| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Liz" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2003 10:35:13 PM |
| Object: |
Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/6619306.htm
U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue
By Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
CHICAGO - The writer is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
This commentary first appeared in Newsday.
By now, everyone knows about the confrontation between Alabama's chief
justice and the federal courts. Although the dispute is ostensibly
over a public display of the Ten Commandments, it is really about the
relationship between the federal government and the states.
The ultimate question is whether the federal courts have the power to
interpret and enforce the First Amendment's Establishment Clause --
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... ''
You might think that the answer is obvious, given that the U.S.
Constitution is the ``Supreme law of the land,'' but the Alabama
judge, Roy Moore, has other ideas.
He insists that the Alabama Constitution gives him the authority to
violate federal court orders, and he has done everything in his power
to force a showdown on the issue. Unfortunately, he has been
encouraged by people who should know better.
Shortly after he was elected chief justice in November 2000, Moore and
his supporters set up a 5,000-pound granite carving of the
Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama judicial building.
Responding to a 2001 lawsuit, two federal courts have ordered Moore to
remove the display, ruling that its placement amounts to an
unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Moore has appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court -- which has refused to stay the lower courts'
orders -- but it may be months before the justices decide whether to
accept the case for a full hearing.
In the meantime, Moore has repeatedly announced that he will never
remove or relocate his display. His supporters, including the Rev.
Jerry Falwell, have been threatening a campaign of civil disobedience,
which Moore has refused to discourage. As he has said, ``If they want
to get the Commandments, they're going to have to get me first.''
That sort of posturing is reminiscent of the days when Southern
governors vowed to ``stand in the schoolhouse door'' to resist
integration. But even in the George Wallace era, state supreme court
justices did not join the open resistance to federal authority. And,
Thursday, Alabama's other eight supreme court justices voted to
overrule their chief and take down the monument, writing that they are
``bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or
disagree with it.'' Later, a defiant Moore said he was
``disappointed'' with his colleagues.
Moore's defiance is especially dangerous because it threatens the very
structure of the American justice system, in which constitutional
decisions are ultimately the province of federal courts. Of course,
federal judges are not infallible; sometimes their rulings are too
narrow or too bold. That is why there are appellate courts. And, at
day's end, when final decisions have been delivered, we rely upon
state officials, including judges, to comply.
Moore's jurisprudence offers a chilling alternative, in which state
officials are free to pick and choose among legal decisions -- obeying
some and ignoring others. While that might seem relatively innocuous
in the case of a single monument, Moore's theory has no logical
stopping point. It would allow state governments to defy federal court
orders regarding issues from civil rights to taxation, undermining the
Constitution as a national standard and setting the stage for endless
confrontations.
Thousands have rallied in support of Roy Moore, as though the Ten
Commandments themselves are in jeopardy, rather than the location of a
graven display. Nearly every officeholder in Alabama favors keeping
Moore's monument, though they are reluctant to join him on the
barricades.
Even if cooler heads prevail and ``Roy's rock'' is eventually removed,
a much deeper problem remains, not only in Alabama but within the
Republican leadership in Washington. When push comes to constitutional
shove, federal court orders are enforced by the U.S. Marshals Service,
commanded by Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Yet neither Ashcroft nor any other nationally prominent Republican has
spoken out against Moore's defiance of federal law. Indeed, 210
Republican members of the House of Representatives recently voted to
prohibit -- by denying funds -- the Justice Department from removing
Moore's monument, in a demagogic repudiation of the federal
government's responsibility to enforce the law. (Democrats voted
against the bill by a 3-1 margin.)
George W. Bush owes his presidency to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, so
you might expect him to speak out in support of the rule of law. Other
presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy, did not
hesitate to enforce unpopular judicial decisions. Alas, this
administration's silence has been deafening, apparently preferring
political expediency to constitutional principle.
But the separation of religion and state is not a matter of local
option. And if the federal government does not respect the federal
courts, who will?
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
27 Aug 2003 12:33:08 AM |
|
|
In article <419okv0d05eq4hs8amvhat62bkd10mebf9@4ax.com>,
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/6619306.htm
U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue
By Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
CHICAGO - The writer is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
This commentary first appeared in Newsday.
By now, everyone knows about the confrontation between Alabama's chief
justice and the federal courts. Although the dispute is ostensibly
over a public display of the Ten Commandments, it is really about the
relationship between the federal government and the states.
<snip>
Good article Liz! The Constitution is very clear on the subject. If we
are a nation of laws, the rock must go!
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
27 Aug 2003 06:28:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:33:08 -0700, johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com>
in news message <jhachm-C3BB62.22330826082003@central.giganews.com>
wrote:
In article <419okv0d05eq4hs8amvhat62bkd10mebf9@4ax.com>,
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/6619306.htm
U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue
By Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
CHICAGO - The writer is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
This commentary first appeared in Newsday.
By now, everyone knows about the confrontation between Alabama's chief
justice and the federal courts. Although the dispute is ostensibly
over a public display of the Ten Commandments, it is really about the
relationship between the federal government and the states.
