11th Circuit Affirms Ruling on Roy Moore's Ten Commandments Monument

[Stephen Maturin]

Well, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certainly didn't waste any time! Today the court upheld a federal district judge's ruling that the enormous Ten Commandments monument installed in the Alabama State Judicial Building at the behest of Chief Justice Roy Moore violates the Establishment Clause.

You'll find the opinion in PDF here (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216708.pdf). My favorite passages thusfar:

The clear implication of Chief Justice Moore’s argument is that no government official who heads one of the three branches of any state or of the federal government, and takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution, as all of them do, is subject to the order of any court, at least not of any federal court below the Supreme Court. In the regime he champions, each high government official can decide whether the Constitution requires or permits a federal court order and can act accordingly. That, of course, is the same position taken by those southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era.

* * *

The rule of law does require that every person obey judicial orders when all available means of appealing them have been exhausted. The chief justice of a state supreme court, of all people, should be expected to abide by that principle. We do expect that if he is unable to have the district court’s order overturned through the usual appellate processes, when the time comes Chief Justice Moore will obey that order. If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail. (Citations omitted.)

[DonaldW112]

Just posting to say....

All right!!!

Donald

[beejay]

That's certainly a nice counterweight to the unfornuate opinion by the Third Circuit. :) :) :)

[Edited to add]

They considered the 3rd Circuit Court opinion:

Nor is our decision today inconsistent with those from any other circuits in
recent years involving the Ten Commandments. The Third Circuit issued an
opinion just days before this one holding that the inaction of county commissioners
with respect to a plaque that had been on the outside w all of a historically
significant courthouse for more than eighty years did not violate the Establishment
Clause. Freethought Soc’y v. Chester County, ___ F.3d ____, No. 02-1765 (3d
Cir. June 26, 2003). That case is readily distinguishable from this one because the
plaque had been there more than eight decades and no government entity or official
has done anything in modern times to highlight or celebrate its existence, or even
to maintain it; the plaque is not located in a prominent place but instead is away
from the main entrance of the courthouse near a permanently closed door where
visitors have no reason to go; and the text of the plaque is not visible to passersby
on the sidewalk, who can see only the title “The Commandments.” Id. man. op. at
5-7, 11-12, 31-33; id. at 39 (Bright, J., concurring).
As the Third Circuit noted in the Freethought Society case, “a new display
of the Ten Commandments is much more likely to be perceived as an endorsement
of religion” by the government than one in which there is a leg itimate
“preservationist perspective.” Id. at 31, 32; see also id. at 33 (“[I]t is highly
significant that there is no evidence that the County has taken any action involving
the plaque since it was erected 80 years ago.”); id. at 39 (Bright, J., concurring)
(noting the “crucial facts” that the location of the plaque was not changed when the
old entrance near it was closed, leaving the plaque barely visible from the street
and its text mostly obscured, and concluding that “[a] world of difference exists
between the conduct of the Chester County officials approving the placement of
the plaque at the then main entrance to the Chester County Courthouse eighty-three
years ago and the decision of Chester County not to remove the plaque as of
today”).


I suppose the circuits try to harmonize their opinions with the other circuits so the Supreme Court doesn't have a difference between the circuits to settle?

I suppose if only 80-year-old 10C monuments are unconstitutional, we've dealt with most of them.

[SLD]

As I said on the Gay rights case: anything to piss off the Southern Baptist Convention is fine with me.

Way to go 11th Circuit - you got one right for a change!!

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy


SLD

[BibleBelted]

I wonder if Scalia will now say the 11th Circuit has taken sides in the culture wars. Damn liberal 11th Circuit. :D

I actually wish this case had gotten more publicity. If more people really got familiar with the facts of this case I would hope there might be an awakening, at least among the fair-minded, about just how nutty and anti-liberty these christian fascists really are. Hopefully, this gets big airplay on the political scream shows tonight.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by beejay
I suppose the circuits try to harmonize their opinions with the other circuits so the Supreme Court doesn't have a difference between the circuits to settle?

