 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
The hatemongers are the people who filed the ethics complaint in the first place against the CJ. I am willing to bet that these folks are not Republicans. The anti-religious hate mongers are leftists, on the whole. They are implementing their Marxist, godless utopia.
Still, I agree there is no doubt that our federal system breaks down if the state courts do not obey the orders of federal courts. In the modern era, Eisenhower used US troops to enforce court orders in Arkansas. I simply agree with the CJ that the display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the 1st Amendment.
Last edited by Ned on 23-08-2003 at 10:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
MtG - quote:
Where did I say that, and with what words? (hint: I didn't, except in a blatantly sarcastic post directed toward an argument of yours) |
quote:
I never said they acted because he gave orders to state employees. |
I've quoted you twice now, here it is again:
quote:
He doesn't run the building as the senior officer of the court, he has no authority over state employees, that's why the other eight justices of the Alabama Supreme Court entered an order specifically overriding his previous directives. |
While I seriously doubt he has no authority over the employees working at the courthouse, you say this was preceded by sarcasm and that somehow means you didn't really mean the quoted section above was to be taken seriously? Yes, it was preceded by a sarcastic comment but what I've been quoting is not sarcasm, it's your explanation as to why the other justices over ruled him. If you didn't mean that as the justification used by the 8 justices, fine, I agree.
quote:
There, when he gives an administrative directive to court staff, they are normally obligated by law to follow that directive. |
But you haven't provided any evidence he directed state employees to install the monument. Furthermore, from what I've heard from the people who brought the lawsuit (and you), he could have put this monument in his office, e.g., and not violate the establishment clause - it's the location of the monument that determines whether or not it violates the 1st Amendment.
quote:
You asked what law had been passed, and I pointed out that administrative orders of state officials have the force of law. How you got from there to where you got is beyond me. |
But you haven't shown this "law" was enacted by Moore. And the 1st Amendent says "Congress shall make no law" clearly referencing the legislative branch, therefore, administrative acts by judges who are not legislators dealing with employees is not what was meant by the 1st Amendment. What could have happened if an employee said "no" when instructed to install the monument? He might have been fired, but not punished as in the context of being punished for violating a law - there is no force of law behind such a directive.
quote:
As they noted in their recent order, he didn't bother to tell them, they found out after the fact. |
Yes, and they did nothing for 2 years. But what you quoted from the other justices contained no reference to them overturning his directive because he instructed state employees in violation of his authority. You say they waited for the pending lawsuit and appeals, but they would have seen it long before any suit was filed much less appeals. So if these 8 justices had the authority to over rule Moore's "administrative action" and wanted to exercise that authority, they could have even if no suit was ever filed. But they didn't want to over rule him, the federal judge's intervention is why they acted.
quote:
But if it's private contractors acting at the "invitation" of a government official, where's the force of law?  |
That was my point, you haven't shown a law was made, therefore no establishment was legislated (even if we accept your proposition that an administrative action=/forums/legislation, a proposition I reject since legislatures make laws, not judges).
quote:
Go to your local law library and look up "law" in the book series "Words and Phrases." You'll find hundreds of citations as to how the term "law" has been defined in US practice. You could also check Lexis/Nexis, Cornell or Harvard's sites, or there's probably a bunch of others. I'd dig out my Black's 6th Ed., but it's in my office, so if you insist, you're gonna have to wait about ten hours.  |
I know there all sorts of euphemisms for "law", the point is a "law" must have the force of law behind it and budgets, bills, etc, are all legislation, just with different modifiers to distinguish between which kind of laws are being made. A budget is the legislation dealing with the government's operating funds and a bill is a more specific piece of legislation, but they are both still legislation.
quote:
I'm pointing out that except for budgets, legislative acts may be initiated by either house of Congress, contrary to what you said. And that still doesn't extend to other forms of law. |
The first sentence of Art 1 Sect 7 reads: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills". I don't see any provision in the Constitution authorising the Senate to initiate legislation of any kind. Now, I know that isn't the way it works today so I'd have to research when the Senate began initiating legislation. If it began 200 years ago, then my interpretation would seem invalid. But I suspect the Senate and the House agreed somewhere along the line to allow either body to initiate legislation. I'm not even sure the Senate does initiate legislation, to save time what typically happens is members of both bodies agree legislation is needed and go off to their respective bodies and begin ironing out the details ending with a joint conference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
There is a big storm here so I have to go. I must leave you all with a quote from John Locke in his letter of toleration 1689:
Of course John Locke had no influence on the founding of the United States did he??? |
Not as much as Thomas Paine- why not quote him?
'Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.'
Age of Reason, Part First, Section 3
[....]
The Christian Mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were obliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is then introduced into the Garden of Eden, in the shape of a snake or a serpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with Eve, who is no way surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of this tete-a-tete is that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind.
After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the Church Mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the pit; or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon him (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain), or have put him under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women and doing more mischief. But instead of this they leave him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole- the secret of which is, that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian Mythology?
Having thus made an insurrection and a battle in Heaven, in which none of the combatants could be either killed or wounded -- put Satan into the pit -- let him out again -- giving him a triumph over the whole creation -- damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, these Christian Mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and Man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing had eaten an apple.
Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is.
In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan, a power equally as great, if not greater than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterward to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.
Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating, by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.
Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross, in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd -- less contradictory. But instead of this, they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.
That many good men have believed this strange fable, and lived very good lives under that belief (for credulity is not a crime), is what I have no doubt of. In the first place, they were educated to believe it, and they would have believed anything else in the same manner. There are also many who have been so enthusiastically enraptured by what they conceived to be the infinite love of God to man, in making a sacrifice of himself, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and deterred them from examining into the absurdity and profaneness of the story. The more unnatural anything is, the more it is capable of becoming the object of dismal admiration.'
'The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.
Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,
THOMAS PAINE
Luxembourg, 8th Pluviose, Second Year of the French Republic, one and indivisible.
January 27, O. S. 1794.'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Of course the great influence of Tom Paine was largely the result of his book; Common Sense. It was written in 1776, quite a few years before he refined his beliefs (or perhaps he hid his true beliefs to appeal to the Christians he was trying to influence) when he wrote The Age of Reason several years later. Anyway, here is an exerpt of his reasoning to the people on why they should rebel against England:
...AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said. Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall sent thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchial government is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of king-craft, as priest-craft in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.
As you can see the appeal was made according to scripture and a common belief in God. The government was later formed with that consideration in mind.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
civman - quote:
Since the 1960s or maybe earlier SCOTUS has held that the due process clause of the 14th amendment generalizes "Congress" to any government body. This argument has had no legal value since then. |
It may not have legal value because Congress and the courts have trashed the Constitution, but the language in the 1st Amendment is clear - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". And because of the 14th Amendment, "Congress" is synonymous with the various state legislatures. This monument, or it's placement, is not a law; neither Congress or any state legislature made any law.
The passage of a law, an actual law with the force of law behind it, i.e., a law for which violaters are punished or a law that excludes non-believers from participation in government, is required before religion can be "established".
The monument does not violate the 1st Amendment...
Last edited by Berzerker on 24-08-2003 at 13:38
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
The god of Thomas Paine and the god of his audience are not necessarily one and the same- you're making a leap of faith. Even Stalin could quote scripture. |
Well I agree that Paine had a different god than most Americans did at that time. And he probably did quote scripture without believing it entirely. But what does that have to do with the religious influence on the founding of the United States? To say that the Christian religion had no influence on the foundational laws is simply an attempt to revise history. As Ned said earlier; it is simply denial of the obvious. If you folks want to establish atheism now then go for it, but try and leave history as it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I have to leave for a few days so I will post this excerpt from James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" which reasoning is the basis for the 1st Amendment and the seperation of church and state. The Christian religion was not established by the founders but as anyone can plainly see God was indeed a consideration in forming the foundational laws. In that sense Judge Moore is correct that a mere symbol of the historic basis of US law does not establish a religion.
============================
By James Madison
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Last edited by Lincoln on 24-08-2003 at 17:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
civman2000
|
 |
of the Martian Empire
Jun 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
It may not have legal value because Congress and the courts have trashed the Constitution, but the language in the 1st Amendment is clear - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". And because of the 14th Amendment, "Congress" is synonymous with the various state legislatures. This monument, or it's placement, is not a law; neither Congress or any state legislature made any law.
