The 10 Commandments & Alabama

Status
Not open for further replies.
NOTHING in the constitution, the Bill of Rights, or later amendments, says anything about "any action" respecting the establishment of religion.
Click to expand...
Any action in an official capacity.

The 14th says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens."

Freedom from established religion is a privilege or immunity
Any official goverment action abridges that.
 
I'm From Loozeeanna....

And I seem to recall the state building in Baton Rouge had a statue with ELEVEN commandments. Of course, commandment #1 was to stay the heck out of Bamastan for general health reasons and just good sense.
 
Freedom from established religion is a privilege or immunity Any official goverment action abridges that.
Click to expand...

And how far that privilege or immunity extends is codified in the 1st Amendment!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The 14th Amendment does not add an asterisk and codicile specifying: "or any action by any government functionary, etc, etc..." You just made that part up and since you made it up, it has no constitutional weight at all!

Keith
 
He isn't placing the mug on public display with the intent to tell people that his decisions will be made based on religion. He has done so with the staue.

Yeah, that "thou shalt not kill"- that sounds like it might have come from the Ten Commandments- we'd better do away with laws against murder lest "separation of church and state" be violated. Some ACLU operative may find this prohibition a breach of the "Congress shall make no law...." :rolleyes:

While we're at it we'd better repeal Christmas as a federal holiday- why is the government allowed to recognize that one religious holiday? Quick, call the ACLU.

No more swearing to tell the truth on the bible, no chaplains in the military, no God on money, no crosses in Arlington, strip all public buildings of any shred of religious statuary, sandblast the Gettysburg address off the Lincoln Memorial since it mentions God- boy we have our work cut out for us.

We need a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the 2nd Amendment and that "freedom of religion" part of the 1st.;)
 
"or any action by any government functionary, etc, etc..." You just made that part up and since you made it up, it has no constitutional weight at all!
Click to expand...

Once again, you take the "official" out of my statment to pretend I said "any action."

An action in an official capacity is a law for purposes of constitutional tests.

Moore took such action. That action is "respecting the establishment."
 
Yeah, that "thou shalt not kill"- that sounds like it might have come from the Ten Commandments- we'd better do away with laws against murder lest "separation of church and state" be violated.
Click to expand...
The laws against murder predate the introduction of Christianity into anglo law. They merely agree with the commandment.
While we're at it we'd better repeal Christmas as a federal holiday- why is the government allowed to recognize that one religious holiday? Quick, call the ACLU.
Click to expand...
Know what? I have no problem with that federal holiday. I have no problem with the 10C on the Supreme Court door. I understand why those don't promote religion.

What I do have is a problem with is a government official attempting to promote a religion. Moore is doing that on a level way beyond any of your examples.
 
Once again, you take the "official" out of my statment to pretend I said "any action."
Click to expand...

Whatever. The first amendment doesn't say "official action" either! You have to base constitutional law on what the constitution says, not on what you "feel" is right or proper on a given day or on a given subject.

It's all based on the 1st Amendment - read it!

Keith
 
Hey, Mike

I'm trying to do that comprehension thing with the 1st Amendment and I keep running into that "Congress shall make no law" thing, seems to me that Congress isn't making any law but the State of Alabama is, so why don't we all just let the people of Alabama decide this thing for themselves?
 
The Bill of Rights applies to all levels of government.

If you argue that only Congress may not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, but the States may do so at their own pleasure, you'd have to advance the notion that only the Feds may not infringe on the RKBA, but states like California have no constitutional barriers when it comes to outright gun bans.

How about the right to free speech, or the right to a jury trial? If the Federales infringe upon them, that's bad...but if the States do, it's A.O.K.?
 
Whatever. The first amendment doesn't say "official action" either!
Click to expand...
Now you are ignoring that the 1st must not be read out of context of the 14th.

Edited to add "not"
It's all based on the 1st Amendment - read it!
Click to expand...
No it's not. It's partially based on the 1st. You are ignoring the 14th.
not on what you "feel" is right or proper on a given day or on a given subject.
Click to expand...
Please refrain from ascribing motive. At best, it's rude and irrelevant.
 
I have no problem with that federal holiday. I have no problem with the 10C on the Supreme Court door. I understand why those don't promote religion.

Um, maybe you could explain it to me.:confused:
 
Hey, Mike

I'm trying to do that comprehension thing with the 1st Amendment and I keep running into that "Congress shall make no law" thing, seems to me that Congress isn't making any law but the State of Alabama is, so why don't we all just let the people of Alabama decide this thing for themselves?
Click to expand...
Hey, Glock. The 14th Amendment was ratified about 130 years ago. It changed the context of the 1st.
 
