Roy Moore, The Imperial Congress And The Rule Of Law

GOPUSA ^ | June 1, 2006 | Christopher G. Adamo

[300magnum]

When Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore defied an order from Federal Judge Myron Thompson in 2003, and refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, he was summarily expelled from office under the pretense that America is a nation of laws, not of men.

Moore contended that those laws could not define or promote a healthy and free society if they were established or enforced as the result of arbitrary whims of those in power. Thus, he asserted that moral and ethical absolutes, as codified in the Ten Commandments, have been and should remain as the basis for American law.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union, aided and abetted by their toadies in the media, were quick to warn our society of the dangers it faced if Moore's insolence was allowed to go uncontested. Furthermore, even many on the right who detest the agenda and strategy of the ACLU were nonetheless in agreement that Moore ought not be allowed to retain his position.

Sadly, the government of the State of Alabama proceeded to carry the water for the ACLU by pursuing Moore with a zeal it never displayed when attempting to defend itself against that organization. Ultimately, Moore became another victim of a federal judge who himself had perverted not only the law, but the Constitution itself.

Among institutional "lawbreakers," Moore is hardly alone. Yet in comparison to other violations of U.S. law being perpetrated at the highest levels of government, what are the real consequences to the rest of America of Moore's actions? Admittedly, he may have "offended" the God-hating liberals at the ACLU, but most of America perceived no threat or impending danger from him.

While the ultimate propriety of Moore's action could still be debated, his contention that a society which rejects the boundaries of absolute truth is on the road to collapse, has since proven prescient to the point of being nearly prophetic.

Some abominable events of the past week only serve to solidify this notion. The duplicity of Congressman William Jefferson (D.-LA) is likely a greater crime against the nation by far, since hard evidence suggests that he is involved in major corruption and an institutional cover-up.

But even Jefferson's behavior pales in comparison to lawlessness prevailing in the United States Senate, where duly enacted laws are simply being ignored and the borders of the nation are thus being systematically destroyed.

The United States Senate has now passed its immigration "reform" bill. Despite the claims of the bill's proponents, if implemented in its current form, it would grant amnesty to the flood of illegals presently invading the country.

The Senate relentlessly pursued this course with absolute indifference to the concerns and well being of the American people. Instead the nearly universal consideration of the Senate was how such a bill might affect its own standing and future.

Furthermore, the arrogant reaction of the bill's key Senate advocates to their critics has been to disparage and demean them as bigoted or insensitive. Hence, legitimate debate on the issue all but vanished, and any remaining discussion is conducted according to the intellectually bankrupt premises of the "political correct."

With each passing day, it becomes ever more obvious that government, from the local to the national level, perceives itself to be in the business of accruing power and wealth, while "We the people" are increasingly relegated to the status of serf, resource, and ultimately, state property.

In keeping with the arrogant and elitist mindset of those inside the Beltway who regard themselves as an elected aristocracy, consider the overwhelming Congressional response to the FBI raid and seizure of incriminating evidence in the office of William Jefferson.

In one of those odd displays of "bipartisanship" (which increasingly reflect Washington pitting itself against real America), major spokesmen from both parties condemned the FBI action as a violation of the "separation of powers."

Apparently, many members of Congress see themselves as somehow above the laws meant to control and maintain the peasantry in its subservient condition. The overwhelming reaction from the Congress can only be construed to indicate that Jefferson and his kind should be immune to scrutiny as long as they maintain the evidence of their criminal activity within its hallowed halls.

Meanwhile, out in the hinterlands, Judge Moore made the bold and courageous move that represents the only recourse for an individual who seeks to correct the wrongs of such an inherently flawed and hypocritical system. He decided to run for Governor of Alabama.

Hardly seeking to foment a movement of defiance against the law, Moore merely recognized the degree to which lawlessness has already overtaken our governing institutions, regardless of which political party holds dominance. In stark contrast to those who regularly acquiesce to the opposition in hopes of getting along, Moore has already proven that he will put principle above politics and personal gain, regardless of the cost to him.

