rambling rants and ravings from me to no one

[Hunt 11]

If you read the circuit court opinion (here's another place you can find it: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre70103opn.pdf), it's obvious that this was not even a close case. Moore's own words torpedoed the only possible argument he had to defend his action (that the monument had a secular purpose). It's only Moore's self-promotion that has made people think there is something shocking about this case. Moore clearly knew he would lose in the federal courts--this was strictly a political act on his part. And it may take him to the Senate, so who's the victim?

[mk9750 11]

I applaud what Judge Moore did. I think it was a tremendous effort at making a point that is important to him, and one I agree with. and regardless of how modern judges have interpretted the Constitution, he did no violate the Establishment Clasue, in my opinion.

 

BUT - Placing the monument where he did was not within his right, whether it was of a religious nature, a pornographic nature, or a political nature. And his "bosses" ordered him to take it down. He refused. Probably knowing what the consequences would be. But refusing to obey your bosses is usually grounds for dismissal. They have the right to do so. I admire him for taking the stand, and for accepting the consequences he had to know were coming. But he no right to place the monument and expect it to stay.

 

Mark

[evmori 11]

mk9750,

I agree completely especially the part about not violating the Establishment clause.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter 1389]

What about his right to free speech & freedom of religion as defined under the 1st Ammendment? Wasn't that violated?

 

No, it wasn't. A judge does not own the courthouse in which he presides. He was not acting as an individual. He was acting in the capacity of the head of the branch of government that controlled the building in which he worked. In that capacity, he had to comply with the rules and laws governing his authority. He decided to place a religious symbol in the building, for a religious purpose. As others have pointed out, he said so himself. He was trying to promote his belief in God. A government entity cannot promote a particular belief in God. The courts say that violates the Establishment Clause.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Driving to Memphis last night (Thursday Nov 13th) from Poplar Bluff Missouri, I heard a lot about this. One talk show host commented that the monument was not just the Ten Commandments, but also had the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The goal of the monument was to show where the ideas of distinctly American founding docments were based. Would like to know if anyone knows if this is true.

 

I heard an argument against the monument. Lets say a plaintiff, or defendant has an issue before the Alabama Supreme Court and the person is Shinto, Buddist, Hindu, etc. Walking into a building where justice is supposed to be blind, and having a reference to only three religions (Islam get thrown in as a tangent) but not his, can he expect a fair judgement?

 

I am not saying this is a good argument, but I thought it would serve as future further fodder(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[evmori 11]

Where in the 1st Ammendment does it say a person has to be acting as an individual? And if he doesn't own the building, how can he control it? And because he was the chief justice, the 1st Ammendment doesn't apply to him regarding his freedom to express his religion & his freedom of speech?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver 116]

Ed,

 

Moore has freedom of speech and exercised it......and like the Dixie Chicks, he found that it sometimes comes with a big price tag.

[Proud Eagle 13]

I think you all missed my central point about Moore. He took an Oath to uphold the constitution of the state of Alabama. He never took an oath to follow the federal court or to follow the US Constitution. If you held Moore's position on the role of God in laws of Alabama(which seems to be backed by parts of the Alabama constitution), how could you uphold your Oath and follow the court order? I don't think it would be possible. Perhaps the federal court should consider reviewing the Alabama Constitution to see if it is Constitutional.

 

Also, who has control of the state judicial building that the monument was placed in? If control over decorations and the like is given to the chief justice he would have been within his right to at least attempt to place anything he wanted within the building.

 

I should also note that the creation of this monument and its installation was carried out using private funding. No public funds were in any way used. It did sit in a public building. That is all.

 

The monument did contain other documents. Its stated purpose was to inform visitors to the court of the role of religion in our legal tradition.

 

I think that Judge Moore would have been prudent to follow the federal court order. Though he would have made a liar of himself if he did. I think if I was in his position with his beliefs I would have done exactly the same thing. (Though I might have been smart enough not to place a 5000 lb monument in the Rotunda.)

 

We must also remember that Judge Moore was elected by the people to his position. He was well known for the display of the ten commandmants in his other court houses and it was a large part of what got him elected. He was then removed by a special court on ethics violations.

 

To state that the attorney general was against him is only partially correct. The attorney general's Oath required that he take action against Moore, weather he agreed or not. Pryor made it clear early on that he thought Moore should have been able to keep his monument in place. Only after the federal court ruled did Pryor have to take on Moore in order to uphold his oath of office.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that the Judeo-Christian heritage of this nation is critically important to an understanding of the basis of our system of government. If one were to look at our system of government from a Hindu or Druid historical/social/legal/philisophical perspective it would lead to very different conclusions about how the laws originated, why they exist, and what they mean.

