Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
- Thread starter Ffactor
- Start date
Well, if the guy himself can send down judgements and I'm sure expect them to be followed, then he should abide by the rules too.
If he'd just said that Yes, I disagree but I have to abide by the judgement - then fine . . . but he did act above the law and so he got what he deserved . . .
It's not like the ten commandments were on HIS LAND - they were in a public place and he put them there KNOWING DAMN WELL about goverment promotion of religion . . . and that big-ass thing is definitely an advertisement.
If he'd just said that Yes, I disagree but I have to abide by the judgement - then fine . . . but he did act above the law and so he got what he deserved . . .
It's not like the ten commandments were on HIS LAND - they were in a public place and he put them there KNOWING DAMN WELL about goverment promotion of religion . . . and that big-ass thing is definitely an advertisement.
justyxxxx said:
You know you make alot of sense in your post but you got to look at it a little deeper. The Bible says we are suppose to follow man's law until it interferes with God's law. I guess he was answering to a higher court than this realm of existence because all this land is God's.
Stangfriik
New member
curling said:
Too bad that supposed higher court has no place in our government or anywhere else for that matter.
I'm glad that bible thumping redneck is gone. Once more of these fanatics are out of government and judicial positions, the better this country will be
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
This guy should be concerned with REAL legal problems. Instead he's on some sort of personal religous crusade and trying to turn the court house into a church. On top of that, he disobeyed a higher court order. Any judge that defiantly ignores a court ruling against him has no business being a judge.
Stangfriik said:
Well since that higher court gave the raw materials to build the stupid court house and gave the brains to the judges (even if they who refuse to utilize them) seems to have some say in the matter. Also the 10 Commandents basically are the reason for most of the laws we have they should be kept in the courthouse.
sh4dowf4lcon
New member
I think they should have left it where it was. It is a Symbol of Right & Wrong. It is not a symbol of stoning people or going to hell. It is a Symbol concerning Right & Wrong & Consequences - IMO.
I think these groups who make a big deal out of things like this are rediculous. How is it a statue affects what goes on inside the court rooms?
It has been removed, so the issue is mute.
I think these groups who make a big deal out of things like this are rediculous. How is it a statue affects what goes on inside the court rooms?
It has been removed, so the issue is mute.
Ffactor said:
What does Jewish have to do with it? The Ten Commandmnets are Jewish too....but again that is kind of irrelvant isn't it?
NoDaddyNo
New member
On the news last night they were interviewing this fat redneck bitch that said she didn't see any reason to recognize any other religion than Christianity since she didn't feel that this country was setup any other way.
Apparently she missed the part about America being started due to a belief in freedom of religion.
Apparently she missed the part about America being started due to a belief in freedom of religion.
NoDaddyNo said:
It's kinda funny she said that, since the ten commandments are Jewish.
sh4dowf4lcon said:
Really? What seems ridiculous is putting the thing in the building without consulting the other justices.
And as far as right and wrong goes, it seems a little wrong for a judge to think he has the ability to disobey the rules but others have to follow them. Go ahead and give me your Right and Wrong philosophy again???
And who is really making a big deal about something? Hell, couldn't he have kept a little piece of paper in his pocket instead of constructing a damn boulder? Now THAT THING is a BIG DEAL.
hellboy
New member
curling said:
Actually you might want to look a little deeper too. Judge Moore is planning on running for either senator or governor of Alabama in the future. This is just a political stunt disguised as a religious issue. Regardless of what side you or anyone else take on it - you can bet that in ALABAMA it will garner him MANY votes.
curling said:
Well, he didn't have to put the thing there in the first place and thus this would've never been an issue. He broke what would be considered by many Man's Law and so he screwed up first . . . and thus it entered the God's Law chapter of the book when he had to remove it.
There are plenty of churches that would love a beautiful boulder in their building.
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
curling said:
HUH! I can only find 3 of the commandments that are actually illegal and one of those isn't really illegal in practice as those laws are usually only applied in divorce court and not criminal court (adultry).
It's perfectly legal to covet your neighbor's wife or ass (or wife's ass for that matter). It's also legal to worship god's other than the christian god.
Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
This thread was about the Ten Commandments. Can you tell me what the Jewishness of the leaders of the ACLU and SPLC have to do with the Ten Commandments issue? Or are you going to duck that question entirely?
You sound like curling....