Exactly, and it's usually pretty easy to do in cases like this. The courts are dealing with the same set of general principles but vastly different sets of facts. Religious display holdings tend to be so fact-specific that one decision is often of little or no value in resolving another case.

The Moore case is a prime example. Morris Dees did his clients -- and everyone else in Alabama, for that matter -- a huge favor by opting for a trial in this case. He got every little detail of Moore's religious lunacy out there for all the world to see. In doing that, he also made a bulletproof record for purposes of appeal. Moore shot himself in the foot every time he opened his pie hole.

Of course, Moore and his lawyers didn't help their cause any when they chose to proffer some of the craziest arguments in the history of Establishment Clause litigation. Here's just a little taste of the bedwetting nonsense with which they tried to sway the Eleventh Circuit:

[Moore] argues that because of its “no law” language, the First Amendment proscribes only laws, which should be defined as “a rule of civil conduct . . . commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.” Brief of Appellant at 19 (quoting 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *44). Any governmental action promoting religion in general or a particular religion is free from constitutional scrutiny, he insists, so long as it does not command or prohibit conduct. The monument does neither, but instead is what he calls “a decorative reminder of the moral foundation of American law.” Brief of Appellant at 19. (Emphasis added.)

Needless to say, the court of appeals found the ramifications of that argument a bit troubling:

The breadth of the Chief Justice’s position is illustrated by his counsel’s concession at oral argument that if we adopted his position, the Chief Justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama Supreme Court’s courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have decidedly religious quotations painted above
the bench. Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises. A crèche could occupy the place of honor in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, and federal building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the public address system in every government building at the whim of the official in charge of the premises.

However appealing those prospects may be to some, the position Chief Justice Moore takes is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 612, 109 S. Ct. at 3110, which held unconstitutional the placement of a crèche in the lobby of a courthouse, stands foursquare against the notion that the Establishment Clause permits government to promote religion so long as it does not command or prohibit conduct. * * *

In the end, though, the court disposed of the wacky stuff quickly, conducted a straightforward Lemon analysis (a true no-brainer on these facts) and gave Moore a big ol' shitburger to eat. He'll get another heapin' helpin' of that particular delicacy when the Supreme Court denies his cert petition.

[atheist_in_foxhole]

Click here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938887/posts) to see the right-wing fundy reaction.

[Toto]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
Click here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938887/posts) to see the right-wing fundy reaction.


"Now to replace it with a statue of two men engaged in anal sodomy."

. . .

Can you imagine this happening here, in the United States? A person getting arrested on Federal felony charges for displaying the Ten Commandments? How much longer before Christians will be worshipping in the catacombs again? We need a President like Emperor Constantine, who will make Christianity legal again.

:D :rolleyes: :banghead:

[Jewel]

They just don't get it. Well, I'm sure many of them do but instead are using the persecution ploy to gain sympathy from the uninformed public.

Ya right -- Christianity illegal :rolleyes:

[StrictSeparationist]

This is good stuff:

So eager was he to have the district court judge conduct the view “just like a juror would,” that counsel for the Chief Justice volunteered his help in arranging parking for the district court judge at the Judicial Building. Any conceivable error was not just invited error, but invited error with a parking space.

Invited error with a parking space... I love it!

[SLD]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist
This is good stuff:



Invited error with a parking space... I love it!

Of course, their courts are actually within walking distance of each other.

Now comes the fundy fundraiser: "THE EVIL SECULARISTS JUDGES ARE GOING TO PUT ROY MOORE IN JAIL!!!! HELP KEEP JUDGE ROY MOORE OUT OF JAIL - SEND ME MONEY (I MEAN SEND MONEY TO THE ROY MOORE DEFENSE FUND)."


:rolleyes:

SLD

[dspeers]

I am just shocked that a guy like Moore could pass the bar, much less be appointed as a judge, much less Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court. This nutjob should be disbarred and removed from the bench. Not because he's Christian, mind you, but because of his grossly misguided view that the legal system of this country is based on his personal religion's 10C's.

