CAMP: Roy Moore Is Not A Constitutional Conservative

[RetBobbyMI]

I read the article.

Camp's assertion is that Moore does not follow the Constitution based on only two arguments:
1. Moore opposed taking down a public display of the 10 Commandments
2. Moore refused to implement changes after the Obergefell decision

Regarding #1:
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Congress has made no law about such a display. Camp is making the argument that Moore is not Constitutional because he refused to obey a court order (not a law) as a result of an ACLU lawsuit. And don't try to tell me that separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Regarding #2:
The SCOTUS made a ruling, not a law. It is the obligation of Congress to follow through with a law after the SCOTUS ruling. Moore refused to make up a law based on a SCOTUS ruling and would have complied with the law, if a law making body (not the SCOTUS) had made a law that he could have followed.

I fully support Moore.

Deserves repeating!

[DiogenesLamp]

No, everything I've said is consistent with the Constitution, its original intent, and its checks and balances.

You are accepting the Roosevelt's court's claim that the 14th amendment incorporates Federal prohibitions against the state.   This is a deliberately incorrect interpretation of the 14th amendment (which wasn't legitimate in the first place because it was passed through coercion)  and was very contrary to the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment.   

If you toss out the incorrect 14th amendment incorporation doctrine,   States then have a right to be just as religious as they wish.   

Liberal whims?   Try the consensus of the community.  Your position is not supported by either the law or the will of the people.  We are a secular Republic.   

[Jazzhead]

Well luckily you're just a lone voice on a web forum and Roy Moore is going to be in Congress.

Don't count your chickens.  Polls show the race as being very tight.  A lot of Alabamans are embarrassed that Moore thinks he's a law unto himself.   

[Sanguine]

Don't count your chickens.  Polls show the race as being very tight.  A lot of Alabamans are embarrassed that Moore thinks he's a law unto himself.

LOL!  You ignored the part where you contradicted yourself! 

[Jazzhead]

You are accepting the Roosevelt's court's claim that the 14th amendment incorporates Federal prohibitions against the state.   This is a deliberately incorrect interpretation of the 14th amendment (which wasn't legitimate in the first place because it was passed through coercion)  and was very contrary to the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment.   

If you toss out the incorrect 14th amendment incorporation doctrine,   States then have a right to be just as religious as they wish.

Except you can't just toss out the 14th amendment.   You like Moore because you, too, think you're a law unto yourself.     

[Jazzhead]

LOL!  You ignored the part where you contradicted yourself!

How did I contradict myself?

[Sanguine]

How did I contradict myself?

Go back and read it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Except you can't just toss out the 14th amendment.   

Even though I believe the 14th amendment to be illegitimate because it does not accurately represent the will of the people who were forced to vote for it because they had guns pointed at them,   I am not suggesting it be "tossed".   


I am pointing out that the incorporation doctrine which the Roosevelt courts made up out of thin air,  are an invalid interpretation of the purpose and intent of the 14th amendment,  which was to secure the rights of freed slaves,   not to launch an attack against state sponsorship of religion.    (Or create a right to abortion,  gay marriage,  give away American citizenship,  or rewrite the qualifications for the Presidency.)   


The 14th amendment has been bastardized by the Roosevelt courts and those courts subsequent to the ones he created.   Their "interpretation"  of the 14th to include these powers is a bald faced lie. 

You like Moore because you, too, think you're a law unto yourself.   

If I thought that,  why would I be arguing about proper legal process as relates to how the 14th amendment was passed?   Why would I be objecting to power grabs from Liberal kook judges appointed by Roosevelt?   


My point here is that the public never agreed to any of these changes.  These changes were forced on the public by activist judges,  not the legislative process.   


I am against people being a "law unto themselves".   That's why I object to what the court has done back in the 1940s when they made all this shite up. 