The country is being increasingly ravaged by an ongoing series of issues that the political class refuses to effectively confront, either because of the enormity of special interests seeking to define them, or from fear of the "pc" armies waiting to politically assassinate any who dare to deviate from their orthodoxy.

Only such a person as Roy Moore could be expected to possess the courage and steadfastness sufficient to tackle the difficult issues threatening to cripple America and eradicate its future. Win or lose, he is showing the nation what needs to be done if it is to have any hope of restoration.

Godspeed Judge Moore.

----------

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

[CWW]

I'll take Riley over that Whack Job in a heartbeat!

[bowlalpo]

"Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA."

BUT THEY SHOULD!

[Bryan24]

I'm from Alabama also, and am an extreme conservative.

You nailed Roy Moore - He is a demagogue.

[texastoo]

Once a liar, always a liar

This should be repeated. However, some people never learn.

[GrandEagle]

I cannot follow his Man from La Mancha approach of defying court orders.
LOL!
SO, we are no longer a Constitutional Republic then? We are ruled by the elite group who have appointed themselves the authority over the Law. Instead of applying the law, they anoint themselves with the authority to make up the law as they go.
I see.

When I was in the military, there was a very strict chain of command. The penalties for ignoring orders could be severe and swift. However, I was under no obligation to to follow any order given me that violated regulations. I disobeyed a couple of direct commands. One was a direct order given me by a Colonel (I was an E5 at the time), that could have placed 12 of our aircraft and pilots in danger. Although he outranked me by far, gave me a direct command, I determined that it was a command that was invalid because it was outside the regulations.
In judge Moores case, the Federal Government is forbidden by the US Constitution to have an opinion on establishment of Religion. The "order" was outside his authority.

Now, before one decides to take this course of action, you must be sure that the ultimate authority (We the people) will support you. That did not happen in Judge Moores case.

If Moore thinks as the judge of an inferior (i.e., lower) court that he has the right to defy the orders of the Supreme Court, then why as a litigant should I follow any order he enters with which I disagree?
If he has no authority to give the order - then you would not be bound to comply, unless, as was the case with him, he had the power to assume illegal power and simply force you into submission.

Again, Moore's position will lead to chaos and anarchy.
An sir, you position is how we got where we are today. Where the congress is irrelevant on issues that the ruling elite (SCOTUS) deem important. They simply declare themselves as having the authority, and override the legislative authority of the Congress - and the sheeple comply.

The result would be SHEER CHAOS!
From time to time a little chaos does some good. Take, for example, China; they are an orderly society with little or no "chaos". Not very much freedom, but there is no chaos....for long anyway.

Cordially,
GE

[Jason_b]

"With each passing day, it becomes ever more obvious that government, from the local to the national level, perceives itself to be in the business of accruing power and wealth, while "We the people" are increasingly relegated to the status of serf, resource, and ultimately, state property.

THIS is the ultimate goal of the globalist."

And it is a perfect definition of COMMUNIST.

[CWW]

Thanks, Bryan24.

I'm telling you folks, Roy Moore is not who he says he is.

This trial lawyer supported candidate is the same guy who said he would never use the 10 Commandments issue to run for public office.

So who is the liar now?

[GrandEagle]

in court does not establish the preferred status of certain religions
The Constitution DOES NOT prohibit the State or Local governments from having a preferred religion. As a matter of FACT, three states had official state religions codified in state law well after the Constitution was ratified.
What it does prohibit is the US congress from passing a any LAW regarding establishment. That means either to establish OR unestablish.

Try reading the Constitution again

[GrandEagle]

Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is
You fit in well with the new SCOTUS.

[GrandEagle]

I hate to "hit and run" but work calls.
I'll check back later - Have a great day everyone!