Ffactor said:
This thread was about the Ten Commandments. Can you tell me what the Jewishness of the leaders of the ACLU and SPLC have to do with the Ten Commandments issue? Or are you going to duck that question entirely?
You sound like curling....
Ffactor
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
This is naother example of the bigger conspiracy devised by the Mossad to destabilize christian and arab countries, pit them against each other and gain control over the world.
Curling, I'm with you you fat ugly redneck!
MattTheSkywalker said:
This is naother example of the bigger conspiracy devised by the Mossad to destabilize christian and arab countries, pit them against each other and gain control over the world.
Curling, I'm with you you fat ugly redneck!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
Do you *really* believe that?
Ffactor said:
Do you *really* believe that?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
If a group as small as mossad can destabilize countries with (collectively) billions of people and trillions of dollars, then how did those people get to be in charge in the first place?
How can such incompetence be allowed to continue to rule?
Ffactor said:
If a group as small as mossad can destabilize countries with (collectively) billions of people and trillions of dollars, then how did those people get to be in charge in the first place?
How can such incompetence be allowed to continue to rule?
NoDaddyNo
New member
Ffactor said:
Exactly - this 10 commandments thing would be an issue if they ruled that they had to take the thing down and replace it with a statue of Shiva or something, but they are just saying to remove it.
Keep the church and the state apart - the individual has the right to worship what they want - the government should be agnostic (in the sense that it should see all religions as unimportant in its operation).
That said, many in the government are very religious - whether they actually are, or whether they choose to show that in order to get the votes of the public that also feels that way ... hard to say.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
Against billions of people? And against trillions of $$?
Give me a break. If 6 million can decimate that, then they should be in charge.
Ffactor said:
Against billions of people? And against trillions of $$?
Give me a break. If 6 million can decimate that, then they should be in charge.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
Because jews have been waging a war on Christianity for quite some time.
Read about it here:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/pope.htm
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/pope2.htm
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/pope3.htm
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/pope4.htm
MattTheSkywalker said:
Because jews have been waging a war on Christianity for quite some time.
Read about it here:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/pope.htm
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/pope2.htm
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/pope3.htm
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/pope4.htm
NoDaddyNo
New member
Ffactor said:
That doesn't represent the state opinion, it just states his own bias.
Legally I think he would be fine - but I personally would rather know that the man that is judging something is doing it based on logic and reason instead of his belief in any religion.
Say religion X universally hates religion Y - if you were part of religion Y and you had to go to court facing a judge of religion X - you would be fucked.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
yeah true - 6M is the US number.
6M - 15M is a statistical irrelevancy against billions of people though.
2Thick said:
yeah true - 6M is the US number.
6M - 15M is a statistical irrelevancy against billions of people though.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
who started it? Hint - who legitimized and changed Christianity away from its jewish roots?
Chaucer said:
who started it? Hint - who legitimized and changed Christianity away from its jewish roots?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
This was an act of insignificance - the idea of Jesus as God arose approx 400AD.
I thought it was when Rome changed the tenets of Christinaty to give it official state sponsorship.
Jews knew the truth and had created a problem. That's the root.
Mithra.
2Thick said:
This was an act of insignificance - the idea of Jesus as God arose approx 400AD.
I thought it was when Rome changed the tenets of Christinaty to give it official state sponsorship.
Jews knew the truth and had created a problem. That's the root.
Mithra.
S
Spartacus
Guest
not mine and you are on the mark with your analysishellboy said:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
That is not an issue here. We are lucky that they are still being practiced today by Christians and jews. I can just observe the behavior and teachings of both groups to ascertain the way things went.
The contrasts are obvious, and the external influence that bastardized Judaism into Chrsitianity are self evident merely based on modern day observations.
The record of Roman paganism, Mithraism, and Judiasm are all well documented. Christianty as we know it today is the product of a belief system designed to unify the Empire.
2Thick said:
That is not an issue here. We are lucky that they are still being practiced today by Christians and jews. I can just observe the behavior and teachings of both groups to ascertain the way things went.
The contrasts are obvious, and the external influence that bastardized Judaism into Chrsitianity are self evident merely based on modern day observations.
The record of Roman paganism, Mithraism, and Judiasm are all well documented. Christianty as we know it today is the product of a belief system designed to unify the Empire.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
You are speaking to a student of history, so do not assume that 3 parchments and several poems prove any documented facts to me. History before the 17thC is at best a guessing game and you should know that.
