Replies

Since the high Court declined to hear the case

Wrong.

The US Supreme Court refused to grant an extraordinary stay on an appeal from the lower courts. They have yet to vote on whether to take the case in chief.

I wish writers would check their facts.

Congress could selectively limit the Court's jurisdiction. And we should fight for constitutionalist federal judges with the courage to preserve our religious liberties. In the meantime, we should honor the Court's rulings.

No. It doesn't work that way. That's how tyrants maintain power forever. FIRST, there must be disobedience, defiance, nullification. THEN, the laws get changed.

The same issues that Judge Moore is raising were raised by the Rescue Movement in the 1980's. Rescuers said, "We will not obey the so-called 'law' that says no one may interfere with the killing of babies." All "pro-life" governors had an opportunity in the 1980's to say: "In my state, no one will be arrested or prosecuted for protecting the life of a baby in danger." Not one of the "pro-life" governors took that opportunity. Several Catholic bishops openly denounced the Rescue Movement. The other bishops ignored it. ONE Catholic bishop, Austin Vaughan, Auxiliary of New York, became a rescuer. After the "pro-life" governors, the Catholic bishops, the National Right to Life Committee, and society in general, made it clear that "law-breaking" offended them more than baby-killing, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton joined hands and passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which crushed the Rescue Movement by usurping even more powers for the federal government, turning such local misdemeanors as trespassing, for instance, into federal felonies.

According to pudits like Limbaugh, the passage of FACE was a triumph of the "rule of law," because it terrorized more people into "obeying" the federal leviathan, "for the time being," and "until the law can be changed."

The Rescue Movement was the ONLY part of the pro-life movement that was REALLY working to "change the law." I believe that when the "pro-life" movement ganged up to crush the Rescue Movement, the permanence of "legal" abortion in the United States was guaranteed.

God is not going to tolerate mass abortion in America forever. If he could end it without destroying the United States, I am sure he would do so. But if "legal" abortion is a permanent, unchangeable fixture of U.S. "law," then God will destroy the United States.

Undeniably, the federal constitution's Supremacy Clause makes the federal constitution and constitutional federal laws supreme over state constitutions and laws and binding on state judges.

I guess that means that the Federal Courts REALLY REALLY REALLY are prohibited from getting involved in religious issues.

Seems to me the problem with the SUPREMACY CLAUSE is that one word that all decisions are based upon "PRECEDENCE".

Adherence to "PRECEDENCE" of any decision no matter how wrong the "PRECEDENCE" is, becomes the law, thus removes all common sense from judicial review.

So what we have become is a nation of laws decreed by "PRECEDENCE" and worshiped by lawyers, lawmakers, and judges, the nations "new" religion.

Limbaugh wants to talk about anarchy, while he holds fast to "PRECEDENCE".

This is as good a place as any to add a point that keeps sticking in my mind.

As conservatives opposed to Judicial Activism, the bad points of which we can see in the appeallant court decision, we should expect the same reserve of ourselves. Therefore, to me, the proper place for a monument observing the ten commandments is at a legislature, not a court.

Courts with their judges cannot help but be mindful of their legal heritage, it is in their education. But courts must decide upon the law, as written, alone, not on some sense of "Cosmic Justice". Failing to do that aligns the proponent with the activists.

The laws of our religions, foundational though they be, are therefore out of bounds for the court to refer to in their decisions.

Legislatures, on the other hand, should be ever mindful of our heritage, our continuity with the dead and unborn generations, and all the virtues of our civilization as carried in our religions, natural law heritage and our history in writing the laws in the first place. That is the proper place for such monuments, IMHO.

"The federal courts have greatly eroded states' rights and religious freedoms through renegade decisions in the most cynical tradition of judicial activism. So, while our federal law is certainly entitled to supremacy, at what point do citizens stand up and say that federal courts have claimed supremacy in areas over which they were never given authority? What can be done about their obscene misinterpretations of the Constitution?

Congress could selectively limit the Court's jurisdiction. And we should fight for constitutionalist federal judges with the courage to preserve our religious liberties. In the meantime, we should honor the Court's rulings."

He hits the nail on the head with both these paragraphs, however I do not agree that we should honor the Court's rulings. The people have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The means of that petition are left to the people. Sometimes civil disobedience is called for. The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to act in a lawless manner and yet expect citizens to obey their lawless decrees. The Supreme Court has no business exceeding it's authority in a power grab of what is completely a sovereign states issue.

It is an overt attack on the states culture, society, and community. It does not lead to the founding reasons enshrined in the Constitution to promote Domestic tranquility, but is rather an attack on Domestic tranquility. Far exceeding the attack on Domestic tranquility is their attack on the reins of the Constitution that restrains the Court and is an obvious attempt to wrest these reins out of the hand of God and place them in their own hands. I am proud of the citizens standing by and willing to engage in civil disobedience.

There really is very little "religion" in the Ten Commandments. They are simply the base rules that this country was founded on, and how people should live their lives.