[txradioguy]

The separation of church and state originated in an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

It is a good guideline, but it is only a guideline. It is not in the Constitution; it is not even implied by the Constitution. No authoritative vote has implemented this guideline at the Federal level.
I am not aware if separation of church and state has been (or has not been) implemented at the state level. But at the Federal level it is a judicial guideline, not the Constitution.

The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. And the Ten Commandments are NOT incompatible with secular government

QFT

[RetBobbyMI]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Seems the good Judge Moore is of very sound Constitutional mind when espousing/judging that States are not bound by this. The Constitutional prohibition is to limit Congress...the federal Congress. Ill reasoned/SCOTUS application of the 14th notwithstanding.

I would also add that the Constitution of the United States is a license of the federal government agreed to by the many states. That license over the years has been usurped by the same federal government that was created by the constitution.

Hence the need for a Convention of the States to bring the federal government back in line!

[Jazzhead]

Go back and read it.

I did, and don't understand your point.  The Establishment Clause - the Constitutionally-required wall of separation - is precisely what counters the whims of a transitory majority to have the government endorse or subsidize a particular religion.   Roy Moore himself defied a court order that his 10 Commandments monument violated the Establishment Clause.  His defiance constitutes a raised middle finger to the Republic that we conservatives are supposed to revere:  he seeks to be a law unto himself, no different than the democracy of the mob that our Republic was designed to suppress.   

[Jazzhead]

Hence the need for a Convention of the States to bring the federal government back in line!

Yeah, but this is no recent development.  The wall of separation has been recognized for a century.   It is part of who we are.   

[DiogenesLamp]

I did, and don't understand your point.  The Establishment Clause - the Constitutionally-required wall of separation - is precisely what counters the whims of a transitory majority to have the government endorse or subsidize a particular religion.   Roy Moore himself defied a court order that his 10 Commandments monument violated the Establishment Clause. 

The establishment clause does not constrain the states.   *THAT* is the point in dispute,  and *THAT*   is the point we should be focusing on.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah, but this is no recent development.  The wall of separation has been recognized for a century.   It is part of who we are.

I dispute that it has been "recognized for a century."  More like since the 1940s,  when the Roosevelt courts applied it to the states.   

But taking you at your word,  why was it not recognized two centuries ago,  back when people knew exactly what was it's intent?   

Why has it only been recognized for one century if it is indeed valid?   

[Jazzhead]

My point here is that the public never agreed to any of these changes.  These changes were forced on the public by activist judges,  not the legislative process.   

Baloney!   Sure, there was no plebiscite, but America is not about mob democracy.  We are a representative democracy; it is up to the Congress to overturn decisions of the Court that it opposes.   Congress has NEVER meaningfully objected to the wall of separation.   After all this time, it most definitely represents the will of the people. 

[Jazzhead]

I dispute that it has been "recognized for a century."  More like since the 1940s,  when the Roosevelt courts applied it to the states.   

But taking you at your word,  why was it not recognized two centuries ago,  back when people knew exactly what was it's intent?   

Why has it only been recognized for one century if it is indeed valid?

Because the Supreme Court does not "make laws".   Generally speaking, it has no original jurisdiction.  Its rulings are a function of the particular disputes that come before it.   

Again, do as I did last night and read the Everson opinion.   It was based on the intent of the Founders to establish a secular Republic,  because of the Founders' justified fears of religious tyranny.   

[RetBobbyMI]

Yeah, but this is no recent development.  The wall of separation has been recognized for a century.   It is part of who we are.

No recent development—what have YOU done to help in your state legislature?

“Wall of Separation”—what Wall? If SCOTUS is make that a premise then they too are violating the “wall”. But again, there if nothing of the sort in the Constitution.

Who we are—the foundation of the many states and this country is based on Christianity, believe it or not. It only says one denomination can not be established over another.

[Sanguine]

Yeah, but this is no recent development.  The wall of separation has been recognized for a century.   It is part of who we are.