Catholicism as used to unify disparate peoples under one banner (just like Islam is doing right now).
Intelligent people see patterns in history and differentiate people and ideologies.
Hating or disliking individual people because of the banner they fall under is ignorant. Criticizing ideologies and the people exploiting them for their own good is the only type of extreme prejudice worth having.
MattTheSkywalker said:
You are speaking to a student of history, so do not assume that 3 parchments and several poems prove any documented facts to me. History before the 17thC is at best a guessing game and you should know that.
Catholicism as used to unify disparate peoples under one banner (just like Islam is doing right now).
Intelligent people see patterns in history and differentiate people and ideologies.
Hating or disliking individual people because of the banner they fall under is ignorant. Criticizing ideologies and the people exploiting them for their own good is the only type of extreme prejudice worth having.
Ffactor
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
We are not talking war here, we are talking about infiltrating and controlling those forces in society that have a lot to do wit swaying public opinion. Can be done with far less than 6 million people.
MattTheSkywalker said:
We are not talking war here, we are talking about infiltrating and controlling those forces in society that have a lot to do wit swaying public opinion. Can be done with far less than 6 million people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office!!!
If you're a student of history then you better retake the classes dealing with 100BC - 500AD.
Also better read more carefully - I am not quoting parchments and poems - Jews and Christians can be observed in their modern form and the history becomes evident. Apparently you skipped the classes on both religions too since you are unwilling to discuss the differences in both sides' approach to the Messiah, and how Christianty's version is the Jewish version watered down. [Hint 1: man's repsonsibility vs. God's.] This would give you insight into the Jesus issue.....
Islam unifying? HA! better retake that class too. How is Sunni and Shi'ite unity working out these days?
You don't have a good understanding of the world at the time of Jesus, the history of the Roman empire, especially as it was when Constantine came to power (hint 2: tetrarchy) or of the fundamental principles of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, or of pagan religions of influence at that time.
It;s a waste of my time to discuss this topic with you. For your research, investigate the following:
"Jewish problem"
"Constantine's Sword" (book)
"Pauline church"
St Augustin and his doctrine toward Jews
"Jewish sects at the time of Jesus"
That's 101-level stuff and you don;t reference any of it.
2Thick said:
If you're a student of history then you better retake the classes dealing with 100BC - 500AD.
Also better read more carefully - I am not quoting parchments and poems - Jews and Christians can be observed in their modern form and the history becomes evident. Apparently you skipped the classes on both religions too since you are unwilling to discuss the differences in both sides' approach to the Messiah, and how Christianty's version is the Jewish version watered down. [Hint 1: man's repsonsibility vs. God's.] This would give you insight into the Jesus issue.....
Islam unifying? HA! better retake that class too. How is Sunni and Shi'ite unity working out these days?
You don't have a good understanding of the world at the time of Jesus, the history of the Roman empire, especially as it was when Constantine came to power (hint 2: tetrarchy) or of the fundamental principles of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, or of pagan religions of influence at that time.
It;s a waste of my time to discuss this topic with you. For your research, investigate the following:
"Jewish problem"
"Constantine's Sword" (book)
"Pauline church"
St Augustin and his doctrine toward Jews
"Jewish sects at the time of Jesus"
That's 101-level stuff and you don;t reference any of it.
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
Doesn't anyone else think it's disturbing that this guy is a judge that's supposed to have an important job. How much time can he spend actually doing his JOB as a JUDGE while he's on his religous crusade?
atlantabiolab
New member
Fast Twitch Fiber said:
Ummm...many judges write books also and teach. Does this prohibit them from work?
atlantabiolab
New member
The real question is when are the judges of the 9th "Circus" Court going to be held to the same standard as Moore? They are evidently violating US law, as they are the most overturned court in the nation; incompetent is not suitable to describe them, as they are intelligent people. They have an agenda to circumvent US law.
atlantabiolab
New member
Pretty well supported article:
The Rule of Law
and Chief Justice Moore’s case
By Judge James DeWeese
Posted: October 22, 2003
Editors Note: Judge James DeWeese is heroic man who is currently being sued by the ACLU for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. His battle was recently featured in Citizen Magazine. Judge DeWeese is also a graduate of Vision Forum Ministries' Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy. We are grateful for his principled stand, and urge our readers to join in supporting and praying for him in his battle for truth in Ohio.
