Alabama Supreme Court

[Ramo]

It's pretty simple. Thanks to a nifty thing called the due process clause of the 14th and subsequent interpretation, the Bill of Rights applies to states. In particular, the establishment clause applies to every state in the union. Thus, the judge's actions, promoting an establishment of religion (namely, Judaism and all of its offshoots) are unconstitutional. Period.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's pretty simple. Thanks to a nifty thing called the due process clause of the 14th and subsequent interpretation, the Bill of Rights applies to states. In particular, the establishment clause applies to every state in the union. Thus, the judge's actions, promoting an establishment of religion (namely, Judaism and all of its offshoots) are unconstitutional. Period.

[Berzerker]

Boris -

No, that's not what he said:

First, how do you know? Jefferson did describe himself as a "primitive Christian" and quoting something else he said doesn't prove otherwise. Where did he claim to be a "deist"?

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference of all others"

Seems quite clear to me, Jefferson called himself a Christian. Thanks...saved me having to look for a quote...

In other words: Not a metaphysical belief in Christianity, but a philosophical belief in what Jesus taught. That's why he removed all the supernatural occurances from his bible. He categorically did NOT ascribe to the belief that Jesus was divine:

Which is why he called himself a "primitive" Christian. He was making a distinction between his brand of Christianity and the brand that does believe in all the miracles, etc...

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Yup, and this refutes his own description of his beliefs?

Ramo - How does this stone "establish" religion? "Promoting" religion is not prohibited by the 1st Amendment, "establishing" religion, i.e., "Congress shall make no law" is. If Congress, and by extension of the 14th Amendment, the states, "make no law", then there is no establishment of religion. There was no law made by any state legislature, and no law requiring anyone to affirm religious beliefs they reject. The main body of the Constitution provides us clues about the meaning of "establishing" religion when it prohibits religious tests for federal office, i.e., requiring people by law to affirm religious beliefs they don't share - that's what is meant by the establishment of religion. In the same vain, the oath of office was amended to allow for those who don't believe in oaths to still hold office - again, an out for those who don't want to affirm beliefs they don't share. If you were right, then even the oath they did have - placing one's hand on the Bible and so help me God - would have violated the establishment clause.

I used to agree with you guys, but I can't ignore the fact that even the first Congress and G Washington did all sorts of things to promote religion.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The Berz game...

Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG -

What state employee was directed by Moore to bring the stone in?

You could probably find additonal names in the court records. Or do you suppose that Judge Moore was the only state employee there, and that he personally oversaw the entire process from beginning to end?
In any event, Judge Moore is employed by the state of Alabama, I do believe.

What state employee was directed to place the stone?

That would be the Building Manager of the Alabama Judicial Building and/or some of his subordinates. Whether they personally perform the job themselves, or oversee and direct contractors who do the work is irrelevant, as the orders come from state officials in connection with their duties as such.

Where is this ruling by the other justices where they say the monument must be removed because a state employee was asked to help place the monument and why did they wait so long - ~ 2 years?

Of course it doesn't exist - I never described it as such, so the question is whether you're having that reading problem again, just "liberally construing" parts of what I've said out of order, or just setting up a plain ol' strawman. Or is that wheatman over there in Kansas?

What the justices did do is invoke their statutory authority to countermand the administrative decision of Judge Moore directing that District Court's Writ of Injunction be disregarded.

Why did the legal proceedings over removing the stone begin with a lawsuit filed by others when according to you, the other justices wanted it removed because he used state employees?

I never said that. What I said was that Judge Moore's administrative actions as the senior officer of the Alabama judiciary do have the force of law with respect to those employees of the judiciary, therefor your argument that no "law" was passed is wrong.

The stone was carved and placed by private contractors several hours after the day's business.

So private contractors are free to enter state buildings and do whatever they want on their own initiative after hours. You're really getting desperate here. So if the state hires "private contractors" to make sure the darkies ride in the back of the bus and don't swim in white people's public pools, that's A-OK under your interpretation of the Constitution, because it's "private contractors" not the government, that's doing the acting?

BTW, before we waste any more time wandering down the road of how government officials directing private contractors to do something is private, and not governmental action, the findings of the other eight justices of the court put that whole notion to rest: "On August 1, 2001, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, without prior notice to the Court, installed and unveiled a monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building."

While ignoring my refutation of most of your arguments (yeah I know, you couldn't be bothered and I'm sure it's all my fault),

What refutation? The "ignore actual court decisions on the question of what constitutes a 'law' because only Berzerker can correctly interpret the Constitution, and what Berzerker, not the actual courts, says is true, because in Berzerker's opinion, all the courts charged with interpreting the Constitution ignore it" spiel.

