Chief justice vows to fight monument removal order

[Dr. Ffreeze]

/sigh

Chief justice vows to fight monument removal order
MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Saying "I cannot violate my conscience," Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore told a crowd of enthusiastic supporters Thursday that he would continue to defy a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's Judicial Building rotunda.

Speaking outside the Judicial Building, Moore said he was disappointed with the eight justices on Alabama's state Supreme Court, who earlier in the day sided with the federal order to remove the 5,000-pound granite monument.

Moore said he would continue his fight for what he called the "constitutional right to acknowledge God." Moore said he would turn again to the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling acknowledging that right.

/snip

The associate justices wrote that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it," The Associated Press reported.

/snip

Moore said he would take on other state officials who stand by Thompson's decision. "Each of them has also taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States."

First let me say I am Christian, second let me say this embarrasses me. A federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's Judicial Building rotunda. The federal court did not order something in direct violation of Moore's beliefs like, kill this person or kill that person. From my understanding, Moore needs to follow court orders just like the rest of us. Perchance he is a bit too big for his britches?

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[RussSchultz]

The Alabama constitution begins with "We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama"

I've read over 80% of Alabama wants the monument there.

I've read that the monument was paid for by private donations.

Essentially, this judge is carrying out the will of his electorate/protectorate.

But, politically, it comes down to another way to test and more fully define what the 1st amendment means (at this current time).

Some folks will say it means that anything to do with government or related to government must be religion free.

Others say it means the government cannot dictate a particular religion.

And then there's everything in between.

 

[Natoma]

Some folks will say it means that anything to do with government or related to government must be religion free.

Others say it means the government cannot dictate a particular religion.

I agree with both. This country is not a christian nation nor a jewish nation nor an islamic nation nor a hindu nation or whatever religion. Separation of Church and State specifically forbids government establishing a religion, and that is exactly what this Alabama judge is trying to say should be allowed.

I wonder what his non-christian constituents think about having the ten commandments there. Suffice it to say the Alabama supreme court said that he could keep it in his private office, but not in the public hall of the court room. So his right to acknowledge god is not being impinged upon. But he's certainly trying to force a "state" sanctioned god on anyone and everyone that walks into the building, which is certainly unconstitutional.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Hmm,

Honestly I do not see that as a religious issue. He has not said that God told him to keep the commandments there. He said he has a "constitutional right to acknowledge God." Constitution is a government document, not a religious document. Therefore he needs to obey the court order as they have jurisdiction. If he does not obey the court order, he is breaking the law. I do believe that judges are there to make sure people obey the law and it looks very hypocritical to me.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[RussSchultz]

Sorry, when I meant "dictate" I meant the literal meaning of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

This action (of placing the monument) clearly does not violate the literal meaning. It does not make a law.

The court order to remove clearly DOES violate the constitution because they are making a law (by issuing a court order) that prohibits the free exercise thereof.

edit: add some more goodies.

 

[Ty]

The court order to remove clearly DOES violate the constitution because they are making a law (by issuing a court order) that prohibits the free exercise thereof.

Err....I may be wrong with this but courts don't make laws. Their job is to interprete it. Laws are made by the legislative branch.

 

[Tim Murray]

Okay.

I lived in Alabama for 16 years. Russ, I can honestly say that you are full of crap. Why does he want it there? Does it have anything to do with making a statement? No. Is it really because he is that religious? No. It's a political stunt. The guy was a completely unknown judge until he posted the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, and then immediately after that he became the Chief Justice. That's *it*. No distinguished record, no special merits, nothing of the sort. Just played to the ignorant masses (and boy are they ignorant), and look where it got him. He knows that if he doesn't do this, there's no chance in hell he'll be reelected.

As for the Alabama constitution, I highly recommend reading it, if you can stand over 600 amendments, blatant racism (interracial marriage was outlawed by the state constitution until 99. how's that for you. the referendum passed, voter percentages were 60-40. 60-40 on repealing a ban on interracial marriages.), mass stupidity (towns have almost no power, everything they do is an amendment for the most part).

