Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing

sierratimes.com ^

[Maelstrom]

You note how things exist today while ignoring their foundations.

You DIDN'T go back.

You DIDN'T go all the way back.

...and only 1 of those 10 Commandments is necessary to prove the point that they were part of the founding framework of Law in the US.

The justification from that standpoint *is* there...the justification for their removal *does not* exist.

[Maelstrom]

True on both counts.

Congress can't make a law, and the courts can't decide what doesn't exist.

The government has no standing from the aspect of religion.

Strengthen your argument...
...the first Amendment protects that monument in 2 different ways, even as it bars the government from the actions it's taking.

[jwalsh07]

Please, you're embarassing yourself in exposing your ignorance regarding legal matters.

LOL.

The subject of an individual Alabama citizen's right being infringed is irrelevant here.

Right, it's not about individual rights. It's all about collectivism.

If you can't see that, that's not my problem.

I have 20/20 vision. In fact it is so good that I can see that you have failed to answer one question regarding the state of Alabama's Constitution being violated.

There are some knowledgeable folks on your side of this debate but you ain't one of'em Pahuanui.

[Robert_Paulson2]

our laws (plural) are not based on the ten (plural specific) so if you can not show a multitude of our laws that clearly REFLECT all ten... sorry, you lose.

Our laws are NOT based on the TEN... and they clearly don't correspond... and you knew that.

Such dishonesty is apppaling.

[Maelstrom]

ROFL!

You're argument is pathetic.
US Law is based on English Common Law which followed from the 10 Commandments.

You DIDN'T go all the way back.
You CAN'T

Laws change every day...more now than ever...their roots remain the same.

It's history, bud, it's over and done with, stop trying to change it.

[Robert_Paulson2]

You're argument is pathetic.
US Law is based on English Common Law which followed from the 10 Commandments.

you sure about that?

[Robert_Paulson2]

dear roflmao... maelstrom...
go back you say? okay since you insist...

"Authorities for what is common law may therefore be as well cited, as for any part of the Lex Scripta, and there is no better instance of the necessity of holding the judges and writers to a declaration of their authorities than the present; where we detect them endeavoring to make law where they found none, and to submit us at one stroke to a whole system, no particle of which has its foundation in the common law.

" For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta.

"This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686.

"Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

"If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents.

"These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

... Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814.

Yours is a failed argument to the inclusion of Christianity into the Common Law... I did go back which is WHY I know, and now you know, WHY such a false position is NOT mine.

Unless of course you probably also believe jefferson was not a "true american or founder or president." whatever. you side with 'grandstander' roy... and I will have to side with Jefferson.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Take your history changing accusations to Jefferson.

[exnavy]

Suggested reading:"The American Leadership Tradition" by Marvin Olasky.

To fully understand the founding documents of this country, and how we got here from there,one needs to know a little about the leaders who brought us here.

Please understand, I'm not finding fault with you or any of your comments here, I found this book a good read and informative.

[Pahuanui]

The subject of an individual Alabama citizen's right being infringed is irrelevant here.

Right, it's not about individual rights. It's all about collectivism.

Ah, suffering from the inability to think, I see. Not all legal decisions based on constitutions revolve around individual right, Einstein. They also have to do with limitations of certain gov't powers.

Why am I not suprised you didn't know that?

If you can't see that, that's not my problem.

I have 20/20 vision. In fact it is so good that I can see that you have failed to answer one question regarding the state of Alabama's Constitution being violated.

Strange how you 20/20 vision led you to utterly miss the point.

There are some knowledgeable folks on your side of this debate but you ain't one of'em Pahuanui.

Coming from you, I don't see that as particularly important.

[exnavy]

I have to ask (after reading some of your earlier posts), do you believe that displaying the ten commandments, in a courthouse, is a forcing of religious beliefs on people by government?

[Maelstrom]

No...
...Mine is the use of the 10 Commandments as the foundation of law.

YOURS is the allegation that this constitutes the adoption of Christianity as common law.

It's not even Jefferson's claim. His traces back the establishment of the Anglican Church as the State Religion.

Yours for better scholarship.

[Robert_Paulson2]

no, yours WAS that the common law was based on the 10 commandments and/or the bible. it's not, never was.

a known falsehood.

[Maelstrom]

That's right.

Common law is based on the 10 Commandments.

Jefferson told you how the establishment of religion was a later development.

I'm surprised you didn't read what he wrote in context. He told you that following the 10 Commandments doesn't establish a religion.