Alabama's Chief Justice Refuses to Remove Ten Commandments

Fox News ^ | 8/14/03 | Fox News' Jonathan Serrie and The Associated Press

[talleyman]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (search) stood firm Thursday, saying he has no intention of removing a Ten Commandments (search ) monument from the rotunda of the state judicial building, and will file papers taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[talleyman]

follow-up to previous thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/958820/posts

[talleyman]

PS - I did search & didn't see this posted elsewhere

[joesnuffy]

The ACLU and other commies just hate those ten commandments
they dont like any law precepts or rules...unless dey is nice and fluid ...- man made laws
Commies dont like absolutes...that they cant be above

[lilylangtree]

Go Judge Moore! What's going to be interesting is with the media present the ACLU demands that the police cart the judge off to jail. The backlash against the ACLU would be great.

[TheGrimReaper]

"To assure that the state of Alabama is ‘a government of laws not of men’ as our Constitution requires.”

The federal judge reveals his ignorance as to what the Ten Commandments actually are.
Or...he has inadvertently made a case for keeping them in place - not removing them.

[Catspaw]

Judge Houston is a judge on the Alabama Supreme Court, not a federal judge.

http://www.alalinc.net/appellate/supreme/judge.cfm?Houston=Judge

[Your Nightmare]

Moore pledged to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Thompson and said the promised fines would add to the approximate $125 million the state has already spent defending the monument's place. The state is spending $25,000 a day of taxpayers' money on the case, Moore said.

$125 Million!! If the state has paid that much defending this case, Chief Justice Moore should be impeached immediately. If this display only has historical significance, it's not worth $125 million to defend. If it has religious significance, it should be removed.

[TheGrimReaper]

The worst day in the existence of one of those miserable fascists will be when they face God on judgment day and have to admit "I was an attorney for the ACLU."

And NO, there won't be any 72 virgins waiting, either.

[Catspaw]

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson (search) of Montgomery, who ruled the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion, had said fines of about $5,000 a day would have been imposed against the state if the monument were not removed.

This isn't quite accurate. In his order, Judge Thompson said if the state was held in contempt, he proposed that the the fines would be $5000 for day for the first week and would double every week until the maximum allowed by law.

[Russell Scott]

Nice place to post my scriptures of the day. Read it carefully and get a nice blessing.1

Nahum 1
7 The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.
8 But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.
9 What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.
10 For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry.
11 There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counsellor.
12 Thus saith the LORD; Though they be quiet, and likewise many, yet thus shall they be cut down, when he shall pass through. Though I have afflicted thee, I will afflict thee no more.
13 For now will I break his yoke from off thee, and will burst thy bonds in sunder.
14 And the LORD hath given a commandment concerning thee, that no more of thy name be sown: out of the house of thy gods will I cut off the graven image and the molten image: I will make thy grave; for thou art vile.
15 Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy vows: for the wicked shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.

[TheGrimReaper]

The context of the paragraph in which that quote appears leads me to believe that is was part of the written statement by Judge Houston. Did I miss something?

[sinkspur]

Is Moore just showboating? An Alabama poster said he did something like this to get himself elected to the Supreme Court.

If he's costing the state millions, he ought to be impeached.

[LiteKeeper]

SITREP

[Catspaw]

The federal judge reveals his ignorance as to what the Ten Commandments actually are.

Or...he has inadvertently made a case for keeping them in place - not removing them.

You said this after the quote Alabama Supreme Court Justice Gorman. Were you referring to Federal District Court Judge Thompson instead?

[TheGrimReaper]

My mistake. I finally figured it all out.
Thanks.

[Sandy]

he has no intention of removing a Ten Commandments

Big deal. The monument will be removed by others. Count on it.

[an amused spectator]

$125 Million!! If the state has paid that much defending this case, Chief Justice Moore should be impeached immediately. If this display only has historical significance, it's not worth $125 million to defend. If it has religious significance, it should be removed.

Cool! Anyone in government who dares stand up to one of the 800-odd members of the unelected Federal Judicial Executive SuperLegislature should be removed.