<snip>
Good article Liz! The Constitution is very clear on the subject. If we
are a nation of laws, the rock must go!
Yes, and it will, but the silence from Ashcroft and Bush is deafening.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
27 Aug 2003 02:16:02 PM |
|
|
Liz wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<3F4CB6FD.60809@earthling.com>...
Liz wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:33:08 -0700, johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com>
in news message <jhachm-C3BB62.22330826082003@central.giganews.com>
wrote:
In article <419okv0d05eq4hs8amvhat62bkd10mebf9@4ax.com>,
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/6619306.htm
U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue
By Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
CHICAGO - The writer is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
This commentary first appeared in Newsday.
By now, everyone knows about the confrontation between Alabama's chief
justice and the federal courts. Although the dispute is ostensibly
over a public display of the Ten Commandments, it is really about the
relationship between the federal government and the states.
<snip>
Good article Liz! The Constitution is very clear on the subject. If we
are a nation of laws, the rock must go!
Yes, and it will, but the silence from Ashcroft and Bush is deafening.
Why do they need to say anything?
Where did I say that they "need" to say anything.
You seem to be implying that their silence on the issue is a bad thing,
thus you must think that they should say something.
Obviously, they
don't, but I would have expected that the Chief Exectutive and the
Attorney General of the United States would have at least some
professional interest in the legal enforcement of Federal court
orders. If one can disregard Federal court orders at will, then the
rule of law, which the Republicans referred to so often during former
President Clinton's impeachment, really means nothing.
I don't see anybody defying court orders and getting away with it. The
President's silence doesn't seem to have impeded the working of the
justice system.
So no, they don't need to say anything and they haven't, much to their
discredit in this instance, imnsho. However, their silence does not
surprise me at all.
What would you have them say?
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
28 Aug 2003 12:25:50 AM |
|
|
In article <3F4D0372.8050508@earthling.com>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Liz wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<3F4CB6FD.60809@earthling.com>...
Liz wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:33:08 -0700, johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com>
in news message <jhachm-C3BB62.22330826082003@central.giganews.com>
wrote:
In article <419okv0d05eq4hs8amvhat62bkd10mebf9@4ax.com>,
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/6619306.htm
U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue
By Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
CHICAGO - The writer is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
This commentary first appeared in Newsday.
By now, everyone knows about the confrontation between Alabama's chief
justice and the federal courts. Although the dispute is ostensibly
over a public display of the Ten Commandments, it is really about the
relationship between the federal government and the states.
<snip>
Good article Liz! The Constitution is very clear on the subject. If we
are a nation of laws, the rock must go!
Yes, and it will, but the silence from Ashcroft and Bush is deafening.
Why do they need to say anything?
Where did I say that they "need" to say anything.
You seem to be implying that their silence on the issue is a bad thing,
thus you must think that they should say something.
Obviously, they
don't, but I would have expected that the Chief Exectutive and the
Attorney General of the United States would have at least some
professional interest in the legal enforcement of Federal court
orders. If one can disregard Federal court orders at will, then the
rule of law, which the Republicans referred to so often during former
President Clinton's impeachment, really means nothing.
I don't see anybody defying court orders and getting away with it. The
President's silence doesn't seem to have impeded the working of the
justice system.
So no, they don't need to say anything and they haven't, much to their
discredit in this instance, imnsho. However, their silence does not
surprise me at all.
What would you have them say?
Some of the demonstrators are calling on Bush to intervene. I think
Bush should at least make a statement like: "I may not fully agree
with the decision that was reached, but I respect the rule of law, and
Moore should comply with the court order."
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
27 Aug 2003 08:19:21 AM |
|
|
Liz wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:33:08 -0700, johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com>
in news message <jhachm-C3BB62.22330826082003@central.giganews.com>
wrote:
In article <419okv0d05eq4hs8amvhat62bkd10mebf9@4ax.com>,
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/6619306.htm
U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue
By Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
CHICAGO - The writer is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
This commentary first appeared in Newsday.
By now, everyone knows about the confrontation between Alabama's chief
justice and the federal courts. Although the dispute is ostensibly
over a public display of the Ten Commandments, it is really about the
relationship between the federal government and the states.
<snip>
Good article Liz! The Constitution is very clear on the subject. If we
are a nation of laws, the rock must go!
Yes, and it will, but the silence from Ashcroft and Bush is deafening.
That's because, to them, this is NOT a nation of laws, but a nation of
inconveniences mistakenly called "fundamental civil rights."
