Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal
Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2003 | Associated Press

Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-630 next last
To: Derrald
"This raises the question. Is the judge, by placing the ten commandments in the courtroom prohibiting the free exercise of other religions?"

Placing the Ten Commandments in a Courtroom can no more prohibit the exercise of other religions than displaying a Chevrolet sign can prohibit the purchase of a Ford. If you like Fords you will not be converted or threatened by a Chevy sign. This a ridiculous ruling. Furthermore, the Ten Commandments are an intricate part of both the Jewish and Christian faiths, and Muslims also raise Moses up to the level of "chosen Prophet" in thier Koran, including the story of his parting of the Red Sea, the 40 days on Mt. Sinai, etc. So exactly which religion is "prohibited" by the display of the Mosaic Law? It won't be long before Christianity will be forced underground into modern 'catacombs', and we'll need another Emperor Constantine to make it legal again to practice in public.

51 posted on 07/01/2003 3:50:36 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Yep, that will ensure the already impending death of the State of Alabama.
52 posted on 07/01/2003 3:50:36 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
This brief, filed in support of the displaying of the Ten Commandments, is a must read>

Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments

53 posted on 07/01/2003 3:51:06 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
This is not about the Free Exercise clause. It is about the Establishment Clause. Why not just read the opinion?
54 posted on 07/01/2003 3:52:06 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
The court order to remove the Ten Commandments is already in effect. The court of appeals didn't issue a stay pending their decision and didn't issue a stay pending further appeals. Even if Chief Justice Moore was to request a hearing en banque to the 11th Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court, the order to remove the Ten Commandments is in effect. He would have to request a stay and hope that it was granted. Until then, he's under court order to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court building. The judges of the 11th Circuit was not amused by his continuing defiance of the court order (read the last few pages of their order). I would presume that Chief Justice Moore will continue to defy their court order, and is willing to pay the consequences of that continuing defiance.
55 posted on 07/01/2003 3:52:22 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
So what will happen to the 10 Commandments on the door in the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.?

Did you read the last two or three pages of the ruling? It basically takes the argument that such things as the pledge, daily prayer, national motto, etc. are not subject to the Establishment Clause because "rote repitition" has stripped any religious meaning out of them, and they are simply done to convey the solemnness of the situation. What a load of crap. The Founders would hang these justices for treason.

56 posted on 07/01/2003 3:52:49 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
So what will happen to the 10 Commandments on the door in the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.?

The door of the Supreme Court building depicts great events in legal history-- Moses, Hammurabi, Justinian, the Magna Charta, etc. The Ten Commandments are not singled out as representing one true religion, to the exclusion of others. (The 11th Circuit's decision in fact discusses permissible and impermissible displays of the 10 Commandments.) In fact, the Supreme Court doesn't even show the text of the Commandments, only the outlines of the two tablets.

57 posted on 07/01/2003 3:53:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Think US Marshals. A whole bunch of them. With trucks and forklifts and whatever else they need.

Think lots of Christians standing in the way. Think Christian U.S. Marshals who refuse to enforce the order.

I can dream can't I? Maybe a couple of news outlets will carry the picture of a couple of Christians trying to stand in the way of this tyranny. These Christians will simply go limp, have the plastic zipties placed on their wrists, and will be carried to a nearby bus for processing and be released later. Meanwhile the Marshals will gleefully remove the granite and by the next day the nation will be more interested in Laci's murder or J. Lo & Ben Affleck's relationship.

We're all a bunch of wimps. America will not go hollering and screaming and fighting under the boot of tyranny, they'll fall under that boot to the sound of clicking TV remote controls during a commercial break.

58 posted on 07/01/2003 3:53:33 PM PDT by Spiff (Liberalism is a mental illness - a precursor disease to terminal Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
I am just calling these tyrannical judges what they are.
59 posted on 07/01/2003 3:54:07 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The ACLU wants to remove God from every aspect of our public life. What bothers me the most is that public school teachers are permitted to teach our children about the importance of contraceptives, abortion, safe sex, homosexuality, lesbianism, and why little Johnny has two father or two mothers, but let that same teacher mention God and he or she is fired on the spot. We need to send letters and monmey to whoever is willing to take this case to the SCOTUS and hope Sandra Day O'Conner has retired by then
60 posted on 07/01/2003 3:54:17 PM PDT by MJY1288 (The Gifted One is Clueless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
I would presume that Chief Justice Moore will continue to defy their court order, and is willing to pay the consequences of that continuing defiance.

Go Chief Justice Moore! Where can we donate to his legal fund? He'll need it. Bail?

61 posted on 07/01/2003 3:55:17 PM PDT by Spiff (Liberalism is a mental illness - a precursor disease to terminal Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Whatever Kevin . . .