This is just another way of standing in the schoolhouse door. If this imbecile manages to nullify the decision of the federal government, we haven't made any progress in the past 40 years.

 

[RussSchultz]

Why yes, that is their job.

So why are they inventing stuff not codified in any law?

But that's just me being argumentative.

The surpreme court obviously does make law by interpreting the constitution in creative ways, and a court order that has penalties attached to it are also laws.

 

[RussSchultz]

So...what part am I full of crap about again?

That 80% of Alabamians want it there?

That it was paid for by private monies?

That he's doing it to please his electorate?

 

[Ty]

Why yes, that is their job.

So why are they inventing stuff not codified in any law?

But that's just me being argumentative.

The surpreme court obviously does make law by interpreting the constitution in creative ways, and a court order that has penalties attached to it are also laws.

Setting precedence and creating laws are two different things. But maybe now _I'm_ being argumentative.

Just what is it that you think they are inventing? Didn't the Alabama state court spend an inordinate amount of time defining what a 'religion' is? Didn't they then figure out that defining this was irrelevent as the monument represents a 'religion' to any sane person. Therefore the state could not 'respect' it. If he wants to put it in his office, fine. If he wants to hand out flyers with the ten commandments, fine. But doesn't placing it on public ground constitute a violation of the first Amendment?

 

[Althornin]

This country will be like the "Handmaid's Tale" in a few years anyways, it seems like.

 

[RussSchultz]

The 1st amendment says does not prohibit respecting a religion. Go read it carefully and don't leave any words out.

It prohibits making laws establishing a state government, or prohibiting the practice of any religion.

The meaning of respecting in this case is not like respect your elders, but equivalent to "regarding" or "concerning".

It makes absolutely no sense to read it "congress shall make no law finding in high esteem an establishment of religion".

Laws cannot find anything in high esteem.

 

[Ty]

The 1st amendment says does not prohibit respecting a religion. Go read it carefully and don't leave any words out.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Yes, people can respect a religion (acknowledge, practice, etc). But the government can't. I mean, isn't this the interpretation of the First Amendment that has existed since it's inception, that the government can not place one religion ahead of another?

The monument is on public land. Does this not invite other religions to basically drop monuments (What size restrictions do we have? Color? Hey, let's have it gong repeatedly!) wherever they want?

It prohibits making laws establishing a state government, or prohibiting the practice of any religion.

I presume you meant, state religion. Anyhow I believe the notion of prohibiting a state religion is under a bit of debate when it comes to this amendment.

The meaning of respecting in this case is not like respect your elders, but equivalent to "regarding" or "concerning".

It makes absolutely no sense to read it "congress shall make no law finding in high esteem an establishment of religion".

Laws cannot find anything in high esteem.

By using 'respect' in quotes, I meant acknowledge in that if the US government were to acknowledge one particular religion, it would appear that the government was biased in favor of it vs. other religions.

 

[RussSchultz]

Ty, you missed the one word I asked you not to.

Congress can establish no LAW respecting (concerning) establishment of a state religion.

It says nothing about whether or not the government can acknowledge a religion, or whether public space can or cannot be used to house monuments.

 

[just me]

Disgusting that our Courts have to intervene in these messes & interpret the Const wrong! I've always read it as Russ does & hold to that as the meaning. "Establishment" & allowing the will of the ppl are 2 different things. The Founders used the word God in 'establishing' this Nation (Under God) & how present day Courts can twist the meaning is really beyond me.

This keeps going & we're going to have to remove every cross & Star of David in every Nat'l Cemetary. That's crazy, expensive, a waste of the Courts time & not w/in the meaning of the Const., IMO.

.02,

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

BREAKING NEWS Alabama chief justice suspended pending outcome of ethics complaint for defying court order to move Ten Commandments. Details soon.