SLAGCR - Strategic Lawsuits Against Government By Constitutional Republic. At this rate, the ACLU will be mandating that we turn our grandchildren over to pedophiles for "sensitivity training" within 15 years.

[Impy]

I say even if the SC orders it taken down they should be ignored. Let Ginsburg go down to Alabama and just try to remove it herself.

[talleyman]

If it has religious significance, it should be removed.

I disagree. I thought we had freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. My copy of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." I don't think this particular monument was the result of a Congressional Act, although I could be wrong. (I thought I was wrong once before, but I was mistaken.)

[Catspaw]

Is Moore just showboating? An Alabama poster said he did something like this to get himself elected to the Supreme Court.

In the 11th circuit decision, it talks about him running as "The Ten Commandment Judge." I can post a link to it if you'd like.

If he's costing the state millions, he ought to be impeached.

I don't think he cares how much this is costing the state. The plaintiff's legal fees are estimated to cost around $750,000, which will go up when he appeals to the USSC. The fines the district court judge proposed start at $5,000 a day, doubling every week to the legal maximum. On another thread, I found a news report of another federal court case where the daily fines for contempt were $500,000 per day. I haven't researched what the daily maximum fine could be, but for a small state with a $700 million shortfall, the fines could end up being $3.5 million per week, week after week, until the contempt is purged.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Senior Associate Justice J. Gorman Houston released a written statement after Justice Moore’s speech in which he suggested he had not been consulted on the decision.

His written statement said, in part: “I had tried to find out what Roy Moore intended to do earlier but I was unable to do so.” He added he and the other associate justices will “take whatever steps are necessary, one: To make certain that the state of Alabama and the unified judicial system of the state does not have to pay a fine, two: To assure that the state of Alabama is ‘a government of laws not of men’ as our Constitution requires.”

Finally - you knew this was coming.

[an amused spectator]

If he's costing the state millions, he ought to be impeached.

Perhaps we could save millions of dollars in the future by dissolving all state and federal legislatures, and turning the rule of the country over to the 800 Myron Thompsons of the federal courts.

It appears to be where we're headed anyway. ;-)

[Your Nightmare]

Explain to me how "I am the Lord thy God." is in any way the basis of our laws. Or "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Or "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." Or "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God in vain." Or "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." Or even, "Honour thy father and thy mother" and, maybe, "Thou shalt not covet." And, these days, you can't really say "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is any factor on our laws.

Obviously, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are reflected in our legal system. So 3, maybe 4, of the 11 (yes, the monument lists 11 Commandments - must have been a sale) have any relationship to our laws.

[talleyman]

If anyone is costing the state(s) millions, it's the Anti-Christ Liars Union and their Demonrat minions.

[drjimmy]

Perhaps we could save millions of dollars in the future by dissolving all state and federal legislatures, and turning the rule of the country over to the 800 Myron Thompsons of the federal courts.
We could save even more if we just turned the rule of the country over to the Ten Commandments. Of course, that would mean no more football on Sundays, and probably no more posting of Anna Kournikova's pictures on FreeRepublic, and no more telling your wife, "No, that outfit doesn't make you look fat." But those would be small prices to pay.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

This is the incredible shifting thread - once a lot of information pops up, people stop posting, and a new "OOH-RAH" thread gets put up.

Here's the recap, for which there are scores of links, if you want.

Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was elected as "the 10 Commandments Judge", based on some litigation he got into in 1998 over posting the 10 Commandments in his courtroom. In the course of that litigation, Coral Ridge Ministries, a TV ministry affiliated with Paul and Jan Crouch (shes the one with the purple hair and big fake boobs) paid the excessive sum of $170,000 to his "defense fund". Coral Ridge Ministries is a 60 million dollar a year enterprise, of which 3.8 million is directly spent on fundraising, and which has an affiliated political arm. The pastor of that "ministry" has been deeply involved with fundraising with the Crouches, and is a devotee of "Christian astrology".