And should I mention that little bit about how it's only budgets, not all legislative enactments, that must originate in the House of Representatives? (Why do you think there are "Senate Bills" and "Senate Resolutions" and joint conferences? )

you decided to pick that bit out - poor choice.

You mean the one that the other eight Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court cited - that Judge Moore, as the Chief Justice, was responsible for the initial installation?

You're making stuff up and insults won't cover your tracks...

"One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small..."

[Ramo]

How does this stone "establish" religion?

I never said the stone established religion. It did respect an establishment of religion, however. Which is prohibited from the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

"Promoting" religion is not prohibited by the 1st Amendment

Yes it is. Congress shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion.

If Congress, and by extension of the 14th Amendment, the states, "make no law", then there is no establishment of religion.

The first Amendment doesn't specifically refer to restricting Congress from establishing a religion, but from respecting an establishment of religion (and the former falls under the latter).

There was no law made by any state legislature,

That's a silly semantics argument. By this insane logic, it'd be ok for the courts to automatically prevent libertarian speech in a trial because the right to free speech is preceded by "Congress shall make no law."

and no law requiring anyone to affirm religious beliefs they reject.

Irrelevent as this is covered by the freedom of religion clause, not the establishment clause.

The main body of the Constitution provides us clues about the meaning of "establishing" religion when it prohibits religious tests for federal office, i.e., requiring people by law to affirm religious beliefs they don't share - that's what is meant by the establishment of religion.

No. That is clearly prohibited by the freedom of religion clause. If the establishment clause referred to restrictions on freedom of religion (which doesn't make any sense), that would make it redundant.

In the same vain, the oath of office was amended to allow for those who don't believe in oaths to still hold office - again, an out for those who don't want to affirm beliefs they don't share. If you were right, then even the oath they did have - placing one's hand on the Bible and so help me God - would have violated the establishment clause.

I used to agree with you guys, but I can't ignore the fact that even the first Congress and G Washington did all sorts of things to promote religion.

The founders had a more limited sense of secularism than we do today (hell, the first Congresses funded religious missions), just as they had a more limited sense of freedoms in general than we do today. And the court infrastructure to prevent the usurpation of the Billl of Rights didn't exist until Marbury and even then it was a pale shadow of what it is today, thus unconstitutional acts weren't taken to task back in the day.

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You could probably find additonal names in the court records. Or do you suppose that Judge Moore was the only state employee there, and that he personally oversaw the entire process from beginning to end?
In any event, Judge Moore is employed by the state of Alabama, I do believe.

Now now, he doesn't count. You said he didn't have authority over state employees and the other 8 justices over ruled him on that basis.

That would be the Building Manager of the Alabama Judicial Building and/or some of his subordinates. Whether they personally perform the job themselves, or oversee and direct contractors who do the work is irrelevant, as the orders come from state officials in connection with their duties as such.

So, did the other 8 justices rule against him on that basis? A janitor may have been there but we have no proof Moore called in state employees to do his bidding (now I'm making stuff up ).

Of course it doesn't exist - I never described it as such, so the question is whether you're having that reading problem again, just "liberally construing" parts of what I've said out of order, or just setting up a plain ol' strawman. Or is that wheatman over there in Kansas?

Hmm...let's see:

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

Sounds like you were saying the other 8 justices over ruled him based on his alleged use of state employees for which he lacks the authority.

What the justices did do is invoke their statutory authority to countermand the administrative decision of Judge Moore directing that District Court's Writ of Injunction be disregarded.

That I can accept, but they waited 2 years and they waited for a federal judge's decision to remove the monument. If they really had the authority and wanted to exercise it, they wouldn't have let the stone sit for 2 years, a lawsuit, and a federal judge's intervention.

I never said that. What I said was that Judge Moore's administrative actions as the senior officer of the Alabama judiciary do have the force of law with respect to those employees of the judiciary, therefor your argument that no "law" was passed is wrong.

So who was required to obey this "law"? In order to have the "force of law", people must be subject to punishment for disobedience.

So private contractors are free to enter state buildings and do whatever they want on their own initiative after hours. You're really getting desperate here.

He invited them in. Did the 8 justices say he couldn't? Did anyone else with greater authority say he couldn't?

So if the state hires "private contractors" to make sure the darkies ride in the back of the bus and don't swim in white people's public pools, that's A-OK under your interpretation of the Constitution, because it's "private contractors" not the government, that's doing the acting?

That would be the "force of law", remember? You're mixing apples and oranges now...

BTW, before we waste any more time wandering down the road of how government officials directing private contractors to do something is private, and not governmental action, the findings of the other eight justices of the court put that whole notion to rest: "On August 1, 2001, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, without prior notice to the Court, installed and unveiled a monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building."