Our republic is set up to counter the effects of what the fickle masses want, the "tyranny of the masses".   You referred to "the will of the people" and said that "we are a secular Republic".  The founders set up our founding documents in such a way that the the limits on the government imposed by the Constitution would overrule the "will of the people" except in the event that the people/states pass an amendment to change the bounds of the Constitution.  As to the second point, the founders clearly and unambiguously set up a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles. 

[Jazzhead]

Who we are—the foundation of the many states and this country is based on Christianity, believe it or not. It only says one denomination can not be established over another.

I'm hardly denying the Christian roots of our culture.  But the government is strictly secular - for the reasons, just look to the Founders.   

[musiclady]

Yeah, but this is no recent development.  The wall of separation has been recognized for a century.   It is part of who we are.

Only since the activist progressive (NON Constitution believing) FDR court made it so.

Not nearly a "century."


But that's right.  You don't believe in the balance of power.  You believe the USSC can do whatever they want, and we have to obey them because it's "in the Constitution."

Like Dred Scott and Prohibition were in the Constitution.

The men in black are  never wrong.   


Except that they are.  There is NO Constitutional wall of separation.  The Constitution protects us from the government.  The government doesn't take our freedom away.

You have it backwards.

[DiogenesLamp]

Baloney!   Sure, there was no plebiscite, but America is not about mob democracy.

We have congress.   They passed no such law.   

We are a representative democracy; it is up to the Congress to overturn decisions of the Court that it opposes.   

The court creeps it's decisions upon the public.   Each one is objectionable,   but not sufficient to provoke the will in congress to undo it.   With each passing decade,   more inches are taken by the courts,  and both the public and congress are lulled back to sleep with the passage of time.   

But make  no mistake,  it is an oligarchy seizing power that they do not validly possess.    They are far afield from where they are supposed to be.   Their claims were wrong in 1948,   and they are still incorrect today. 

Congress has NEVER meaningfully objected to the wall of separation.   After all this time, it most definitely represents the will of the people.

I reject your premise that something illegal can be regarded as legal merely because Congress is too slothful or divided to do something about it.   


The system works the other way around.   Congress passes laws.  *THAT*  is what makes things "legal".   

[Jazzhead]

The founders set up our founding documents in such a way that the the limits on the government imposed by the Constitution would overrule the "will of the people" except in the event that the people/states pass an amendment to change the bounds of the Constitution. 

Correct!  The Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the Courts, remains unamended and hence the law of the land.

 

   As to the second point, the founders clearly and unambiguously set up a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles.

Okay, but so what?   The Founders were very much afraid of religious tyranny;  like Gandhi said,  the problem isn't with Christ but with Christians.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Our republic is set up to counter the effects of what the fickle masses want, the "tyranny of the masses".   You referred to "the will of the people" and said that "we are a secular Republic".  The founders set up our founding documents in such a way that the the limits on the government imposed by the Constitution would overrule the "will of the people" except in the event that the people/states pass an amendment to change the bounds of the Constitution.  As to the second point, the founders clearly and unambiguously set up a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles.

There's the famous question and answer with Ben Franklin after the Constitutional Convention:  What kind of government did you give us?  A Republic, if you can keep it.

The ink wasn't dry on the document before we had agitators for "democracy," to make the government an instrument for mob rule.  Then continues to this day, despite the protestations to the contrary.  We have that right here, on this thread.  They call it, "The will of the people," a devotion which lasts right up until the people express their will through people like Roy Moore.  Then they become "anti-constitution."  I find this amusing because they never seem to see the contraction inherent in their position.  It's a one-way street, marked by flowery words and circle-talk.

[musiclady]

Correct!  The Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the Courts, remains unamended and hence the law of the land.

 
Okay, but so what?   The Founders were very much afraid of religious tyranny;  like Gandhi said,  the problem isn't with Christ but with Christians.

You just can't post without bashing Christians, can you?

Exercise a bit of self-control for a change, and stay on subject.

[skeeter]

I'm hardly denying the Christian roots of our culture.  But the government is strictly secular - for the reasons, just look to the Founders.

Then our essential rights must originate with men, rather than descend from our creator, right?