states rights

Great Debates
41

Thanks** Pravnik** for the photos, but so what, MEBruckner? The granite facade of the National Archive building in DC is actually marble. Big deal. I hoped it was granite for the irony. Oh well I guess I’d better go check and see if the bearded greek sitting with the book in his lap is actually Moses. Probably not, but so what ? Be back soon…


*"However, a literal interpretation of the First Amendment is very impractical" `- *- **Jimmy1** 

Uh,** Jim1**, pause a minute and think a minute about the incongruous nature of  that sentence unless you were making a statement about the ridiculous station that "juducial precedent" has reached  in our flawed legal system. In that case your your statement was brilliant.

 Now please excuse me while I go read the 11th Courts decision about Judge Roy Bean's granite threat to humanity. ** El_kabong** and **Spavined Gelding** won't talk anymore to me if I don't.
42

Why, yes, that was certainly my chief point. Where did I say anything implying that I cared about whether the building was granite or marble?

Well, it means your point was evidently totally false, is what. (You’re aware that Moses wasn’t Greek, right?)

From my link above:

So, the bearded Greek guys on the Archives buildings are “Destiny” and the “Recorder of the Archives”. Neither of them is Moses.

There are some representations of Moses in the Supreme Court building, where Moses is included as one of many “lawgivers”, along with everyone from Mohammed to Napoleon Bonaparte. Moses is even given special prominence–equal prominence with Confucius and Solon. And there are allegorical representations of the tablets of the Law associated with Moses. But nowhere does the Supreme Court building proclaim “I am the LORD thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

43

At times it is impractical. It is very impractical. It would permit everything I said Congress could do so long as they do not pass a law authorizing it. More than a literal interpretation is needed to completely realize the intention of the Framers.

Many wise and reasonable men and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have recognized the implausibility of the phrase “Congress shall pass no law” realizing a literal interpretation is not beneficial. This wisdom has also prevailed in relation to the Establishment clause.

44

MEBuckner wrote: “…Where did I say anything implying that I cared about whether the building was granite or marble?”**

When earlier MEBuckner had asked…

"I have to ask: What granite blocks? "

And no,** MEBuckner**, I didn’t think that Moses was a greek. What I thought was that the url that interpreted the the bas relief above the entranceway to the Archive building was badly wrong. Maybe deliberatly so. Have you no ear for subtle humor?

Hey Dogface, cool link. Thanks.

Darn. I couldn’t pull up the transcript of the 11th Courts decison on Judge Moore’s appeal.

But I did find this** ACLU** repot and summary…(colored and selected by me)

STAN BAILEY
ACLU News staff writer

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson’s Nov. 18 ruling that the 5,280-pound granite monument has a religious purpose and is an unconstitutional state establishment of religion.

“The breadth of the Chief Justice’s position is illustrated by his counsel’s concession at oral argument that if we adopted his position, the Chief Justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama Supreme Court’s courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have decidedly religious quotations painted above the bench,” the court said.

“Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises. A cr?e could occupy the place of honor in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, and federal building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the public address system in every government building at the whim of the official in charge of the premises.”

The preamble to the Alabama Constitution invokes “the favor and guidance of the Almighty God,” and the purpose of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “was to protect the freedom to worship God,” Parker said.

The appeals court said an implication of Moore’s arguments is that he is not subject to the order of any federal court below the U.S. Supreme Court. That same argument was made unsuccessfully by Southern governors during the civil rights era, the court said.

“If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail.”

John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, said the court’s decision seemed to be a departure from other recent decisions, including one in a Georgia case where an emblem of the Ten Commandments on the state seal was approved.

No precedent

The judges said the practice of opening sessions of Congress with prayer and having paid chaplains has been going on since before the Bill of Rights was adopted and has continued without interruption from the first session of Congress. There is no parallel practice of displaying the Ten Commandments in public courthouses, they said.

The appeals court said the kind of displays that are permitted under the Constitution depend on their context and the facts of individual cases.

“We do not say, for example, that all recognitions of God by government are per se impermissible,” the judges said. “Several Supreme Court justices have said that some acknowledgments of religion such as the declaration of Thanksgiving as a government holiday, our national motto In God We Trust,' its presence on our money, and the practice of opening court sessions with God save the United States and this honorable court’ are not endorsements of religion.” [END]

Interesting…

45

That’s it? I eagerly await Milum’s reponse to S.G.'s request that he read the opinion, and all I get is a “I was joking” when I misrepresented what was on the Archive Building and an “Interesting…”? I want my money back. Oh, wait…

46

Milum,

Please try again reading the decision again. It’s only fifty pages long a quite an interesting read, in my non-lawyer opinion.

