Replies

Justice Moore, in his defiance of the federal courts, wrote, "Under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, federal courts have absolutely no power, authority or jurisdiction [in this case]." He is, correctly in our opinion, arguing that he cannot be in disobedience of a judicial order where there is no jurisdiction. Thus, his actions do not rise even to the level of civil disobedience -- just defiance of an unlawful ruling.

Before I would support election of judges, where the gay lobby would compete with the campaign donations of the individual, I support Alan Keyes solution.

"As for the suggestion that the Fourteenth Amendment's "Privileges or Immunities" clause applies the Bill of Rights' restrictions on the central government to all levels of government -- it didn't and it doesn't."

"That notion was settled by the Supreme Court long ago,"

I ask the author, if that is the case, how do you explain the jurisdiction and ruling of Gilleo v Ladue (1994) in which Mrs. Gilleo won an Amendment I challenge (freedom of speech) against the constitutionality of a local ordinance in the City of Ladue, Mo prohibiting the erection of political signs on private property except with 60 days of an election?

I would also challenge the author in his declaration that Judge Moore's case is an Amendment X constitutional issue.

I think it is more of an Amendment I issue, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" constitutional issue.

The problem with federal judges overturning sovereign state enacted laws as unconstitutional to the FEDERAL constitution, is not necessarily a problem with jurisdiction of the FEDERAL constitution with in the boundaries of sovereign state (Amendment XIV did close that issue) the problem is for 40 plus years of Democrat control of the Senate, federal judicial appointments have had to pass the "living constitution" interpretation litmus test during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings.

This litmus test was an egregious error made by past Senate members and the Republicans do not show much resolve in reversing that litmus test.