Michael, Fred, Judge Roy Moore, And The First Amendment

Articles

Michael, Fred, Judge Roy Moore, And The First Amendment

By Brooks A. Mick, M.D.
June 28, 2005

From Fred's quiz: "Judge Moore was asked if he would support monuments to other faiths in court rooms. He said “NO”. He was:

A) Showing his clear bias for Christianity, which violates the Establishment Clause. B) A hero that we should all emulate! Just say no to 2.5 ton Hindu statues! C) I choose not to answer for fear I will humiliate myself."

I'd like to butt in here and answer that, even though it was for Michael McRae.

First, the Judge's bias toward Christianity does NOT clearly violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. That Amendment says only "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Note that nothing Judge Roy Moore does regarding the 10 Commandments creates an establishment of a national religion. Note also that the First Amendment only prohibits the congress of the United States from acting, but does NOT prohibit states or other local governments from doing whatsoever they may regarding religion.

Note also that the First Amendment prohibits congress from enacting a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That "free exercise" would, quite clearly, include Judge Moore's building a monument of the Ten Commandments and putting it wherever he wished. The First Amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from interfering with this act of Judge Moore.

One can either have a rule of God, a theocracy, which our Founding Fathers wisely prohibited; or one can have a rule of men, which degenerates inevitably toward totalitarianism or mob rule or anarchy or other chaotic state; or one can have a rule of law. And if that rule of law is to prevent chaos, it must be strict and clear and the interpretation must not change with every whim of the populace or with every change of political leaders or every ebb and flow of political tides, or otherwise it just deteriorates into a rule of men. And we don't want dictatorships, mob rule, or anarchy, do we?

Well, I don't. It seems to me, however, that the US Supreme Court has decided, in many of its decisions in the past decades, that they don't want a rule of law, but do indeed prefer a rule of men. They can change the meaning and the wording and the interpretation of the Constitution at will, despite the clear words and the volumes of documents that the Founding Fathers left to illustrate what they meant. Too often, a majority of the Supreme Court dislikes the rules that the Constitution establishes and so they twist and squirm and wiggle and obfuscate and change the law to fit their opinion rather than that of the Founding Fathers.

We do have a mechanism for changing the Constitution, a method which, other than the 1tth and the 18th Amendments, has most often worked out well. But the SCOTUS doesn't want to attempt amendment, they just want to abrogate the Constitution at their whim.

This should be opposed in all manners possible.

And Fred---stop blathering. You write a lot of words but don't really say anything substantive. This was much the style of Kerry's speeches. It didn't work for him either.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/7250

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

About the author Brooks A. Mick: 63-yr-old physician, still practicing medicine but retired from the US Army. Write just for the fun of it, but working on novel in the vein of Tom Clancy's politico-military genre.

Email: brooks15@cox.net

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

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED!