THE "DESPOTIC BRANCH" OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

Two weeks ago, The Federalist noted the remarkable parallel between bishops in the Episcopal Church who "interpret" Scripture to comport with their political and social agendas in violation of their ordinal vows, and judges who "interpret" the Constitution to comport with their political and social agendas, in violation of their oath to uphold our nation's legal foundation. Neither interpretation honors the original word and intent of those founding texts. Instead, they offer nothing more than a reflection of themselves as if they authored those venerable words.

Regarding the word of law, our Constitution provides a mechanism for its alteration by amendment, not adulteration by judicial decree.

That premise is the basis for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's defense of the First and Tenth Amendments in what is, potentially, the most important and influential case in decades pertaining to religious liberty and states' rights as defined by our Constitution.

Most media pundits, and the couch potatoes who suckle at their font, never took a civics class and couldn't distinguish the substance of this case -- the constitutional issue -- from the superfluous -- "Showdown on the 10 Commandments." Thus, they have cast this case as nothing more than a "right-wing Christian zealot" trying to keep a monument of the Decalogue in a courthouse in the backwoods of lower Alabama.

Demonstrating their nescience, Leftmedia talkingheads adroitly taunt, "Well, can the state of Alabama put a shrine to Mohammed in the judicial rotunda?" The answer is...YES! In accordance with the First and Tenth Amendments, if the people of Alabama choose to do so, that is their prerogative.

Media ignorance notwithstanding, the ACLU knows what this case is really about: "This case is not about the Ten Commandments. This case is not about Roy Moore.

It is about the First Amendment 'separation of church and state'." 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...." But the law itself has been "interpreted" by Leftjudicial activists beyond recognition -- and in violation of both their solemn oaths and the will of the Founders, who expected the judicial branch to rise above contemporaneous political and social agendas and abide by the letter of the Constitution.

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."

In other words, the Constitution strictly limits the central government to its enumerated powers, not the unlimited powers now imposed by an activist judiciary. Every state, then, is individuated by its own Constitution.

Justice Moore was, predictably, denied his appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the appellate court's decision. He filed a second appeal questioning the federal court's jurisdiction in this matter -- directly confronting the lower court's violation of the Tenth Amendment edict, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, the Constitution is to be read and ruled on constructively, not as a matter of interpretive opinion, which circumvents its prescribed method of amendment. Those are the terms under which the states, including Alabama, ratified the Constitution.

Unfortunately, on Thursday as the deadline set by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson for removal of the monument passed, Justice Moore's associates on Alabama's Supreme Court acquiesced to Thompson's edict, claiming that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it," and ordered the monument's removal. In distinct contrast to that state's motto, "We Dare Defend our Rights," the associate justices conceded defeat, averting, at least temporarily, a direct confrontation with the federal courts concerning the First and Tenth Amendments.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, himself a federal appellate-court nominee, said he would comply with the state court's order to remove the monument, adding, "The rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders." (Perhaps Pryor's siding with Leftjudicial activists who issue lawless diktats is sufficient indulgence to get him released from the U.S. Senate's filibusterial purgatory.)

Taking a page from Pryor, ultra-Leftist Barry Lynn, mouthpiece for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "We either have 'rule of law' or a nation where every judge rules on his own personal opinion."

Inadvertently, Lynn is correct, though it is not, as he implies, Justice Moore who is acting on "personal opinion," but judicial activists who render diktats that contradict the rule of law. We abide by LAW, not the opinions of politicians, lawyers or judges. In this case, the LAW is clear. (Read the First Amendment on The Federalist's Historic Documents page.)

For his part, Justice Moore said, "I was very disappointed with my colleagues on the court. If the rule of law means doing everything a judge tells you to do we would still have slavery in this country. I will not violate my oath. I cannot forsake my conscience.... Have we become so ignorant of our nation's history that we have forgotten the reason for the adoption of the Bill of Rights?

It was meant to restrict the federal government's power over the states, not to restrict the states from doing what the federal government can do. The time has come to recover the valiant courage of our forefathers, who understood that faith and freedom are inseparable and that they are worth fighting for..."

Justice Moore, a USMA (West Point) graduate and decorated Vietnam veteran, is not going down for the count, and will prepare a new petition to the U.S. Supreme Court "to resolve clearly our inalienable rights to acknowledge God under the First Amendment." In the meantime, the monument may have to be removed or covered.

Distinguishing between Patriots and cowards, our favorite Founder, Samuel Adams, said: "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom...crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Fortunately, most Federalist readers regularly ask, "What should be the reward of such sacrifices?" Please take a minute and join almost 50,000 other American Patriots who have signed "An Open Letter to Justice Roy Moore" this week thanking him for his defense of religious liberty and states' rights in this landmark case.

When a candidate, you were very clear about the need to appoint "constitutional constructionists" to the federal bench.

When elected, you affirmed with your hand on a Bible, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." NOW would be a good time!

"The practice of judicial activism -- legislating from the bench -- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. ... With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office." --Rep. Ron Paul

"We have three branches of government. And I stand here today in hope that all Americans will stand to call on the President and call on the Congress to take courageous action finally to put the bridle on these unruly courts!" --Constitutional scholar Alan Keyes

"Our hearts and prayers should go out to Chief Justice Moore as he continues his valiant fight to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian principles that have guided our country so well for over two centuries. ... It is bad enough when the electricity is turned off for a few hours.

Think about what condition our country would be in without having the Ten Commandments to illuminate our lives during the last two centuries. What if the secular lobby triumphs repeatedly and we spend the next 50 years or more in an ever-increasing spiritual blackout? It's a pretty scary thought." --Paul M. Weyrich

The Federalist noted the remarkable parallel between bishops in the Episcopal Church who "interpret" Scripture to comport with their political and social agendas in violation of their ordinal vows, and judges who "interpret" the Constitution to comport with their political and social agendas, in violation of their oath to uphold our nation's legal foundation. Neither interpretation honors the original word and intent of those founding texts. Instead, they offer nothing more than a reflection of themselves as if they authored those venerable words.

Noooooooooooooooo kidding!

William Pryor has acknowledge that Judge Moore's interpretation of the 1st Amendment is correct. He has also vowed to uphold the supreme law of the land.

What is the supreme law of the land? Of course, it's the Constitution.

Therefore, when he says that the Federal Court is WRONG about the 1st Amendment, he is saying that they are wrong about the supreme law of the land.

But, who does he say should be followed in this case? He says we should follow the federal judge who ruled RATHER THAN the supreme law of the land.

Therefore, WHO does Pryor actually think is the supreme law of the land?

He believes in the judges. Not in the Constitution.

I don't care now if Pryor gets filibustered by the US Senate. This case has shown him to be another trojan horse, another Sandra Day O'Conner.

Justice Moore -- -- will prepare a new petition to the U.S. Supreme Court "to resolve clearly our inalienable rights to acknowledge God under the First Amendment."

This right has never been at issue.

Moore, Keyes, and hundreds of other politicians have been cynically brewing up a tempest in a teapot.

No ones rights have been violated, and Moores efforts to be the souths foremost interior decorator have been rejected.

This too will pass.

7 posted on 08/25/2003 10:35:28 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals (If Hillary ever takes the oath of office, she will be the last President the US will ever have. -RR)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.