Judge Roy Moore up to is usual bullshit... again...

[EmperorSolo51]

Well, now this just now has become moot on my side. Judge Roy Moore has been suspended. I now officially yield in this debate.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95416,00.html

Why should your asinine opinion be changed by the fact that Moore has been suspended? You still seem to think it's OK for some bigoted asshole to turn the state courthouse into a forum for promoting one religion over others, don't you?

I haven't changed my mind. I am simply yielding the debate. Now, that judge Moore has been suspended, now I know for a fact that the thing will be taken down and there is no longer any need for a debate. Or do you not want to call a victory.

[Darth Wong]

I haven't changed my mind. I am simply yielding the debate. Now, that judge Moore has been suspended, now I know for a fact that the thing will be taken down and there is no longer any need for a debate. Or do you not want to call a victory.

I would like to think that you recognize the ethically barren nature of your position rather than conceding as a matter of practicality. Unfortunately, it appears that you don't.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Your forget he views the 10th ammendment as more important than individual freedoms.

"states rights" just another euphamism for legalized discrimination.

[Joe]

"states rights" just another euphamism for legalized discrimination.

That's a very ignorant statement.

[Wicked Pilot]

"states rights" just another euphamism for legalized discrimination.

That's a very ignorant statement.

Generally speaking maybe, but in this case it's dead on.

[Iceberg]

"states rights" just another euphamism for legalized discrimination.

That's a very ignorant statement.

That may not be how it was intended, but it's how it turned out. That's one of the reasons why the Federal government ruled that nullification (state laws which contravene or explicitly nullify Federal laws and clauses of the Federal Constitution) was illegal.

State Constitutions and state statutes are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and the United States Code of Statute Law.

[EmperorSolo51]

[quote="Darth Wong"

I would like to think that you recognize the ethically barren nature of your position rather than conceding as a matter of practicality. Unfortunately, it appears that you don't.

Maybe you guys are right, maybe religious symbols have no place in court houses. Maybe states don't have the right to put up monuments like this one. I am from NH and we are taught this "live Free or Die" mentality and I am a firm believer in tenth amendment. When this case started, I could have cared less about the 10 commandments, I cared more about the fact the federal government trying to force a state to do something against it's will. I guess in my arguements I ignored the first amendment. Now, that I look back, I guess a realize that my statements wrere very silly.

[Joe]

State Constitutions and state statutes are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and the United States Code of Statute Law.

True, but that doesn't grant the federal government absolute power to govern the United States. The federal government is only superior within its domain.

[EmperorSolo51]

Your forget he views the 10th ammendment as more important than individual freedoms.

"states rights" just another euphamism for legalized discrimination.

Not true. I view the Tenth amendment as tool that allows the states and the people to prevent the Federal government from abusing its powers and becomming tyrranical. That's why the founding Fathers put this amendment into the constitution in 1787.

[Wicked Pilot]

Are we submitting here that the right of the states, or more specifically the majority who run it at that particular time, is more important than the rights of it's citizens?

[Alyrium Denryle]

"states rights" just another euphamism for legalized discrimination.

That's a very ignorant statement.

In some cases it doesnt apply. But in this case it does.

[Darth Wong]

Your forget he views the 10th ammendment as more important than individual freedoms.

"states rights" just another euphamism for legalized discrimination.

Not true. I view the Tenth amendment as tool that allows the states and the people to prevent the Federal government from abusing its powers and becomming tyrranical. That's why the founding Fathers put this amendment into the constitution in 1787.

Unfortunately, you interpret this in such a manner as to decide that it's OK for a state to be tyrannical over its citizens but not OK for the federal government to be tyrannical over the states.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Your forget he views the 10th ammendment as more important than individual freedoms.

"states rights" just another euphamism for legalized discrimination.

Not true. I view the Tenth amendment as tool that allows the states and the people to prevent the Federal government from abusing its powers and becomming tyrranical. That's why the founding Fathers put this amendment into the constitution in 1787.

That is why they put it in.... but you forgot that the first ammendment IS explicity in the constitution, so states rights do not apply.

[RedImperator]

I'm all about the Tenth Amendment and it ought to be used more often to smack down the Federal government, but in this case a state in the union was using its authority to promote Christianity. Legal issues aside, that's simply a gross abuse of government power.

Now, looking at the legal issues, prior to the passage of the 14th amendment, the Federal government wouldn't have had any power to force this monument's removal. But the 14th fundamentally changed the relationship between the Federal and state governments, by extending the restrictions on Federal power in regards to individual rights (speech, religion, search and seizure, gun ownership, and the rest) to the states. You may not like it, but that's what happened. The Fourteenth overrides the Tenth on any matter of individual rights protected by the other amendments.

States rights are important, but the individual matters more. In this case, the Federal government acted to check a state's infringement on the rights of individual citizens of Alabama (specifically, all non-Judeo-Christians) There are other issues and cases where you can make a convincing argument that SCOTUS overstepped its bounds (any number of Earl Warren's decisions come immediately to mind), but this isn't one of them.

[Joe]

Now, looking at the legal issues, prior to the passage of the 14th amendment, the Federal government wouldn't have had any power to force this monument's removal. But the 14th fundamentally changed the relationship between the Federal and state governments, by extending the restrictions on Federal power in regards to individual rights (speech, religion, search and seizure, gun ownership, and the rest) to the states. You may not like it, but that's what happened. The Fourteenth overrides the Tenth on any matter of individual rights protected by the other amendments.

That's where I always run into a problem. I'm all for the 14th Amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states, which is not really a problem for most of them, but the First Amendment is different in that it explicitly limits the power of Congress to regulate speech, religion, et cetera. I think that the power to strike down state laws restricting speech or establishing religion is a power that the federal government ought to have, but I just can't see how the letter of the First Amendment allows for that.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I think we shouldn't remove the monument, we should just have all it's surfaces sanded off and replaced with a nice smooth finish, so that we have a big shiny rock instead of a crass promotion of Christianity. Everyone likes shiny things, especially ignorant uber-religious types.

The problem, in the opinion of my brother (a lawyer), is that judges in Alabama are appointed by popular vote--so that they are too commonly politically motivated and ambitious lawyers (a bad combination). I think Judge Roy Moore may be considering a jump from the bench to the Alabama State Legislature... and beyond?

[RedImperator]

That's where I always run into a problem. I'm all for the 14th Amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states, which is not really a problem for most of them, but the First Amendment is different in that it explicitly limits the power of Congress to regulate speech, religion, et cetera. I think that the power to strike down state laws restricting speech or establishing religion is a power that the federal government ought to have, but I just can't see how the letter of the First Amendment allows for that.

Yes, it would have been much simpler if the 1st Congress had used passive voice in the First Amendment as it did for the rest of them. In the case of the First, to justify extending it to the states via the Fourteenth, you have set aside the First's exact wording and assume that since ALL of the Bill of Rights was intended to be applied strictly to the Federal government, and the Fourteenth has now changed that for the other amendments, the specific mention of "Congress" in the First now no longer applies. I'm not thrilled with it, but it's hardly the most drastic assumption made in Constitutional law.

[Wicked Pilot]

I think Judge Roy Moore may be considering a jump from the bench to the Alabama State Legislature... and beyond?

Jumping from a speeding car in heavy traffic would be a move I'd support.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm all for the 14th Amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states, which is not really a problem for most of them, but the First Amendment is different in that it explicitly limits the power of Congress to regulate speech, religion, et cetera. I think that the power to strike down state laws restricting speech or establishing religion is a power that the federal government ought to have, but I just can't see how the letter of the First Amendment allows for that.

Because the 14th amendment makes American citizenship universal and extends the protection of the Bill of Rights to the state level —which was not recognised in law prior to 1868. Further protection extends through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, applying state prohibitions against religious establishment or free speech abridgement codified in one state to every jurisdiction.

[RedImperator]

Further protection extends through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, applying state prohibitions against religious establishment or free speech abridgement codified in one state to every jurisdiction.