 

 

The question of the commandments alienating someone is interesting. I ask this- If you know that the Judge held those positions would it really matter if he used 5000 lbs of stone to express them? Or what if you knew the Judge was a former abortion doctor, could he make a fair decision about abortion rights? Perhaps if the Judge displayed a monument celebrating Greek and or Roman philosophy those of from cultures that don't share in the Western philosophical heritage would feel they might be unfairly treated.

[Twocubdad 665]

Moore's claim that he was upholding the Alabama Constitution is tenuous at best. I don't know what the case law says, the Article I, Section 3 reads:

 

Religious freedom.

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

 

That seems to me to be much stronger and more specific than even the Establishment Clause, but I'm sure some of you won't see it that way.

 

So let's take religion out of the equation. What if Moore place a three-ton advertisement for his brother-in-law's barbecue joint in the lobby of the Supreme Court building? What right does he have to use a public facility for any personal purpose?

 

Ed you really never commented on the reason behind Moore's removal from office. Do you disagree with the decision to remove him from office? Do you think it's okay to ignore a lawful court order? What if Moore refused to enforce Federal court decision in the Dale v. BSA case?

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

ProudEagle said:

 

I think you all missed my central point about Moore. He took an Oath to uphold the constitution of the state of Alabama. He never took an oath to follow the federal court or to follow the US Constitution.

 

That is incorrect. I am fairly sure that in every state, the oath of office for state officials includes a pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Whether it is actually true in every state or not, it is definitely true in Alabama. Here is Article XVI of the Alabama Constitution:

 

All members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

 

"I, , solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God."

 

Additionally, Judge Moore's position on the meaning of the references to God in the Alabama Constitution was considered and rejected by the federal courts.

 

ProudEagle also says:

 

Also, who has control of the state judicial building that the monument was placed in? If control over decorations and the like is given to the chief justice he would have been within his right to at least attempt to place anything he wanted within the building.

 

As I pointed out earlier, his exercise of the powers of his office would always be subject to the Constitutions of the United States and of Alabama. (And if the two constitutions are in conflict, guess which one wins? But I do not think there is any conflict that is relevant to this case.)

 

I should also note that the creation of this monument and its installation was carried out using private funding. No public funds were in any way used. It did sit in a public building. That is all.

 

That may be all, but that is enough. The problem was the placement of a religious monument in a public building. Who paid for it was irrelevant.

 

We must also remember that Judge Moore was elected by the people to his position. He was well known for the display of the ten commandmants in his other court houses and it was a large part of what got him elected.

 

Also irrelevant, because he had to abide by the constitution and orders of federal courts, and in some cases state courts. (And by the way, at some point the remainder of the Alabama Supreme Court countermanded Judge Moore's order regarding the placement of the monument. These were eight justices also elected by the people of Alabama.) What if someone were elected president, on a platform that anyone who criticizes the government should be imprisoned? It would not matter how many people voted for him, if Congress passed such a law and the president signed it, its enforcement would be enjoined by every court up to the Supreme Court, and would never go into effect. The Constitution of the United States is, according to itself, the supreme law of the land. It is bigger than any government official or agency, including a chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

 

Only after the federal court ruled did Pryor have to take on Moore in order to uphold his oath of office.

 

That's correct, because the ethics case against Judge Moore was not about the Ten Commandments -- that issue had already been decided. The case was about a state court judge who repeatedly defied the orders of a federal court. Attorney General Pryor, despite his agreement with Judge Moore on the Ten Commandments issue, did his job and prosecuted that judge.

 

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Proud Eagle,

 

The US constitution and federal courts supercede state constitutions and state courts.

[NWScouter 9]

Until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution in 1868 the right in the Constitution only applied to action of the Federal Governments. That is why in some states there was a established religion until the 1820s. The amendment banning slavery (13th) would not have been enforceable on the states without it.

As was pointed out that the Alabama and many other state constitutions have stronger wording concerning separation of Church and state. The writers of these constitution were concerned with establishing a strong separation of church and state.

What I think is more interesting is the reaction of supporters of the monument. It comes to idol worship. It just a hunk of granite, that should never have been put there. If the removal of it shakes their faith and following of Ten Commandments, they need to exam themselves. If they believe that by placing it there they were promoting the observing of the Ten Commandments, which is specifically Christian and Jewish. They stand convicted by their own words of promoting a specific faith(s) by using public space and funds. I know it wasnt paid for by the state but the upkeep of the area is paid by the state.

I dont need the state to uphold me and encourage me in my faith.

 

[evmori 11]

Twocubdad,

I don't disagree he should be removed from office. He violated a court order.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"The US constitution and federal courts supercede state constitutions and state courts."

 

Only in the tiny brains of those who don't understand that the states, by definition, are sovereign states. Unfortunately, back in the 1800's, a lunatic named Lincoln thought that the Federal government should be supreme and murdered 10s of thousands of men to prove his point. Now, the Federal Government runs wild, trampling the rights of states and individuals.

[gsmom 10]

Actually, it wasn't Lincoln that came up with the idea. It was the Founding Fathers:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html