Marko,

What is the point of a state having a Constitution of it's own? Why do they even need it, we have Big Daddy Federal govt to take care of us?

The States demanded a BoR as a limit on Federal power, to act as a check against the Comstitution, which they though placed too much power in the hands of a centralized govt (They were right), so what sense does it make that the states would agree to a document that would limit their own power and give that central govt the arbitrating authority to decide the internal matters within the state's borders?

I appreciate your concern, but if Concord passes a law limiting free speech or establishing a state church, it's our responsibility to deal with it, not yours. I can keep an eye and a thumb on Concord much better than I can on Washington, so maybe the Feds should go back to taking care of national defense and foreign diplomacy.
 
2dogs.

Christmas is retained as a federal holiday for secular reasons -- since so many federal workers are Christians, there would be virtually no staff anyway. It's more of a personnel-management acknowledgement of reality rather than a celebration.

The SC door A) removes the religious elements from the 10C and B) is part of broader, building-wide Western Civilization lawgiver artwork.

That's a far cry from Moore who placed the 10C there with the express purpose of promoting a religion
 
If the government no longer has to acknowledge the existence of a “creator†and “higher authorityâ€, as described in the founding documents, then how can we expect our “unalienable rights†to be protected. (Well, what little of them we have left!) If no law exists from this “GOD†then how can he exist? Since there are no rules from this “GOD†then how can you people be “endowed†with these “inalienable†rights you claim to have.

“We the GOVERNMENT don’t recognize your GOD. Be gone from me you fools!â€

So where will we receive our “unalienable rights†from?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their ___________ with certain unalienable Rights,â€

What word would you insert in the blank?

Chip


Chip


Chip


Chip
 
While we're at it we'd better repeal Christmas as a federal holiday- why is the government allowed to recognize that one religious holiday? Quick, call the ACLU.
Click to expand...

That's right, 'cause it's the holiest day of my religion: Capitalism.
 
No it's not. It's partially based on the 1st. You are ignoring the 14th.
Click to expand...

Neither the 1st, nor the 14th amendment say anything about "official action". YOU said that, not the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any later amendment.

Keith
 
Neither the 1st, nor the 14th amendment say anything about "official action". YOU said that, not the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any later amendment.
Click to expand...
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of Citizens of the United States."

Edited for clarity:

"Make and enforce any law" = actions in official capacity. Actions made in official capacity always have counted as "law" in constitutional tests. That is not some modern, feel-good, living-constitution idea. It has been done that way since the founders were watching.

Law is not limited to statutes or some other narrow definition.

Moore was making and enforcing law "respecting the establishment of religion":
** He made law when he ordered action in his official capacity (placement of monument).
** He turned that law into "law respecting an establishment of religion" when he tied the action to upholding the supposed religious foundation behind U.S. law
** He was attempting to enforce law by fighting to keep it there.
 
Last edited:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of Citizens of the United States."
Click to expand...

That's right. And which privileges and immunities are we talking about? We are talking about those embodied in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law. etc, etc.

Law is not limited to statutes or some other narrow definition.
Click to expand...

Civil liberties are codified in the Bill of Rights. They can't be infringed upon because some ill-defined general principle (that isn't even written down) sounds right to you.

Keith
 
And which privileges and immunities are we talking about?
Click to expand...
That of being free of "laws respecting an establishment of religion. Moore made such a law.
They can't be infringed upon because some ill-defined general principle (that isn't even written down) sounds right to you.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting that any right be infringed.

Moore = the state. The state has no rights; it has powers. This is a situation of a power being used unconstitutionally.
 
a Judge acting outside his constitutional authority does not a law make.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. For purposes of constutional scrutiny, Moore's order to erect the monument was a law. In the Anglo-Amercan legal tradition (since at least Blackstone) law has been understood to mean the sovereign(*) or its agents imposing its will on the people regardless of the form of that action. That's what Moore did. He acted in his official capacity as an agent of the state to impose religion on the people.

(*) obviously, in the American branch, sovereign = the state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Alabama voters file suit to restore Moore
Replies
21
Views
1K
2dogs
2
B
  • Locked
Alabama chief justice removed
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
2K
rock jock
R
J
  • Locked
Petition in support of Judge Roy Moore
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Marko Kloos
M
D
  • Locked
South again rising against federal rule?
Replies
24
Views
1K
mordechaianiliewicz
M
R
  • Locked
What is a Constitution Worth?
Replies
7
Views
482
griz
G
Back
Top