United States District Court judge ordered Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building. Justice Moore’s disobedience of that order caused many commentators to contend he violated the rule of law. Those commentators got the issue right but got the analysis wrong.
Understanding the rule of law is the key to understanding the controversy surrounding Justice Moore’s case. The rule of law is the idea that law is the highest authority and that all men – including even the highest government officials – are subject to the same law. The law, which is usually written, fixes legal rights and legal duties.
The opposite of the rule of law is the rule of man. Under the rule of man, the highest government officials command and do what they please. Legal rights and legal duties depend on the arbitrary will of government officials.
Our Country was birthed in the conflict between the rule of law and the rule of man. The Declaration of Independence lists morethan 25 violations of the rule of law by King George. These offenses included violating the colonial charters, depriving accused persons of trial by jury and kidnapping Americans on the high seas.
The founders appealed to the rule of the fixed law of God to challenge King George’s arbitrary rule. Their Declaration appeals to God as the source of law (“the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them”), the author of individual rights (“they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”) and the ultimate judge (“appealing to the supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions”).
If the Declaration serves as the articles of incorporation of our United States, then the United States Constitution is our by laws. After the founders achieved independence, they adopted the Constitution as the fundamental law to rule this land. The Constitution establishes the United States government as a government of limited, delegated powers. It also includes a Bill of Rights limiting the encroachments federal lawmakers can make on individual rights.
But in the last seventy years a new subterfuge has arisen for destroying the constitutional rule of law and returning to the rule of man. It is the doctrine of the living, evolving constitution. The advocates of this doctrine contend that our fundamental law needs to change and evolve to meet the changing needs of the times, and that judges sought to be the agents of that change. Judges should consequently change fundamental constitutional law to keep pace with evolving societal consensus. Examples of such sentiments include:
(1)Roscoe Pound: “We have ... the same task in jurisprudence that has been achieved inphilosophy, in the natural sciences, and in politics. We have to rid ourselves of this sort of legality and to attain a pragmatic, a sociological legal science.”
(2)Justice Charles Evans Hughes: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”[ii]
(3)Justice Earl Warren: “The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of maturing society.”[iii]
The federal courts and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court are regular practitioners of the doctrine that the Constitution means whatever the judges say it means. Just a few examples of their changing the law by judicial edict include the following:
(1)In Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892) the Supreme Court ruled that the United States was “a Christian nation.“ But in Eversonv. Board of Education (1947), it ruled, “The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
(2)In Plessy v.Ferguson(1896) the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution approved segregation, permitting children to be assigned to schools on the basis of race. Then in Brown v. Bd. Of Education (1954), it ruled the Constitution prohibited the assignment of children by race. Then in the Swann (1971) case, it ruled that the Constitution required the assignment of children to schools on the basis of race to achieve racial balance.
(3)Prior to 1973, nearly every State in this nation regulated or prohibited abortion. In 1973, the Supreme Court discovered in Roev. Wade that a woman had a constitutional right to abort her baby.
(4)In Bowers v.Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that State laws making homosexual sodomy a crime were constitutional. Butin Lawrence v. Texas (2003), it has just decided that there is a constitutional right to commit homosexual sodomy and that no state can make it a crime.
Problems with an Evolving Constitution
There are a number of very serious problems with this evolving constitution doctrine:
First of all, it’s unconstitutional. Judges are not lawmakers. The Constitution says in Article I, section 1 that all law-making power is given to Congress and none to the courts: “All legislative powers here in granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. “The Constitution specifies the only means to an end is in Article V. It grants no power to amend the Constitution by judicial edict. The Constitution also makes clear in Article VI that Supreme Court opinions are not included in the supreme law of the land: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made inpursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby...”
Second, the doctrine of the evolving constitution is the arbitrary rule of man masquerading as the rule of law. Think about it. The only life the law has is in its fixed meaning. If the law has no fixed meaning, it can not guarantee any fixed rights or duties. Citizens enjoy their rights only so long as the court suffers its latest interpretation to continue.
Note, for example, that nothing changed in the Constitution between the abortion and sodomy decisions described above. The law did not change. The Constitution was not amended in any relevant way. The only thing that changed was the willingness of a majority of the judges to read their latest preferences into the law.
