[Alabama 10Commandments] Moore: Federal court lacks authority

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1060075062119870.xml

MONTGOMERY - Chief Justice Roy Moore told a federal judge Monday that the U.S. District Court has no authority to order the Ten Commandments monument removed from the state judicial building.


Moore's lawyers filed a two-paragraph statement with U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson against any new orders to remove the monument or lifting the stay the judge issued on Dec. 23.

"The federal district court has no jurisdiction, power or authority to remove this public acknowledgment of God, which is authorized in the constitution of the state," a spokesman for Moore said.



Why do these types always have to do a George Wallace when they don't get their way?

...and let them haul the monument away. I'm sick of Roy Moore. He's the George Wallace of the new millineum. :puke:

....to reimbuse the State of Alabama for the legal expenses they've incurrd because of this asshole.

nt

...who recanted his position, apologized for the mess, and became an avid supporter of minority rights.

Then the state had no real authority to put the monument there!

rocknation

I am sick and tired of this states rights bullshit. It seems like a free pass to do illegal activities.

Funny, the states rights thing is working for some with Howard Dean, who seems willing to sell our Constitution down the river one amendment at a time.

Go on..

Howard Dean advocates the states rights position on the 2nd Amendment, letting states make their own gun laws. I am opposed to losing my rights either all at once or one at a time.

Imagine applying the same standard to the 1st Amendment. How would DU fare in the heartland?

Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the United States. During my eleven years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont, Tennessee, or Colorado, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have—like the Brady Bill—are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=404

I read his points and basically he is not advocating what you claim.
I sort of welcome Dean's views on gun laws because it strikes a balance between the states and the US. I dont own a gun but I wouldn't oppose someone legally owning a gun. I defer to the Federal and state governments to resolve the matter. Let the courts decide the constitutionality of the laws. I have more important matters to worry about say, trying to stop the killing of muslims by the Bush misadministration.

And I quote you:
Funny, the states rights thing is working for some with Howard Dean, who seems willing to sell our Constitution down the river one amendment at a time.

Thats one amendment. Please highlight more that Dean is allegedly 'willing' to trample upon. Since you interjected a favourable candidate of mine into the discussion, how about you? whom do you support?

And yes the case in question:
Let the courts decide, I am sure Poor Roy Moore will be served justice. My opinion on the matter at hand, the US constitution should supercede any State's constitution. What is your opinion?

You only need to abuse one amendment at a time. Take away the right to bear arms, the rest is easy.

To quote from your response from HD, "That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California." Funny, sounds like states rights against the Constitution to me.

I am pro-Constitution and that document makes it perfectly clear that I have a right to keep and bear arms thank you very much.

There's an entire forum here on DU where that statement is argued vociferously. In your opinion, it's perfectly clear. In many others', it's not.

Nevertheless, for all of us who believe strongly in ALL of the amendments, Dean is a lost cause.

For those of you who believe in one specific interpretation of one of the amendments, Dean is a lost cause?

That would be the Dean who has an A rating from the NRA?

Okay, then.

In all my time here, no one has EVER used anything about the NRA as a positive in a post to argue against me. What a novelty.

The NRA has their axes to grind, I have mine. I don't support 100% of what any group does.

Their choice is political and it is wrong. Dean's choice is political and it is equally wrong. Try applying his standard to the 1st Amendment and see how it feels.

If the First Amendment was as fuzzily written as the Second, we could have just as many arguments.

Besides, have you not noticed that the rights in the First Amendment are not absolute?

We already limit the crap out of the 2nd Amendment. But if we limit the 1st like we limit the 2nd, you and I won't get to have this conversation.

As an aside, I don't find anything fuzzy about the 2nd.

The fuzzy logic of assholes like Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, and John "Cook The Books" Lott.

Roy Moore did it with a little help (and videotaping) from some friends over a weekend, at midnight. Moore only follows direction from God (the origin of all law, in case you thought it was the Constitution) and God apparently spoke to him directly about this.

Of course, one would think that if he really believed it was God's command to put the monument there, he would have done it at noon with a press conference.

Does God only speak to fundies? I feel kind of left out. I could use a few words of wisdom.

that Moore listens to.

.

According to Moore, the feds had no authority to stop them :bounce:

:eyes:

States have no right to make laws that violate the Constitution and that's in the Constitution. That's why these States lost their 'state's rights' to begin with, they consistently refuse to recognise the U.S. Constitution as the supreme authority.

And what is this 'monument' crap? Don't you generally think of a monument as something with historical value? If this thing had been in place for 100 years, I could kind of go along with not wanting to alter historic items. But doesn't the article say it's only been there 2 years, that's not a monument to me.