What do you mean, "whatever"?

The Ten Commandments is ordered removed by judicial fiat--not because of, but despite the First Amendment as it was designed.

Suppose it were replaced with a statue of two (fully dressed, for the sake of nominal modesty) men or two women, hands on chest or breast and thigh, engaged in a passionate kiss. Simply name the piece of excrement "The Gay Dawn" in honor of the Lawrence decision so that it can be fobbed off as symbolic of civil rights. Or how about a statute of a late term abortion entitled "Dr. Carhart's Loving Hands" (approriately draped so that the act of murder is strongly suggested but not depicted) would there be any legal basis whatsover for a court to order either statue removed? Absolutely not.

But posting the Ten Commandments is an abomination, all the machinery and rage of government is enlisted to remove it from the public sphere.

Black is white, and up is down. There is a backlash developing. I intend to encourage it.

62 posted on 07/01/2003 3:56:00 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Do you want to support the idea that any state official can define the meaning of the Constitution for himself, and can willfully ignore the Supremacy Clause if he or she so chooses?
63 posted on 07/01/2003 3:56:32 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
what -- in -- the -- hell -- are you talking about?
64 posted on 07/01/2003 3:56:54 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Ah, Mr. Curry. Of course, while you are opining about the meaning of the opinion, it is certain that you haven't read it.

Typical.

65 posted on 07/01/2003 3:57:31 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
This is not about the Free Exercise clause. It is about the Establishment Clause. Why not just read the opinion?

Well ok, what law was being written by Moore then? The First Amendment only seems to place limits on Congress to keep them from creating a state religion, like the one they fled from in England. A reading of some material from the Founders would prove that this is indeed the case.

66 posted on 07/01/2003 3:57:34 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Think lots of Christians standing in the way. Think Christian U.S. Marshals who refuse to enforce the order.

I can dream can't I? Maybe a couple of news outlets will carry the picture of a couple of Christians trying to stand in the way of this tyranny. These Christians will simply go limp, have the plastic zipties placed on their wrists, and will be carried to a nearby bus for processing and be released later. Meanwhile the Marshals will gleefully remove the granite and by the next day the nation will be more interested in Laci's murder or J. Lo & Ben Affleck's relationship

I think your second paragraph is more accurate. There'll be a symbolic protest, people will get arrested and hauled off to jail, the Marshalls will come in and remove the statue and Judge Moore will have to contend with a contempt citation--probably more than one--and get slapped on the wrist.

67 posted on 07/01/2003 3:58:20 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
In fact, the Supreme Court doesn't even show the text of the Commandments, only the outlines of the two tablets.

As if that somehow matters. Do you think the numerals represent Clinton's 10 greatest BJs or something?

68 posted on 07/01/2003 3:58:49 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Whew! I haven't followed this case. He sounds like quite the guy.
We had the Ten Commandments, quotes from the Bible and other appropriate remarks on the walls of the courthouse when I was young.
I consider it all "de minimus" and good.
69 posted on 07/01/2003 3:59:08 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
WHY MUST SO MANY PEOPLE MAKE IDIOTIC STATEMENTS ABOUT THIS CASE WITHOUT EVEN READING IT?

Sir Gawain - your argument is addressed and dissected completely in the text of the opinion. Read it.

70 posted on 07/01/2003 3:59:13 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Does this mean the state will no longer funnel billions of dollars to all those "other" religous entities like the jewish school district in upstate NY which Bill Clinton gave pardon's to it's administrators and of course the Cathlic church for healthcare and services Mexcian nationals?

Or is this federal action only apply to Christian symbols in state buildings?

71 posted on 07/01/2003 4:00:08 PM PDT by Rodsomnia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I will pick the people's logic that wrote the amendment over some judicial activists. I'm not agreeing with Moore's disregard for the higher court's ruling, I'm disagreeing with the complete mis-reading of the First Amendment ever since about 1934.
72 posted on 07/01/2003 4:02:12 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
You don't understand the Establishment Clause, lugsoul (BTW, are you a character from The Screwtape Letters?). The Establishment Clause was designed to do two things: prevent the creation of a national religion and to keep the federal government from interfering with state-sanctioned religion.

A 20th Century liberal Supreme Court refashioned the First Amendment into the Judeo-Christian-despising weapon that it is today. It wasn't always so. You possess modern ignorance in abundance.

73 posted on 07/01/2003 4:02:32 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
"Nobody is stopping Alabaman's from worshipping God, the courts just don't like the undue influence this has on potential jurors who might take the person's faith in mind more readily, with the religious reminder of their faith when they enter the court house."