The “living constitution” doctrine makes the constitution a lump of dead putty to be molded to suit the judge. The Constitution is reduced to eye wash which any five justices of the Supreme Court may use to impose their will on the nation. We return to the rule of man by an unelected judicial oligarchy.
Third, the doctrine of an evolving constitution violates the Constitution’s guaranty of a republican form of government. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution states “the United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government...“A republican form of government is a government by representatives chosen by the people. In other words, the Constitution guarantees that we will be ruled by law made by our elected legislatures. Federal judges are neither elected by nor accountable to the people.
Once more, the Supreme Court is making the most important law of all. That’s because constitutional law trumps statutes. The Supreme Court contends that its constitutional decisions are super-law which takes away whole fields of law from our elected legislatures. For example, in 1973 nearly every state’s elected legislatures had enacted laws regulating orprohibiting abortion. The Roe v. Wade decision that year took away nearly all law making power in this area from our elected legislatures. Allowing unelected judges to make law denies a republican form of government to the people.
Fourth and finally, the evolving constitution doctrine violates the intention of the founders about how the Constitution should be interpreted. They thought its meaning was fixed and could be modified only by amendment. Four examples of their opinions are:
(1)James Madison: “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers...What a metmorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.” [iv]
(2)George Washington (“Farewell Address”):“ If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or the modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”[v]
(3)Justice James Wilson (signer of both the Declarationand the Constitution):“The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”[vi]
(4)Thomas Jefferson: “On every question of construction, [we should] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”[vii]
Examination of Chief Justice Moore’s Case
The federal judges in Alabama accuse Chief Justice Moore of violating their latest version of the First Amendment. They say that the presence ofthe words of the Ten Commandments in a public area of a government building offends the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. And they accuse Justice Moore of defying the rule of law by failing to obey their order to remove those offending words.
To evaluate an accusation of violating the rule of law, one must begin by examining the applicable law. The applicable law, the Establishment Clause, states in its entirety that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
There are three problems with saying Chief Justice Moore violates the Establishment Clause1) He is not Congress.(2) He did not make a law. (3) A government official’s acknowledging God is not an establishment of religion. Any one of those problems independently means he could not have violated the Establishment Clause and that the federal judge’s order was unlawful. Moreover, Justice Moore could not simply capitulate to the unlawful order. He was bound by his oath of office to resistit.
The first problem is that, the Establishment Clause is a prohibition against the United States Congress. It has no application to state court judges.
The second is that the Establishment Clause only prohibits law making. A law is a rule of conduct recognized as binding and enforced by a controlling authority. Judge Moore’s monument and the words engraved on it were not a law. No one was compelled by them to do anything. The monument was objectionable because of what was written on it. It’s speech, not law making, which offends the federal judge. But the First Amendment does not let the federal government prohibit speech. In fact it protects speech: “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...”
The drafters of the First Amendment intended particularly to protect speech about the most controversial topics, like politics and religion. It doesn’t matter that someone is offended by that speech. All speech is offensive to someone, but the First Amendment protects it anyway.
The third problem is that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit official acknowledgments of God. The “establishment of religion” was a term of art to the founders meaning to establish one Christian denomination as the official church of the United States, entitled to tax support, like the Anglican Church in England. The founders saw no conflict with the Establishment Clause in publicly acknowledging God or acknowledging the necessary influence of religion on good government.
For example:
(1)The same day in 1789 that Congress reported the newly adopted text of the First Amendment to President Washington, it asked him to declare a national “day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God. “President Washington did so.
(2)President Washington said in his 1796 “Farewell Address”: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, the firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...And let us with caution indulge the presupposition that morality can be sustained without religion.”[viii]
(3)Our second president, John Adams, said in 1798: “[W]e have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly in adequate for the government of any other.”[ix]
(4)Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, author of one of the nation’s first constitutional law treatises, also affirmed: “It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God and the support of religion constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape.”[x]
(5)Supreme Court Justice James Wilson said: “Human law must rest its authority ultimately on the authority of that law which is divine...Far from being rivals or enemies; religion and law are twin sisters, friends and mutual assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into each other.”[xi]
Consequently, for the three independent reasons discussed, the federal judge’s order misinterpreted the constitution. Given that fact, Justice Moore could not simply capitulate to that unlawful order out of respect for its apparent authority. His constitutionally mandated oath of office prevented that.
