|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
state judge tells feds to stick it
 Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:58 am
|
 |
|
hope he wins...
snips
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore yesterday defied a court order to remove a large granite monument emblazoned with the Ten Commandments from a state judicial building on the grounds that God's law supercedes state and even federal law.
"I have no intention of removing the monument," he said at a press conference in Montgomery. "This I cannot and will not do."
He will ask the U.S. Supreme Court today to strike down the order that would remove his 5,280-pound, 4-foot-high granite monument from its roped-off corner of the rotunda of the state judiciary building.
"The issue in this case is the state of Alabama can acknowledge God," Chief Justice Moore told Fox News. The state constitution "invokes the favoring guidance of Almighty God and no federal court has declared [Alabama´s] constitution unconstitutional."
"It's very important that, as the chief administrative officer of the justice system, that I uphold my oath to the Alabama Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution. Neither the First Amendment nor the Alabama Constitution forbid an acknowledgment of God."
The Supreme Court will see things his way, he predicted, "because we are following U.S. Supreme Court law as to its definition of religion, which recognizes a Creator in higher law. So we have every right as a state to acknowledge God."
A U.S. district court under Judge Myron Thompson ruled against Chief Justice Moore on Nov. 18, 2002. On July 1, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Chief Justice Moore, saying displays on government property cannot promote or be affiliated with a religion.
Judge Thompson gave the state until Aug. 20 to remove the monument, threatening $5,000 a day in fines if Chief Justice Moore did not comply.
Chief Justice Moore became nationally famous over the 1995 case and huge crowds turned out in rallies supporting his cause. In 2000, he easily defeated a Democratic opponent to become the state's chief justice.
Yesterday, he hinted that demonstrators may seek to block any effort to move the monument.
"As long as it's peaceful," he told Fox News, "I don't have any opposition to civil disobedience."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030814-110407-3224r.htm |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:46 am
|
|
|
It's a pretty clear seperation of church and state issue.
I don't care if you are the most devout christian, it's still a seperation of church and state issue..
What a waste of money too.
By the way, I don't really care if there is a huge statue of the commandments, it's the alabama judge bringing religion more and more into it every breath that makes it an issue imo. Statements like God's law is above state law just goes to prove the ulterior motive behind the commandments, and that it will be shot down, not literally of course.
Edit: Thought i'd make my opinion more coherant. I don't care whether it's right, wrong, upside down or straight to have the commandements be displayed.. It's a pretty obvious seperation issue. That is all 
[Edited 2 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 08-15-2003] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:57 am
|
|
|
actually alabama state law says he can do what he's doing...
it's the ACLU taking the federal interpretation of SCS where it does not belong...
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.
seems like a winner to me... |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:05 am
|
|
|
Meh! Whenever the ACLU is around you know they are just gonna be trouble. By trouble I mean waste everybody's time with BS.
Again, I don't really care if the statue is up, and if nobody else cares (who it applies to, not some ACLU Lawyer) then it's a stupid topic for anyone to be debating. 
[Edited 1 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 08-15-2003] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:12 am
|
|
|
well it's not stupid to debate it when it is costing tax payers money...same with them filing lawsuits against Christmas trees on public land...
thing is there's a lot of s!@# I don't care for but I don't go filing lawsuits over it...the alabama judge was elected overwhemlingly...the people support him...and last I checked it was of by and for the people...
dig ? |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:15 am
|
|
|
well it's not stupid to debate it when it is costing tax payers money.
Anyone includes the people filing the law suits! It's stupid for the courts to be dealing with it, throw that junk out!
"same with them filing lawsuits against Christmas trees on public land..."
Hope that was thrown out faster than you can say punch-n-pie. Christmas is officially a secular holiday.
Edit: blah blah blah!