47

*“However, a literal interpretation of the First Amendment is very impractical” *`- - Jimmy1

Jimmy1 continued. *“At times it is impractical. It is very impractical. It would permit everything I said Congress could do so long as they do not pass a law authorizing it. More than a literal interpretation is needed to completely realize the intention of the Framers.” *

Yes Jim, I agree. The wording of a constitution as a fundamental set of parameters to govern a people should be as literal as words allow. Unfortunately the nature of words is such that the initial intent and continuity of meaning can only be properly recognized by reasonable men blessed with wisdom. Your preference of dismissing the the “literal” as “impractical” opens the doors to the absurd interpertations by lesser men like this flight of fantasy by the 11th Federal Court …

… ruling that the 5,280-pound granite monument has a religious purpose and is an unconstitutional state establishment of religion. They said…

“Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises. A cr?e could occupy the place of honor in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, and federal building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the public address system in every government building at the whim of the official in charge of the premises.”

Get my point? :slight_smile:

48

No. And further I question whether there is one.

My friend, read the case with the care some devote to comic books. Try to fathom the analysis the circut court applied to Moore, C.J.'s shrine, the state seal and the congressional chaplin. Try to understand the distinctions drawn. Having done that, tell me why the circut court decision is wrong.

49

Hey** Spavined Gelding**, read my lips…I said in a post above that I could not pull up the decision on your clickable “here it is”. But I’m a man of my word and I said I’d read the dry dull arcane thing so I guess I’ll search the net and unsrew a $19.95 bottle of sipping whiskey and read it tonight.

Don’t blame me if my critique is sometimes incoherent.

50

Don’t worry. We’ve come to expect it.

51

Oh really. We’ve meaning whom, Hamlet?
__________________________________ :slight_smile:

52

Oh really. “We’ve” meaning whom, Hamlet?
__________________________________ :slight_smile:

53

Hamlet. Did you hear what I said…said? :slight_smile:

54

Have you read the case yet, Milum?

55

Ask me that question again** Gelding**,

at 7:34 PM Alabama time.

56

Well. I knew it. Reading the text of the 11th Court’s decision about Roy Moore’s rock made me sad. Damn, am I the smartest guy on earth? Such rambling . What a mockery of human reasoning. The decision reads like a script synopsis of a soap opera. The only inspired section in 45 jumbled pages of irrelevant drivel was a pander to be envied - shameless praise for past decisions of current members of the Supreme Court who were slated to review the forthcoming appeal.

Now. If anyone wants to discuss any points of this paper, I will.

But I am embarrassed by it’s lack of erudition.

57

How’s about we start with you explaining what parts of the opinion were “like a script synopsis of a soap opera.” Where was the “irrelevant drivel?”

You could also explain why the Court was wrong in deciding that removing the commandments was not a State’s Right’s issue and that the Alabama Supreme Court has to follow federal court orders.

You could also give some legal precedent or even intelligent arguments on why the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. What about Everson*?

Maybe you could hash out your legal reasoning for finding that the ten commandments in this case DIDN’T violate the Establishment clause in light of the relevant Supreme Court precedent.

58

Or you could just make grand generalizations and never back them up with any logical arguments or legal citations. And then when you are called on it, you could ignore the thread until it just goes away.

I just want to give you a lot of options.

59

(Sergeant Preston of the Mounties voice)

Well, King (the great wonder dog of the Yukon), this case is closed.

(end voice, fade to the Skaters’ Waltz)

60

Ladies. Gentlemen. Gentledopers. I beg that you suspend your indulgence for a while and ask that you listen with a patience ear to my rebuttal of the 11th court’s decision regarding the removal of the stone display of the ten commandments.

By way of procedure I have formatted my remarks as if addressed to a higher appellate court than the Supreme Court i.e. the court of the people. This is because I believe that for many reasons “fair and equatable justice for all” is no longer likely in the “old boy” network of today’s courts. This unhappy state of affairs I will point out as I critique the Glassroth V. Moore decision of the 11th court.

Because of the length of the decision (97 pages) and the numerous irrelevancies, non sequiturs, and the cavalier manner of the opinion writer - United States District Judge Myron H Thompson, I will divide my rebuttal into four manageable parts.

First up, naturally, Part One:

Do the Plaintiffs have the Proper Standing to Petition the Courts?

( tonight after supper )