Somebody needs to start challenging these people point blank, does the Bible rule the U.S. or the Constitution.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1059383721197280.xml
Group pushes Roy Moore for U.S. high court
<snip>
"There is no question that Chief Justice Moore is perceived as a courageous and heroic figure throughout the country by people who recognize that God is the source of law," added Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips...
</snip>

Seems to me that he's got his story just a bit screwed up. Last time I checked, our laws were rooted in Roman Law (as in Julius Caesar)and British Common Law, not in the bible. Since both of those sources are much older than the bible, I'd wager that the law existed before Christianity did...

edited to "unfatfinger" the subject line

Those who recognize the protestant fundamentalist god as the source of US law, aka the nation's theocratic wingnuts, almost certainly do revere Moore.

Is older than the Bible and the 10 Commandments?

Honkkkkkkkkkkk. Try again.

The Old Testament as it is now, dates to about 160 BC and the New Testament to around the second and third century AD, so the O.T. does predate English Common Law, but not Roman Law, which developed over several centuries from around 700 BC.

But the point is, of course, that our law is no more based on the Ten Commandments than it is on the Laws of Hammurabbi (sp), or any other law that pre-dated ours. A society forms its laws in accordence to its needs and culture and asperations. Moore should be forced to resign.

is NOT rooted in the Druidic and pre-Roman Celtic/Pictish customs?

Are you telling me that the Old Testament is not rooted in the 10 Commandments which go back a bit further in time?

Like it or not, those 10 figure prominently in the history of law.

The Old Testament has NOTHING TO DO with the US Constitution. And the 10 Commandments are part of the Old Testament, whivh I do NOT accept as the word of any god. It's fiction put together by men to oppress other men.

To give honor to a historic document is common in our culture. The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta. I've seen them all displayed in the U.S. with reverence. Just as they contributed to our history, so too did the 10 Commandments.

Whether you accept it as the word of God or not doesn't make any difference, it still had major impact.

That's a lie being spread by the brain-dead fundamentalists.

The 10 Commandments (and the Code of Hammurabi) both had significant impact. I'm OK with either one or both being hunt up.

AS far as I'm concerned, here's where I stand on various documents, and whether they should be posted in public buildings:

Declaration of Independence - YES (relevant)

Constitution - YES (relevant)

Bill of Rights - YES (relevant)

Treaty of Tripoli, which states IN WRITING that the US is NOT based on the Christian faith - YES (very relevant)

Ten Commandment - NO (totally irrelevant)

Code of Hammurabi - NO (totally irrelevant)

http://www.uctaa.org/Essays/reflections/commandments/versions.html

and they are, as rules, most of them in defiance of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/ten_comandments.htm

The Ten Commandments are unconstitutional. Period.

So, in essence, it comes down to our interpretation of history. It's not religious belief on my part. I recognize ALL of those as historical documents. As such, all are significant.

That's why we elect people to vote on this. That's why judges get appointed.

Moore was elected Chief Justice. And since he's violating the law here, he should be impeached.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html

Let us now turn to the Ten Commandments of Solon (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.60), which run as follows:

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.


Most people are completely unfamiliar with America's pagan heritage.

Just a few more requirements to be nominated for a Federal judgeship under Bush. :evilgrin:

for contempt?

Alabama Governor agrees with Moore and Bush ain't going to federalize the Nat'l Guard to do it. Ashcroft isn't going to send federal marshals to do it.

And Moore knows this, and he becomes a hero.

All I can think of is that somebody needs to sue moore for violation of his/her civil liberties. Moore probably doesn't have immunity from suits since a federal court has ruled that his acts fall outside his government job.

That would put a lot of pressure on the Justice Department to take him into custody.

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"???

What do Christian Conservatives care what Jesus has to say, anyway?

Might as well have spray painted the hall with some bible quotes, what's the difference?

He ran on backing Moore and there is little likelihood he is going to call out the guard on his boy. Who do you think appointed him to the state Supreme court. This is not some new game he is playing. He has been trying to ram religion back into the courts for decads. He will not be satisfied until we reinstitute stoning and burning of witches in public.

Good, let him and the theocrats radicalize themselves. It'll lead straight into purgatory, like "Operation Rescue" did in the late 80's/early 90's.

struck down "Roe vs. Wade" or upheld the "anti-sodomy laws" (which it struck down), then Judge Moore would support the Federal Court's jurisdiction over a state!

send in the National Guard, and get that atrocity OUT of the Alabama Courthouse.
Sometimes these idiots need a kick in the ass.

Spread the word. It may help bring more southern voters around to your side.

And Ashcroft will never permit US Marshalls to enforce a contempt order on this matter. The governor will never enforce it either.

This has the potential to be a real, honest to goodness Constitutional crisis. If Moore is free to ignore the federal courts, so is everybody else. States that want to segregate students by race are free to do so. Who's going to enforce it? States that want to outlaw abortion and arrest pregnant women are free to do it. Who's going to stop them?

When Wallace did his thing, there were conscientious Democrats on the national scene (LBJ) who said NO. No one will say NO to Moore.

When Chief Justice Marshall held in Marbury v. Madison, "It is emphatically the role of the courts to say what the law is!", the President (Jefferson, as I recall) decided to back off rather than defy the Supreme Court in order to avert the potential constitutional crisis. Unfortunately, today's wingnuts have no such ethic.

Bake