Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crazyfingers · 11-26-2002, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buffman:
Good heavens "NO!" What is even more embarrassing is that I was attempting to work with the UBB Code under an entirely different Topic string. I was attempting to find a way to simply copy-paste the entire URL onto the conversion window via my e-mail program and just flat-out got lost.

For what it's worth the link that you posted (for a short time) looked good enough for me to save as a favorite.

I also emailed it to myself to get onto my other computer.

Toto · 11-26-2002, 09:32 AM

Hang in there Buffman! But don't be surprized if this board converts to vBB by the time you master UBB. (I am sure that the skills will transfer.)

The link was to the PositiveAtheism site's copy of Lewis' 1946 work, The Ten Commandments:

<a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewten0c.htm" target="_blank">The Ten Commandments a book by Joseph Lewis</a>

ELECTROGOD · 12-05-2002, 10:35 PM

Wow, did this story drop out of the news like a rock thrown into a pond or what?

Stephen Maturin · 12-10-2002, 01:01 PM

The AP <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35354-2002Dec10.html" target="_blank">reports</a> that Chief Justice Moore filed his notice of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit today. How's this for a doozee of a claim:

Quote:

"Federal district courts have no jurisdiction or authority to prohibit the acknowledgment of God that is specifically recognized in the Constitution of Alabama," Moore said in a statement announcing the appeal.

Ordinarily, you'd think that someone who's been through law school and managed to get himself elected chief justice of a state supreme court would have at least some passing familiarity with the <a href="http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-6.html" target="_blank">Supremacy Clause</a>. Does anyone know offhand how this "jurisdiction" argument is supposed to work?

hezekiah jones · 12-10-2002, 01:23 PM

Weird. Although the Preamble to the Alabama Constitution reads

We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:

Ala. Const. pmbl.

it goes on to say,

That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit ...

Ala. Const. � 2.

and

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship ...

Ala. Const. � 3.

Maybe Moore is lobbying for inclusion in the next edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Either that, or, if that there "Almighty God" is Yahweh/Jesus, maybe the Preamble violates section 3.

At any rate, while it may be true the federal courts are hesitant to interpret state constitutions, they certainly have the power to do so.

Perhaps Moore's most effective legal argument would be that the granite block is not an establishment of religion, but rather a sculptural portrait of his own head.

RufusAtticus · 12-10-2002, 01:30 PM

Well, Moore's buisness partner has issued a statement about the ruling.

<a href="http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1078" target="_blank">Dr. D. James Kennedy's Statement Regarding the Ruling Against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.</a>

Quote:

Judge Thompson has ignored our national legal and moral tradition by his declaration that �the state may not acknowledge the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God and attribute to that God our religious freedom.�

Apparently D. James Kennedy has never read the constitution.

Quote:

This ruling sharply departs from a long-held American legal tradition of acknowledging God in public life. Ever since the Pilgrims opened their founding document and our nation�s seminal legal charter�the Mayflower Compact�with the words, �In the name of God, Amen,� the acknowledgement of God has been a constant within our legal and political life.

Too bad the Mayflower Compact is not part of US legal history, or other wise we'd also be "loyal subjects" to the Queen of England. (DJK apparently left that part out of his quote.) It amazes me how these fundies think a document written by a group of royalists 156 years before our nation was founded is evidence of anything with respect the Church/State separation except the fragility of their position.

Quote:

It was so for the Declaration of Independence which�contrary to the carefully elided Declaration quotation in Judge Thompson�s opinion�contains within it a forthright acknowledgement of God as Creator and source of all liberty.

Too bad DJK doesn't realize that it's not his God that the Declaration of Independence is talking about. Besides that the Declaration of Independence has no legal authority in US law. The US Constitution which is the supreme law of the land makes it very clear in the preamble that it is the people that are the source of liberty. "God" is not even mentioned once.

Quote:

Governments, in the Declaration, are clearly subservient to God�something Judge Thompson denies�since it is government according to our Declaration that is charged with the duty of securing the Creator-given and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Moreover, the Declaration signers explicitly state their �firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE��an open acknowledgement of God that Judge Thompson now declares unconstitutional

Of course it is unconstitutional, since the Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence. In reality, our government was established by the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence, so any appeals to the "governement of the declaration of independence" went out of fashion in 1787.

Quote:

Contrary to Judge Thompson�s ruling, a litany of �state actors� since George Washington have forthrightly acknowledged God and the Ten Commandments. President Harry Truman, for example, had the common sense to recognize that
the fundamental basis of this nation�s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.

So what?

Quote:

The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.

So where in the Bible does it talk about
<ol type="1">[*]Freedom of speech, press, religion, assemply?[*]Freedom to bear arms?[*]Quartering of Troops?[*]Search and Seizure?[*]Due process?[*]Jury Trials?[*]Cruel and unusual punishment?[*]Non-enumerated rights?[*]States' rights?[/list=a]

Quote:

I don�t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don�t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.

This is traditional theocrat doublespeak: "If I'm not allowed to oppress people, then the government is oppressing me." From my reading of the Bible, every goverment ever established by God was either a despotism or monarchy. Exactly the thing our American fathers rebeled against.

