Judge Roy Moore the next Jefferson Davis?

[Polycarp]

Well, let’s see. To start with, Roy Moore (while I do believe in the courtesy of extending former officials their former titles, a man removed from office for offenses against the Constitution is not so deserving) is in my opinion a demagogue whose primary interest in controversies is to play them in such a way as to advance Roy Moore politically. By comparison, Jefferson Davis was a patriot in his own way, who stood for his political beliefs even to military defeat and his own ostracism from public life. Points: Davis.

I would have to see evidence that a part of his platform in running for office was to publicly post the Ten Commandments in the state court house to believe even a part of that allegation – people have already disproven the 70% figure.

You might also take into consideration that the part of the Constitution which Roy Moore was removed for violating was not the First Amendment, but the Fourteenth, which proscribes the States from taking actions which abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. One such privilege and immunity is to have no action taken which establishes an incident of religion by governmental act. I trust that you are aware that most Jews and Christians consider the Ten Commandments to play a significant role in their religion?

I think you can take secession without consent of Congress (which will not be given) as about as probable as the idea that Cthulhu will rise from the ocean bed and eat the Easter Island statues for lunch.

On divisiveness, I have to agree that it’s at a high pitch lately – largely due to Mr. Bush’s extreme partisanship contrary to his promises to be a uniter, IMHO. (YMMV) But I am old enough to remember (barely) the McCarthy Era, and I remember the Vietnam Era vividly. And quite bluntly, the disputes of today are a high school debate club compared to those two periods.

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.

Oh, really? His jurisprudence and his public blustering have given me to understand that he has not a clue what motivated James Madison, George Washington, John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, and the other people who founded this country. And the day Roy Moore builds himself a courthouse, he is more than welcome to put the Ten Commandments, and indeed the entire Holiness Code of Leviticus, in them for all anyone will care. And perhaps he can get the publicity he craves by starting up a “Judge Judy” type TV show based there.

But in the Alabama State Courthouse, where the United States Constitution is acknowledged as the “supreme law of the land,” he had no right to put any symbol of his religious beliefs anywhere but in his private office, where the free exercise clause permits him to do whatever he wants.

And I think that he was no more wronged than the college newspaper that tried to refuse a religious ad at Easter from a group of faculty members, and was rightly slapped down by the courts for doing so, with the ACLU on the side of the faculty members. What he did was to grandstand for publicity, and he got it.

And as a result he seems to be the likely candidate of a far-right third party for President. IMHO, just as he hoped.

[DadWagonDriver]

@tomndebb

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.

Thanks, Tom. Much more eloquent than I would have said it.

[Kimstu]

(Thanks for the bill cite, Reeder.)

[Mehitabel]

Hey, Column, I’m sure somebody as interested in current events as you has a longtime subscription to the New York Times, so I know this is nothing new to you, but for some folks on the board it might be: Judge Moore is visiting us here in NY right now and he is AGAINST a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage:

A Former Justice With the Law, and God, as His Guide (Published 2004)

…I think the procedure to correct these problems lies within the Constitution itself, which doesn’t need to be amended.

You cannot correct every moral deficit created by the courts by constitutional amendment. If we make a constitutional amendment that says marriage is between a man and a woman, what stops a court from saying that means a man can marry his sister, thereby making incest legal? The problem is the courts.

It scares me that I find myself agreeing, even from a totally different approach to it, with Mr. Moore’s first sentence.

And, oh yeah, we are also way beyond civil war. Take a look at the ones erupting/ending/ongoing around the world–almost no American, no matter how angry they might get, has the desire to see that happen here. In fact, we’re the first refuge of people who want to get the hell away from their country’s civil wars.

[brianjedi]

@The_Broken_Column

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).

The 1st Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Big difference between “no law establishing a religion” and “no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

[Sofa_King]

Thirty years ago this thread might have been entitled “Rudy Ray Moore the Next Jefferson Davis?”