When this stone idol to the 10 Commandments was installed in 2001, it was done under cover of night, with no consultation with or consent of the other justices of the state supreme court, but it was paid for and filmed by Coral Ridge Ministries, and used for extensive fundraising. Since then, Moore has been making statements which show his intent to put that monument up to the exclusion of other faiths, and to show some theocratic basis to American government. He has defied the court orders to take them down, meanwhile, Coral Ridge has paid over the sum of $375,000.00 for his overly excessive "defense fund"; some FReepers call for him to be President, and many have had harsh words about the conservative Reagan appointee that wrote the appellate opinion. At this point, a large rally is being gathered and Coral Ridge continues to benefit from donations - the language used to rally people in favor of Roy Moore's stone idol is inflammatory, and may spur some to violent acts.

[Catspaw]

His written statement said, in part: “I had tried to find out what Roy Moore intended to do earlier but I was unable to do so.” He added he and the other associate justices will “take whatever steps are necessary, one: To make certain that the state of Alabama and the unified judicial system of the state does not have to pay a fine, two: To assure that the state of Alabama is ‘a government of laws not of men’ as our Constitution requires.”

None of the other justices on the Alabama Supreme Court were told prior to the installation of the statue.  This is the first time I've heard of any of the Justices say anything about Moore, but Judge Houston doesn't seem happy about Moore antics.

Here's the bio on Judge Houston:

Justice J. Gorman Houston, Jr.

The Investiture ceremony for Justice Houston took place on January 18, 1999. Please click here to read his speech.

J. Gorman Houston, Jr., son of the late Gorman Houston and the late Mildred Vance Houston, attended the public schools of Eufaula. He received his B.S. degree from Auburn University and his LL.B. from the University of Alabama School of Law, where, among other things, he was a member of Farrah Order of Jurisprudence. He served as law clerk for Chief Justice J. Ed Livingston, and as a judge advocate in the United States Air Force. After practicing law in Eufaula for 25 years, he was appointed to the position of Associate Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 1985, and was elected to that position in 1986, and was reelected in 1992.

Active in various legal organizations, he served as president of the Barbour County Bar Association, as Bar Commissioner for the Third Judicial Circuit; as a Bar Examiner; and as one of three members of the Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Commission. He is also active in civic matters in Eufaula, and served as attorney for the Barbour County Commission for 18 years. He was named Eufaula Citizen of the Year in 1979.

Justice Houston is active in the First United Methodist Church of Eufaula, where he has taught Sunday School for more than 25 years, and has served as lay leader and chairman of the Administrative Board, as well as chairman of many committees. Justice Houston is married to the former Martha Martin of Clayton, and they have two children: Mildred Vance Houston and the Reverend J. Gorman Houston, III.

[steplock]

"To assure that the state of Alabama is ‘a government of laws not of men’ as our Constitution requires.”

And someone else is revealing their ignorance of what the COnstitution says.

The feds have NOTHING to say about this STATE matter anyway.

It is time we get back to EXACTLY what the Constitution says.

The feds have no power OTHER than what is specifically stated - all else is the STATES'.

I hope he sits there with his rifle right at the top of the stairs and DARES the a$$hole$ to come and get him!

[Texas_Jarhead]

"Moore pledged to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Thompson and said the promised fines would add to the approximate $125 million the state has already spent defending the monument's place. The state is spending $25,000 a day of taxpayers' money on the case, Moore said."

What is this? $125 million? come on...

[Catspaw]

Of course, that would mean no more football on Sundays

Don't even think about it :-))

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I hope he sits there with his rifle right at the top of the stairs and DARES the a$$hole$ to come and get him!

Thats a mighty Christian act you envision there, pardner - killing a man over a stone idol. You're a fine example of your breed.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

An obvious left liberal homo loving, abortion procuring, affirmative action fanatic activist judge, just like that Reagan appointee that wrote the 11th Circuit opinion.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Its a Roy Moore number - for which he'll no doubt be seeking reimbursement of through an extra special donation campaign handled through Coral Ridge TV ministries....

[sinkspur]

I figured somebody was making some money off this, and it turns out to be a TV preacher!

Moore's not going to win this, but he'll be a legend among the hellfire-and-brimstone crowd. The Supreme Court won't even hear it.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Betcha its been worth an extra 7 figures to Rev. Kennedy - the sheep are pretty gullible. Also note how this thread died down all of a sudden when this stuff came up.

Wonder how long till a new thread gets posted? This is about the 4th or 5th one today - more or less abandoned in place.