Good. Just because you don't like a court order, doesn't mean you can ignore a court order. It looks like they are making him responsible for his actions.

Dr. Ffreeze

PS. My main issue with this is not about the commandments, but that a judge of all people can willy-nilly disregard a court order.

 

[Ty]

Ty, you missed the one word I asked you not to.

Congress can establish no LAW respecting (concerning) establishment of a state religion.

It says nothing about whether or not the government can acknowledge a religion, or whether public space can or cannot be used to house monuments.

True. But many 'rights' we believe we have aren't explicitly written in the Constitution either. Religious Liberty? Fair Trial? Heck, I don't think 'Bill of Rights' ever appears in it even though we all refer to the first 10 amendments as it.

Both Jefferson and Madison were for the separation between Church and State, 'the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.'

 

[Nagorak]

Russ, why do you always argue the stupidest things. It doesn't matter what the constitution says, it's the principle. If he wants to put a monmument to religion, then he should put one in there for all religions. But, there probably isn't room in the building for that many monuments. Since it's impossible to put them all in there, he shouldn't put any.

The meaning of the first amendment is understood to be that there can be no government endorsement of one religion over another. This is such an endorsement. It's really aggravating that you always try to twist things and use "literal meanings" and all kinds of nonsense in order to fabricate an argument.

The constitution doesn't say a lot. What it means has been decided by many court cases over the years. And, it is the role of federal courts to try to determine what the constitution intended. You site the constitution as if that's some end-all and be-all, when it's just the beginning. Please go out and read the hundreds of court decisions that have to do with this sort of issue, then come back and tell us what the constitution has been determined to mean.

Also, I think the point the poster from Alabama was trying to make is that the people there are pretty ignorate. I have to admit, the fact that repealing the ban on interacial marriage only passed by 60-40 is pretty pathetic.

Then you go around applauding this judge for doing the will of the electorate. Well, the problem with that is, just because something is popular doesn't make it right. Just because 80% of the people in Alabama want a monument there, doesn't mean it should be there. Democracy isn't really such a great system of government, once you realize that the vast majority of the people voting are simply not qualified to do so.

Oh, and if the will of the electorate is so important, why have we been forced to live with a bumbling idiot for a President for the past 3 years? He didn't win the popular vote and shouldn't have been elected.

But, anyway, the point is where were you touting the will of the people in 2000? If that was really your deal, that would be one thing, and I would respect it. But you only invoke that kind of stuff when it suits your agenda, which seems pretty hypocritical to say the least.

I don't really care what you believe in, but just call it down the middle for pete's sake.

 

[Ty]

Boy, and here I thought we were going to have a 'nice' discussion.

Anyhow your point, Nagorak, is valid and one that I had forgotten to raise as well. This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Just because 80% want the monument to stay is not a reason for it to stay. Were the segregation laws valid back when they had popular support? Of course not. 80%, 100%, or 1%, all irrelevant when it comes to the law.

Once again I have to say that the Justices are not guilty of 'inventing' or 'creating' law. They only interpret it. It can be argued that they are misinterpreting it, fine. But creating law? No. As the law is a such a field that requires stringent definitions we should try to do our best here as well.

 

[RussSchultz]

Am I missing something, or are you just being over the top sarcastic?

It doesn't matter what the constitution says, it's the principle.

It's really aggravating that you always try to twist things and use "literal meanings" and all kinds of nonsense in order to fabricate an argument.

Can you really, with a straight face, say those things? It doesn't matter what the constitution says, its the principle? I twist things by using literal meanings? Its boggling to read this and think that you believe what you're saying.

I'm not sure what bee got in your bonnet, but I don't see where I warranted any attack like the one you just let out.

Or do I offend you by presenting a logical argument for which you have no answer?

(And wtf is this about me only invoking the will of the people when it suits my agenda? What agenda do I have? How am I invoking the will of the people, other than to ascribe as to why the judge is pursuing this in court?)