Is there a Constitutional scholar in the house?

[procopia]

Regarding Judge Roy Moore's religious display, how can I rebut this:

"The establishment clause of the 1st amendment does not preclude endorsements of religion. Read the text for yourself. Two things and two things only are precluded by that text:
1. L A W S... as in "shall make no laws"
2. State prohibitions of a free exercise of religion.

Judge Moore's display is not a "law" nor is it being display in accord with some Alabama or local law.

Judge Moore's display prohibits nothing."

-----------------------------------

I know the SC sometimes uses an endorsement test to interpret the Establishment Clause, however, it seems like the above makes a good point. Help!

[JackSwift]

1. There is no case directly on point

and the US Supreme Court has declined to take this case up. The meaning of the constitution for legal and political purposes is defined as what the US Supreme Court says it is. Arguing about what Madison's intentionally vague language means to a layman is meaningless.



Cities has long been prohibited from displaying "creches" at Christmas (a creche being a manger scene). If I were a betting man, I think you will see this court go 7 to 2 against judge Moore with Scalia and Thomas being the two. There is another case that says you can't put up the 10 commandments in a school.

[procopia]

4. Thanks

That's helpful. I agree. I think Judge Moore will lose; the precedent has been set in many cases.

[NewJerseyDem]

18. There can be a creche.... I think

I believe that a municipality can put up a creche as long as it isn't paid for by the town. Otherwise, my town could be in some trouble soon since there was a debate about putting one up and I think they agreed to put it up this christmas.

In this case Roy Moore paid for the Ten Commandments as well. I think they should be taken down because they are endorsing a religion and that is unconstitutional in my view.

[Keithpotkin]

29. here is a link to the decision

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=492&invol=573

[Sinistrous]

2. Your challenger is misquoting the establishment clause

which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The word "respecting" was carefully by the framers. It means that Congress (and by extension, the states) cannot enact laws favoring one religion over another.

[JackSwift]

3. Not exactly

The bill of rights did not originally apply to the states, which were free to impinge all they wanted, until... the post civil war amendments, which were interpreted by the doctrine of "selective due process" (one bit at a time) to apply the bill of rights to the state, and included all of the first amendment stuff by the 1960s. IIRC, there are still certain things that are not required by the states that are required by the feds: 12 jurors in criminal trials is still among them. Some states allow 6 jurors, which is okay with the Supremes for states, but not for feds.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Petit Juries Suck In Civil Cases

cuz you need 6 of 6 to prevail

where as in a regulary jury you only need nine of twelve to prevail.

[AP]

10. Are you talking about Fed Court? When are there 6 jurors

in Fed Court?

In state courts, there are many differences among the states. Don't some alow you to have guilty convictions with one no and the rest yesses?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Six Jurors In Florida Civil Cases

I thought all criminal courts require unanimous verdicts.

[Sinistrous]

17. True. The "extension" came later.

But it has been and remains extended to apply to the states.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. While the 10 commandments are in the Bible, they are also ancient LAWS.

Whether or not you personally believe God hand delivered them to Moses really isn't the issue, but the fact remains that, whatever their source, they became the law of the land in ancient Israel, and were the foundation of many legal systems afterwards.

I may get flamed for this, but exactly what is the big fucking deal about the 10 commandments being posted anyway? The majority of them are common sense law that applies to everyone, atheists included. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't fuck someone else's wife (or husband). Don't let greed drive you to wanting someone else's possessions (i.e. Middle East oil maybe?)

What's the problem with these rules??

As for the other stuff... interpret it however it fits.. If you don't go to church or a synagogue on the weekend, read a book, ride a bike, or hike up a mountain. How I interpret the Sabbath day commandment myself: Don't work, don't drive unless absolutely neccessary, and don't contribute to corporate capitalism.

I just don't see the top 10 as being "only" religious symbols, whether the judge in question is a freepazoid or not.

[gottaB]

6. I swear on a stack of holy bibles

That I will not take the Lord's name in vain.

Now, can I get me some justice?

[clar]

8. You're wrong

For one thing what about not taking the Lord's name in vain? Or the commandment about God being the only god? Or idolatry.

If Moore had displayed, or permitted to be displayed, copies of legal sources from other traditions, like the freize in the SCOTUS building, that might well have been different. This is a Judge who is explicitly endorsing a specific religion on state property.

I've actually just learned a heck of a lot about this by visiting the gigantic freeperville thread. There are a couple of lawyers, one an Alabaman, who have presented cogent arguments about why Moore's actions are not only violating the constitution but are damned dangerous. (I know, surprising to find on FR)

[sangh0]

36. You're right - The RNC argument is wrong

The idea that it's OK to display the 10 Commandments by themselves because they are a part of our legal history, is both:

1) Approved by the RNC
2) Rejected by the Supreme Court.

