This one?

[PainTrain]

Please tell me your thoughts on this assertion:

Last thing, what I find odd about Moore's assertion that the government must acknowledge that the law/ US legal system is based on Christine dogma (10 commandments) is that pretty much means every law made since the inception of our legal system was made with respect to religion. You can see where I'm going with this. 1st amendment stipulates (and we've all heard it by now) that "congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Well, if by Moore's logic the entire us legal system drafted by congress (since the inception of our country) is based upon Christian law, and is therefore made with respect to the establishment of one particular religion, that activates the 14th amendment: "no state shall make or ENFORCE any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of Citizens of the United States. That pretty much takes away the 10th amendment away as an argument on behalf of Moore's duty to acknowledge Christian Law/God in court.

Another interesting point, more from the 14th: "No person shall be a senator Representative in congress, or elector of President or Vice President, or hold any office, civil, or militarily, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or Judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." So if by the logic above, Mr. Moore's refusal to comply with the dictates of a higher court and the urging of others to support his defiance (freedom of speech or not, sounds like rebellion to me, if not outright insurrection) he pretty much precludes himself from ever holding any other office in the US government again. Lots at stake here folks.

 

[Tab]

Alot of religions dont believe in killing people you know Anyway I see your point.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Baby steps, man...

You don't want to make the herd too flustered all at once. Give a little and let it sink in... new ideas or anything that counters the establishment will get ripped apart with wild assumptions and little logic.

Happy posting...

 

[rickn]

what I don't understand, if judge moore is so steadfast in his convictions, why didn't he put out the punishments. if he wants to keep people out of his courtroom, let them adulterers know they DIE.

 

[LunarRay]

Keep in mind one thing that is very important in law... The US is a Republic. The people of the States of this Republic have laws that they themselves enact and Judges and reps etc. The States are limited by the Articles in the Constitution and the Federal Government is limited in the BofR. There are no further amendments that over ride the 1st and 10th regarding religion. (As I read it and argue it). One might argue that Kansas could not make a law that said "All elementary public schools must say a prayer before class" But, where is Kansas precluded from doing this in the document (US Constitution)? It very well may be contained in the Kansas Constitution but, assume it is silent on the issue. The USSC has interpreted the Constitution in various ways on various subjects. I disagree with their interpretation if it precluded Kansas from enacting the aforementioned law if the people of Kansas wanted to enact it.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

I sort of see it differently. 1st ammendment again says that "congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By using the term "congress" I can easily see that clause applying to both federal and state levels, especially within the context of the 14th ammendment. From the 14th: "no state shall make or ENFORCE any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of Citizens of the United States." If federal congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, then so shall the states, including Alabama of course. Mr. Moore is insisting he's upholding the law and in truth he's doing anything but, regardless of what the Alabama constitution says (and I cetainly don't claim be en expert in it) it cannot override the fact that law based upon religion cannot be enforced, even after it's been unconstitutionally made (with respect to moore's asssertion that the law is based upon christianity.)

 

[LunarRay]

14th Amendment

annotations to the 14th Amendment

Johnny,
The First 10 Amendments are limitations on the Federal Government not the States. The Articles and some of the subsequent amendments limit the States. So in the first, Congress and only congress is limited.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In the context of the Moore case, equal protection cannot be garaunteed because the man openly admits he holds the laws of his god superior to the law of our land. I can't accept the notion that the 1st ammendments regard to religion was NOT intended to prevent persecution based upon regious beliefs. I use the term persecution intentionally based on it's definition according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: "The act or practice of persecuting on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs that differ from those of the persecutor. " When a man is more than willing to make his judgements on the basis of anything other than US law (Christian law,) that creates a great potential for unlawful bias towards those of his faith, or against those who aren't. Again, back to the exerpt above from the 14th. This is very pertinent to the monument itself because it implies the bias exists through it's prominant display on a place of legal arbitration. Judge moore not just proves the bias exists but personifies it. If Moore didn't insist upon asserting that US law was based up on Chrstine law by putting that monument there as a testement to that assertion instead of prosteletizing in a Christian house of worship (or even on a street corner, just not the darn supreme court), there wouldn't be a need to debate the constitutionality this situation.

 

[LunarRay]

Moore the person should be ousted from the court for what you refer to. I don't argue that. The monument itself is the issue. I just don't read the 14th nor the annotations to preclude the monument from being there. There is an 'equal' issue perhaps. (14th)
I am simply trying to do a few things. One) Establish that the Constitution was developed with a great deal of argument over strong central government issues (Hamilton said 'England has the best government ever created - he wanted a 'royal' executive) The Bill of Rights was mostly derived from the Virginia Bill of Rights as was the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Two) The States wanted to limit the power and Madison settled on the B of R but, proposed 12 of them. It was intended to Limit the Central Government and that which was not explicit was to be vested in the States (they settled on the wording of the 10th)
Which to me means; (excluding 11 through 27 for now) That if Alabama's Constitution permitted the establishment of a State Religion it could and not be in contradiction with the US Constitution.
Having opined that we get to the next and only other possible amendment that limits Alabama's State Religion and that is the 14th. The 14th has been held to mean everything that can be to any extent held. So you'd be right to argue it. I, on the other hand, argue a more strict construction of the 14th and argue it does not preclude Alabama from establishing a State Religion. I'd be laughed out of court but, like all states rights folks, I believe in the powers of the States and wish to restrict the Central Government. For instance: Montana can support Roe v Wade but, Nevada may not.. So folks move to Montana and live there if they want to.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

I certainly concur that states should hod sovergnty over law that is not madated and applicable to all US citizens, but by no extent of the imagination would I extend state sovergnty to matters of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to peaceably assemble, or the ability to petition the Government for redress of grievence. In fact, there isn't much within the BofR that I wouldn't consider inalliable to any US citizen and I think you'd agree the law reflects this. Now as for what's not spelled out in the BofR, or most importantly the 1st ammendment, that's up to the states to decide whether or not to apply the remaining ammendments to their own constitutions. But state religion? Hot sh!t man, them's fightin' werds

 

[LunarRay]

Yeah, I know..
My central theme is that the USSR had a extremely strong central government and the US of Europe have a very weak one... we tend toward the strong and that becomes Orwells "1984" or could. Could you imagine a KGB type entity that spent its time gathering information on citizens and using it to control them, making 'black lists and all.. I think the further toward the center the power exists the further away from me it is. I want the power closer, much closer. And if the citizens of California wished to enact a constitutional amendment making 'grass' the state religion so be it. Who cares what Rhode Island does. The US of Europe is not unlike the states either. England has its laws and way of life and France does as well. If an English citizen wishes he can zip over to France for awhile and enjoy.

There are issues that we all hold dear. We'd not give them up to the states but it is us California folks who should hold the power over that not the Federal Government. The Federal Government is made up of state folks all seeking power and you know what power does. I want it closer so I can fire em and have it mean something..