[yankeedame]

I disagree. I thought we had freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. My copy of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..."

Excellent observation. Also, in ordering the removal of the 10 Commandments the government can be seen as enforcing the religion/belief of atheism.

(No, folks, the word religion is correct. One of the definations of the word is: "... a particular system of faith and worship;a faith that is a controlling interest in one's life...".
Religion need not have a spiritual base, i.e. to some socialism is a religion, to some quest for money is a religion, to the atheist his atheism - his lack in belief in God or gods - is his religion. It is his faith and "controlling interest" in life.)

[yankeedame]

Of course, that would mean no more football on Sundays

Don't even think about it :-))
-----------------------------------

Hey, pass around enough tickets to the Auburn/UofA game and you could become govenor!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Suppose your local mayor says the following:

I've converted from Christianity, and follow a fundamental sect of Hindu now. I put up a statue to the Shiva in your Town Hall Tuesday - but don't worry about it - my Shiva cult paid for it. Oh, and make sure there no Christian symbols around - Shiva gets mad.

How would you react?

[TheGrimReaper]

The ACLU is just following its own bible...the Communist Manifesto... which says, in effect, that removal of God from the public discourse will cause the ignorant folk to rely more heavily on the State for their guidance.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003

(1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of nature's God.

(2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the constitutions of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the source of the blessings of liberty.

(3) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States secures rights against laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the United States Government.

(4) The rights secured under the first amendment have been interpreted by courts of the United States Government to be included among the provisions of the fourteenth amendment.

(5) The tenth amendment reserves to the States respectively the powers not delegated to the United States Government nor prohibited to the States.

(6) Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public displays of the Ten Commandments and to other public expression of religious faith.

(7) Section 5 of the fourteenth amendment grants the Congress power to enforce the provisions of the said amendment.

(8) Article I, section 8, grants the Congress power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and article III, section 1, grants the Congress power to ordain and establish courts in which the judicial power of the United States Government shall be vested.

SEC. 3. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RIGHTS DECLARED.

(a) DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby declared to be among the powers reserved to the States respectively.

(b) EXPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS FAITH- The expression of religious faith by individual persons on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby--

(1) declared to be among the rights secured against laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion made or enforced by the United States Government or by any department or executive or judicial officer thereof; and

(2) declared to be among the liberties of which no State shall deprive any person without due process of law made in pursuance of powers reserved to the States respectively.

(c) EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER- The courts constituted, ordained, and established by the Congress shall exercise the judicial power in a manner consistent with the foregoing declarations.

---

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Congress finds the following:

(1) The freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be one of the fundamental and unalienable rights belonging to all individuals.

(2) The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause' and the `freedom of speech clause' which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .'. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government.

(3) For over 150 years, the Court held to this historically correct position in interpreting the first amendment. During this period, scant mention was made to `The Separation of Church and State'.

(4) Then, beginning in 1947, and accelerating through the 60's, the Court abruptly reversed its position. This was done with no change in the law, either by statute or by amendment to the Constitution. The Court invented the distorted meaning of the first amendment utilizing the separation of `church and state' in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when it announced: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1, 18 [1947]). Over the past five decades, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have served to infringe upon the rights of Americans to enjoy freedom of speech relating to religious matters. Such infringements include the outlawing of prayer in schools and of the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. These rulings have not reflected a neutrality toward religious denominations but a hostility toward religious thought. They have served to undermine the foundation of not only our moral code but our system of law and justice.

(5) In making this abrupt change, the Court ignored all historical precedent established previously by the Court, the wording of the First Amendment, and the intent of its framers. The rulings are legally irrational and without foundation. Although the Court presumed to rely upon the First Amendment for its authority for these rulings, a review of that Amendment reveals that said rulings could not possibly have been based upon its original intent. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Congress to review not only the rulings of the Court which are in question but the wording and history of the First Amendment to determine the intent of its framers. This abrupt change is found in the following court cases:

(A) `A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral.' (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Abington v. Schempp, 1963, Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden, 1971.)

(B) `Freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed to students and teachers unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional.' (Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965, Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 1981, Bishop v. Aronov, 1991, Duran v. Nitsche, 1991.)