[Edited 2 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 08-15-2003] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:47 am
|
|
|
ok here's the deal...I'll go for removing objects like the one in question...when all the supporters of the SCS issues hand over all their money...
which says clearly "in God we trust"...
til then it's liberal hypocrisy... |
| |
|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 6:04 am
|
|
|
I'm for keeping the foundation for which our forefathers started to share. Let me be clear that there is no such thing as the seperation of church and state! The original phrase has been taken way out of context time and time again. It's the people who don't want to believe in any sort of God, so they want to take down any image, excerpt or whatever have you because it bothers their conscience within. We had an out of state attorney try to sue to get one of the communities to take out the crosses in some of their street signs. So let me point out the ones making the stink about this are also trying to stop the constitutional right to worship without government infringment so the judge decided it's time to stand firm and I support him for doing so. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Mon Aug 25, 2003 9:40 pm
|
|
|
dr. keyes is the man....
Keyes lambastes clique of "lawless" judges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hannity & Colmes show spotlights the Ten Commandments issue
August 22nd
After eight justices of the Alabama Supreme Court voted Thursday to override Chief Justice Roy Moore and remove an embattled Ten Commandments monument from public view in the Alabama Judicial Building, Alan Keyes appeared that evening on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
Dr. Keyes' appearance on the top cable network's popular show was widely promoted.
Judge Moore's position
At the outset, Dr. Keyes was asked by Sean Hannity to summarize the strength of Judge Moore's controversial position. Dr. Keyes answered by noting the Constitution's separation of "federal" and "state":
"I think that we have to focus . . . on the clear constitutional issue. At the national level, there is no doubt that we are not supposed to have any kind of national, uniformly-imposed regime, with respect to religion. And Congress shouldn't make any laws--the federal government has no lawful basis--for doing so; that was clear in the Founders' statements and intentions. They wanted these issues to be handled at the level of the state governments, and the level of the people, themselves, in and through their state governments. They were to decide to what extent they would acknowledge God, in what way, in what manner they would do so, in and through their government institutions."
"What we're seeing," Dr. Keyes continued, "is an effort to impose a uniform national regime of atheism on religious matters, and that is deeply unconstitutional."
Judicial dictatorship
Challenged by the show's liberal half--Alan Colmes--to admit that the eight associate justices who overruled Judge Moore were "bound by solemn oath to follow the law," Keyes said, "You keep saying 'respect for the law.' Respect for the law does not mean respect for lawyers. And the rule of law does not mean the rule of lawyers and judges. It means the rule of law.
"[Lawyers and judges] are bound by the law. They, too, are required to have a basis in law for what they do," Keyes pointed out.
With that in mind, Keyes then had strong words for the federal judge who ordered the Ten Commandments removed from the Alabama Supreme Court Building, Judge Myron Thompson--calling him "a lawless judge who is taking his opinions out of thin air, not on the basis of any law, and imposing them" on the people of Alabama.
Keyes said, "When people say some law's being broken here [by Judge Moore], I say, 'What law?' [Judge Thompson] is a federal judge. He needs a federal basis for what he's doing. But Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. He has no grounds, no basis whatsoever, from which to address this issue."
In fact, stated Keyes, "The whole train of legal precedents that has been fabricated, fraudulently, from the bench [on the issue of religion in public life] has no basis in our Constitution. And to say that we must simply submit to baseless dictation from the bench is--as Jefferson, himself, pointed out--to surrender to judicial despotism."
Elaborating, Keyes said: "Excuse me for saying so, but I think it's time we got away from this rut of believing that we live under some arcane priesthood of the lawyers, and we don't get to believe the evidence of our own eyes and common sense when we read the basic documents of our country's history."
"We should not turn over our liberties to arcane interpretations and fabrications by a legal clique that desires to amass great power over every aspect of our lives and tell us we no longer have a say. That despotic judicial dictatorship was predicted by Thomas Jefferson, and he said that we should reject it--and we must now," Keyes declared.