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fear gan dia" |
|
| Title: Re: Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
27 Aug 2003 02:03:29 PM |
|
|
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
in <3F4CB6FD.60809@earthling.com>:
# Liz wrote:
# > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:33:08 -0700, johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com>
# > in news message <jhachm-C3BB62.22330826082003@central.giganews.com>
# > wrote:
# >
# >
# >>In article <419okv0d05eq4hs8amvhat62bkd10mebf9@4ax.com>,
# >>Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
# >>
# >>
# >>>http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/6619306.htm
# >>>
# >>>U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue
# >>>By Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
# >>>
# >>>CHICAGO - The writer is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
# >>>This commentary first appeared in Newsday.
# >>>
# >>>By now, everyone knows about the confrontation between Alabama's chief
# >>>justice and the federal courts. Although the dispute is ostensibly
# >>>over a public display of the Ten Commandments, it is really about the
# >>>relationship between the federal government and the states.
# >>>
# >>
# >><snip>
# >>
# >>Good article Liz! The Constitution is very clear on the subject. If we
# >>are a nation of laws, the rock must go!
# >
# >
# > Yes, and it will, but the silence from Ashcroft and Bush is deafening.
# >
#
# Why do they need to say anything?
Duh! Because they swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Also,
as the article notes: "George W. Bush owes his presidency to a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling, so you might expect him to speak out in
support of the rule of law." Well, you might... if you didn't take
into account the fact that he is a mental and moral midget.
--
Fear gan dia ### http://goddamliberal.blogspot.com
Director, EAC Division for Leaving the Toilet Seat up.
"The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite
wisdom but to set a bound to infinite error" - Brecht
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
27 Aug 2003 02:32:57 PM |
|
|
Fear gan dia wrote:
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
in <3F4CB6FD.60809@earthling.com>:
# Liz wrote:
# > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:33:08 -0700, johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com>
# > in news message <jhachm-C3BB62.22330826082003@central.giganews.com>
# > wrote:
# >
# >
# >>In article <419okv0d05eq4hs8amvhat62bkd10mebf9@4ax.com>,
# >>Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
# >>
# >>
# >>>http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/6619306.htm
# >>>
# >>>U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue
# >>>By Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
# >>>
# >>>CHICAGO - The writer is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
# >>>This commentary first appeared in Newsday.
# >>>
# >>>By now, everyone knows about the confrontation between Alabama's chief
# >>>justice and the federal courts. Although the dispute is ostensibly
# >>>over a public display of the Ten Commandments, it is really about the
# >>>relationship between the federal government and the states.
# >>>
# >>
# >><snip>
# >>
# >>Good article Liz! The Constitution is very clear on the subject. If we
# >>are a nation of laws, the rock must go!
# >
# >
# > Yes, and it will, but the silence from Ashcroft and Bush is deafening.
# >
#
# Why do they need to say anything?
Duh! Because they swore an oath to uphold the constitution.
Why does that require either of them to give a speech?
Also,
as the article notes: "George W. Bush owes his presidency to a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling, so you might expect him to speak out in
support of the rule of law." Well, you might... if you didn't take
into account the fact that he is a mental and moral midget.
That's not an argument, that's a stupid dig at the 2000 election by
another Sore Loser.
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Random" |
|
| Title: Re: Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
27 Aug 2003 12:11:43 AM |
|
|
Liz wrote:
<snip much>
In the meantime, Moore has repeatedly announced that he will never
remove or relocate his display. His supporters, including the Rev.
Jerry Falwell, have been threatening a campaign of civil disobedience,
which Moore has refused to discourage. As he has said, ``If they want
to get the Commandments, they're going to have to get me first.''
<raises hand> I'm in. Who's driving?
--
~JR
What Would Cthulhu Do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Offermann" |
|
| Title: Re: Article - U.S. Constitution is not a local option issue |
27 Aug 2003 12:35:38 AM |
|
|
"Joe Random" <JoeRandom@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:3F4C3D8F.76A78E1D@invalid.com...
Liz wrote:
<snip much>
In the meantime, Moore has repeatedly announced that he will never
remove or relocate his display. His supporters, including the Rev.
Jerry Falwell, have been threatening a campaign of civil disobedience,
which Moore has refused to discourage. As he has said, ``If they want
to get the Commandments, they're going to have to get me first.''
<raises hand> I'm in. Who's driving?
Pick ya up at 8. I'll drive. You navigate.
-What would Jerry do?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Look, do you want to defeat the bad guys, or not? Bush gave US zero evidence to form our free thoughts on the 911 Justice issue. Treason. Simple. - The bushite took an Oath to God and country to defend America from war criminals, and instead, as cow
'Buster' Flap Raises the Issue: Why Not 'Gay' Parenting?
OT: Torture is the real issue, not these photos
"Teaching evolution" not an issue
OT: Size not an issue ... although Italy out in front, study finds
OT: Security May Not Be Safe Issue for Bush in '04
Look, do you want to defeat the bad guys, or not? Bush gave US zero evidence to form our free thoughts on the 911 Justice issue. Treason. Simple. - If Putin is evil, surely Bush is worse than Satan himself... God, don't miss this!!!
Civil rights for gays is issue for the state, not the church
| Opinion: Certain countries not famously defenders of liberty have made 'defamation of religion' an issue.
--- Solutions are not the answer.
OT: Bell 'did not invent telephone'
Military Service Does Not Equal Patriotism.
god of machines not doing his/her job
OT: A Close Vote? Let's Hope Not.
It's not just the hormones ...
|
|
|