And? Did they tell him to remove it then or did they let it sit for 2 years until a federal judge told the state to remove it? Quite telling...

What refutation?

Go back and comprehend it.

The "ignore actual court decisions on the question of what constitutes a 'law' because only Berzerker can correctly interpret the Constitution, and what Berzerker, not the actual courts, says is true, because in Berzerker's opinion, all the courts charged with interpreting the Constitution ignore it" spiel.

Yeah, that was it You still haven't addressed my rebuttal.

And should I mention that little bit about how it's only budgets, not all legislative enactments, that must originate in the House of Representatives? (Why do you think there are "Senate Bills" and "Senate Resolutions" and joint conferences? )

Budgets are legislation. Bills are legislation. Resolutions I believe are expressions of sentiment without the force of law (resolved, we the Senate are angry with France) and joint
conferences are attempts by the House and Senate to come to terms on legislation. You're citing different forms of legislation given different names to distinguish between said forms.

You mean the one that the other eight Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court cited - that Judge Moore, as the Chief Justice, was responsible for the initial installation?

They stated a fact, and? Not
that he wasn't authorised to direct state employees to help with the installation (assuming he did of course).

"One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small..."

The lunatic is on the grass...the lunatic is on the grass...

de-thump...de-thump...de-thump...dethump...de-thump

There is no dark side of the moon...really...it's all dark...

[Dom Pedro II]

I wish I could say that the Supreme Court has made this issue very clear, but unfortunately, it has not.

In recent years, the court has made it a very blurred and confusing matter. Especially because of Scalia who seems to say: Ok, I'll vote this way if it's my god, and that way if it's yours. Not completely... he HAS surprised me on a few occasions. After having read through many of the cases and discussing it at length in my Civil Liberties class, I've come to the conclusion that the Constitution is his napkin.

Personally, I am in favor of allowing on a local level the most basic and secular of Judeo-Christian symbols. This matter of the Ten Commandments is going a little far though. A Christmas tree in the front hall is a bit more acceptable. I have Hindu friends who celebrate Christmas with a tree and all that. It's got about as much to do with Christ as the wrapping paper. Anyway, I do not, however, encourage that even the Christmas tree be put up. Only that it be tolerated.

And yes, the Constitution has a religious tone, but let's also keep in mind that when it was written the fact that everyone believed in a God of one variety or another was almost taken for granted. And also... the "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance was NOT in their originally. It was added in after World War II. And with regards to the currency saying "In God We Trust"... just because they set that precedence doesn't make it correct. I think that should be removed as well. Not that it's a pressing matter and must be done immediately, but I just think they should cease putting it on their plates.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

I never said the stone established religion. It did respect an establishment of religion, however. Which is prohibited from the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. No law was made, not by Congress, not by the Alabama state legislature, and not by Judge Moore...

Yes it is. Congress shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion.

Where in the 1st Amendment do you see the words "Congress shall do nothing to promote religion"? Congress has always done things to promote religion without making laws.

The first Amendment doesn't specifically refer to restricting Congress from establishing a religion, but from respecting an establishment of religion (and the former falls under the latter).

You're ignoring the words "Shall make no law" - that is the key to what does or does not "establish" religion. If there is no law, there can't be any establishment of religion.

That's a silly semantics argument. By this insane logic, it'd be ok for the courts to automatically prevent libertarian speech in a trial because the right to free speech is preceded by "Congress shall make no law."

It isn't semantics, "shall make no law" precedes "respecting an establishment of religion". Clearly the latter cannot be accomplished without the former. The free speech clause has nothing to do with court proceedings during a trial.

Irrelevent as this is covered by the freedom of religion clause, not the establishment clause.

Do religious tests - legislation - violate the establishment clause? Of course.

No. That is clearly prohibited by the freedom of religion clause. If the establishment clause referred to restrictions on freedom of religion (which doesn't make any sense), that would make it redundant.

It was meant to be redundant to re-enforce religious freedom. If Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion, then someone's religious beliefs would be violated - the two are joined by logic and by the wording of the 1st Amendment.

The founders had a more limited sense of secularism than we do today (hell, the first Congresses funded religious missions), just as they had a more limited sense of freedoms in general than we do today. And the court infrastructure to prevent the usurpation of the Billl of Rights didn't exist until Marbury and even then it was a pale shadow of what it is today, thus unconstitutional acts weren't taken to task back in the day.

True, but that has nothing to do with the meaning of the establishment clause as envisioned by the Framers.

"Congress shall make no law" is the threshhold for what does or does not "establish" religion... If no law was passed, there can be no establishment of religion.

Oh well, that's all for tonite, gotta wake up soon for a round of golf

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, the other 8 associate justices of the state ordered the thing roped off and covered from view. At least they have some common sense.