(C) `It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them.' (Stone v. Graham, 1980, Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District, 1980, Lanner v. Wimmer, 1981.)

(D) `If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud.' (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.)

(E) `The Ten Commandments , despite the fact that they are the basis of civil law and are depicted in engraved stone in the United States Supreme Court, may not be displayed at a public courthouse.' (Harvey v. Cobb County, 1993.)

(F) `When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer.' (Harris v. Joint School District, 1994.)

(G) By interpreting the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in any public place, the Supreme Court necessarily violates the free speech clause of the very same first amendment.

These rulings of the Court constitute de facto legislation or Constitution-amending. This is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, as all legislative authority bestowed by the people through the Constitution is bestowed upon the Congress and the Congress alone.

(6) A fundamental maxim of law is, whenever the intent of a statute or a constitution is in question, to refer to the words of its framers to determine their intent and use this intent as the true intent of the law.

(7) The intent of the First Amendment was and is clear on these two points: The Federal Government was prohibited from enacting any laws which would favor one religious denomination over another and the Federal Government has no power to forbid or prohibit any mention of religion, the Ten Commandments or reference to God in civic dialog.

(8) In its rulings to prohibit Americans from saying prayers in school or from displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, the Court has relied heavily upon the metaphor, `Separation of Church and State'. Note that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment or any other place in the Constitution.

(9) The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State', was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jefferson's reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion.

(10) The Court, in its use of Separation of Church and State, has given to this phrase a meaning never intended by its author; it took it out of context and inverted its meaning and intent. The complete text of Jefferson's letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

(11) Justice William Rehnquist made an extensive study of the history of the First Amendment. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 48, n. 30 [1984],) he stated: `There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the `wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights, as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today, to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from endorsing prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.'

(12) As Justice Rehnquist states, the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its `mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . .' It is necessary to review not only Jefferson's intent in his use of this `wall', but his involvement or noninvolvement in the drafting of the First Amendment, and the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.

(13) Jefferson was neither the author of nor a coauthor of the First Amendment. He cannot be considered as a source of legal authority on this subject. The Court, if it had wished to rely upon Jefferson to determine the true and original intent of the First Amendment, could have served themselves and the American people well by referring to Jefferson's admonition to Judge William Johnson regarding the determination of the original intent of a statute or a constitution: `On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.' (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor [Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV., p. 373,] to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823).

(14) The principal authors of the First Amendment, the record reveals, were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson. Others who participated were John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and James Madison and George Mason of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson is not found in the record as having participated. (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Seaton, 1834], Vol. I, pp. 440-948, June 8-September 24, 1789.)

(15) George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and recognized as `The Father of the Bill of Rights', submitted this proposal for the wording of the First Amendment: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.' (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)

(16) The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, submitted the following wording for the First Amendment: `The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.' (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Season, 1834,] Vol. I, p. 451, James Madison, June 8, 1789.)

(17) The true intent of the First Amendment is reflected by the proposals submitted by Fisher Ames, George Mason and James Madison and the wording finally adopted.

(18) Justice Joseph Story, considered the Father of American Jurisprudence, stated in his Commentaries on the Constitution: `The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism [sp], or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government. (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.)

(19) Proof that the intent of the framers of the First Amendment did not intend for the Federal Government to restrict the exercise of free speech in religious matters in civic dialog is found in various statements by George Washington, who was President when the Congress adopted the First Amendment. The following is found in his `Farewell Address': ` . . . of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.' (George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States. . . . Preparatory to his Declination [Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796], pp. 22-23.

(20) James Wilson was a very active member of the Convention and was later appointed by President George Washington as an original Justice on the United States Supreme Court where he coauthored America's first legal text on the Constitution. Wilson never mentioned a `separation of church and state'. To the contrary, he declared the correlation between religion and civil laws: Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. (James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor. Philadelphia; Bronson and Chauncey, 1804. Vol. I, pp. 104-106.)

(21) It was Fisher Ames of Massachusetts who provided, on the 20th of August, 1789, the final wording for the First Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives. Fisher Ames, who should be considered the foremost authority on the intent of the First Amendment, never spoke of a separation of church and state. (Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames, Boston; T.B. Wait & Co. 1809, p. 134, 135.)

