HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug 22, 2003 For some reason there is more hoopla over the faulty claim that the posting of the Ten Commandments in Alabama is a violation of the First Amendment than the fact that a Federal Court is using its bully pulpit to supercede states rights. On the first issue, for all those who have not actually read the Constitution (I think many judges have not), the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof". So let's first set the record straight by saying that Judge Moore is not Congress and by displaying the monument, he is not 'establishing' a religion. In fact, the second part of the clause "prohibiting free exercise thereof" is actually being compromised by the Judge who ruled against Judge Moore! We all need to remember that the 'separation of church and state' that everyone quotes does not exist in any legal doctrine of this country but rather is called out in the Federalist papers (I believe by Jefferson). It has been interpretted by the courts by those are interpretations only. All that said, an equally interesting issue to me is the continuing expansion of Federalism over State rights. I am not sure on what basis this Federal judge believes he had the right to rule on this and make it law. To me, the simple ruling on this and enforcing the decision could in and of itself be a violation of the constitution definition of states rights. We seem to be heading dangerously close to losing the individual autonomy that states have enjoyed which affords more power to the individual communities to impact legislation that affect them. If members of a community want to foster a certain environment through local laws they should have that priviledge. The Federal courts are over stepping their bounds be it sodomy laws, religious freedoms, affirmative action and a whole host of other issues. Where we seem to be heading is a national pluarlism driven down to a local level. Large population centers like NY, CA, etc. have different needs and a different culture than smaller states in different regions. It is not appropriate nor in any way the intent of the founding fathers to give so much power to the federak government. I hate to say it, but at some point aren't we heading toward a civil war? Maybe we are already there. Of course, it won't be the same type of civil war fought with guns and cannons, but rather a civil war of ideals where individual communities are forced to relinguish their values to a set of standards as defined by the Federal government (through Congress or the Courts). This is already happening through required diversity programs, affirmative actions, gay rights, restriction of free religion, regulating free speech, etc. The Alabama case is not merely an attack on religious freedom, but also a powerful attack on sovereginty for states and communities to create their own version of American freedom. ------------ Email Brett Keirstead: bkeirst@msn.com Comment on this column in the forum. Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
