Alabama Supreme Court

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Moore was elected by the people of Alabama. He made no secret about his views on the 10 Commandments. If he meant the monument as a religious icon, then his constituents wanted it so. We live in a democracy, doesn't the will of the people count?

In this respect, no, specially since he was elected by the people of Alabama to enforec the law, which is exactly what he is NOT doing. If anything, by doing all of this he is breaking the pledge he made to the people of Alabama. Shame on this man, abusing the trust of the people for his own gains. Thankfully 8 other Alabama Supreme Court judges realize what they are in office for.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Moore was elected by the people of Alabama. He made no secret about his views on the 10 Commandments. If he meant the monument as a religious icon, then his constituents wanted it so. We live in a democracy, doesn't the will of the people count?

No, it doesn't count. The will of the people in this case is in violation of the Constitution, and that is illegal. How hard is this to understand?

I suppose you'd be okay if a majority of people in a state wanted to feed Christians to the lions? You'll note that the Constitution is designed to protect the minority from such majority tyranny.

You clearly have no understanding of the Bill of Rights whatsoever.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Asher
It's quite civil.

So much for your exempt list.

I haven't done anything yet, have I?

[Odin]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Moore was elected by the people of Alabama. He made no secret about his views on the 10 Commandments. If he meant the monument as a religious icon, then his constituents wanted it so. We live in a democracy, doesn't the will of the people count?

Hitler was elected by the people of Germany democratically, your point?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Odin
Hitler was elected by the people of Germany democratically, your point?

Bad example, though, since the Nazis never got majority support from the electorate.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, it doesn't count. The will of the people in this case is in violation of the Constitution, and that is illegal. How hard is this to understand?

No it is not in violation of the US Consitution!

I suppose you'd be okay if a majority of people in a state wanted to feed Christians to the lions

Of course, not. You are being preposterous as usual.

You'll note that the Constitution is designed to protect the minority from such majority tyranny.

It is also designed to protect the majority from a tyranny of the minority as we are seeing here.

You clearly have no understanding of the Bill of Rights whatsoever.

I sure have a better understanding that you ever will.

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

So apparently it's optional for employees of the state supreme court to pay attention to directives of the chief justice as the administrative head of the state judiciary, because his directives have no force of law? Ok, then, problem solved.

What directives? First you call this stone an "administrative action" and then jump to a description of court procedures - it's a stone. Did he tell everyone working there they had to stop by the monument and read it before entering the building because that is his law or "administrative action"? Where is the force of law in his action? Of course they have the option - the option to ignore the stone and the option to stop by and read it from time to time. You seem to be equating this stone with court procedures and that equation doesn't exist.

So let's see, for your argument, "law" is to be construed as narrowly as possible, and only apply Establishment Clause restrictions to one branch of the Federal government, (oh and let's not forget the Fourteenth Amendment's application to the states here), but now an administrative order to erect a prominent monument in a public area of a state government building, made by a senior official in connection executing his official duties is to be equated to any abstract "mention" of God by any politician?

First, the Constitution says all legislation begins in the House, then proceeds to the Senate, and then the President for his signature, veto, or inaction, so obviously if all legislation begins in the House, only one branch of the federal government matters...hence "Congress shall make no law". Second, applying the 14th Amendment to the 1st merely extends "Congress shall make no law" to "State legislatures shall make no law". No one made any law here...Third, sure, if he cannot have this monument on public property because of the establishment clause, then why should any member of Congress be allowed to enter public property and mention God or their religious beliefs? Should religious symbols be removed from Arlington?

Sorry, I'm not playing those kind of definition games all night.

You mean like calling a chunk of stone an "administrative action" game?

Maybe Ming or somebody's up for MP civ. Maybe if Congress calls it an "act" instead of a law, they can join the other two branches of government in immunity from the Establishment Clause?

If the "act" has the force of law, then it's a law. Even the Patriot Act is legislation and no one in Congress says otherwise.

Historical monuments in parks do not have the same impact as an announced intention to make "acknowledging God" a part of the mission of the highest judicial court in a given jurisdiction.

