Replies

The law does not trump the constitution. It's the other way around. Congress has no right to pass law that requires you to adopt a specific religion. Separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution, the Bill of rights or the declaration of independance. Nowhere. And regardless of what has been imposed upon this judge and the state of Alabama, if it is unconstitutional, I say as our forefathers said. 'The court has ruled, now let the court enforce it's judgement.'

If you don't have separation of church and state (a phrase that I believe was first attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and was heavily involved in the drafting of the Bill of Rights), then the establishment clause will become meaningless and unenforceable. As for your last sentence, it would be a complete, unmitigated disaster for the rule of law -- and a violation of his oath to uphold the federal and Alabama constitutions -- for the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to take that position.

If you don't have separation of church and state (a phrase that I believe was first attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and was heavily involved in the drafting of the Bill of Rights), then the establishment clause will become meaningless and unenforceable.

Bull. The establishment clause denies the Fed the ability to force you to follow a certain religion. Absence of the notion of separation imposed by fiat as it has been does no damage to the constitution or our rights.

As for your last sentence, it would be a complete, unmitigated disaster for the rule of law -- and a violation of his oath to uphold the federal and Alabama constitutions -- for the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to take that position.

No, it would not. No more than it was the last time tyrants tried to supplant the constitution with their will. This has been done before in our country's history and we have the example of the forefathers to look to. This isn't about the rule of law. It's about the unruly nature of men who abuse the law in order to disabuse us of our rights. The law isn't what is done harm, it is the men who abuse it that are done appropriately with. The constitution and our Bill of Rights trump law, not the other way around. If a law is in contention or an interpretation is in contention, then one or both by default must yield to the Constitution. Try selling the unbearable damage story elsewhere.

As for your last sentence, it would be a complete, unmitigated disaster for the rule of law -- and a violation of his oath to uphold the federal and Alabama constitutions -- for the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to take that position.

That's what pisses me off about Moore. Here's a guy who took an oath when he was admitted to the bar that probably included something to the effect that he would support the Constitution (both of the bars I was admitted to had a similar oath). He's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. This is a man who has spent his life supporting and implementing the rule of law. Now, he wants to chuck all of that away because of a federal ct. decision he doesn't agree with. He is supporting anarchy and lawlessness and disrespect for the Constitution.

To hell with him- he's no conservative. Conservatives believe in this country's institutions.