The court order's significance
When Colmes labeled as "wrong" Keyes' claim that those judges who want the Ten Commandments monument removed are "imposing atheism" on others, Keyes pointed out that Judge Thompson himself wrote that the state of Alabama "cannot acknowledge God."
"That's what he says," Keyes reminded Colmes. "I didn't make that up. He says that that's the core issue, and he says the answer is no. He is imposing, through his order, this atheism, and he has said so himself."
Earlier appearance on the Sean Hannity show
Earlier in the day, Dr. Keyes appeared on the Sean Hannity radio program and made similar remarks. He said, "The federal courts are trampling upon the Constitution--and they have asserted an absolute dominion to dictate to the people of the states what shall be their ways and limits for reverencing God."
Stressed Keyes, "This was exactly what the Founders explicitly, repeatedly, said they wanted to keep the federal government from being able to do in any way whatsoever. People say there's a long line of precedents with all these court decisions. It's not a long line of precedents, it's a long line of abuses--tending in one direction to establish a judicial despotism and destroy the liberty of the people in their state government to acknowledge and reverence God Almighty."
Dr. Keyes followed up by challenging like-minded Americans to join him and Judge Moore in Alabama:
"For people who profess a concern about our moral heritage, a belief in the Declaration of Independence, and in the relevance and importance of acknowledging our Creator, from Whom we get our rights--if these people are sitting on their hands now, and not coming to Montgomery, then they must not understand the critical nature of this issue."
Judge Moore, himself, also appeared on the radio show moments before Dr. Keyes and repeated his assertion that he has a sworn duty "to acknowledge God" as the basis of Alabama and American law.
Judge Moore's press conference
The show led off with Judge Moore's press conference, in which the judge said he "was very disappointed with my colleagues on the court, who have decided to . . . remove the monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building."
Judge Moore promised "very soon" to file a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court, "to resolve clearly our unalienable right to acknowledge God, under the First Amendment," as a state.
He then observed, "Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God as well"--and he said, "I have been ordered to do something I cannot do, and that is violate my conscience. . . . Enough is enough."
The state's position
Alabama Governor Bob Riley praised the Alabama Supreme Court for "uphold[ing] the rule of law"--as he termed Judge Thompson's ruling--but the governor said he supported Judge Moore's plan to appeal the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. He cited the state's financial circumstances as a reason for immediately complying, to avoid Judge Thompson's fine of $5,000 for each day the monument remained.
Later, on Hannity & Colmes, Keyes noted that "the governor and even the president and everybody else is sworn to uphold and preserve, protect, and defend" the constitutions of Alabama and of the United States. He added that if a state official "simply surrenders to the dictates of a federal judge, on a matter where there is no clarity of federal jurisdiction, he surrenders the sovereignty of his people."
[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 08-25-2003] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Mon Aug 25, 2003 10:19 pm
|
|
|
.^. |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:57 pm
|
|
|
Roy Moore?
"It's not about a monument!
It's not about Religion! It's about the acknowlegment of the almighty God!"- Roy Moore
(shouting to his supporters)
Yesterday Roy Moore made that statement.
From CNN:
>Attorney General Bill Pryor said Thursday he would refuse to help Moore violate the court order,...<
National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hillyer062303.asp
"..a southerner of strong faith, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor.."
(Which side of yer mouth is the cheers for the crazy judge comin' from. Huh?)
CNN again:
>Meanwhile, attorneys suing to remove the monument filed a complaint Thursday with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission accusing Moore of violating judicial ethics by refusing to obey a court order.
Supporters cheered Moore's claim that a federal court doesn't have the legal authority to make a state judge remove the monument.
<
>THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article. VI.
(paragraph 2)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.<
"Moore's claim that a federal court doesn't have the legal authority to make a state judge remove the monument" is clearly wrong, and in direct violation of the US Constitution.