Strange, the Alabama Constitution acknowledges God and the Declaration of Independence announces the clear intention that government exists to secure the inalienable rights granted us by our Creator - certainly a "divine" mission for government. But calling all those other monuments with religious sentiments "historical" is sophistry, they weren't "historical" when first placed on public property. So what changed to make them constitutional and not this monument?

If there was a public park or mall outside the court building, and Judge Moore wanted his monument there, I'd have no problem with it. Hell, if he wanted it exactly where it is, but took the position that it relates to legal history and foundation, rather than proclaiming that he's going to make acknowledging God (as he interprets God) part of the mission of the Alabama Supreme Court, then the intent behind the action is squarely in violation of the Establishment Clause.

So his motive makes it unconstitutional? I thought it was his "administrative action"?

[GePap]

Moore did what he did in his role as an Officer of the Court, not as a private citizen. Just like a soldier in the service of the US does NOT have all the rights of a normal citizen in order to insure they provide the best service possible to the state, Officials of the Court are limited in what they can do, being members and agents of the state, becuase the state is to be impartial and equal to all citizens.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Strange, the Alabama Constitution acknowledges God and the Declaration of Independence announces the clear intention that government exists to secure the inalienable rights granted us by our Creator - certainly a "divine" mission for government. But calling all those other monuments with religious sentiments "historical" is sophistry, they weren't "historical" when first placed on public property. So what changed to make them constitutional and not this monument?

Read my statement on Jefferson before you blabber some more.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
No it is not in violation of the US Consitution!

YES IT IS. You're once again WILLFULLY IGNORING facts, in that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to display the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. The SCOTUS specifically ruled on this in 1980.

Moore is also acting illegally by refusing to obey the orders of the other state justices and the Federal judge.

Of course, not. You are being preposterous as usual.

How is it a flawed analogy? It also entails a majority deciding to partake in an illegal and unconstitutional act. If you don't like that, I'd recommend stop being such a hypocrite.

It is also designed to protect the majority from a tyranny of the minority as we are seeing here.

Except that the "majority" here (and this is actually a dubious claim) is advocating something that the Constitution prohibits, as has been shown to you time and time again, but you continue to ignore. Intellectual dishonesty = lying = a sin.

I sure have a better understanding that you ever will.

Proof is in the pudding. You've not demonstrated the slightest bit of understanding, as your ludicrous attempt to use the 10th Ammendment shows.

[Berzerker]

Gepap, then why are all the other monuments with religious sentiments all over the country constitutional? They were placed by government officials too...

[The diplomat]

People keep bringing up te Establishment Clause but the 1st Amendment also says, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

If the people of Alabama want the 10 Commandments displayed, then removing them is a clear violation of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" because it prevents them from exercising their religion as they see fit!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
People keep bringing up te Establishment Clause but the 1st Amendment also says, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

If the people of Alabama want the 10 Commandments displayed, then removing them is a clear violation of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" because it prevents them from exercising their religion as they see fit!

For the upteenth time, people do not have a right to freely exercise their religion on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, any moreso than you have a right to go and plant a cross inside a Mosque.

This is no different than if I just waltzed into a state courthouse and put up an altar to Baal in its rotunda. Are you saying I should be allowed to do that, since stopping me would violate my 1st Ammendment rights? Patently absurd.

And show me a precept of Judeo-Christianity that requires the Ten Commandments be displayed prominently in a public building as a term of faith.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gepap, then why are all the other monuments with religious sentiments all over the country constitutional? They were placed by government officials too...

They got grandfathered in from a time ago. And state officails no longer go aorund claiming how they are proof of their personal devotion to God. If judges started doing so, the ones near them might as well be taken down.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If the people of Alabama want the 10 Commandments displayed, then removing them is a clear violation of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" because it prevents them from exercising their religion as they see fit!

The people of Alabama did not elect him to put up a monument to the Ten Commandments. they elected him to enforce the law of the land. He has failed them.