Quote:

The monument Chief Justice Moore placed in the Judicial Building rotunda does not establish any religion. It is a simple recognition of the historical fact that our nation was founded upon the acknowledgement of God and His law�something long recognized by our nation.

So it doesn't establish religion, it only establishes religion.

Quote:

Along with millions across this nation, we will support the legal defense of the public acknowledgement of God and the historical underpinnings of our law to its final outcome. We stand with Chief Justice Moore in his valiant fight to restore the moral foundation of law and true religious liberty to our land.

Looks like someone needs a new Porsche.

~~RvFvS~~

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

Philosoft · 12-10-2002, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin:


Ordinarily, you'd think that someone who's been through law school and managed to get himself elected chief justice of a state supreme court would have at least some passing familiarity with the <a href="http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-6.html" target="_blank">Supremacy Clause</a>. Does anyone know offhand how this "jurisdiction" argument is supposed to work?

It appears Moore is using the term "jurisdiction" rather flippantly. I suspect what he means is, "the acknowledgement of God is established in the State Constitution, therefore the court can't undo what was done by legislation." The preceding is, of course, nonsense. The very duty of the court is to undo legislation if need be.

RufusAtticus · 12-10-2002, 01:38 PM

Not to mention the fact that Article IV, section 4 of the US Constitution gives the federal government oversight power on state constitutions.

hezekiah jones · 12-10-2002, 01:41 PM

DJK: "I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."

Good god [sic], what a cretinous old twat. That's exactly why they wrote the damn thing in the first place, in recognition of a fundamental constitutional background to guard against theocratic, authoritarian lunatics like you!

One can only hope that DJK never opens a law school like Pat Robertson did.

[Register for the LSAT and Regent University will kill several trees on your personal behalf.]

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]

Stephen Maturin · 12-11-2002, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:


It appears Moore is using the term "jurisdiction" rather flippantly. I suspect what he means is, "the acknowledgement of God is established in the State Constitution, therefore the court can't undo what was done by legislation."

I certainly hope so. After all, the case is one "arising under" the U.S. Constitution, so basic federal subject matter jurisdiction is no problem at all.

While rummaging through Judge Thompson's opinion again, I came across an argument made by Moore's lawyers that the act of placing the monument wasn't a "law" for Establishment Clause purposes. Maybe that's the "jurisdiction" issue Moore and his lawyer were blabbering about yesterday. If so, by all means bring it on! The argument's a big fat loser.

This passage from the opinion suggests another possibility:

Quote:

Indeed, in the Chief Justice's understanding, the Alabama Constitution affirmatively requires him to have put the monument in the rotunda. At trial, he testified: "Well, first I am pleased to present this monument. What pleased me is the fact that it represented my duty under the Constitution of the State of Alabama ... [which] says that I shall take affirmative and appropriate action to correct and alleviate any condition or situation in the administration of justice...." (Emphasis added)

This is the rankest of speculation, but maybe Moore and Co. are planning to cobble together and present for the first time on appeal a claim that this case is, in actual effect, a suit against the State of Alabama itself. In that event, federal jurisdiction is arguably foreclosed by the Eleventh Amendment, which the Supreme Court has extended light years beyond its terms and intent. That possibility is too nauseating to contemplate at length, though. I took a fed jur class years ago, and even now the very thought of 11th Amendment case law gives me a bad case of the cold sweats.

Edited to add:

Rufus, your hatchet job on Kennedy's screed is a thing of beauty!

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen Maturin ]

12-10-2002, 01:41 PM	#69
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	DJK: "I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State." Good god [sic], what a cretinous old twat. That's exactly why they wrote the damn thing in the first place, in recognition of a fundamental constitutional background to guard against theocratic, authoritarian lunatics like you! One can only hope that DJK never opens a law school like Pat Robertson did. [Register for the LSAT and Regent University will kill several trees on your personal behalf.] [ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-26-2002, 09:32 AM	#62
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hang in there Buffman! But don't be surprized if this board converts to vBB by the time you master UBB. (I am sure that the skills will transfer.) The link was to the PositiveAtheism site's copy of Lewis' 1946 work, The Ten Commandments: <a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewten0c.htm" target="_blank">The Ten Commandments a book by Joseph Lewis</a>

12-05-2002, 10:35 PM	#63
ELECTROGOD Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: GR, MI USA Posts: 4,009	Wow, did this story drop out of the news like a rock thrown into a pond or what?

12-10-2002, 01:23 PM	#65
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Weird. Although the Preamble to the Alabama Constitution reads We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama: Ala. Const. pmbl. it goes on to say, That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit ... Ala. Const. � 2. and That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship ... Ala. Const. � 3. Maybe Moore is lobbying for inclusion in the next edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Either that, or, if that there "Almighty God" is Yahweh/Jesus, maybe the Preamble violates section 3. At any rate, while it may be true the federal courts are hesitant to interpret state constitutions, they certainly have the power to do so. Perhaps Moore's most effective legal argument would be that the granite block is not an establishment of religion, but rather a sculptural portrait of his own head.

12-10-2002, 01:38 PM	#68
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Not to mention the fact that Article IV, section 4 of the US Constitution gives the federal government oversight power on state constitutions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.