Bitter Irony
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. :confused: Explain.
The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. That is precisely what Moore was purposefully standing up to. He was not trying to make a religious statement, but a legal one. The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. That is what the founders were trying to grant to you and I.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
-
Aw, get off it. I hope the selfrighteous son of a bitch rots in the hell that I don't believe exists. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote: Aw, get off it. I hope the selfrighteous son of a bitch rots in the hell that I don't believe exists. Well, it takes one to know one I suppose...
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
take it up with the Alabama Supreme Court. are you a citizen of Alabama? if not, then you've got no say in the matter. you know, State's Rights and all... ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. That is precisely what Moore was purposefully standing up to. He was not trying to make a religious statement, but a legal one. The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. That is what the founders were trying to grant to you and I.
Stan Shannon wrote: The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. I don't see it that way, and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either. The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. Stan Shannon wrote: The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. I don't see it that way, and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either. The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. Stan Shannon wrote: The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind.
The "seperation of church and state" may be a modern legal principle, but it is a principle backed only by a mythic precedent. There is no law that invokes that restriction. Sadly, from my point of view, the US Justice system is more concerned with legal precedent (and worse, international precedents are beginning to surface) than actually enforcing the letter of the law.
-
The "seperation of church and state" may be a modern legal principle, but it is a principle backed only by a mythic precedent. There is no law that invokes that restriction. Sadly, from my point of view, the US Justice system is more concerned with legal precedent (and worse, international precedents are beginning to surface) than actually enforcing the letter of the law.
-
The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. That is precisely what Moore was purposefully standing up to. He was not trying to make a religious statement, but a legal one. The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. That is what the founders were trying to grant to you and I.
Stan Shannon wrote: The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. Thanks for the explanation. I, too, was a bit puzzled as to what you were unhappy about. I suspect that a lot of non-Americans, including myself, are a bit perplexed by the huge separation of state and federal government although I understand a bit of the historical reasons for it. Let's say the state of Utah decides that is going to be a religious state and government shall be done according to Mormon principles. Would the federal government be able to do anything about it?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. Thanks for the explanation. I, too, was a bit puzzled as to what you were unhappy about. I suspect that a lot of non-Americans, including myself, are a bit perplexed by the huge separation of state and federal government although I understand a bit of the historical reasons for it. Let's say the state of Utah decides that is going to be a religious state and government shall be done according to Mormon principles. Would the federal government be able to do anything about it?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
I will confess up front that I am one of the strongest proponents of that most ancient of American political principles known as "state's rights" that you are likely to find. I think it was the most important principle of our political system and primarily responsible for our long term success as a democracy. Too much power concerntrated in a federal authority is a dangerous thing (think Ashcroft). Our Civil War involved the question of state's rights but only to the extent of whether or not a state has the right to secceed. Apparently, they don't. However, that does not invalidate the concept itself. It is crucial to the stability of a large, complex society. The federal constitution is currently being used to assault the most dearly held spiritual tradtions of this society by a a set of judges who's motives are entirely religious - although not in the traditional way. They view religion as a treat for precisly the same reason Marx did, and fully intend to implement his philosophies on the subject.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
The really amusing part is that for a couple of seconds, I thought you were talking favourably about Michael Moore[^]. Yawn. It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? If the guy is that wild about Christianity, he should have become a minister. I guess he's got some time on his hands now. Always a silver lining. Eco
-
I will confess up front that I am one of the strongest proponents of that most ancient of American political principles known as "state's rights" that you are likely to find. I think it was the most important principle of our political system and primarily responsible for our long term success as a democracy. Too much power concerntrated in a federal authority is a dangerous thing (think Ashcroft). Our Civil War involved the question of state's rights but only to the extent of whether or not a state has the right to secceed. Apparently, they don't. However, that does not invalidate the concept itself. It is crucial to the stability of a large, complex society. The federal constitution is currently being used to assault the most dearly held spiritual tradtions of this society by a a set of judges who's motives are entirely religious - although not in the traditional way. They view religion as a treat for precisly the same reason Marx did, and fully intend to implement his philosophies on the subject.
Stan Shannon wrote: It is crucial to the stability of a large, complex society. I don't quite see how excessive state autonomy can promote stability within a large country. Taken to extremes, you would have each state an entity unto itself and passport controls on every border :-) While I can understand the distrust that states may have had in the past of an all-powerful, far-away, centralized government, don't you, at some point, have to say "well, we're part of one country, the United States of America." The dangers that Ashcroft et.al. present are not so much because he is federal but an issue with power itself. What's to stop a similar kind of thing happening at a state level?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. I don't see it that way, and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either. The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. Stan Shannon wrote: The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind.
LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see it that way Yeah, I know. LunaticFringe wrote: and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either Hence the problem. LunaticFringe wrote: The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. A mechanism for invalidating the letter of the constitution itself in order to promote their own (and your's I imagine) religious agenda. LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. The constitution of the state of Alabama, which Moore swore an oath to, requires recognition of religion. Just as the state of Virginia's did when Thomas Jefferson swore his oath upon becoming governor. Jefferson didn't seem to have a problem with it. LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. The Bill or Rights was never intended to protect individual liberties but to stipulate the relationship between the states and the newly formed federal government. The founder's were far more concerned about abuse of power on the part of the federal government than they were about the states the were from. The saw the states as having a much greater vested interest in protecting the rights of their citizens than the federal government did. Is your argument supported by many years of legal precedent? Yes it is. I do not deny that. But precendent or no, the greatest threats to our civil liberties is coming from the federal judiciary which no longer has any constintutional restrictions of any kind on its power. That should concern you far more than some bone headed Attorny General who will be replaced in some upcoming election.
-
The really amusing part is that for a couple of seconds, I thought you were talking favourably about Michael Moore[^]. Yawn. It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? If the guy is that wild about Christianity, he should have become a minister. I guess he's got some time on his hands now. Always a silver lining. Eco
The issue has nothing to do with religion.
-
The issue has nothing to do with religion.
-
Brandon Haase wrote: the US Justice system is more concerned with legal precedent Isn't that one of the ways that laws and their interpretation evolve?
I think the laws should evolve, not the interpretation of them. Considering the legislative branch seems to be paralyzed when it comes to many issues, it's no surprise the way things have turned out... oh well... hindsight is 20/20. Although, I would say it is probably a good thing the process is slow. Take a look at the laws that have passed relatively quickly in recent days... DMCA, PATRIOT, etc. Which do you think is more important, the letter of the law or one judge's (or panel of judges) interpretation of it?
-
Stan Shannon wrote: It is crucial to the stability of a large, complex society. I don't quite see how excessive state autonomy can promote stability within a large country. Taken to extremes, you would have each state an entity unto itself and passport controls on every border :-) While I can understand the distrust that states may have had in the past of an all-powerful, far-away, centralized government, don't you, at some point, have to say "well, we're part of one country, the United States of America." The dangers that Ashcroft et.al. present are not so much because he is federal but an issue with power itself. What's to stop a similar kind of thing happening at a state level?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: Taken to extremes, you would have each state an entity unto itself and passport controls on every border While I can understand the distrust that states may have had in the past of an all-powerful, far-away, centralized government, don't you, at some point, have to say "well, we're part of one country, the United States of America." But the constitution legitimately covers those extremes. The constitution has been appropriately amended to cover such contingencies. (I have no problem with amending the constitution as a means of evolving our political system.) Does Utah have the right to become a theocracy? Well, yeah. But so does the federal government and it would be much easier to deal with Utah as a theocracy than with the federal government. Centralized political power, as the founders recognized, is a dangerous thing. They fought a revolution to free themselves (and me) from it. The irony is that we are going to become exactly what the lefties fear most, precisely because of the power they have allowed to accrue in the hands of an elite judiciary in a foolish attempt to protect their own secular agenda.
-
The really amusing part is that for a couple of seconds, I thought you were talking favourably about Michael Moore[^]. Yawn. It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? If the guy is that wild about Christianity, he should have become a minister. I guess he's got some time on his hands now. Always a silver lining. Eco
he's probably gonna run for governor. and he'll probably win. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: Taken to extremes, you would have each state an entity unto itself and passport controls on every border While I can understand the distrust that states may have had in the past of an all-powerful, far-away, centralized government, don't you, at some point, have to say "well, we're part of one country, the United States of America." But the constitution legitimately covers those extremes. The constitution has been appropriately amended to cover such contingencies. (I have no problem with amending the constitution as a means of evolving our political system.) Does Utah have the right to become a theocracy? Well, yeah. But so does the federal government and it would be much easier to deal with Utah as a theocracy than with the federal government. Centralized political power, as the founders recognized, is a dangerous thing. They fought a revolution to free themselves (and me) from it. The irony is that we are going to become exactly what the lefties fear most, precisely because of the power they have allowed to accrue in the hands of an elite judiciary in a foolish attempt to protect their own secular agenda.
Hmmm.... Something to ponder over (instead of working :rolleyes: ) Thanks :-)
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.