In order to display religious documents for the purpose of detailing the roots and sources of our legal system, the govt must avoid displaying only those documents that came from one religious source, in this case Christianity.

But that doesn't stop the RNC (or those willing to repeat the RNC's arguments) from repeating the lie that Moore's display is a historical display, when Moore himself has said it is a religious display.

[coda]

19. I think it's the idea

that this judge thinks he has carte blanche on courthouse (public) property.

As though it were his. If one man can put anything he pleases on public property, so can anyone else.

By allowing that, for anyone, you can see how you would be creating problems inumerable, i.e.: what's allowable and who decides? Would there have to be court cases, committees, voting...what?


Solution. Don't allow anyone's 2 1/2 ton (or 2 1/2 ounce) whim to be located on public property. Problems: 0

[JHB]

27. If that were his reason, there are less partisan examples...

If he displayed the commandments as part of a "legacy of the rule of law"-type display, also showing the Code of Hammurabi, the Annalects of Confucius, and other ancient laws, that would be one thing.

To show the commandments and only the commandments (and the version of them specific to his denomination) is what makes it partisan and what undermines confidence in the fairness of his court.

[Walt Starr]

30. 5 of the ten are SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS

and specifically refer to YHWH. For a judge to impose them is a state imposition of religion by the state on the people.

There has never been a clearer violation of the first amendment than what this fool did.

[Bandit]

32. The ten commandments are not law

Our law of the land in these united states is the US constitution and Nowhere in the constitution is there any evidence of the ten commandments. It is religious doctrine and nothing more. I get so sick of people saying it is our law. The basic things like don't kill or steal are laws left to local authority. There is no federal law against murder. Leave religion in the churches where it belongs and let the court house display only Legal documents.

[jody]

9. Recommend you visit the following site and browse.

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

[TreasonousBastard]

11. I'm not a Constituional scholar, but...

It all goes back to the school prayer case when Madeleine Murray got the Supremes to agree that a required prayer in public school was an "establishment" of religion.

That ballooned into a vast amount of litigation that essentially said that the government should not express any endorsement of religion of any kind any how.

I used to have a ton of bookmarks on this in an older browser, but they got trashed. Here's a good primer on the whole thing I somehow kept:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blschoolprayer.htm

It actually discusses the 10C's, and has some interesting things to say.

Then, some judicious googling and searching law school sites brings up more than you ever want to know about the subject.

[pansypoo53219]

13. a similar MONUMENT(TAIN'T SCUPTURE DAMMIT)

was removed from a Milwaukee downtown square without much hubbub.

[MassDem4Life]

14. the other point to remember is that

according to the federalist papers and all of Madison's writings the intent was to limit the governments right to establish a state religion, or to stop you from worshipping your god.

NOT to "separate church and state" not to limit the people's right to worship as they see fit.

Also posting the ten commandments is less of a religious exercise than a moral one. Those are moral commandments irregardless of the fact that they happen to be in the bible.

[redeye]

20. Why, then...

...do they include a ban on worshipping any god but Yahweh, a ban on using Yahweh's name in vain (violation of freedom of speech), a ban on adultery (judged unconstitutional in Lawrence vs. Texas), and a ban on coveting (contrary to the basics of capitalism)?

[lynndew2]

21. I think I need some redeye for this

a ban on adultery (judged unconstitutional in Lawrence vs. Texas) That has nothing to do with adultery unless you are saying that gays cant be faithful.

[MassDem4Life]

23. I didnt say that they were ALL secular

what I said was that by and large they are moral precepts.

And coveting thy neighbors wife is not the basis of capitalism.

Using the Lords name in vain is basic respect, if you believe dont desecrate his name.

Adultry again is basic respect. You have pledged your honor and respect and love to a woman, you should not cheat on her, That is simple moral precept. It shouldn't HAVE to be legislated.

The law is not there to legislate morality

[tedoll78]

15. Also keep in mind..

Congress has passed and still passes laws that fund state operations. Given that Congress' tentacles reach so far into each state's activities, a state action to allegedly favor one religion over another can be construed as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Then there are Equal Protection considerations. Which version of the Ten Commandments do we post? Protestant or Roman Catholic? Murder or kill? Obey or honor? And why do we put certain religions' "legal" principles on display prominently while not doing so for others? I'm sure that Voodoo or Wicca or Satanism have principles that can be tagged as legally relevent. But still, we ignore those religions and go only with the Christians/Jewish/Muslim laws.