So, how long until we get that marble slab outta there?

[dspeers]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
Click here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938887/posts) to see the right-wing fundy reaction.

Holy IPU! Do these bozos really think this way? Now I am really depressed.

[SLD]

Originally posted by dspeers
I am just shocked that a guy like Moore could pass the bar, much less be appointed as a judge, much less Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court. This nutjob should be disbarred and removed from the bench. Not because he's Christian, mind you, but because of his grossly misguided view that the legal system of this country is based on his personal religion's 10C's.

So, how long until we get that marble slab outta there?

No time soon I'm sure. First come the motions to reconsider, then the petition for rehearing en banc and then the Petition for Cert. I predict that will be denied as the Supremes don't want to wade into this one just after upsetting the fundies with their gay rights case. Then maybe then we will have it removed. Or he might pull a George Wallace and stand in the courthouse door.

Now though I need to stick up for Roy Moore, in part because I'm an Alabama lawyer. On everyday bread and butter issues that we deal with - he's really not so bad. He's not a knee jerk right winger tool for the Business Council the way some other Judges on that court are. He's been particularly harsh on arbitration agreements and for that I am quite grateful. It's just when he gets on his religious kick that I just :rolleyes:

SLD

[Javaman]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
Click here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938887/posts) to see the right-wing fundy reaction.

I started feeling ill reading that stuff... and pages and pages of it no less. This one startled me:

I hope Moore ignores them. Let's see the court enforce its own order. The bastards deserve to be hung for treason.

Treason? TREASON?!?!

Maybe I'm the one that's confused. The voices of reason on that board are completely ignored (Kevin Curry, I think?).

[BibleBelted]

I didn't hear a peep about this case on the news last night, and I really don't understand why the mainstream press seems to be totally uninterested. Are we just a bunch of cranks here? Is Laci Peterson, a missing Baylor basketball player, and opinions on the opinions of movie stars really that much more important than stemming the tide of fundamentalist fascism?

I really thought this case was important, but I'm beginning to think I'm just having a mid-life crisis.

[beejay]

Originally posted by BibleBelted
I didn't hear a peep about this case on the news last night,

I heard a peep or two on CNN. Maybe it happened late enough in the day to not make the normal news cycle.

Maybe they'll cover the reaction from the religious right...


Or else the media is thinking "Oh, yeah. Another 10C unconstitutional...where's the news in that?"

[RufusAtticus]

I expect that the supreme court will deny to hear the case, upholding the 11th circuit's opinion.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I expect that the supreme court will deny to hear the case, upholding the 11th circuit's opinion.

I agree. Diana, Mary and Flo want absolutely no part of this mess. Justice Thomas seems to be the only one toying with the idea that the Establishment Clause shouldn't apply to the states at all. There's no way four justices will agree to review this slam-dunk of a decision.

[Bill]

Originally posted by dspeers
I am just shocked that a guy like Moore could pass the bar, much less be appointed as a judge, much less Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court. This nutjob should be disbarred and removed from the bench. Not because he's Christian, mind you, but because of his grossly misguided view that the legal system of this country is based on his personal religion's 10C's.

So, how long until we get that marble slab outta there? First, Moore got to be Chief Justice by running for election, just like any other politician. I have no idea what actual qualifications Alabama requires before you can run for Chief Justice of Alabama, but they are certainly minimal!

Moore is fairly representative of the redneck Christians who inhabit most of Alabama. He collected lots of money from those folks for his various campaigns, and obviously, he got the most votes in his campaign to become Chief Justice. George Wallace was really popular there, too, remember? Even after his infamous stand in the schoolhouse door, the people of Alabama just kept electing George (and his wife, Lurline) to be Governor, over and over again.

