Alabama Supreme Court

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Wow, my TrollGuard just lit up like a friggin' xmas tree! WTF?

Summer cross-burning sessions must be winding down.

That's strange mine just did the same.

[mindseye]

This just in ...

Judge Suspended for Defying Court on Ten Commandments
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

MONTGOMERY, Ala., Aug. 22 — Chief Justice Roy Moore was suspended from the bench today for defying a federal court order to remove a 5,280-pound Ten Commandments monument he had installed in the Alabama Supreme Court building.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/national/23JUDG.html

[Ned]

Man, the radical left really plays hardball, don't they? What's happening in Alabama could cause tremedous national ramifications.

No man is above the law, true. But what the hate mongers are doing is wrong.

[rev]

What are you saying, Ned? Should federal judicial orders and the like not be enforced?

Moore walked right into this one -- you can't blame anyone except him for his suspension from the bench. It's not as if some left-wing blogger started a write-in petition and flooded the judges with demands to remove Moore.

[mindseye]

Man, the radical left really plays hardball,

Ned, perhaps you are not aware that most of the eight associate justices are Republicans.

[Ned]

The hatemongers are the people who filed the ethics complaint in the first place against the CJ. I am willing to bet that these folks are not Republicans. The anti-religious hate mongers are leftists, on the whole. They are implementing their Marxist, godless utopia.

Still, I agree there is no doubt that our federal system breaks down if the state courts do not obey the orders of federal courts. In the modern era, Eisenhower used US troops to enforce court orders in Arkansas. I simply agree with the CJ that the display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the 1st Amendment.

[mindseye]

They are implementing their Marixt, godless utopia.

Let us exterminate them.

We shall never, ever allow a utopia here.

[Ned]

mindseye, I personally am an agnostic. But I grew up Catholic. I feel the assault of the radical left on religion has gotten way out of hand.

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Where did I say that, and with what words? (hint: I didn't, except in a blatantly sarcastic post directed toward an argument of yours)

I never said they acted because he gave orders to state employees.

I've quoted you twice now, here it is again:

He doesn't run the building as the senior officer of the court, he has no authority over state employees, that's why the other eight justices of the Alabama Supreme Court entered an order specifically overriding his previous directives.

While I seriously doubt he has no authority over the employees working at the courthouse, you say this was preceded by sarcasm and that somehow means you didn't really mean the quoted section above was to be taken seriously? Yes, it was preceded by a sarcastic comment but what I've been quoting is not sarcasm, it's your explanation as to why the other justices over ruled him. If you didn't mean that as the justification used by the 8 justices, fine, I agree.

There, when he gives an administrative directive to court staff, they are normally obligated by law to follow that directive.

But you haven't provided any evidence he directed state employees to install the monument. Furthermore, from what I've heard from the people who brought the lawsuit (and you), he could have put this monument in his office, e.g., and not violate the establishment clause - it's the location of the monument that determines whether or not it violates the 1st Amendment.

You asked what law had been passed, and I pointed out that administrative orders of state officials have the force of law. How you got from there to where you got is beyond me.

But you haven't shown this "law" was enacted by Moore. And the 1st Amendent says "Congress shall make no law" clearly referencing the legislative branch, therefore, administrative acts by judges who are not legislators dealing with employees is not what was meant by the 1st Amendment. What could have happened if an employee said "no" when instructed to install the monument? He might have been fired, but not punished as in the context of being punished for violating a law - there is no force of law behind such a directive.

As they noted in their recent order, he didn't bother to tell them, they found out after the fact.

Yes, and they did nothing for 2 years. But what you quoted from the other justices contained no reference to them overturning his directive because he instructed state employees in violation of his authority. You say they waited for the pending lawsuit and appeals, but they would have seen it long before any suit was filed much less appeals. So if these 8 justices had the authority to over rule Moore's "administrative action" and wanted to exercise that authority, they could have even if no suit was ever filed. But they didn't want to over rule him, the federal judge's intervention is why they acted.

But if it's private contractors acting at the "invitation" of a government official, where's the force of law?

That was my point, you haven't shown a law was made, therefore no establishment was legislated (even if we accept your proposition that an administrative action = legislation, a proposition I reject since legislatures make laws, not judges).

Go to your local law library and look up "law" in the book series "Words and Phrases." You'll find hundreds of citations as to how the term "law" has been defined in US practice. You could also check Lexis/Nexis, Cornell or Harvard's sites, or there's probably a bunch of others. I'd dig out my Black's 6th Ed., but it's in my office, so if you insist, you're gonna have to wait about ten hours.

I know there all sorts of euphemisms for "law", the point is a "law" must have the force of law behind it and budgets, bills, etc, are all legislation, just with different modifiers to distinguish between which kind of laws are being made. A budget is the legislation dealing with the government's operating funds and a bill is a more specific piece of legislation, but they are both still legislation.

