Replies

The rule of law (Constitution) also says that the states rule on anything not specificly in the US Constitution. Article Ten, I do believe.

Right, I agree, which is why I tend to side with Moore on the Constitutionality of the monument. But the Constiution also states that the federal courts are to interpret exactly what the Constitution says, and it gives them the force of law. The courts in this case sided against Moore, which we have to accept unless it is egregiously erroneous.

Egregiously erroneous would mean an order to kill all Christians, or something like that. It would not mean an order to move a monument.

Do you want a nation where we are allowed to ignore court orders simply because we do not agree with them?

Precisely. We do not want every man deciding to obey or not obey the law. It would result in anarchy. That is why the issue should never have been allowed to degenerate into a religious one, but should have been more forcefully argued as a free speech one. The monument is simply an acknowledgement of the foundation of our legal system. No "religion" is being promoted.

But the Constiution also states that the federal courts are to interpret exactly what the Constitution says, and it gives them the force of law.

Citation please?