Rights of States Built into the Constitution (The Encroaching Feds And The Case of Judge Moore)

FamilyNews In Focus ^

[Happy2BMe]

Does the state have the right to acknowledge God?

Was Judge Moore removed from office for breaking the law or for adhering to his oath to uphold the Alabama and United States Constitutions?

Will the United States Supreme Court continue their attack on the First Ammendment?

[Happy2BMe]

Freedom ping!

[Happy2BMe]

States Rights freedom of religion ping!

Rights of States Built into the Constitution

[snopercod]

The Ten Commandments case against Chief Justice Roy Moore spotlights the need for legislation forbidding federal courts from encroaching on the powers of the states and the people.

Why do we need legislation? It's already in the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment X

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.

The U.S. Congress is specifically forbidden from making laws regarding the establishment of a religion, but the states are not.

[monocle]

Passage of the 17th Amendment underlies many of the current problems relating to states' rights and the interpretation of the Bill of Rights as a whole. Once the right of state legislatures to appoint senators was abolished the skids to greater central power were greased.

[gunnedah]

Alan Keyes is one of the smartest men in America. But like any other conservative black man is not considered a black.
He in actaulity is despised by the so call black laedership and with the help of the liberals will always be held at bay. Look at all conservative bright liberals and the are being kept out of the picture because they are the greatest threat to the hold the Jacksons and Mufume have on their people.
The black leadership in America today is no different than the leadership that rounded them up in Africa and sold them into slavery!A mind is a terrible thing to waste so let us control it.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

*snore*

You people are really determined to establish that most pharisaic form of Evangelical Christianity as a state religion here.

Much as you'd like, it ain't happening.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

14th Amendment cures that - as well as over a century of ruling by the very branch of government empowered to interpret under the Constitution.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You want to have 50 cronyish legislative party machines picking senators? Thats rich.

Go ahead and crusade for an amendment repealing the 17th, see how far you get - the rest of us will laugh at you from the sidelines.

[.30Carbine]

Today's Focus on the Family Broadcast:

Listen to Dr. James Dobson's speech in Montgomery Thursday.

Dr. Dobson was on Hannity and Colmes on Wednesday discussing this issue. I can't find the transcript, though.

[.30Carbine]

Snore? Yeah, right, we're gonna believe this issue puts you to sleep.

What you are asleep to is the fact that YOUR RIGHTS are next on the Judicial Oligarchy's agenda.

"First they came for the Jews..."

[WilliamofCarmichael]

A poster on another thread suggested that "neocon" was a code word and intimated that it should be banned here. There was a time not long ago when "states' rights" was a code word. 1960s liberals turned it into a code word for the N word, Jim Crow laws, and the KKK. Any attempt to discuss states' rights was immediate diverted to defending yourself against accusations of being a racist. Another legacy of the 1960s liberals cum neocons. They are still at it. It's what they do.

Discourse was virtually impossible (that was the plan) and the problem of states' rights has become much deeper than code words. If I remember correctly Robert Bork has suggested that you can forget states' rights. If you read Mr. Keyes' brilliant (it really is brilliant and applies to far more than religion) you know what a free people are up against.

To wit, in the matter of religion the federal judges and justices whether through carelessness or an artful effort to deceive . . . usurped this right of the people, substituting for the republican approach adopted by the Constitution an oligarchic approach that reserves to a handful of unelected individuals the power to impose on the entire nation a uniform stance on religion at every level of government.

In the 1960s when the liberals made "states' rights" a code word they were celebrating "sociological jurisprudence." That is, the courts bowing to what passed for polls in those days. Today those polls that show opposition to the court's actions are a threat to law and order -- ironically "law and order" is another 1960s liberal cum neocon inspired code word. "Lawn" order meant the N word. You were a racist if you were for "lawn order."

[jammer]

The title is correct, but irrelevant. Those states rights were a casualty of the aftermath of the civil war, Holmes' idiotic extension of the Interstate Commerce clause, Eisenhower's sending federal troops in response to Jim Crow, and innumerable other assaults on the 10th Amendment.

[steve50]

Most of those calling for state's rights in this case oppose the concept when it interfers with laws they like. The same with the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses.

The old phrase is true...to be free, you must allow others to be free as well.

[antisocial]

So, you're for the Federal government having absolute power over the states. That is exactly what was argued in the federalist papers before the constitution was adopted. The people who actually wrote the constitution felt that it would limit the Federal government to its enumerated powers, and the states were to be soverign on all other matters.
Damn no wonder this country is going to h-ll in a handbasket!

[steve50]

I support a consistent application of state's rights. The powers of federal government are limited to what is granted in the Constitution. It's the selective approval of nonConstitutional federal law I see as hipocritical out of these people.

[Happy2BMe]

"Dr. Dobson was on Hannity and Colmes on Wednesday discussing this issue. I can't find the transcript, though."

Dr. James Dobson: "We're Not Going To The Back of The Bus"
			Posted by Roscoe to Happy2BMe

[Happy2BMe]

"The U.S. Congress is specifically forbidden from making laws regarding the establishment of a religion, but the states are not."

As Dr. Dobson has said, "The judicial branch is railroading the American people."

In the case of removing God from government, we see this over and over and over again.

Poll after poll indicates the overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with removing God:

Take the Poll

Do you agree with a federal judge's ruling last week that a Ten Commandments monument at the Alabama Judicial Building violates the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion and must be removed?
Yes	11.6%	52
No	87.9%	393
No Opinion	0.4%

[antisocial]

-The selective approval of nonconstitutional federal law I see as hypicritical out of these people-
What does this mean? I see Judge Moore's action as merely free exercise of his religion. There is nothing in the constitution that says he cannot exercise his religion however he wants. Now if the STATE of Alabama ordered him to remove the monument, it would be a wholly different matter.(That means the legislature, not the court)

[steve50]

We were addressing state's rights, not freedom of religion. Do state's rights apply to the medical cannabis issue in Calif., or do federal court decisions based on powers found nowhere in the Constitution overrule state law? If the fed has one power, it has the other.