I take comfort in the fact that some of the very same people who fought so hard and so long to deprive other peoples freedoms then are the ones who are apparently so restless now.

I also refuse to admit that American “morality” has decayed since the supposed “good old days” when Congress was at war with itself over a matter as basic and obvious as civil rights. This Rove-ian conceived tempest in a teapot will one day be viewed to be as base and callous as the antics of the purveyors of hate and fear when it was a matter of simple recognition of the equal rights of “thy neighbor.”

There will be no revolution, so long as we remember the Eleventh Commandment:

Keep the issue simmering until Election Day. Then drop it like a hot brick.

[askeptic]

Since I am knew to this type of forum and have not yet learned to select text to which to respond I will preceed my comments to particular portions of this text with the symbols >>>

>>>Let me start by asserting my primary argument.

>>>I wonder Sir, just how much you would have supported Moore, had he put a statue of the Torra, or the Koran in the lobby of the Supreme Court. If you would have as ardently supported either, I would still challenge your understanding of Constitutional Law, but I would not question your arguments as mereley partisan.

[QUOTE=The_Broken_Column]
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?

>>>What issue do you feel is as “hardcore” as dissolution of the Union of Slavery?

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

>>>There is no man I feel has been LESS wronged than Roy More! He was obviously incomptant to rule on maters of law.

His State Constitution allowed him to place the Ten Commandments as he had into the Court House.
>>>I would really appreciate something more than a bald (bold) faced assertion of this matter.

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.

>>>Your assertion that the statue was removed for the “wrong” reason is not terribly compelling. It is well established that the clause to which you refer does much more that prohibit that which you claim. In conjunction with the 14th Amendment it creates the right to be free from religios persecution.

>>>I wonder Sir, just how much you would have supported Moore, had he put a statue of the Torra, or the Koran in the lobby of the Supreme Court. If you would have as ardently supported either, I would still challenge your understanding of Constitutional Law, but I would not question your arguments as mereley partisan

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”.

>>> I must ask when was the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” overturned?

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.

>>>That is just factually incorrect.

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?

>>>As stated above according to the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” if a Republican president failed to recognize such marriages he would be subject to impeachment. It is not for the Executive to decide which laws to enforce it is his duty to "Suport and Defend " the constitution.

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

>>>That Sir, is pure hyperbole. The Ninth Circuit attempted no such assault, they merely attempted to assert that a phrase added to the pledge less than 50 years ago that is in direct violation of the constitution should not be imposed on students of public education.
>>>I grow weary of this, it is like shooting fish in a barrel

[Cervaise]

@The_Broken_Column

Hey now, don’t be calling me a liar or misinformed.

That there’s what they call a “meet in the middle” proposition.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@GIGObuster

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)

Nah, this time we’d just let 'em go and say good riddance to the whole Bible Belt.

Heck, the North would be a lot better off if we’d let the South go before the Civil War.

Even today, letting them become their own “Confederacy” would automatically move the USA up quite a few rankings in things like health coverage, schoolchild graduation rate, percentage of people in poverty, literacy rate, etc.

[Dogface]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Nah, this time we’d just let 'em go and say good riddance to the whole Bible Belt.

Heck, the North would be a lot better off if we’d let the South go before the Civil War.

Even today, letting them become their own “Confederacy” would automatically move the USA up quite a few rankings in things like health coverage, schoolchild graduation rate, percentage of people in poverty, literacy rate, etc.

We would also be more free to import sweatshop foreign clothing and similar products without relics of the US garment factory worker populations complaining.

[Razorsharp]

@Kimstu

… wars are generally based largely on economic causes, and the US Civil War was no exception.

HERESY!! The Civil War war fought for “emancipation”. If the “war” was fought for economic reasons, then the North really was an aggressor that had no true justification in invading the South.

Hmmm… it’s all coming clear now, “emancipation” was just an excuse that painted the North’s aggression in a favorable light.

[Razorsharp]

@tomndebb

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.