(22) Because the Court does not seem to be disposed to correct this egregious error, it is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by the use of its authority to apply checks and balances to other branches of the government, when usurpations and the exercise of excesses of power are evident. The Congress must, then, take the appropriate steps to correct egregious problem.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases

`(a) IN GENERAL- The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom-related case.

`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `religious freedom-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.'.

SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases

`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom-related case.

`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `religious freedom-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

---

"Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role. ...It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not." --Ron Paul 13 August 2003, Federalist No. 03-33, Wednesday Chronicle

• Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny
• It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable
• Congress Must Curb the Imperial Judiciary
• WallBuilders | Resources | Impeachment of Federal Judges

The following explains why judge Myron Thompson is wrong:

• Federalism And Religious Liberty: Were Church And State Meant To Be Separate?
• Reply To Judge Richard A. Posner on The Inseparability of Law and Morality
• Memorandum of Law on the Constitutionality of Posting the Ten Commandments in Public Places

The electorate must demand that Congress act in accordance with the testimony presented in Congress, the Court, and the Constitution

...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.... The judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

...It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. ... from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78

Why bother voting when the judiciary can knock down laws like so many bowling pins? The Case for Impeaching Rogue Judges & A Republic, If You Can Keep It

---

Citizens Organize Events to Support Chief Justice Moore

Court ordered him to remove Ten Commandments monument by August 20.

Federal judge Myron Thompson has ordered Chief Justice Roy Moore to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building by August 20, 2003. In response, Christian leaders are calling on Christians to come to Montgomery, Alabama, to show support for religious freedom.

Preliminary details are:

Restore the Commandments rally on August 16 at 10:00 a.m. on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court, sponsored by Vision America.

Rally on August 19 at 8:00 p.m. Check sponsor Christian Defense Coalition for details.

Candlelight prayer vigil on August 20 at 12:01 a.m. at the Alabama Supreme Court, sponsored by Christian Defense Coalition.

From August 20 forward, Christians will gather at the Alabama Supreme Court every day at 8:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 6:00 p.m. Evening rallies will be at 7:30 p.m. at locations to be announced.

Christian Defense Coalition director Rev. Pat Mahoney stated, "We are going to peacefully and prayerfully kneel in front of the court to prevent the removal of the monument and will stay as long as necessary."

America21 has established a 24-hour prayer vigil for Chief Justice Moore for the week of August 10. Anyone can sign up for one or more time slots to pray.

Roy Moore, elected as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2000, pledged in his campaign to bring the Ten Commandments to the State Supreme Court. He first gained national prominence as a state circuit judge when the ACLU sued him for posting a hand-carved wood plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opening court sessions with prayers led by local clergymen. The case was dismissed because the ACLU lacked standing to challenge Judge Moore’s actions.

On August 1, 2001, he oversaw the installation of a monument to the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. The 4-foot high, 2-ton monument also bears quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the National Anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, the Constitution of Alabama, and the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Private citizens commissioned the monument, which used no state funds for its creation or installation. Chief Justice Moore explained that it was installed at night, in after-duty hours, to not interfere with the work of the Court. The building manager, security, the marshals of the court and the legal staff were informed.

At a presentation ceremony the following day, Chief Justice Moore stated:

The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator which government must respect.

On October 31, 2001, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed two federal lawsuits against Chief Justice Moore. They represent several lawyers who practice in Alabama and found the Ten Commandments and statements from America’s founders "offensive" and therefore, in their view, unconstitutional.

The offense, the complaint states, is that the Ten Commandments monument communicates the belief that "the law of God is the foundation of—and superior to—the law and institutions of the citizenry, and that God is necessary to the administration of justice."

On November 18, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson ruled that the monument was an endorsement of religion by the state, and ordered Chief Justice Moore to remove it within 30 days. But Thompson stayed (postponed) that order to await a decision from a federal appeals panel. The appeals panel upheld Thompson’s order last month.