I hope by "the thing" you are referring to the Chief Justice.

[Sikander]

Re: Re: Re: Alabama Supreme Court

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

If Bloomberg were to go an set up an altar to Baal on the steps of City Hall, I don't think that would be appropriate or legal either.

Well, it might be appropriate....

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The truth is that a Court is a highly appropriate place for the 10 Commandments. Maybe if more people learned the 10 Commandments, this country might be a better place.

Why don't you give live in Iran.

No seperation of church and state there.

[Dom Pedro II]

I hope by "the thing" you are referring to the Chief Justice.

[Sikander]

Re: Re: Alabama Supreme Court

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I'm a tree hugger. Kinda drawing from the African Bushman, I apologize to the tree for the carnage I intend to inflict on it, and ask it to provide me with good wood for my purposes.

That sounds like my pre-sex ritual!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The diplomat


No. But the 10 Commandments can serve to remind people the difference between right from wrong, that you should love your neighbor, not covet their things, not murder, not steal, not commit adultery etc...

If more people were reminded of these things, life might be a little bit better, don't you think?

Yea, I can't tell you what a help it would be to be reminded "Thou Shalt Not Kill" throughout the day. I'm sure I would really cut down on my murdering.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Now now, he doesn't count. You said he didn't have authority over state employees and the other 8 justices over ruled him on that basis.

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)

He is the senior court officer of the state, and in addition to those duties, he has at least titular charge over the court building and grounds, and the people that do the grunt work of maintaining and running it.

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

While the appeals were pending, the injunction was stayed. When the 11th CCA sided with the District Court, it lifted the stay on the injunction, and when Judge Moore applied to SCOTUS, he didn't request an additional stay from the 11th CCA, he just went straight to the Circuit Justice and filed that way. When he got denied, he issued another administrative declaration that the the injunction was to be disregarded. That's what the other 8 justices overruled. I never said they acted because he gave orders to state employees.

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.

So, did the other 8 justices rule against him on that basis? A janitor may have been there but we have no proof Moore called in state employees to do his bidding (now I'm making stuff up ).

Hmm...let's see:

Sounds like you were saying the other 8 justices over ruled him based on his alleged use of state employees for which he lacks the authority.

"Yeah, the "chunk of stone" just walked itself into the ****ing building all on it's own, and Moore had nothing to do with that.

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.

If you look at the preceding sentence, the use of smilies before and after in the original, and your quote to which I was responding, you can see that the context was clearly sarcastic.

That I can accept, but they waited 2 years and they waited for a federal judge's decision to remove the monument. If they really had the authority and wanted to exercise it, they wouldn't have let the stone sit for 2 years, a lawsuit, and a federal judge's intervention.

While the lawsuit and appeals were pending, they took no action, which is entirely proper as long as they were in compliance with the court orders in effect at the time. When Judge Moore decided he would ignore orders in effect, by his public pronoucement and administrative directive to disregard the injunction, they met to countermand his administrative directive and order the appropriate employees to comply with the injuntion from the District Court, which is now in full effect as all appeals on the removal have been exhausted and the stay removed.

So who was required to obey this "law"? In order to have the "force of law", people must be subject to punishment for disobedience.

The relevant state employees - the building staff and the court staff.

He invited them in. Did the 8 justices say he couldn't?

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

Did anyone else with greater authority say he couldn't?

Not counting illegal or unconstitutional actions there is noone else with "greater authority" - Judge Moore is the senior court officer of the Alabama judiciary, which is an independent branch of the state government.

That would be the "force of law", remember? You're mixing apples and oranges now...

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

And? Did they tell him to remove it then or did they let it sit for 2 years until a federal judge told the state to remove it? Quite telling...

Yes, it is quite telling that they knew and followed standard legal procedure in not changing the status quo during the pendancy of the litigation and it's appeals, and only acting to countermand Judge Moore when he made official his intent to defy the valid order of the District Court.

Go back and comprehend it.

Yeah, that was it You still haven't addressed my rebuttal.

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.

Budgets are legislation. Bills are legislation. Resolutions I believe are expressions of sentiment without the force of law (resolved, we the Senate are angry with France) and joint
conferences are attempts by the House and Senate to come to terms on legislation. You're citing different forms of legislation given different names to distinguish between said forms.

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.

They stated a fact, and? Not
that he wasn't authorised to direct state employees to help with the installation (assuming he did of course).

Again, you're apparently confusing my sarcastic post with all the dismissive smilies as if I meant it literally.

The lunatic is on the grass...the lunatic is on the grass...

de-thump...de-thump...de-thump...dethump...de-thump

There is
no dark side of the moon...really...it's all dark...