The Constitution itself requires all state court judges to take an oath to support and defend it. Article VI states “...all executive and judicial officers, both of the United states and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.“ For someone who takes such an oath seriously, that oath imposes a weighty obligation. The oath does not apply only when it’s easy to support the Constitutionor only when it’s challenged by foreign enemies. It also applies when it’s threatened by domestic enemies, even by the federal judges themselves.
For this reason, public officials up to the president of the United States have repeatedly defied Supreme Court decisions they thought were unconstitutional. President Jefferson denied that the Supreme Court was the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution: “[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”[xii] And again: “You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”[xiii] President Jackson defied the Supreme Court’s decision about the constitutionality of the National Banking Act. President Lincoln, and also Congress, defied the Supreme Court’s Dred Scottdecision.
Justice Moore courageously did in this case what his oath required him to do. He defended the Constitution by resisting an unlawful order which did such damage to the First Amendment. He vindicated the rule of law. As Ambassador Alan Keyes explains the issue: “Thus when a federal judge issues an unlawful order that a state official conscientiously believes violates a fundamental and constitutionally protected right of the people of his state, that official must refuse the order that assaults their right just as he would refuse an order that violated the rights ofindividuals. It is of no consequence whether the unlawful order comes from one judge or many; from a lower court of the Supreme Court, it must be refused. Note that the wording here implies an obligation, not a choice. This is important; since it makes clear that the Court’s unlawful order places the state official in a situation where his substantive duty to the law conflicts with his formal obligation to obey a courtorder. A regime in which slavish observance of the empty forms of law substitute for substantive respect for the real terms and requirements of the law clearly represents the demise of law as such.”[xiv]
Justice Moore was placed in the position of having to defend the Constitution against judicial usurpation because Congress has failed to exercise three of the checks on the judiciary which are provided to it by the Constitution: First, Congress has power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2 says the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction...with such exceptions,and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Congress also controls the existence andjurisdiction of lower federal courts. Congress could consequently remove public acknowledgments of God or Ten Commandments cases from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This is perhaps Congress’ most powerful weapon.
Second, Congress has the power of the purse. Congress could cut off funding to federal courts who abuse the Constitution.
Third, Congress has the impeachment power. The Constitution does not say that federal judges are appointed for life unless they commit a crime. Article III, section one says “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior...“Changing the Constitution without a legitimate amendment is not good behavior.
It’s not necessary, by the way, that impeachment be successful to exercise a restraining influence on the judiciary. Federal judges are not stupid. They get away with what they think they can get away with in reading their political preferences into the constitution. Merely beginning impeachment efforts against an abusive judge will have a strong prophylactic effort.
In sum, Chief Justice Roy Moore did not violate the Establishment Clause. The federal judge’s order that he did, violates the rule of law and turns the First Amendment on its head. Congress should exercise its constitutional responsibility to check such judicial despotism.
FootNotes:
“Mechanical Jurisprudence” by Roscoe Pound, Columbia Law Review, vol. 8, no. 8, December, 1908, p. 609.
[ii] Charles Evans Hughes, The Autobiographical Notes of Charles Evans Hughes, David J. Danelski and Joseph S. Tulchin, editors (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) p. 144, speech at Elmira on May 3,1907.
[iii] Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S.86, 101 (1958).
[iv] JamesMadison, The Writings of James Madison,Gillard Hunt, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1910) vol. IX,p. 191, to Henry Lee on June 25, 1824.
[v] George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States...Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), p. 22.
[vi] James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804),Vol. I, p. 14, from “Lectures on Law Delivered in the College of Philadelphia; Introductory Lecture: Of the Study of the Law in the United States
[vii] Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, p. 373, to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823.
[viii] George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States...Preparatory to his Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), pp. 22-23.
[ix] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Frances Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, to the Officers ofthe First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798.
[x] Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitutionof the United States, (Boston: Hillard, Gray and Co.,1833), Vol. III, p. 727, §1869.
[xi] James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncy, 1804), Vol.I, pp. 104-106, “Of The General Principles of Law and Obligation.”
[xii] Jefferson,Memoir, Vol. IV, p. 27, to AbigailAdams on September 11, 1804.
[xiii]Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XV, p. 227 to William Charles Jarvis on September 28, 1820.
[xiv] Alan Keyes, “The Rule of Law Must be Upheld: What the Constitution Really Says About Establishment of Religion,” (VisionForum website:
Similar threads