Funny, the Ten Commandments displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court never seemed to have that effect on thier decisions. You're reaching for pie in the sky. Until the recent advent of fearful, politically correct automatons in our country walking around posing as Americans, all of our Law Schools taught that all modern law evolved directly from the Ten Commandments , (which, by the way, they did). Includng murder, adultery, stealing, and lying. Honoring your parents and giving your affection to your wife or husband instead of "the girl/guy next door aren't bad moral traits either. Nor is honoring God a bad thing. Who could possibly be intimidated or distressed by this beautiful moral code? Only the enemies of God.

74 posted on 07/01/2003 4:02:46 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
look pal, this nation was founded upon judeo-christian beliefs. it wasn't founded in the name of allah or buddah.
75 posted on 07/01/2003 4:02:48 PM PDT by MatthewViti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
law enforcement authorities
76 posted on 07/01/2003 4:03:23 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
How much money is the State of Alabama expending on the judge's ego trip?

Or is he only squandering the state court's time and reputation?
77 posted on 07/01/2003 4:03:32 PM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Myth: The Founders Established A Wall of Separation Between Church and State
78 posted on 07/01/2003 4:04:53 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Like typically, you refuse to engage the point.

Different religion. You go to a Federal Court House in Dearborn Michigan. A muslim gets appointed chief judge there. The community is mostly muslim. He installs a monument with Islamic justice moral codes written upon it.

Are you going to feel like you can get a fair trial as a Christian in that building? It is a tacit endorsement of a religious faith. If you bothered to read the opinion, they hung him on his own words. He was specifically not endorsing Judaism, because he used King James, and not the traditional Jewish interpretation of the commandments. For them: It is do not murder, rather than do not kill.

He said he was doing it to proclaim that all laws come from his Christian God. Yet, you for some reason are baffled as to why non-christians feel not very secure in their ability to go there and get equal treatment under the law?

The best test for any of these laws are the opposite foot. If the judge was a scientologist, a mormon, a Hindu, a jehovah's witness... would you feel comfortable with them giving a tacit approval of their faith, broadcasting it to potential jurors, while they are judging you? I wouldn't. The court agrees.

This guy campaigned on the ten commandment thing. He did not inform the other 8 justices that he was putting the plaque up. He waited until the dead of the night, and the only people allowed to be there was a film crew from "Coral Ridge Ministries" who were allowed to film it's emplacement for a fundraising drive. This was not a tough decision for the 11th circuit to make.

79 posted on 07/01/2003 4:05:06 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Funny enough, page 39 of the 11th Circuit's opinion addresses precisely this point.
80 posted on 07/01/2003 4:05:21 PM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
I hope Moore stands his ground.

The court is dead wrong and it is time we stand up and say enough. The courts are no longer moral organizations and must be opposed at every turn and judges must be round up and imprisoned for violation of their oaths of office and treason against the United States of America.
81 posted on 07/01/2003 4:05:43 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
"Now to replace it with a statue of two men engaged in anal sodomy. "

Failure to replace it with such a statue would be deemed discriminatory.

Maybe that is what the good Judge ought to replace it with. That would be a monument to the Supreme Court's decision. A monument to what they have embraced over what they have rejected.

82 posted on 07/01/2003 4:05:50 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
How much money is the State of Alabama expending on the judge's ego trip?

From reading the decision, the chunk of granite with the 10 Commandments on it (I don't find it particularly attractive) was paid for with private funds. Moore's legal fees are being paid for with funds from the Coral Ridge Ministries, according to the decision. However, some state funds are probably involved indirectly (one example was the deposition of a Courthouse employee--the decision doesn't say whether he was drawing his salary while he was being deposed, however).

83 posted on 07/01/2003 4:06:35 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Not ever having a comparative religion class, I've often wondered which one of these rules for living(the big 10) could be offensive to other religions. Do those religions endorse murder, stealing from or lying to others? Maybe screwing someone elses wife--please fill me in about what makes these "rules" so intimidating to others.
84 posted on 07/01/2003 4:07:00 PM PDT by freeangel (freeangel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
Nah, no one's screwed. This is a straightforward reading of the Constitution. The ruling is correct.
85 posted on 07/01/2003 4:07:26 PM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
He was specifically not endorsing Judaism, because he used King James, and not the traditional Jewish interpretation of the commandments. For them: It is do not murder, rather than do not kill.

Sounds like a strawman to me. I've never heard any other interpretation than "kill = murder", and all I read is the KJV.

86 posted on 07/01/2003 4:07:28 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
RAT DISRUPTOR!!!!!!!!

:)
87 posted on 07/01/2003 4:08:41 PM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
"That court is tyrannnical. How can they order another branch of govt. what to do? "

They are simply ordering a LOWER court not to violate the constitution.
88 posted on 07/01/2003 4:09:07 PM PDT by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Do you want to support the idea that any state official can define the meaning of the Constitution for himself, and can willfully ignore the Supremacy Clause if he or she so chooses?