On August 5, Judge Thompson lifted the stay and ordered the removal within 15 days. If not, Judge Thompson said he might fine the state each day the monument remains in place. This ultimatum raises serious questions, such as how a federal judge would collect the money and whether the state can refuse to pay.

One day before the order, Chief Justice Moore filed a brief contending Alabama’s Constitution allows the acknowledgement of God by the state, and that Judge Thompson did not have the authority to deprive the state of that right. He will also appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Moore told The New American, "Anytime you deny the acknowledgement of God you are undermining the entire basis for which our country exists. Rights come from God, not from government. If government can give you rights, government can take them away from you. If God gives you rights, no man and no government can take them away from you. That was the premise of the organic law of this country, which is the Declaration of Independence. Because, if there is no God, then man’s power is the controlling aspect, and therefore power will be centralized."

To read an interview with Chief Justice Moore, as published in CWA's magazine, Family Voice, click here.

---

According to The Birmingham News, seventy percent of respondents support Chief Justice Moore's granite display, which includes the Ten Commandments, and statements from our nation's Founding Fathers that document America's Christian heritage. Only twenty percent disapprove of the monument's display, which was privately funded by Chief Justice Moore, and cost the taxpayers of Alabama nothing. The other ten percent were unsure. Tom Gordon, "Poll: Most back Moore on Ten Commandments," The Birmingham News, September 15, 2002

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

BUMP!!!!!!!!!!

[yankeedame]

I've converted from Christianity, and follow a fundamental sect of Hindu now. I put up a statue to the Shiva in your Town Hall Tuesday - but don't worry about it - my Shiva cult paid for it. Oh, and make sure there no Christian symbols around - Shiva gets mad.

How would I react? Why, by asking you, my dear Chancellor, were these Commandments in question originally installed on said property by the mayor of that city at that time?

[Elsie]

Darn!!! I was hoping!!!

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

[yankeedame]

FYI: The "stone idol" under discussion

-It stands 4' high

-It weighs over 2.5 tons (5,280-pound to be exact)

-Is constructed of solid granite

-It is located in the rountunda of the judiciary building in the state capital of Montgomery.

-It was installed after hours ("in the middle of the night") b/c of it's size, weight and the location where it was placed.

-Beneath the open book showing the Commandants are quotes from various Founding Fathers.

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." -John Adams, second President of the United States

"The sanctions of the Divine law ... cover the whole area of human action... The laws which regulate our conduct are the laws of man and the laws of God." -DeWitt Clinton, introduced the 12th Amendment, governor of New York, U.S. Senator

"[I]t pleased God to deliver, on Mount Sinai, a compendium of this holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue ... was incorporated in the judicial law." -William Findley, Revolutionary War soldier, U.S. Congressman

"The Ten Commandments ... are the sum of the moral law." -John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence and university professor who educated many of the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, father of the Constitution.

-The ACLU first sought to have this removed in July, 2001; obviously it went nowhere.

-And,finially an interesting aside: Chief Justice Roy Moore has been/is unsympathic to the demands of gay rights activists( a.k.a. "homophobe")and has been in the cross hairs of these groups for sometime now.

[an amused spectator]

It was installed after hours ("in the middle of the night") b/c of it's size, weight and the location where it was placed.

They could have taken a cue from state road construction workers and started up just a couple of minutes before rush hour, and knocked off a few minutes after rush hour ended in the evening. ;-)

[cksharks]

When you move to Alabama then you can have a say. Until then screw you.

[sinkspur]

When you move to Alabama then you can have a say. Until then screw you.

So, the First Amendment appliest to Roy Moore, but not to Your Nightmare?

It appears that the US Supreme Court will have a say (if only to back up the 11th Court of Appeals), so it's perfectly OK for all the rest of us to have an opinion.

[Catspaw]

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act

Interesting. However, the Paul bill hasn't made it out of Committee.

If Paul's bill makes to the House floor and is passed act--if passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President--doesn't apply to the Moore case because the law would not be retroactive.

Of course, all of the arguments made by Moore have been addressed in the 11th Circuit decision--and that decision went against Moore.

[RobbyS]

How much do yopu think that states and municipalities are paying put to defend against these ACLU suits. Which raises the question: where do they get THEIR money?