US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments

Sean Hannity Show ^ | 8-20-03 | Sean Hannity

[Labyrinthos]

By your argument, slaverly would still be legal in Alabama, as long it is allowed under the State Constitution. Sorry pal, but there is a little thing in the U.S Constitution called the "supremacy clause."

[Labyrinthos]

But two words that are not subject to interpretation are Congress and law.

The 14th amendment is pretty straight forward also.

[viaveritasvita]

>>"Actually, the Bible is clear that in most cases we are to obey civil authorities. But, not in cases when it would violate our duty as Christians."<<

Amen.

[viaveritasvita]

>>"The early Christians DID NOT OBEY THE CIVIL AUTHORITY, but refused to worship the govt. and thus were killed."<<

And amen.

[viaveritasvita]

Go, Arthur, go!!

[viaveritasvita]

From the Federalist.com Digest a day or so ago....

...And the judicial activists who ruled in this case know what it is about, too; 11th U.S. Circuit Court Appellate Judge Ed Carnes wrote, "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it
would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years." Of course, it is Carnes and his Leftjudiciary minions who are "above the law" by rendering verdicts based on their opinion rather than the Constitution.

The First Amendment's restriction on the central government reads simply, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

...This current practice of "constitutional interpretation" by judicial activists is tantamount to incremental tyranny by what Thomas Jefferson rightly feared would become "the Despotic branch."

In the Federalist Papers, the definitive exposition of the
Constitution's original intent, James Madison, our Constitution's author, stated, "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. ... The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and
defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

<><

[Iconoclast2]

Sure, there's a supremacy clause:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

But what in the Constitution gives the federal courts the authority to regulate statuary in Alabama courthouses? Nothing. If there were a Constitutional provision saying that no one could erect monuments of a religious nature, you'd have a leg to stand on. But there isn't.

Interestingly, the only reason slavery became illegal was because of the gross breaches of Constitutional obligations by the Northern states. There, abolitionists appealed to a higher law than the Constitution, nullifying its express provisions. Here, the Judge Moore correctly notes that his views, and his actions, are not in any conflict with any provision of the Constitution--only its meaning as declared by anti-religious extremists.

[xzins]

Been by there only twice.....once on a cruise ship and the other a helicopter.

Beautiful place.

Panama really reminded me of Hawaii believe it or not.....climate, foliage, etc.

[putupon]

Where is our modern day Moses??

He's here, looking to part something, but I don't think it's the waters: