Carpet bomb Alabama please.

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Millennium
gopunk- You still seem to miss the fact THAT THE FEDS HAVE NO JURISDICTION! This is SOLEY a state matter in a state building. Why do you keep thinking the supposed ruling of the USSC apply here? They don't! Just wait until Bush puts some moderates and conservatives back on the court. You will start to see a reversal in the advocacy and opinion of the court on state's rights. They will go back to the original concepts of states policing themselves and having control over INTERNAL issues.

The feds have no jurisdiction to come into Alabama and say we can't have a monument in our court house. Please show me one law or case that gives the Feds the right to take jurisdiction outside the bounds of the constitution?

like it or not, issues of state and religion are considered to fall under constitutional law. therefore, the federal court system DOES have jursidiction. your judge clearly recognizes this, since he is taking this to the supreme court.

you make a big deal over this all being internal... that doesn't mean a thing. it can be internal and still easily be a constitutional issue. school segregation was an internal issue as well...

I disagree. A picture on the wall or a Monument has no bearing on any Legal proceedures, it is just a building and a building that is owned and operated in a State. This is clearly the Federal level dictating over the rights of a State that is why I asked specifically above if this was a Federal or State building.

Alabama can put Howdy Doody on the walls and the Feds have no say in it, period.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674I disagree. A picture on the wall or a Monument has no bearing on any Legal proceedures, it is just a building and a building that is owned and operated in a State. This is clearly the Federal level dictating over the rights of a State that is why I asked specifically above if this was a Federal or State building.

Alabama can put Howdy Doody on the walls and the Feds have no say in it, period.

Howdy Doody isn't religion. It is all about the balance of power. Seperation of church and state. This is clearly the Federal level making sure the most basic setup of our government holds true.

 

[thatsright]

Well I really admire that Willey E Chief Justice for his blind conviction, as he just won't back down. Of course he's burning a lot of political bridges as this goes on, and embarrassing many around him.

Having said that, I am a firm believer in the strict separation of church and state in all its forms. So put those tablets back on yer pick up truck there Mr Chief Justice and take them back to Mt. Arat.

And a bit of this hubris is just non-Southern elitism thinking 'them redneck hicks are CRAZY!'

'This is Control Tower EAST: Permission to Take off on Runway 32 L granted. Winds at 12 knots, clear skies. Celling to 50,000 feet. Get them Slack Jawed Yokels. Over'

 

[cain]

whats that noise i hear in the sky? oh, B-52s flying formation toward alabama. yes yes. separation of church and state dudes. i cant believe this is about a judge in our judicial system. oh my god. that is wack.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Millennium
gopunk- You still seem to miss the fact THAT THE FEDS HAVE NO JURISDICTION! This is SOLEY a state matter in a state building. Why do you keep thinking the supposed ruling of the USSC apply here? They don't! Just wait until Bush puts some moderates and conservatives back on the court. You will start to see a reversal in the advocacy and opinion of the court on state's rights. They will go back to the original concepts of states policing themselves and having control over INTERNAL issues.

The feds have no jurisdiction to come into Alabama and say we can't have a monument in our court house. Please show me one law or case that gives the Feds the right to take jurisdiction outside the bounds of the constitution?

like it or not, issues of state and religion are considered to fall under constitutional law. therefore, the federal court system DOES have jursidiction. your judge clearly recognizes this, since he is taking this to the supreme court.

you make a big deal over this all being internal... that doesn't mean a thing. it can be internal and still easily be a constitutional issue. school segregation was an internal issue as well...

I disagree. A picture on the wall or a Monument has no bearing on any Legal proceedures, it is just a building and a building that is owned and operated in a State. This is clearly the Federal level dictating over the rights of a State that is why I asked specifically above if this was a Federal or State building.

Alabama can put Howdy Doody on the walls and the Feds have no say in it, period.

that's because nobody is challenging the constitutionality of howdy doody on the walls. read my other posts... aclu filed it as a constitutional challenge which puts it under federal jurisdiction. contrary to popular belief, alabama is not special, and does not get to supercede the federal government in this matter.

 

[XCLAN]

Ok I read half of this thread and realized it isnt going anywhere....
There are many many fools in this thread...so many stupid statements.....
And I just added another.

 

[cain]

states rights vs. federal power was settled a long time ago. read the constitution, one of the articles said something like Congress [Federal gov't] has implied powers to do what is best for the country. this clause made it clear that federal government has more power. besides, when it comes to the judicial system, the supreme court rules. state courts are nothing. if moore doesnt like it, he can take it up to the supreme court and have his ass burned.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Millennium


...this is not establishing a religion. It is simply giving lip service to one.

Let's think about what you just said for second.

Hmmm...

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Reon
states rights vs. federal power was settled a long time ago. read the constitution, one of the articles said something like Congress [Federal gov't] has implied powers to do what is best for the country. this clause made it clear that federal government has more power. besides, when it comes to the judicial system, the supreme court rules. state courts are nothing. if moore doesnt like it, he can take it up to the supreme court and have his ass burned.

actually he is trying to do that, but they won't take it

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Reon
states rights vs. federal power was settled a long time ago. read the constitution, one of the articles said something like Congress [Federal gov't] has implied powers to do what is best for the country. this clause made it clear that federal government has more power. besides, when it comes to the judicial system, the supreme court rules. state courts are nothing. if moore doesnt like it, he can take it up to the supreme court and have his ass burned.

No they aren't settled. Gopunk and I have been debating the idea of whether or not the first amendment is applicable in this case. I say it isn't and he says it is. The USSC will decide and not us but so far they haven't decided to review the case.

 

[dmcowen674]

The Judge was just taken off the bench.

Edit: Here is the front page News link Ala. Judge Roy Moore Suspended Over Ten Commandments Monument

 

[Caanon]

Originally the bill of rights was a limit on federal power....example: "congress shall make no law..." in the 1st amendment. Since the constitution was written supreme court rulings have applied most of the bill of rights to the states, something like 7 or 8/10, all the important ones. Basic idea being if the Feds can't do so and so to you, why should the state be able to(obviously was more complicated than that)

The simple effect of this is that the 1st amendment for example basically applies to all government entities....federal, state, local. It doesn't apply to private parties/companies though which is why someone like anandtech mods can ban people or whatever, and it's really funny when people then complain about the 1st amendment as a reason that shouldn't happen.

Anyway...summary: 1st amendment applies to the states, not just congress...meaning states can't establish or promote religion which is how this case was brought about.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Reon
states rights vs. federal power was settled a long time ago. read the constitution, one of the articles said something like Congress [Federal gov't] has implied powers to do what is best for the country. this clause made it clear that federal government has more power. besides, when it comes to the judicial system, the supreme court rules. state courts are nothing. if moore doesnt like it, he can take it up to the supreme court and have his ass burned.

No they aren't settled. Gopunk and I have been debating the idea of whether or not the first amendment is applicable in this case. I say it isn't and he says it is. The USSC will decide and not us but so far they haven't decided to review the case.

well, originally it was that i said the federal courts have jurisdiction and you said they didn't. that is a different issue than whether or not the first amendment is applicable.

the ussc is not necessarily going to decide, but a decision has already been made by a lower court, so if the ussc does not do anything, then the first ruling made by thompson holds.

 

[chowderhead]

I will gladly support the monument when God comes down from heaven and gives his verbal ok. If fact I will gladly move it anywhere God wants as long as he tells everyone where he wants it.

 

[Bantam]

Let me quote from the Federal Constitution, concerning the Federal government, and in this case, the Federal congress:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion




That's all it says folks. If you're lookin for 'seperation of church and state', you won't find it here.

But you will find it in two other places:

1) A letter by Thomas Jefferson (who wasn't even a Christian himself!) to a Baptist church, saying there should be a one-way wall between religion and state so that State doesn't influence religion, but religion can freely influence state.

2) The old Russion "constitution"


And of course, Article 1, Section 1, says that ALL LAWMAKING POWERS are given only to Congress. Thus, the Supreme Court cannot make laws regarding anything, whether it be that States can't have laws against abortion, or that you can't have the ten greatest Laws in a courthouse.

Additionally, the 9th and 10th ammendment say that the federal government can't do anything that it doesn't have specific power to do. There is no specific power to overrule state laws. Period. This is Moore's point, the federal judge that made the order to get rid of the monument had no authority whatsoever.

Finally, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, whatever their human downfalls or more questionable quotes (am I saying that imperfect people can actually do good? Gee golly, ya think?) had clear intentions. If you don't think what they said had any meaning, take heed from this quote:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed. - Thomas Jefferson:


And here is exactly the spirit manifested:

We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death. - Patrick Henry

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here. - Patrick Henry, again


Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. - John Jay; first Supreme Court Justice

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. -James Madison (Father of the Constitution)

It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. - George Washington, Farewell Address.






Roy Moore is a hero, and what's happening to him is usurpation by the Federal government. Instead of going off on a religious debate, try refuting the facts that are clearly stated:

Where does the Constitution say that states cannot have an established religion, let alone a vague Judeo-Christian reference in a state courthouse?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

religion has no purpose in the courtroom. It doesn't belong there. Keep your religious sculptures and monuments where they belong, in the church.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Reon
states rights vs. federal power was settled a long time ago. read the constitution, one of the articles said something like Congress [Federal gov't] has implied powers to do what is best for the country. this clause made it clear that federal government has more power. besides, when it comes to the judicial system, the supreme court rules. state courts are nothing. if moore doesnt like it, he can take it up to the supreme court and have his ass burned.

