Aggggh! Fume in impotence, you say? Fume in impotence?
Maybe the David Simmons of this world are as happy as helpless piglets sucking a fat sow’s teats (that’s socialism), but the Milum’s of this world resent and despise a legal system that requires financing to correct a wrong in life.
Selling freedom is as loathsome as the selling of slaves.
And how has freedom been sold here, Milum? How is requiring Alabama’s Chief Justice to obey the law socialism?
And most important:
How is what you’ve posted here logical?
Of course Milum’s postings in this thread are irrational, as were his postings on the predecessor thread. Not only are they irrational, they are contrary to more than one hundred years of Constitutional scholarship and decisions. Even those who think that Substantive Due Process has no legitimate basis in the Fourteenth Amendment concede that the courts have routinely applied the concept and that it is a vital Constitutional doctrine. Not so our multi colored posting friend from the red soil country–when handed the decided cases that explain, define, elaborate and apply the First and Fourteenth Amendment in the church and state context he tightly closes his eyes, plugs his ears and screams so as not to be exposed to any danger that he will see, hear or understand when the error of his particular take on ex-Chief Justice Moore’s shrine is patiently, repeatedly and civilly pointed out. His response to all this effort can be paraphrased as: “you guys are all a bunch of Commies.”
This is not a fruitful discussion. We are arguing with a man (I assume) who is completely committed to error. It is enough that the rest of us recognize that ex-Chief Justice Moore’s position on the Constitution, the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and the relative jurisdictions of the State and federal courts in questions arising under the Constitution is indefensible. Our friend may decry the decision and modern jurisprudence all he wants but his bellowing is all balderdash and hog wash without a basis in the decisions of any court of competent jurisdiction or the judgments of and responsible commentator.
The bad news is that we will undoubtably hear more from Roy Moore and from his disciples.
You people do ramble on and on without substance but steadfastly refuse to answer simple questions directly.
So here’s a deal you can’t refuse – answer these simple questions and I’ll shut up.
(1) Who was the Constitution referring to when it said…
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion nor restrict the free exercise thereof.
(a) Congress
(b) Congress, the states, the judiciary, the President.
© All of the above and the people.
(2) The structure and methodology of the federal court system evolved mostly with a foundation in…
(a) The Constitution
(b) English law
© American pragmatism restrained by the Constitution
(3) It is an acceptable form of justice that requires a petition to to the government to be refused consideration because of the lack of money for the petition.
(a) yes
(b) no
Ok, now give me an honest answer and I’ll shut up.
Y’know Milum your posts would be hilarious if it weren’t for the fact that you are allowed to vote, drive a car and own guns. Scary!!
Milum. What he’s saying is that your argument is rather limp. Get it?
Actually, hansel, #1 isn’t “b.” In fact, the answer to #1 isn’t present. The Bill of Rights standing alone applies to the federal government only (i.e., Congress, the executive and the judiciary), and was only extended to the states via the fourteenth amendment.
Thanks hansel, for your opinions.
And hey** David**, this is America, my opinions shouldn’t scare you unless you are in France. 
And yes, I apoligise, ** Dewey Cheatem Andhow**, for mislabeling Judge Myron Thompson as a member of the exaulted Eleventh Circuit Court. I now realize that Judge Thompson is but a member of the lesser, low-life Federal District Court.
But now, so as not to offend ( you know how important is is not to offend the self-considered important judges of high standing least they punish your cash paying clients ) I do hope you will stop referring to Judge Myron O. Thompson as a woman. You know how Judges are, he might take offence, inasmuch that he is, as far as we know, a man.
Wrong-o, Dewey-o, of your triumvirate only Congress is authorised to pass laws. What’s left for the President and the Judges to do…Bitch?
Ever heard of an executive order?
Milum (and sorry for getting your name wrong before): Several people knowledgable in the law have been kind enough to tell you, in excruciating detail, the sweeping and rock solid prescedents involved in the interpretation in question. You reply by simply repeating the general statement “well, it’s a bad interpretation; look at what the words are!”
What you don’t seem to be addressing is the fact that it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE in the issue at hand, which is the removal of the monument. The courts ruled based on very deeply rooted prescedent, and acted appropriately according to that prescedent. Moore defied the ruling and the law, which goes against his oath, and was removed.
Even if you believe that the interpretation is stupid, that is IRRELEVANT to the fact that until ruled otherwise, that’s the law and it MUST be followed. How is saying “well, that’s not the way it SHOULD be” yet again going to change any of those basic facts?
I dunno about the rest of y’all, but I find this thread the funniest thing I’ve read all week. Just watching Milum repeatedly trying to teach the resident legal experts on the depths of Constitutional law (a topic that I’ll gladly wager he is not an authority on) beats a month of the Comedy Channel, and it’s cheaper.
You know what’s really scary? I was reading an entire board whose membership thought just like Milum and considered the points raised as atheistic treason to God and country.
America is turning into a scary place.
… that’s the law and it MUST be followed. How is saying “well, that’s not the way it SHOULD be” again and again going to change any of those basic facts?
America is turning into a scary place.
( abridged from leaper and gobear’s comments above)
Bullshit. Get off your rear and read the entire Constitution, especially the parts BEFORE the Amendments and you just might learn what the actual method of enacting law in this country at the federal level is.
Ok** Monty**, I’ll look for the part where it says that you need several hundred thousand dollars to challenge the Constitutionality of a law in the courts.
By the way, I’ve read the entire Constitution while sitting on my rear several times. But it is not very long and it is clearly written, so if you think it will make a difference, I’ll read it standing up.
( But really** Monty**, I think the difference is in whose head is doing the reading. No offence.)
Milum, you’re arguing against widespread consensus and a couple hundred years of jurisprudence on the constitution, and we’re the ones having trouble with understanding it?
Tilt at windmills, much?
Milum:
Evidently you’ve been sitting on your head then. The Constitution provides the Executive with veto power.
All it takes is one counter-example to prove your premise false. I have now proven you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Well, my counter-example is one of many others’.
Gee, yeah, really scary that America is a place where people actually have to follow the rule of law, and can’t just break them willy-nilly without consequence, and actually have to go through gasp legal and governmental channels to get them changed instead of everyone just applying their own limited, personal interpretation.
I’m terrified.