Cordially,
GE

[Tench_Coxe]

You know, eventually, someone will make the glib argument, "well, this States vs Federal thing was solved in 1865".

[CWW]

GE -- You cannot abandon the Rule of Law to reach a favored result. Once you do that, you no longer recognize a higher law and, instead, give man licence to do as he pleases to achive his own end!

I am reminded of the play and movie about Sir Thomas Moore, A Man for All Seasons, where Moore has this discussion about the rule of law with his family regarding Richard Rich (whose perjury would later send Moore to the scaffold):

Wife: "Arrest him!"

Sir Thomas: "For what?"

Wife: "He's dangerous!"

Roper(lawyer and son in law): "For all we know he's a spy!"

Daughter: "Father, that man is bad!"

Sir Thomas: "There's no law against that!"

Roper: "But there is, God's law!"

Sir Thomas: "Then let God arrest him!"

Wife: "While you talk he's gone!"

Sir Thomas: "And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!"

Roper: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"

Sir Thomas: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"

Roper: "Why, yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"

Sir Thomas: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it, Roper! -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

"Yes," Sir Thomas concludes: "I'd give the Devil the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

And there you have it, my friend: Where will YOU hide when the Devil turns round on YOU? If those like Roy Moore will ignore the law to do what they think is right, then how can you stop the devil from choosing the same treacherous path?

YOU should give the Devil himself the benefit of law, for YOUR own safety's sake.

[CWW]

You're naive.

If the Constitution is "what the People say", then you must believe that it is a "living document" that changes with the whims of the "People", rather than a document based on principle of natural law that are unchanging.

By the way, that was Hitler's view of the law, as it was also Stalins, Pol Pots, etc.

[GrandEagle]

You cannot abandon the Rule of Law to reach a favored result.
I understand your position, it is the same as mine.
The difference is who we believe abandioned the rule of law.
The Federal judge, who did not have Constitutional authority to issue the order, is the one who abandoned the rule of law.

I do understand - and respect you position. I just disagree.

Cordially,
GE

[Non-Sequitur]

The States, localities and people retain the power to act in areas not granted to the Federal government.

True.

Supposedly, placing it there was a violation of the first amendment. However, the text states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress did not place the monument there, placing it there did make anything law, nor did it establish any religion. So where is the Federal authority to say anything on this.

The Courts have taken the position that states cannot take steps respecting the establishment of religion, either. And the state's constitution also forbids it. By placing a monument bearing a version of the 10 Commandments followed by specific sects of Christianity then Moore was using his position to place them above Roman Catholics or Jews, not to mention non-Christian religions. That's a no-no.

[GrandEagle]

her than a document based on principle of natural law that are unchanging.
Your position is that the SCOTUS decided what it says. I say it says what it says, it is the courts job to interpet existing law, not modify it to be the very "living, breathing" document that many ON THE COURT have publically said that it is.

[CWW]

I agree that many federal judges, including a majority of the Supreme Court have abandoned the rule of law when it comes to religious matters and the so-called doctrine of the separation of church and state.

My point is that we have to renavigate that course using the rule of law and persuaion that our position is correct, not anarchy and publicly defying court orders. If we do that, then we will reap the whirlwind later.

[cotton1706]

"Moore was using his position to place them above Roman Catholics or Jews, not to mention non-Christian religions. That's a no-no."

1. All Christians, including Catholics trace their religions back through the old testament, which stems from Judaism, so they are not left out either.

2. Our laws stem from the Ten Commandments, Exodus, Leviticus, and the other books of the talmud. Displaying this history is not wrong. The monument had quotes from Adams and Mason. And if Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, sun-worshipers, etc. don't like it, that is not our problem. If they don't like living under laws that trace their history back to Hebrew tablets, supposedly carved by God himself, they can go somewhere else. And if they still choose to live here, as Scalia says, they can avert their eyes if they don't like looking at it. But there's nothing wrong with it being there.