All right!! Now we’re getting somewhere. “Full faith and credit” and “all privileges and immunities” clauses will require states to recognize concealed-carry permits issued from other states.

Either that or this will be just another example of arbitrarily using the Constitution to facilitate an agenda.

Gosh, I wonder which it will be?

[Hamlet]

@Razorsharp

All right!! Now we’re getting somewhere. “Full faith and credit” and “all privileges and immunities” clauses will require states to recognize concealed-carry permits issued from other states.

Either that or this will be just another example of arbitrarily using the Constitution to facilitate an agenda.

Gosh, I wonder which it will be?

Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. But you will get some nice parting gifts for playing.

I know from dealing with you on other issues that research and critical thinking is not your strong suit, but I’ll try, once again, to show how and why your are wrong. At the end, I know I will not convince you, nor will you respond with anything other than vague attacks on the judicial system, but I will somehow go on.

Back in 1939, the United States Supreme Court stated:

"It has often been recognized by this Court that there are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. . . . And in the case of statutes, the extrastate effect of which Congress has not prescribed, as it may under the constitutional provision, we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.

Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California, 59 S.Ct. 629 (1939).

They also stated:

“Full faith and credit,” this Court concluded, “does not here enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”

Now, the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to recognize another’s permits to carry concealed weapons. The State’s interest in regulating weapons is a more than sufficient governmental interest. As the Texas Appellate Court stated:

There is no constitutional requirement that a state yield to laws and statutes of another state in all circumstances. Each state has legitimate policy considerations in the enactment of its laws, and there are limits to the extent that these interests must be subordinate to the laws of another state.

Hawkins v. State, 745 S.W.2d 511, Tex.App.-Fort Worth,1988. In the Hawkins case, the Court ruled that Texas was not required to allow a private investigator, licensed to carry in California, to carry a weapon in Texas.

You can also find a short discussion of this issue here.

Gosh, I wonder if Razorsharp will offer more than unreasearched, incorrect assertions of law?

[askeptic]

“Gosh, I wonder if Razorsharp will offer more than unreasearched, incorrect assertions of law?”

I did not think so. I am just glad I was not holding my breath. I suppose he is off comparing notes with the guy with the audacious screen name James Madison. They seem to have an affinity for misunderstanding legal concepts.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Update: Moore won the March Republican primary for re-election to the Chief Justice’s seat, and is the frontrunner in the election. I find it curious that he is even eligible for the office, having been removed by the state’s judicial ethics panel, but there you go.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Razorsharp, wow… that takes me back.

[fumster]

Here are some questions for the OP:

Which version of the 10 Commandments should be used? Can it be the Catholic version in one county, Protestant in another? How would you feel being tried before a judge who thinks *his *religion is the one laws are based on, not yours?

What I was a child the teacher recited the Catholic version of the Lord’s Prayer rather than the one I knew, is that OK? How about kids in the class who were Hindi or Buddhist or Atheists?

What if cheerleaders in your town held up banners saying God didn’t exist? OK with that?

What if a state assembly only had Rabbis in to say prayers, or only Muslims? OK with that?

Could a town allow a menorah on public property but not a creche?

OK with putting “We don’t trust God” on the currency?

The irony, is that the separation of Church and State has resulted in a country that spawned dozens of new religious sects and is the most religious industrialized country in the world. You can practice your faith as freely here as any place on earth. I’m sorry if you are bothered that people don’t want to turn our country into something where public officials pick and choose what religions to honor.

[Czarcasm]

@fumster

Here are some questions for the OP:

I’ve got a question for the OP-Why haven’t you posted since 2004?

[tomndebb]

@fumster

Here are some questions for the OP:

Got a time machine?

The OP has not posted to the SDMB since 03-11-2004.

[fumster]

@tomndebb

Got a time machine?

The OP has not posted to the SDMB since 03-11-2004.

I knew the south was behind the times, but this is ridiculous