Judge Roy Moore the next Jefferson Davis?

Great Debates
1

A question that has always been boiling in my blood, is: What will the result of today’s being the first time America has ever been so polarized over so many hardcore issues since the Civil War going to do to us?

There is no man I feel has been more wronged than Judge Roy Moore…here’s why in brief:

His State Constitution allowed him to place the Ten Commandments as he had into the Court House. He was elected by 70% of Alabamians under the pretense of doing so. 3 Alabamian lawyers brought the case to Judge Thompson who decided that the Ten Commandments should be removed because of the “Establishment Clause” of the US Constitution. The Establishment Clause reads thus:

Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion; (perhaps that’s paraphrased it’s off the top of my head).

Since Judge Roy Moore is incapable of passing a law, nor did he establish any religion (giving certain benefits to one religion over the other primarily involved in taxation and usually resulting in forcing everyone to respect one religion above all others) I believe this ruling is bullshit. And I don’t think most Americans who know much about the Establishment Clause could agree with Thompson on that Ruling. This is not to say that the Ten Commandments should not have been removed, but that they were removed for the wrong reasons which is dangerous as it redefines the Constitution.

Now where am I going with this?

Well it expands. Gay Marriage.

As it stands States do not have to recognize other State’s “Gay Marriages”.

This means if the Gay Amendment fails to pass, you shall find a division between states based on Gay Marriages and Anti-Gay Marriages. And those in between.

Also, currently in Congress is a bill to redefine the jurisdictions of the Court so that they can not take up certain religious issues (Such as Roy Moore’s Commandments issue). If that fails to pass the Courts will still be ravenous dogs against the religious right.

So, where am I going with all this?

What if a Democratic President were elected and forced States to recognize other State’s Gay Marriages?

What if the Courts continued their assault upon God in Government (Such as the 9th Circuit Court’s attack on the Pledge of Allegiance).

Does it then seem so impossible that States who are now being forced by the Federal Government to do what they do not wish to do, would seceed from the Union?

I think with Judge Roy Moore, as charismatic as he can be, and as wronged as he has been, could easily become the hub of such an event.

I don’t think we are beyond Civil War. In fact, I think if the Gay Marriage Amendment does not ban it forever then there will be a serious rebellion by those driven by Moral and Religious creed.

I think this would be driven even further if Kerry’s Administration attempts to remove more Guns from the populous as he says he will.

Because such a majority does not care if Gays are not allowed to marry, or do not want gays to marry, I don’t feel that any banning of Gay marriages would upset any States into such a drastic effect.

But that is a possibility also, and perhaps on that pretense Hillary Clinton would be the next Jefferson Davis? (I always see her as the true future leader of the Democratic and liberal movements in America).

This is hypothetical of course…but what are your views on such divisions arising due to the current “hot issues” at hand right now?

I think Roy Moore would make a pretty good President actually.

A lot of people hate his “religious views”…but he at least understands what this nation was founded as and is not afraid to express his views accordingly. Just because the current courts are fairly liberal or Federalist does not make them right. Judge Roy Moore had every right to put the Commandments in his court house just as the next Judge had every right to put the Koran in their court house.

And if a deal of the States ever did feel so threatened as to leave or fight to restore the Constitution as it was originally, a guard to the States from Federal power, then I believe Roy Moore would be chosen by the people without him even having to lift his finger, just as Davis was chosen without him even knowing he was on the ballot.

Simply because Roy Moore is the one person so publically effected by the Federal Government’s exertion over State’s Rights.

2

Were did you get that idea?

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/rights.html

Well, not from there, can we have your supporting cite?

Speaking of states rights, together with secession and Jefferson Davis, etc, does not make me confident at all. Does the phrase that starts with “Those who ignore history” rings a bell? (Ignoring the eventual defeat, I see)

3

Hey now, don’t be calling me a liar or misinformed. I heard Kerry speaking about Guns on the Television not more than a week ago, and it did not fit into anything you just posted.