Please review the 10th Amendment and then get back to me. Be sure to be prepared to point to the portion of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to make laws about the decor within state Courthouses.

89 posted on 07/01/2003 4:09:08 PM PDT by Spiff (Liberalism is a mental illness - a precursor disease to terminal Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
The court is dead wrong and it is time we stand up and say enough.

I believe Moore is standing up and saying "enough." I don't think the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with him.

90 posted on 07/01/2003 4:09:23 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
the already impending death of the State of Alabama

You obvious have something stuck in your craw. Go ahead and spit it out. Tell us why you despise Alabama.

91 posted on 07/01/2003 4:10:38 PM PDT by auboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
slugsoul doesn't understand the 10th Amendment OR the First Amendment. What do you want to bet he's just as ignorant about the other eight?
92 posted on 07/01/2003 4:10:58 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
Oh give me a break. This is a contorted view of the PLAIN meaning of the Constitution. The clear and obvious view of the Constitution to anyone without an agenda.
93 posted on 07/01/2003 4:11:37 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Well, that is a semantic argument. They actually noted in the opinion his public comments on it. Basically he was acknowledging this as a christian effort, no attempt at being pluralistic here and doing this for jews or muslims.

They also documented how he got the Coral Ridge Ministry televangelists to film it's secret installation so they would have exclusive video to sell for profit.

Much of the opinion, I have just skimmed over the entire opinion, relates to how he has crushed his own valid constitutional arguments by opening his mouth. If he just put the plaque there, and didn't say anything, his argument would have been stronger, but he told all, and often that his motives were religious, and the court noted that it had allowed religious symbols, especially those that have been unchallenged after being around along time, if there are secular applications as well as religious.

The Judge denied himself that argument because he kept bragging on why he was doing it.

94 posted on 07/01/2003 4:12:57 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
Nope, series member of the DC Chapter in good standing.

The law is the law on this one. I'd vote with you on an amendment to the Constitution. But especially the inscriptions -- it just doesn't pass constitutional muster. That's why Bush-appointed judges voted as they did.

The law is, as they say, the law. It's what it is, not what you want it to be. If you want to change it, you have to amend the Constitution. Accusing me of being a Rat is highly ineffectual toward that goal.

See you at the next DC Freep. Oh, that's right -- you're not one of those people who actually Freeps. You're just an armchair warrior. Well, whatever. Have fun in your cyberworld.
95 posted on 07/01/2003 4:13:42 PM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Well, that settles it, doesn't it? Things are "obvious" and "plain" to you. So what conspiracy theory are you guys going to use to explain why a Bush appointee wouldn't vote your way?

Hint: your goal may be noble, but you're going to need a constitutional amendment to get there.

Double Hint: Attacking the bearer of bad news won't help you get there.
96 posted on 07/01/2003 4:14:58 PM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Speaking as a recently transplanted Alabamian:

You don't have to worry about Judge Moore standing his ground. He ain't taking down his 10 Commandments monument for anybody. Around '98 or '99, there was a stink about Moore's 10 Commandments sculpture in his old courtroom, and then-governor Fob James said if the Feds tried to take it down he'd call out the National Guard to stop them. Bama's new governor is a GOPer, though possibly a RINO. Haven't heard what he's said about this, if he's said anything. Anyhow, we'll see how serious the Appeals Court is, 'cause Judge Moore ain't gonna take it down.
97 posted on 07/01/2003 4:16:03 PM PDT by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Some idiot commented....

"Would everyone here feel the same way if Judge Moore had placed a huge monument to the Koran on the courthouse lawn?"

No....If the Koran were historically a part of this nation. 

Give it up.....this isn't about religion.  It's about the fed's repression over local government.

 

 

98 posted on 07/01/2003 4:18:16 PM PDT by Shamrock-DW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Some idiot commented....

"Would everyone here feel the same way if Judge Moore had placed a huge monument to the Koran on the courthouse lawn?"

No....If the Koran were historically a part of this nation. 

Give it up.....this isn't about religion.  It's about the fed's repression over local government.

 

 

99 posted on 07/01/2003 4:18:16 PM PDT by Shamrock-DW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
If you want to change it, you have to amend the Constitution

You mean amend it back to its original intent?

Very easy! We don't have to change a word. We simply ratify a new Establishment Clause modeled word-for-word after the existing version.

And if that's the case, why are we amending it at all?

I cannot believe the depth and breadth of stupidity and ignorance on the history of this particular issue. It is absolutely mind-boggling.

100 posted on 07/01/2003 4:19:21 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-630 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson