln and the 13th amendment combined to abolish it once and for all. In fact, the SCOTUS upheld it in Dred Scott. Courts don't make laws remember (I know that's tough for you to accept). The framers weren't perfect, but they were not moral relativists and machiavellian pragmatists as many justices are today. There, I answered your question. You must have been taught the revisionist version of history eh?

[Catspaw]

Tell you what - anytime you think you are MAN ENOUGH to say those words to my face, just send me a private e-mail and we'll try to set it up.

I would think that threatening another freeper might border on "No personal attacks." You may want to consider controlling your temper.

[Dog Gone]

Why is it people such as yourself 1) don't believe us simple folk can read such a thing and know what it says 2)That after reading something like the 14 words in the second amendment we can still not know what it means and require an interperter.

It has nothing to do with the intelligence of anyone who reads it. It has everything to do with the fact that reasonable people can read the Constitution and come to different conclusions, especially when applying it to a fact situation.

That is why we have 200 years of disputes over the meaning of the Constitution that have been decided at the US Supreme Court level.

Every individual cannot be the final authority on the meaning of a particular clause because everyone won't agree.

[Spiff]

The constitution was written in simple language not in some 800 page document that only a lawyer can understand. Why is it people such as yourself 1) don't believe us simple folk can read such a thing and know what it says 2)That after reading something like the 14 words in the second amendment we can still not know what it means and require an interperter.

Amen!

[rottweiller_inc]

Every individual cannot be the final authority on the meaning of a particular clause because everyone won't agree.

so basicly words, not to mention the historical context, cannot be understood by the common man, so us common people need someone edgucated at a properly leftist school to learn us what terms like "congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" mean?

[exmarine]

I didn't threaten anyone - I merely gave him the opportunity to say to my face what he so freely says here.

[exmarine]

I would also say that calling someone a "coward" and a "lowlife" and a "disgrace to the uniform" is a PERSONAL ATTACK even by your liberal standards! Then again, Maybe not...

[Dog Gone]

Some parts of the Constitution are more plain than others.

For example

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...

Okay, so we know unreasonable searches aren't unconstitutional. That's the plain language.

But if you are the final authority on the meaning of that, I think I can guarantee that you'll probably never find a situation where the cops can come and search your house, and certainly never when you have something to hide.

[Dog Gone]

oops,

unreasonable searches are unconstitutional

[rottweiller_inc]

But if you are the final authority on the meaning of that, I think I can guarantee that you'll probably never find a situation where the cops can come and search your house, and certainly never when you have something to hide.

you mean it does'nt mean what it says? Just because the constitution is'nt no longer taught in government schools resulting in ignorance of it and thereby opening the door to whatever propoganda the media will report about it, such as the seperation of the church and state, It does'nt mean what it says? Just because politcians have gotten away with making laws that violate it does'nt make those violations a part of it. The government will always chafe at the bit of anything limiting it's power and try to disregard it if it can..the first part was claiming ownership of what's taught in schools and then doing away with teaching the children what the constitution actually said. Then the people those children have grown into will believe whatever the government says about what the constitution says simply because they don't know any better..you have taken it a bit further..promoting what is not in the constitution. The first amendment stops congress from establishing a religion or prohibiting it..the federal government is now prohibiting it via the supreme court until the people who actually grew up before the government stopped teaching the constitution, die off then it can tell the new crop of properly ignorant voters whatever it wants them to believe. Then they will claim, like you, that only the supreme court can grant you rights.

[Catspaw]

I would also say that calling someone a "coward" and a "lowlife" and a "disgrace to the uniform" is a PERSONAL ATTACK even by your liberal standards!

Here's a hint: anger management. Try it.

[exmarine]

Here's a hint for you: Try to use the same standard on your liberal brethren as you do on those you don't agree with.