Now maybe, I heard him wrong, the channel cut him off or did not put it into full context, or Kerry is being his two-faced self…we’ll just have to wait and see won’t we?

Speaking of states rights, together with secession and Jefferson Davis, etc, does not make me confident at all. Does the phrase that starts with “Those who ignore history” rings a bell? (Ignoring the eventual defeat, I see)

This seems to be a baseless and pointless sentence, which means that over all your post was completely useless and you might as well have not posted it at all.

Are you saying that we should not fight for State’s Rights? Or do you disagree with me what constitutes State’s Rights?

And what would you do if Soldiers kicked down your door and stayed in your house against your will? Say “Yes massa”?

4

Judge Roy Moore is no Jefferson Davis, he isn’t even a George Wallace.

Oh I see so in order to preserve state rights the federal government has to ban states the right to do what the state wants to. Makes perfect sense.

Lastly, If I am ever a Judge I will build a huge monument to Unicron filled with quotes from Transformers: The Movie or perhaps a statue of Bokonon with quotes from his 53rd calypso because as a judge I have the right to put up whatever the hell I want in my courtroom.

5

Moral and Religious creed?? Wow, sounds like something out of a speech for the prohibition in the 1920s!! BTW, by Religious, do you mean only Christian? Because that would make it clearer. We have many religions co-existing now, remember?

6

Nope, I would run away and join the Union army!

Remember: not all State rights are worth fighting for, and you should realize the suffering of gays, under people like the Judge, would be worse since for sure, things worse than slavery will be in store for them in the “confederacy” you are proposing here.

Not to mention that even though I am not gay, I would still be willing to fight for their rights, more than 30% (AFAICR) in a recent poll were in favor of gay marriage, even more for civil unions, so that is a lot of enemies in your mist that you and your ilk will have to deal with in your “new America”, and at the same time, more populated states will be against you trying to keep the union together, so keep dreaming.

7

Am I the only person who gave up on the OP after this point?

8

TBC: A question that has always been boiling in my blood, is: What will the result of today’s being the first time America has ever been so polarized over so many hardcore issues since the Civil War going to do to us?

When you can calm down and get your blood to stop boiling, you might want to fix the syntax of that sentence. However, I think I see what you’re trying to say.

And I’m rather skeptical of the premise that America today is in fact more polarized than it has been “since the Civil War”. Issues such as votes for women, the “Indian Question”, the various “Red Scares”, World War I, the civil rights movement, and Vietnam also brought severe and bitter societal divisions, without bringing renewed civil war.

*Alabamian lawyers brought the case to Judge Thompson who decided that the Ten Commandments should be removed because of the “Establishment Clause” of the US Constitution. The Establishment Clause reads thus:

Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion; (perhaps that’s paraphrased it’s off the top of my head).
*

That should be “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Since Judge Roy Moore is incapable of passing a law, nor did he establish any religion (giving certain benefits to one religion over the other primarily involved in taxation and usually resulting in forcing everyone to respect one religion above all others) I believe this ruling is bullshit.

To learn about some of the reasons why generations of American judges have agreed that such rulings are not bullshit, you can check out this explanation, for example.

In particular, you should note that the Establishment Clause since the days of the Founding Fathers has been interpreted to mean not just that Congress may not establish any religion as our official national religion, but, more broadly, that the government may not act to sponsor or endorse any particular religion or religion in general. In other words, the government’s official activities are supposed to be secular.

This has been formulated, for the past 30+ years, as the so-called “Lemon test”, from the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman. The three conditions of the “Lemon test” ask:

That means, among other things, that government courthouses can’t display religious scriptures with the implication that the interpretation or application of the law is supposed to be inspired by or subordinate to such scriptures. That clearly counts as a government “endorsement” of religion, so it violates the Establishment Clause.

This is not to say that the Ten Commandments should not have been removed, but that they were removed for the wrong reasons which is dangerous as it redefines the Constitution.

If you disagree with the Supreme Court that such a display of a religious scripture is unconstitutional, then why do you think it should have been stopped?

