| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2003 05:50:22 PM |
| Object: |
The Courts Vs. The Constitution |
The Courts Vs. The Constitution
By Lee R. Shelton IV
URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/
A judicial ethics panel has suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for
his refusal to obey a federal court's order to remove a monument displaying
the Ten Commandments on public property. This action was anticipated, but it
only seems to have strengthened the resolve of Justice Moore and thousands
of other concerned citizens.
What has been surprising are the responses from conservatives who support
the court's ruling and who have lashed out at Justice Moore. Michael Medved,
the radio talk show host dubbed America's "Cultural Crusader," has accused
Moore of flaunting the rule of law and taking a position that could lead to
anarchy. Quin Hillyer of the Mobile Register, writing in the National
Review, called Moore "an oddball and a zealot," a judge with a "messianic
complex and a thirst for tactical martyrdom and the publicity it brings."
As I pointed out in my last column, one fact that is all too often
overlooked is that the Bill of Rights is not binding on the states. That is
made perfectly clear in the Tenth Amendment. Even the Fourteenth Amendment
failed to extend the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. It
wasn't until the mid-1920s that the Supreme Court began using the "due
process clause" argument to force the states to abide by constitutional
limits that up until then only applied to the federal government. Such is
the case in Alabama.
The problem with allowing this court ruling to stand is that it weakens the
safeguards we are supposed to have against the tyranny of a strong,
centralized government. When the Constitution was ratified, it was done with
the understanding that the various states would retain most of their
sovereignty. The Constitution was carefully written so that the powers of
the federal government would be, according to James Madison in Federalist
No. 45, "few and defined," while the powers remaining to the states would be
"numerous and indefinite."
Regarding the Ten Commandments monument, the message that the federal
judiciary is sending to the rest of America is that while it is wrong for a
state judge to ignore the ruling of a higher court, it is perfectly
acceptable for a higher court to overstep its bounds and violate the
Constitution. It's bad enough that we have to deal with that kind of
arrogance and hypocrisy from our elected representatives. Why should we
accept that kind of behavior from judges?
No court decision--from the Supreme Court on down--has the ability to alter
the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Just as the legislative and executive
branches must function within the boundaries set forth in that document, so
is the judicial branch prevented from expanding the scope of its own powers.
Justice Moore and thousands of other concerned citizens have taken a stand
not only for religious liberty, but also for the rights of the people of
Alabama to govern themselves. When a federal court steps in and decides that
a public display of the Ten Commandments constitutes an establishment of
religion, and that a state has no business acknowledging God, it is
violating the First Amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Justice Moore needs the support of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. What
happens in Alabama could very well have lasting effects all across the
nation. Already, a lawsuit is underway in Texas to force the removal of a
King James Bible displayed outside the Harris County Courthouse.
In a little over 200 years the United States has turned into an oligarchy
run by the judicial elite. It's nice to see that in a few pockets of this
country the spirit of freedom and independence lives on.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
|
| User: "JoeSixpack" |
|
| Title: Re: The Courts Vs. The Constitution |
02 Sep 2003 12:03:06 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
The Courts Vs. The Constitution
By Lee R. Shelton IV
URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/
A judicial ethics panel has suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for
his refusal to obey a federal court's order to remove a monument displaying
the Ten Commandments on public property. This action was anticipated, but it
only seems to have strengthened the resolve of Justice Moore and thousands
of other concerned citizens.
What has been surprising are the responses from conservatives who support
the court's ruling and who have lashed out at Justice Moore. Michael Medved,
the radio talk show host dubbed America's "Cultural Crusader," has accused
Moore of flaunting the rule of law and taking a position that could lead to
anarchy. Quin Hillyer of the Mobile Register, writing in the National
Review, called Moore "an oddball and a zealot," a judge with a "messianic
complex and a thirst for tactical martyrdom and the publicity it brings."
As I pointed out in my last column, one fact that is all too often
overlooked is that the Bill of Rights is not binding on the states. That is
made perfectly clear in the Tenth Amendment. Even the Fourteenth Amendment
failed to extend the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. It
wasn't until the mid-1920s that the Supreme Court began using the "due
process clause" argument to force the states to abide by constitutional
limits that up until then only applied to the federal government. Such is
the case in Alabama.
The problem with allowing this court ruling to stand is that it weakens the
safeguards we are supposed to have against the tyranny of a strong,
centralized government. When the Constitution was ratified, it was done with
the understanding that the various states would retain most of their
sovereignty. The Constitution was carefully written so that the powers of
the federal government would be, according to James Madison in Federalist
No. 45, "few and defined," while the powers remaining to the states would be
"numerous and indefinite."
The powers of the Federal Government are suppose to protect a citizens
constitutional rights against the tyranny of state powers. In the case of Judge
Moore VS the Constitutional rights of Alabamians in his lame attempt to
establish a state religion the Feds are right to suspend him.
Regarding the Ten Commandments monument, the message that the federal
judiciary is sending to the rest of America is that while it is wrong for a
state judge to ignore the ruling of a higher court, it is perfectly
acceptable for a higher court to overstep its bounds and violate the
Constitution.
The Feds have indeed made a practice of overstepping their boundaries when it
comes to the War On Drugs, Homeland Security and using the military to police
citizens but in the case of Judge Moore the higher court is right to protect the
citizens of Alabama from this fanatical zealot.
It's bad enough that we have to deal with that kind of
arrogance and hypocrisy from our elected representatives. Why should we
accept that kind of behavior from judges?
No court decision--from the Supreme Court on down--has the ability to alter
the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court altered the meaning of the constitution when they appointed
George Bush as president even though Al Gore had won the election. Justice Moore
and thousands of other concerned citizens have taken a stand
not only for religious liberty, but also for the rights of the people of
Alabama to govern themselves.
There aren't thousands, just a couple hundred or so bible thumping fanatics who
agree with Moore while the rest of citizens of Alabama are against having Moores
religion forced upon them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: BUTTMASTERS Silliness and The Constitution |
01 Sep 2003 09:11:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 14:50:22 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
The Courts Vs. The Constitution
By Lee R. Shelton IV
ToogoodReports.com/
What has this got to do with actual law?
---------------------------------------------------
ladies use my tongue for your pleasure
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=
63j187%24nji%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=226>
swm very oral will orally worship any female that wishes to be worshipped.
will kiss and lick your feet and butt .
might be wiling to be your toilet paper if you
are that aggressive
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