> And in an article for the Summer 2002 Alabama Law Review, Pryor" (Wrote)" "the States' Rights view of federalism has been discredited," and that it "was fatally flawed by its misunderstanding of the supremacy clause."< (quoted above)
Neil Lewis in the New York Times, that Pryor "has gained prominence .... as an advocate for a greater Christian influence in government."
His comment that: "..It's not about Religion! It's about the acknowlegment of the almighty God!"- Roy Moore
Is clearly self contradictory and further proof that Roy Moore is unfit for office.
Recent developments: http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200308/NAT20030821b.html
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1329
>Pryor offered this statement regarding Chief Justice Moore's refusal to remove the Ten Commandments: "Although I believe the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and that they can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the U. S. Supreme Court building, I will not violate nor assist any person in the violation of this injunction. As Attorney General, I have a duty to obey all orders of courts, even when I disagree with those orders."<
|
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Tue Aug 26, 2003 2:37 pm
|
|
|
I'll admit he's getting a little "preachy"...but it does not offend me...now those religious people that killed their autistic child during a pray to remove the demons offends me...
the issue alan keyes spelt out quite clear $#@#!....
care to address how we have been fooled all these years about the meaning of the first amendment ?
 |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:32 pm
|
|
|
more clarity of intent....
In 1905, a dozen years before the Bolshevik Revolution that enslaved Russia, the revolution's chief architect,Vladimir Lenin, wrote in Nozvaya Zhizn that "Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church."
"Religion [must] be declared wholly and absolutely a private affair," he continued.
Lenin then added, "Our programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook [and] our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism [as well as] the publication of appropriate scientific literature."
Three years later, American philosopher and educator John Dewey--who later publicly applauded Lenin's violent overthrow of the Russian czar--wrote in Characters and Events that America's "school's best serve the cause of religion in serving the cause of social unification."
Dewey went on to say that a chief function of the schools was to supplant conventional religion with "the spiritual import of science and democracy," which he called "a fuller and deeper religion."
gettin' clearer ? |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Wed Aug 27, 2003 5:20 am
|
|
|
dr. keyes from the world net daily exclusive article...
snip :
Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner. The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
" Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.
BAM !
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34270 |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:16 pm
|
|
|
UPDATE- Montgomery Alabama 9:28 AM
The Monument has been moved from the Rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court Building!
---------------------------------
Are neo-cons minds really totally unable to comprehend such a simple concept as
Freedom from other peoples religion = freedom to follow your own religion?
quote:
Originally posted by theseeker:
dr. keyes from the world net daily exclusive article...
snip :
Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner. The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
" Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.
There he goes again...showing total Ignorance of the US Constitution!
Judges' authority extends specifically to "all cases"
and Judges, not Congress interpret the Constitution, and rule what Federal Law is or is not.
[B]THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article. III.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; --
Religion is mentioned but once in the US Constitution!
An exclusion, separating religion from government:
"No Religious Test"... "ever"... "to any Office or Public Trust..."
Article. VI.
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[b/]
An oblique reference is also in the Preamble to the Constitution:
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States,
in Order to ....[b] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"No Religious Test"... "ever"... "to any Office or Public Trust..."
Public funded offices of the supreme Court of Alabama apply a religious test,
every time a non-"Christian" walks in
and finds no reference to any religion other than "Conservatives' "christian" principles" & monuments.
Exclusive of any other religious beliefs.
That is "an establishment" of one religion as being exclusive to that Court & to the State.
As has been decided by Federal Judges,
in hearing a suit by Alabamians whose "free exercise of" their own non-"christian" religion*:
Without Freedom FROM being forced to follow a religion we do not believe in;
there is no Freedom OF Religion!
*Specifically to not have "christianity" forced down their unwilling throats by government power!
The 1st Amendment also guarantees "christians" cannot legally be forced to kneel on rugs and pray facing Mecca, or be forced to burn incense in a Buddhist shrine.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by shatoga on 08-27-2003] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 11:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