*Also, currently in Congress is a bill to redefine the jurisdictions of the Court so that they can not take up certain religious issues (Such as Roy Moore’s Commandments issue). *

Cite, please? Which bill is that?

I don’t think we are beyond Civil War. In fact, I think if the Gay Marriage Amendment does not ban it forever then there will be a serious rebellion by those driven by Moral and Religious creed.

There is no possible proof or rebuttal for vague prophecies like this one, except to wait and see. However, I think your scenario very unlikely; wars are generally based largely on economic causes, and the US Civil War was no exception. I can’t see any way in which the gay-marriage issue could have an economic impact large enough to provoke an armed uprising.

9

“Thou Shalt Not Kill”

This means you, bud.

10

States’ Rights:

If California wants to legalize marijuana, the Federal government has no right to stop it or take measures against California for it.

Marriage is and always has been a matter of the states. The Federal government has NO RIGHT AT ALL to interfere with that matter in any capacity.

If you believe in “states’ rights”, you must accept the preceding. If you reject the preceding, you reject all “states’ rights” arguments, completely. Anything else is dishonesty and hypocrisy.

11

Personally, I gave up after The Broken …

12

Arguably, “as it stands” states that do not recognize gay marriage will be required to recognize marriages from other states, based on the “full faith and credit” and 'all privileges and immunities" clauses that prohibit states from ignoring the laws of other states. The point may be argued, but it would appear from the unseemly haste of many people to throw a marriage amendment into the Constitution that a lot of people who oppose gay marriage believe that Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 do mean that.

13

Well, I will say this is one of the more er, entertaining propositions put forward for discussion recently.

Let’s see, GIGObuster posts a Kerry quote with a cite to its source; you say you heard something different on TV last week. Hmm, who should I believe?

OK, I’ve decided. Based on the information above, I think that you, sir, are either a liar or misinformed.

For the rest:

Really? More polarized than during the height of the civil rights movement? More polarized than during the Viet Nam conflict? Hell, more polarized than during the unionization movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries? You really are giving away your age here, me bucko.

WTF? Is your position really that the issue of gay marriage is worth going to war over?

Fascinating.

14

H.R. 3799

15

Former Supreme Court Justice Moore won with 54.7% of the votes not 70%.
http://www.southernopinion.com/archives/2003/030828roymoore.html

16

----err that should have been Former ALABAMA Supreme Court Justice ----not that I thought you guys were confused about it. . . .-----------

17

point of order, Mr. Column. It’s not Roy Moore’s court house. It belongs to the people of Alabama, who had temporarily hired Mr. Moore to work there. He can do whatever he wants with the 10 commandments on private property that he owns, but on public property he has to respect the owners’ requirements, i.e. - the Constitution.

18

I’m confused by the OP (I guess that goes without saying. :rolleyes: )

Is Roy Moore or Hillary Clinton going to be the next Jefferson Davis? Or are they going to take turns, just like we used to do on the playground?

Roy “I’m Jefferson Davis today.”

Hillary "Are not! You were Jefferson Davis yesterday. It’s my turn today!

Roy “I’m Jefferson Davis until I get impeached!”

19

I gave up on the OP several threads ago.

20

I see…

I don’t suppose that you could give us the date and time of this television appearance, tell us the channel and the specific program that it happened on, and/or give us a link to a transcript or video file of this appearance? Or is this going to be added to the long list of cases where gun nuts a certain that proof of something exists, but are for some reason unable to provide that proof?

As for conservative states breaking away under the leadership of Roy Moore, or anyone else: not gonna’ happen. The economy of the red states depends on large pork-barrel handouts from the federal government. The money for those handouts doesn’t just grow on trees, you know. If the federal government gives a massive contract to a company in Alabama or elsewhere, the money for that contract has to come from somewhere, and it’s most likely going to come from taxes paid by people in liberal states. Conservative states can’t even consider breaking away from the United States. Their economies would collapse.