I'm pointing out that except for budgets, legislative acts may be initiated by either house of Congress, contrary to what you said. And that still doesn't extend to other forms of law.

The first sentence of Art 1 Sect 7 reads: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills". I don't see any provision in the Constitution authorising the Senate to initiate legislation of any kind. Now, I know that isn't the way it works today so I'd have to research when the Senate began initiating legislation. If it began 200 years ago, then my interpretation would seem invalid. But I suspect the Senate and the House agreed somewhere along the line to allow either body to initiate legislation. I'm not even sure the Senate does initiate legislation, to save time what typically happens is members of both bodies agree legislation is needed and go off to their respective bodies and begin ironing out the details ending with a joint conference.

[Buck Birdseed]

But surely following an ethical code like the ten commandments without critical review means you don't actually have a morality, per se?

How can you have morality without reason?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lincoln
There is a big storm here so I have to go. I must leave you all with a quote from John Locke in his letter of toleration 1689:

Of course John Locke had no influence on the founding of the United States did he???

Not as much as Thomas Paine- why not quote him?

'Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.'

Age of Reason, Part First, Section 3

[....]
The Christian Mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were obliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is then introduced into the Garden of Eden, in the shape of a snake or a serpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with Eve, who is no way surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of this tete-a-tete is that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind.

After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the Church Mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the pit; or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon him (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain), or have put him under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women and doing more mischief. But instead of this they leave him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole- the secret of which is, that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian Mythology?

Having thus made an insurrection and a battle in Heaven, in which none of the combatants could be either killed or wounded -- put Satan into the pit -- let him out again -- giving him a triumph over the whole creation -- damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, these Christian Mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and Man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing had eaten an apple.

Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is.

In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan, a power equally as great, if not greater than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterward to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.

Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating, by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.

Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross, in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd -- less contradictory. But instead of this, they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.

That many good men have believed this strange fable, and lived very good lives under that belief (for credulity is not a crime), is what I have no doubt of. In the first place, they were educated to believe it, and they would have believed anything else in the same manner. There are also many who have been so enthusiastically enraptured by what they conceived to be the infinite love of God to man, in making a sacrifice of himself, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and deterred them from examining into the absurdity and profaneness of the story. The more unnatural anything is, the more it is capable of becoming the object of dismal admiration.'

'The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,

THOMAS PAINE

Luxembourg, 8th Pluviose, Second Year of the French Republic, one and indivisible.

January 27, O. S. 1794.'

[Lincoln]

Of course the great influence of Tom Paine was largely the result of his book; Common Sense. It was written in 1776, quite a few years before he refined his beliefs (or perhaps he hid his true beliefs to appeal to the Christians he was trying to influence) when he wrote The Age of Reason several years later. Anyway, here is an exerpt of his reasoning to the people on why they should rebel against England:

...AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said. Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall sent thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchial government is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of king-craft, as priest-craft in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.

As you can see the appeal was made according to scripture and a common belief in God. The government was later formed with that consideration in mind.

[civman2000]

I only read teh first 8 pages or so so this may not be completely ontopic anymore:

The word "law" in the 1st Amendment refers to congressional legislation as the words "Congress shall make no law" indicates, not "administrative" actions that have no force of law on others.

Since the 1960s or maybe earlier SCOTUS has held that the due process clause of the 14th amendment generalizes "Congress" to any government body. This argument has had no legal value since then.

[Imran Siddiqui]

so I'd have to research when the Senate began initiating legislation

Um... since the beginning?

They've actually initiated legislation on financial matters once or twice when the House was dragging its feet on something.

After all, it won't really matter... because who will have any standing to challenge it? If the House disagrees, it can just refuse to pass a similar bill... if it agrees then it can pass the bill. No person will be able to challenge it.

--

Anyway, glad they slapped this idiot down. He believed in it so much that he took this stone carving and moved it in the dead of night. Sorry, bub, but the Commandments in front of a courthouse is obviously unconstitutional.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lincoln


As you can see the appeal was made according to scripture and a common belief in God. The government was later formed with that consideration in mind.

He's using an example from a book- in much the same way that framers of the constitution could cite references from authors as diverse as Polybius, Cicero, Demosthenes and Plutarch, without the assumption being that the men agreed with the religious beliefs of those authors.

Moreover, because of the nationality of the emigrants to the colonies, he cites a reference they would be familiar with- an English translation of the Bible. Not much point using Fortune Barthelemy de Felice's 'Code de L'Humanite' if your audience won't be swayed by French and are unfamiliar with the work in question.

The god of Thomas Paine and the god of his audience are not necessarily one and the same- you're making a leap of faith. Even Stalin could quote scripture.