The passage of a law, an actual law with the force of law behind it, i.e., a law for which violaters are punished or a law that excludes non-believers from participation in government, is required before religion can be "established".
The monument does not violate the 1st Amendment... |
As MtG pointed out, administrative actions are a form of law. For example, when the EPA sets an official policy, it is law. Only the courts or Congress can overrule it, and everyone must follow it. Similarly, although placing a 5000 pound rock does not require anyone to follow anything, it still is an official and enforced policy and thus is a law. After all, IIRC the due process clause says "No state," not "No state legislature". As a part of the state government of Alabama, Moore must obey the Bill of Rights.
quote:
No Mike, the placing of a monument does not establish the Baptist religion. and Berz is correct. The USSC is making law now where it used to interpret it. It is too much trouble to change the Constitution so the liberals simply change the meaning of words (eg.. Creator also means abiogenesis). That is the trouble with lawyers having too much time on their hands... |
First, no one ever claimed that it fully "establishes" any individual religion in the narrow sense. However, it clearly endorses the Judeo-christian school of religions. Secondly, SCOTUS is clearly interpreting two laws: the 1st and 14th amendments. Their conclusion follows logically from them, and even though you may disagree with it, they are still interpreting and not making law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"Similarly, although placing a 5000 pound rock does not require anyone to follow anything, it still is an official and enforced policy and thus is a law."
Is it also an "enforced policy and thus a law" that the Statue of Liberty is in New York? You answered your own question. A statue or monument in a public place does not establish a religion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
There are 2 separate issues: Who is obligated by the establishment clause, and what amounts to an establishment.
The establishment clause refers to Congress, bot the executive or judicial branch. Does the constitution allow for an establishment by these two branches, then? The answer is found in the rule of law; without a respective law, these two branches have no power to establish a religion in the first place. Not alowing Congress to make such a law amounts to a ban on the establishment of religion by the federal government.
Now assuming that the states are fully bound by the federal bill of rights, equating "Congress" with "state legislature" only makes sense in so far as there is no other state law, like self-standing executive acts, customary law etc. Either way, the result is that states shall not establish a religion.
Does a statue of the 10 commandments amount to an establishment of religion? I think it would be rather clear if there was a law requiring such a statue in court buildings. It would also be clear if there was a law that only allows judeo-christian symbols in court buildings; this could also infringe upon the "equal protection of the laws".
What about a law that allows government officers to install religious monuments of their choice in public buildings? As it will usually be a reflection of the religious views of the majority, I'm inclined to see this as an establishment of the religion of the majority. But this is a grey area open to debate.
If you agree with that though, the question becomes whether the actions of the chief justice are a state action. Could any citizen establish such a monument? Obviously not. If he acted within his capacity, then the respective law allows for the establishment of religion. If not, his conduct was unlawful anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
"Similarly, although placing a 5000 pound rock does not require anyone to follow anything, it still is an official and enforced policy and thus is a law."
Is it also an "enforced policy and thus a law" that the Statue of Liberty is in New York? You answered your own question. A statue or monument in a public place does not establish a religion. |
It does if the statue is a sacred object- if it were a madonna and child or a copy of the Qu'ran in the court rotunda, would those stout godfearing Southern Baptists be rallying round in solidarity? Hardly. Perhaps you missed the point several dozen posts ago, when I quoted the judges of the Supreme Court who had ruled that the memorial of the decalogue in the King James version of the bible is quite clearly a sacred text, not an example of or reference to, secular law giving. Perhaps your fervour to believe that there is some godless atheist plot is blinding you to the obvious- a memorial or statue which is quite clearly particular to one religion or one branch of one religion, is in and of itself a sacred, not a secular object. The judge's monument admits of no other interpretation. Had he put up an inscription, non-denominational, such as 'do not harm others', or 'behave towards other people as you would expect them to behave towards you', it would not be peculiar to a religion or a branch of a religion, but instead he chooses to foist upon all his own confession, on state property.
He's a shabby populist demagogue- part of a long tradition in the South, cloaking himself in religious 'martyrdom' trappings, to garner support.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2003 09:28
|