:|> What's the matter? You can't rebut any of the above to your going to ignore
:|> them and it try to change the topic to another, huh?
:|>
:|Actually I'm not sure it's really worth my time...

:|I still think your
:|wrong

":|and I DID look at your links. I think that the guy's at least as
:|biased as I am,

:|and the FF did specifically limit the 1st Ammendment
:|to CONGRESS. That left the States capable...

:|> >:|that you would say that the word Lord in the ending of the US
:|> >:|Constitution was just some obscure "deity" who happened to live about
:|> >:|the same time as Jesus? This was more than just a tradition. They
:|> >:|chose their words pretty carefully.
:|>
:|> Here is all that needs be said on that:
:|>
:|> o "Sunday Excepted" & "Year of Our lord" (1830-1833)
:|> http://candst.tripod.com/sundays2.htm
:|
:|Well, the French DELIBERATELY left it out of theirs...

:|> >:|"PREAMBLE
:|> >:|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:"
:|>
:|>
:|> The legal definition of a preamble is:
:|>
:|> Preamble. A clause at the beginning of a constitution or statute
:|> explanatory of the reasons for its enactment and the objects sought to be
:|> accomplished. Generally, a preamble is a declaration by the legislature of
:|> the reasons for the passage of the statute and is helpful in the
:|> interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which it is
:|> prefixed. It has been held however to not be an essential part of act, and
:|> neither enlarges nor confers powers.
:|> SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial
:|> Edition (1891-1991) West Publishing Co. (1991) p 813
:|>
:|> *****************************************
:|> "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> Preambles are not law.
:|
:|Aw come on. Are you saying they aren't important?

:|I think that you're
:|just trying to escape here.

:|in the preamble they are stating by what
:|authority they are creating their document. Dude, if they appeal t
:|something for their authority, they how can you somehow say that
:|something that gave them authority, is now taken away? That's just
:|plain WEIRD!

:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what they meant.
:|> >:|
:|>
:|> Why don't you explain it and back it up with documentation? BTW
:|> why don't you provide us with the clauses from the Alabama Constitution,
:|> the original or the present that mention religion in the body of the txt of
:|> that document? You know, those clauses that do have legal meaning and
:|> importance?
:|
:|
:|Let me say what I said above in another way, you cannot and must not
:|seperate the preamble from the rest of the document.

:|> >:|Also if you've seen a transcript of the court hearings it's pretty
:|> >:|obvious that a religious test is the real basis for Judge Moore's
:|> >:|removal from his office which is a clear violation of the US and
:|> >:|Alabama Constitutions.
:|>
:|> Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
:|
:|It's not UNSUBSTANTIATED. I KNOW folks who were there.

:|I don't have a
:|copy in my hand, but it's true...

:|> >:|There is a difference between acknowledging God and establishing a
:|> >:|religion and it's NOT a violation of the Constitution I've read.
:|>
:|> [EMPHASIS ADDED]
:|> The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
:|> establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
:|> that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
:|> religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
:|> religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
:|> means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
:|> ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING THEM, A FACT THAT
:|> ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT YET STILL BE
:|> UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
:|> (SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
:|> Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
:|> Press, (1994) p. 118
:|>
:|> -----------------------------------------------
:|> THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
:|> -----------------------------------------------
:|>
:|> The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
:|> 1947
:|>
:|> The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
:|> least this:
:|>
:|> (1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
:|>
:|> (2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
:|> (2a) aid all religions,
:|> (2b) or prefer one religion over another.
:|>
:|> (3) Neither can force
:|> (3a) nor influence a person to go to
:|> (3b) or to remain away from church against his will
:|> (3c) or force him to profess a belief
:|> (3d) or disbelief in any religion.
:|>
:|> (4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
:|> (4a) or professing religious beliefs
:|> (4b) or disbeliefs,
:|> (4c) for church attendance
:|> (4d) or non-attendance.
:|>
:|> (5) No tax in any amount,
:|> (5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
:|> (5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
:|> (5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
:|> (5d) or practice religion.
:|>
:|> (6) Neither a state
:|> (6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
:|> (6b) affairs of any religious organizations
:|> (6c) or groups,
:|> (6d) and vice versa.
:|>
:|> ************************************
:|> EVEN IF YOU DO AWAY WITH #5 WHICH is what Rehnquist
:|> has been working to accomplish for 30 years, you still all the other
:|> elements which would be and are still good law.
:|>
:|> ************************************
:|> TESTS:
:|> ************************************
:|> Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools,
:|> the Supreme Court has developed three "tests" to be applied to religious
:|> practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment
:|> Clause.
:|>
:|> The Lemon Test
:|> Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the
:|> Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:
:|> 1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any
:|> non-religious purpose.
:|> 2.The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
:|> 3.Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government
:|> with a religion.
:|>
:|> The Historical Test
:|> Based on Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Requires a unambiguous and
:|> unbroken history of more than 200 years. BTW, the history that was employed
:|> by the Court in Marsh v. Chambers was flawed. See:
:|>
:|> Chaplains and Congress
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
:|>
:|> Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
:|>
:|> Discrepancies
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm
:|>
:|> The Political Move That Backfired
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
:|>
:|> The Endorsement Test
:|> Drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the
:|> practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by
:|> conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted'
:|> over other beliefs."
:|>
:|> The Cercion Test
:|> Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious
:|> practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to
:|> force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that:
:|> "Unconstitutional coercion occurs when:
:|> (1) the government directs
:|> (2) a formal religious exercise
:|> (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."
:|>
:|> ************************************
:|
:|The real problem here is that you and I have a different view of law.