The full faith and credit clause obligates states to honor contracts made in other states (section 1), and prohibits states from discriminating against non-residents in favor of residents in matters of fundamental rights, such as the right to own property, seek a job, or have access to the courts (section 2). It in no way obligates states to honor the rights granted to citizens of other states within its own boundaries, and nor does it allow citizens of the states to carry their rights with them across state lines. Both of these interpretations were soundly rejected by the Supreme Court (the first in McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 687 (1894), the second in City of Detroit v. Osborne, 135 U.S. 492 (1890)).

[Patrick Degan]

Further protection extends through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, applying state prohibitions against religious establishment or free speech abridgement codified in one state to every jurisdiction.

The full faith and credit clause obligates states to honor contracts made in other states (section 1), and prohibits states from discriminating against non-residents in favor of residents in matters of fundamental rights, such as the right to own property, seek a job, or have access to the courts (section 2). It in no way obligates states to honor the rights granted to citizens of other states within its own boundaries, and nor does it allow citizens of the states to carry their rights with them across state lines. Both of these interpretations were soundly rejected by the Supreme Court (the first in McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 687 (1894), the second in City of Detroit v. Osborne, 135 U.S. 492 (1890)).

You may wish to examine U.S. Supreme Court, SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. PIPER, 470 U.S. 274 (1985), DOE v. BOLTON, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), AUSTIN v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 420 U.S. 656 (1975), and BALDWIN v. FRANKS, 120 U.S. 678 (1887). Furthermore, judicial decisions —whether originating in any federal or state court— affirming protections for citizens in regards to basic freedoms, rights, and privileges are held valid as precedent in any court of competent jurisdiction, as laid down in Article 4.1.

[RedImperator]

You may wish to examine U.S. Supreme Court, SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. PIPER, 470 U.S. 274 (1985), DOE v. BOLTON, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), AUSTIN v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 420 U.S. 656 (1975), and BALDWIN v. FRANKS, 120 U.S. 678 (1887). Furthermore, judicial decisions —whether originating in any federal or state court— affirming protections for citizens in regards to basic freedoms, rights, and privileges are held valid as precedent in any court of competent jurisdiction, as laid down in Article 4.1.

Three of these four cases (New Hampshire, Doe, and Baldwin) involve cases of fundamental rights that cannot be denied to non-citizens of a particular state by that state's government: the first, the right to practice law; the second, the right to seek medical care; the third, the right to peacefully go about one's business. These rights are already protected, regardless of whether or not another state specifically gurantees them. The Doe case has barely anything at all to do with the issue at hand, as it was decided on right to privacy and equal protection grounds.

Austin vs. New Hampshire is a pure Article IV case, but I'm unsure why you brought it up. This is a cut and dried example of a state discriminating against out-of-state residents. In fact, the matter of the laws of other states are brought up, but only to say that the state of Maine's ability to retaliate against New Hampshire did not make the New Hampshire statute any more Constitutionally valid.

You're absolutely right on the last point, but I don't see how that proves your previous assertion that states must abide by rights and privleges granted by OTHER STATES. Fundamental rights, by definition, are not granted by the states or even the Federal government. If you want to argue that non-Christians non-residents of Alabama who happen to be in-state have a fundamental right not to be discriminated against by that state, and this makes Roy Moore's little publicity stunt a violation of Article IV, Section 2, be my guest (though the First Amendment via the Fourtenth route seems like less bother). But Article IV doesn't obligate the states to change their laws because another state has chosen to grant its citizens certain rights. Christ, how would a system like that even work? Any state in the union could change the laws in the other 49.

[The Yosemite Bear]

In reguards to Amendment X, and States rights.

Does anyone recall a conflict withing the united states between 1861 and 1865 where a group of states declared that the tyranical federal government was abusing their rights under that very same amendment and violently tried to leave the United States?

Kinda puts things in perspective.

the post civil war amendments deliberatly weakened/countermanded IX and X because of their use by the confederacy to justify certain actions.

[jezrianna]

States rights is a lie, proved so in trial by battle, 1861 to 1865.

[Hamel]

Way to hump the death thread, ya necrophiliac