Insert comment about Milum’s ease of reading Constitution due to proximity of Milum’s rear and his head here
** The Last Word**
On behalf of Sampiro I’d like to thank all of you who participated in this thread. I learned a lot and I hope that others did too. I learned that the herd instinct is alive and well here in America and on this board. I noticed that liberal and conservative thinking people are like minded when it comes to defending established institutions like the puffy pompous federal court system that we have in place today. Overpaid, underworked, out-of-touch-with-reality, federal judges and fellow travelers, feed mumbo-jumbo to the masses and the masses love it. Fools like the good Roy Moore and me have only a snowballs chance in hell of righting the wrongs of two hundred years and getting the antiquated and clumbersome machinery of the Americian system of justice to down shift gears back to the brilliant ideas of the eighteenth century and then to progress forward from that point.
Evenso, today in the United States we enjoy a dispensation of justice that is the envy of France…and England …and the rest of the world. Too bad that most people here yearn for the womb while this daring experiment of justice based on the cohesive ability of words to unite a people in a noble common cause begins to crack, and one day soon will crumble.
**Now I declare this thread officially closed. Any post afterwards is to be ignored by the cognoscenti. ** 
I’m sorry, Milum. Could you please, in simple words, explain why you disagree with the established interpretation of the first amendment?
Overpaid and underworked federal judges? Milum, do you have any idea what federal judges get paid, how much they would get paid if they worked in the private sector, and what the docket of a federal judge looks like? You have it exactly backwards. A first year associate at a top New York City law firm can make more than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal court dockets are massive. It’s beyond aggravating debating with you when you don’t bother to educate yourself on the basic facts of what you’re arguing.
**
Moore had no respect the very justice system he was sworn to uphold. He made it clear that he would not under any circumstances obey a court order, even from the Supreme Court, that he didn’t personally agree with. He deliberately and repeatedly violated the canon of judicial ethics and so was removed from the bench. A legal system that tolerated such behavior from judges wouldn’t be a system at all.
**
Strange how it’s not the judge who repeatedly breaks the law and manifests an intent to keep doing so until he gets his way who is causing the daring experiment of justice to crumble.
**
All that aside, I do love the ex cathedra proclamations.
See, sometimes the genius sneaks through the madness, as profound as it is. 
Another way of considering this same mode of thinking is this… You cannot legislate morality. That means literally what it says. If you do legislate “morality” it becomes a postive construct IRL of criminal law. Then, an actual physical prohibition makes you conform to whatever standard of conduct.
So, even if we do turn all of our courthouses into “Front Yard at Christmas” there will be no moral effect whatsoever. Perhaps open disrespect for all the Christian symbolism we are forced to look at, is that morality?
There’s a reason that Europe has a much higher percentage of agnostics and atheists than the US does: a long history of church-state entanglement.
When you make religion a tool of the government, you open it up for the kind of general contempt that most people have for the IRS or the CIA.
It amazes me that the Christian Nation people don’t get this…they have a dozen perfect examples of what happens to religion in “Christian Nations” right over the Atlantic.