No they aren't settled. Gopunk and I have been debating the idea of whether or not the first amendment is applicable in this case. I say it isn't and he says it is. The USSC will decide and not us but so far they haven't decided to review the case.

well, originally it was that i said the federal courts have jurisdiction and you said they didn't. that is a different issue than whether or not the first amendment is applicable.

the ussc is not necessarily going to decide, but a decision has already been made by a lower court, so if the ussc does not do anything, then the first ruling made by thompson holds.

Well they don't have jurisdiction to TELL a state court to remove a monument. They do have jurisdiction to hear the complaint filed by the ACLU. Big difference.

 

[Bantam]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
religion has no purpose in the courtroom. It doesn't belong there. Keep your religious sculptures and monuments where they belong, in the church.

Oh, man! That's a blockbuster argument, complete with sources and logic! No opinion at all, just fact!

 

[StageLeft]

I've heard good arguments either way, although generally I'm opposed to that monument. I certainly won't say it offends me though.

That aside I believe that the chief justice should have resigned the second he defied the law. I understand him defying a court order and almost commend him on standing up for his beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that all credibility is lost for a chief justice if even he can't follow court orders. Plus, his quote about how certain key changes in history have occured from those defying judges definitely does not lend one faith in the importance of following his judgements.

 

[MovingTarget]

This thread makes me sick! I'm tired of reading people's posts bashing Alabama without having any real knowledge of what it is really like to have lived in this state for any considerable amount of time.

Anyway, the monument issue has been blown out of proportion. The feds have much bigger fish to fry than this. Also, the monument was put on state property, property owned by the people of our state. Judge Roy Moore, an Alabamian, put it there. He should be accountable to us since it was put on our property. If it was a federal property, then yes, i could see why they got involved. What we put in our state buildings is our concern, not the feds. Yes, federal intervention is necessary sometimes, and most Alabamians believe this. Anyone remember the segregation/civil rights fiasco of the 60's? That was one such time when it was, among many others. But the fact is, most of us do not see the monument as one of those occasions. This issue is a minor one, at best. It is a decoration in a courtroom, for crying out loud. It is not put there as a law, nor actually used in trial proceedings as such. If Alabamians want it removed, then it should be. Period. If it offends anyone in another state, then thats their business. They arent Alabamians and its not their courtroom. They should have no say in it since its our property. There also exists a number of people in this state who are against this monument. I welcome them to share their opinion/feelings on the issue in this debate. I would be happy to hear them. But to everyone else, please, let us deal with this.

Btw, I'm not exactly a supporter of Judge Moore, but he is our problem. He is a bit of a fanatic in my opinion, which bothers me. I know i'm gonna get flamed because people will think I'm some sort of redneck/secessionist/bible freak/racist/whatever, which isnt the case. Those are stereotypes, which are the exception, not the rule down here.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Reon
states rights vs. federal power was settled a long time ago. read the constitution, one of the articles said something like Congress [Federal gov't] has implied powers to do what is best for the country. this clause made it clear that federal government has more power. besides, when it comes to the judicial system, the supreme court rules. state courts are nothing. if moore doesnt like it, he can take it up to the supreme court and have his ass burned.

No they aren't settled. Gopunk and I have been debating the idea of whether or not the first amendment is applicable in this case. I say it isn't and he says it is. The USSC will decide and not us but so far they haven't decided to review the case.

well, originally it was that i said the federal courts have jurisdiction and you said they didn't. that is a different issue than whether or not the first amendment is applicable.

the ussc is not necessarily going to decide, but a decision has already been made by a lower court, so if the ussc does not do anything, then the first ruling made by thompson holds.

Well they don't have jurisdiction to TELL a state court to remove a monument. They do have jurisdiction to hear the complaint filed by the ACLU. Big difference.

yes they do, if they find that the state court is in violation of the constitution, they can tell the state court to do whatever is necessary to correct. it would not make sense for them to have jurisdiction to hear the complaint but not make a decision, and that is not the case.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
This thread makes me sick! I'm tired of reading people's posts bashing Alabama without having any real knowledge of what it is really like to have lived in this state for any considerable amount of time.