:|I believe

:|that the founding fathers had a different view of law as
:|well, one that caused them to appeal to higher authorities when the
:|wrote the Declaration of Independance,

:|and that let them to the
:|principles on which the US Constitution was founded.

:|They understood
:|that there were deep principles rooted in a higher authority than
:|themselves (That came from God) Whether or not they fully believed in
:|Him, (I know some of them did not) they acknowledged the neccesity for
:|them, and used them as the basis for their document.

:|Modern law teaches that the judges and others can reinterprett the
:|laws to fit their understanding of how things should work, hence the
:|chaos in the last 100 years or so in our country.

:\The Constitution is
:|the supreme law of the Land, not the judges in those cases mentioned's
:|interpretations of them. Yes I recognize that those cases were made,
:|but they do not reestablish the meaning of "Religion" nor of the
:|Constitution.

What's the matter? You can't rebut any of the above to your going to ignore
them and it try to change the topic to another, huh?

Actually I'm not sure it's really worth my time...

I still think your [sic]
wrong and I DID look at your links. I think that the guy's at least as
biased as I am, and the FF did specifically limit the 1st Ammendment
to CONGRESS. That left the States capable...
Well, the French DELIBERATELY left it out of theirs...

:|Also if you've seen a transcript of the court hearings it's pretty
:|obvious that a religious test is the real basis for Judge Moore's
:|removal from his office which is a clear violation of the US and
:|Alabama Constitutions.

Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.

It's not UNSUBSTANTIATED. I KNOW folks who were there.

I don't have a copy in my hand, but it's true...

I believe that the founding fathers had a different view of law as
well, one that caused them to appeal to higher authorities when the
wrote the Declaration of Independance, and that let them to the
principles on which the US Constitution was founded. They understood
that there were deep principles rooted in a higher authority than
themselves (That came from God) Whether or not they fully believed in
Him, (I know some of them did not) they acknowledged the neccesity for
them, and used them as the basis for their document.

Modern law teaches that the judges and others can reinterprett the
laws to fit their understanding of how things should work, hence the
chaos in the last 100 years or so in our country. The Constitution is
the supreme law of the Land, not the judges in those cases mentioned's
interpretations of them. Yes I recognize that those cases were made,
but they do not reestablish the meaning of "Religion" nor of the
Constitution.
I fear that this will not get anywhere with you as I believe that
Romans chapter 1 is particlularly [sic] applicable to your reasoning.

It isn't online yet. I happen to know 2 folks who were there
at the trial. It was a mockery of justice, unless you are an
atheist and a believer in the theory of evolulution, in which
case I full expect you to applaud the efforts of those who
removed him.

Where have you read that transcript?

Please share the url.

It isn't online yet. I happen to know 2 folks who were there

trial. It was a mockery of justice, unless you are an atheist

believer in the theory of evolulution,

to applaud the efforts of those who removed him.