Something to ponder.

[JasonBerry]

16. IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION???

If you have never read this short pamphlet - it's a must-read and a must-use-to-educate!
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.html

[waggawagga]

22. Judge Moore's display prohibits nothing?

Constitutionally this is a no brainer. If Moore had put the statue in his office, or across from the Supreme Court building, or simply argued that this was some homage to the concept of law, he'd have a chance. Instead he's putting it on the grounds of the building and acknowledging that it's a religious symbol. Could a judge put up a crucifix? Or a statue of the Buddha? Of course not. The government can't favor one religion over another (or, technically, religion over non-belief). He's toast.

[MassDem4Life]

24. why cant the government place any religious symbol

on a public building?

That action neither establishes a state religion(meaning one that the people are forced to worship)

Nor does it prohibit the free exercise of each of our own religious beliefs.

That is all that the Constitution says on the matter.

[HFishbine]

28. MassDem

Ask yourself, and hopefully share with us your honest answer, would you then not mind if a Wiccan symbol were posted at your local courthouse? How about quotations from the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist Texts, or Zoroastrian Texts?

Or, what if we even stuck to the Bible and just chose some alternate teachings. Would you mind if this were displayed?

"When a foreigner resides with you in your land, you must not oppress him. The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself."

"You must not wear a garment made of two different kinds of fabric."

"When a woman produces offspring and bears a male child, she will be unclean seven days, as she is unclean during the days of her menstruation. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin must be circumcised."

"When a man has a seminal emission, he must bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until evening."

"If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death."

"If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

"You must not lend him money at interest and you must not sell him food for profit."

"If a man inflicts an injury on his fellow citizen, just as he has done it must be done to him - fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth - just as he inflicts an injury on a person that same injury must be inflicted on him."

"You must not hold back the wages of the hired laborer overnight until morning."

Or this one, which I'm sure the Alabamians would have a real hard time with:

"No man is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations with her."

[MassDem4Life]

33. yes I would mind, and here's why

These "commandments" by and large express philosophies, and moral precepts upon which this country was founded, and exists under today.

Murder is illegal

Adultery should not HAVE to be legislated, it is a simple moral precept,honor your commitments.

Covet thy neighbors wife, again simple moral precept, see Adultery above.

The passages, and religious arguments you make above, are not the same, and you know that, making them simply for agruments sake.

Those ideas are not the type of MAJOR concepts that typically get put upon a buildings facade.

but none of this addresses the Constitutional points which I raised

[Bandit]

38. You are going in front of a human being that has the power to lock you

up forever and the first thing you see when you enter his courthouse is "Thou shalt honor no other God but me" Pretty scary stuff to realize you will be judged by some religious zealot. Half of the Ten Commandments are strictly religious. They do not belong on Tax payer property. That building belongs just as much to me as it does to Judge Moore. Why should his wishes out weigh mine?

[MassDem4Life]

34. yes I would mind, and here's why

These "commandments" by and large express philosophies, and moral precepts upon which this country was founded, and exists under today.

Murder is illegal

Adultery should not HAVE to be legislated, it is a simple moral precept,honor your commitments.

Covet thy neighbors wife, again simple moral precept, see Adultery above.

The passages, and religious arguments you make above, are not the same, and you know that, making them simply for agruments sake.

Those ideas are not the type of MAJOR concepts that typically get put upon a buildings facade.

but none of this addresses the Constitutional points which I raised

[Walt Starr]

31. For the state or a representative of the state to do so

is explicitly an establishment of official religion.

[MassDem4Life]

35. wrong

how is he establishing a religion?

what religion? Cristianism, already established for the last 2000 years.

He has established nothing.
Nor has the government established a national religion that all citizens are required to follow. THIS is what Madison was guarding against with that ammendment, by his own words.

[sangh0]

37. Stop being dishonest with words

You know, or should know, that the phrase "establishing a religion" has a meaning different than "creating a new religion"

Please stop playing word games

[ewagner]

26. Agree with your point

Moore used this a a campaign issue and was elected on his promise to recognize god in the Supreme Court building (I may be overstating the case)

[Mairead]

25. "Chilling effect"

Seeing the trappings of a certain religion or small group of religions in a government context gives the (usually factual!) impression that that religion has a privileged position and that adherents of that religion will fare better in dealing with that government entity. That's the famous 'chilling effect', and officialdom must demonstrate that some public good will be achieved that is so important than it's worth making some people feel excluded and second-class.