Anyway, the monument issue has been blown out of proportion. The feds have much bigger fish to fry than this. Also, the monument was put on state property, property owned by the people of our state. Judge Roy Moore, an Alabamian, put it there. He should be accountable to us since it was put on our property. If it was a federal property, then yes, i could see why they got involved. What we put in our state buildings is our concern, not the feds. Yes, federal intervention is necessary sometimes, and most Alabamians believe this. Anyone remember the segregation/civil rights fiasco of the 60's? That was one such time when it was, among many others. But the fact is, most of us do not see the monument as one of those occasions. This issue is a minor one, at best. It is a decoration in a courtroom, for crying out loud. It is not put there as a law, nor actually used in trial proceedings as such. If Alabamians want it removed, then it should be. Period. If it offends anyone in another state, then thats their business. They arent Alabamians and its not their courtroom. They should have no say in it since its our property. There also exists a number of people in this state who are against this monument. I welcome them to share their opinion/feelings on the issue in this debate. I would be happy to hear them. But to everyone else, please, let us deal with this.

Btw, I'm not exactly a supporter of Judge Moore, but he is our problem. He is a bit of a fanatic in my opinion, which bothers me. I know i'm gonna get flamed because people will think I'm some sort of redneck/secessionist/bible freak/racist/whatever, which isnt the case. Those are stereotypes, which are the exception, not the rule down here.

i see your viewpoint, but the way our country is designed, if something is found to violate the constitution, it doesn't matter where that thing is, or whether a lot of people like it, or whatever. it must go. this is simply the way our legal system works... the constitution trumps everything.

 

[gopunk]

And of course, Article 1, Section 1, says that ALL LAWMAKING POWERS are given only to Congress. Thus, the Supreme Court cannot make laws regarding anything, whether it be that States can't have laws against abortion, or that you can't have the ten greatest Laws in a courthouse.

the supreme court can not make a law saying that states can't have laws against abortion, but it can easily have a ruling that interprets the constitution as prohibiting that. that is exactly what it does, it has never made a law, and no one is asking it to.

Additionally, the 9th and 10th ammendment say that the federal government can't do anything that it doesn't have specific power to do. There is no specific power to overrule state laws. Period. This is Moore's point, the federal judge that made the order to get rid of the monument had no authority whatsoever.

no there is a specific power to overrule state laws, and i'll post it here:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

the federal courts have the final say in terms of interpretation of the constitution, therefore if they find that a state law is unconstitutional, they can force the state to get rid of it. you have an extremely selective vision in this matter.

and as for all your quotes, i could produce quotes that support separation of church and state, but suffice it to say, the supreme court has repeatedly upheld the notion of separation of church and state... good luck getting that repealed who should i trust when it comes to interpretation of the constitution... the supreme court, or you? hmm.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
This thread makes me sick! I'm tired of reading people's posts bashing Alabama without having any real knowledge of what it is really like to have lived in this state for any considerable amount of time.

Anyway, the monument issue has been blown out of proportion. The feds have much bigger fish to fry than this. Also, the monument was put on state property, property owned by the people of our state. Judge Roy Moore, an Alabamian, put it there. He should be accountable to us since it was put on our property. If it was a federal property, then yes, i could see why they got involved. What we put in our state buildings is our concern, not the feds. Yes, federal intervention is necessary sometimes, and most Alabamians believe this. Anyone remember the segregation/civil rights fiasco of the 60's? That was one such time when it was, among many others. But the fact is, most of us do not see the monument as one of those occasions. This issue is a minor one, at best. It is a decoration in a courtroom, for crying out loud. It is not put there as a law, nor actually used in trial proceedings as such. If Alabamians want it removed, then it should be. Period. If it offends anyone in another state, then thats their business. They arent Alabamians and its not their courtroom. They should have no say in it since its our property. There also exists a number of people in this state who are against this monument. I welcome them to share their opinion/feelings on the issue in this debate. I would be happy to hear them. But to everyone else, please, let us deal with this.

Btw, I'm not exactly a supporter of Judge Moore, but he is our problem. He is a bit of a fanatic in my opinion, which bothers me. I know i'm gonna get flamed because people will think I'm some sort of redneck/secessionist/bible freak/racist/whatever, which isnt the case. Those are stereotypes, which are the exception, not the rule down here.

i see your viewpoint, but the way our country is designed, if something is found to violate the constitution, it doesn't matter where that thing is, or whether a lot of people like it, or whatever. it must go. this is simply the way our legal system works... the constitution trumps everything.

I see yours too. If the Supreme Court hears the case, it will be removed. The Justice system should be left to do its job regarding the constitution. I'm just tired of people in other states getting all up in arms over this issue, when most of them have never even lived here. It shouldnt be their concern because it doesnt effect them. Anyway, like you say, the monument's days are numbered any way you look at it.

 

[alocurto]

Poop on all religon.