==========

Anyway, we won't need to wait too long for this case to be finally over. The maneuvering for Petitions for Rehearing and/or Rehearing in Banc will be over within 30 days, at which point the Remittituer will issue to the District Court. At that point, the District Court has the discretion to delay enforcement while a Petition for Certiori is considered by the Supreme Court. In this case (as in many others), I suspect that the District Court will not wait, because of the strength of this Appeals Court opinion against Moore (it generally takes at least one dissent at the Appeals Court level to create any presumption that the Supreme Court might actually consider taking this case. And with the 11th Circuit basically ruling that the Supreme Court's Allegheny case controls the outcome here, there isn't any real chance that the Supreme Court will waste its time on Moore's case.

The Remittituer should issue around August 1, after which Moore has about 90 days to file his Petition for Certiori to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has as long as it wishes to consider the Petition, but in general such petitions are summarily denied within 30 to 60 days of filing (if the Supreme Court is in session, which it will be in this time frame; the Supreme Court typically does not act on cases during the Summer recess, but instead acts on many hundreds of cases at a time in late September and early October). On this timeline, my best guess as to the date by which the Supreme Court will finally dispose of this case is sometime in January or February of next year, presuming that Moore's legal team drags their feet on filing Moore's Petition out to something near the final deadline (which seems to be their strategy here).

As to when the monument itself might be removed, that is really up to the discretion of the District Court. The plaintiffs will be pushing for "sooner" and Moore and his team will be pushing for "later" and it will be up to the District Court to decide exactly when Moore has had his last chance to act voluntarily and then order the US Marshall's service to execute the removal.

My personal bet is that Moore will construct some sort of a box over the monument as a sop to the District Court and the plaintiffs while the Supreme Court considers his petition, and the District Court in this case seems to be inclined to not create a fuss about actual removal, so the monument could conceivably remain in the building, enclosed in a box, for the foreseeable future. This would be something akin to the non-resolution of Paulson's Mt. Soledad Cross case (http://www.godless.org/eth/Soledad.html) (also, interestingly enough, involving a District Court judge named Thompson), which keeps going back and forth between the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Court, with the Court of Appeals standing up for Paulson and the District Court refusing to be too aggressive with actually enforcing Paulson's rights.

If the District Court in Moore's case essentially "sits on its hands" (leaving the monument in a box, or some similar gambit), then it may take a new Chief Justice to get elected in Alabama before the monument will be removed (calling the box around the monument an "eyesore" or some such).

So, the real answer to your question of "how long until we get that marble slab outta there?" is that this lies totally within the discretion of the lifetime appointee who is the District Court Judge in this matter, Judge Thompson. If he wanted to be agressive, he could have it out of there before Labor Day. If he wants to let things be, he will tell Moore to put up a box around it and he will let it sit there until the Supreme Court acts, and then after the Supreme Court acts, he can adopt the attitude that, with the box there, it is no longer offensive and thus the Plaintiffs have received all of the relief to which they are entitled, thus turning the matter back over to the State of Alabama to resolve.

Somewhere along that range of options lies the future course of this case. :rolleyes:

== Bill

[Bill]

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
Justice Thomas seems to be the only one toying with the idea that the Establishment Clause shouldn't apply to the states at all. There's no way four justices will agree to review this slam-dunk of a decision. I wouldn't be too sure of this. There are three Justices who would vote to review this case just in the hope of overturning all of the recent First Amendment jurisprudence: Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Thus, they only need to convince either O'Connor or Kennedy to come over to the dark side in order to take this case.

And the fact that the Third Circuit recently ruled against the removal of a similar Ten Commandments monument does, in fact, create a "dispute between the circuits" that just might persuade the Supreme Court to take both of those cases in parallel (in order to reconsider their holding in the Allegheny case, which is certainly controlling for both). So, while we might be hoping for the Supreme Court to take the Philadelphia case, their doing so would actually greatly increase the liklihood that it would take Moore's case at the same time. Supreme Court jurisprudence is like that: sometimes lightning does just strike you.

== Bill

[hezekiah jones]

Counsellor Maturin cites:

[Moore] argues that because of its "no law" language, the First Amendment proscribes only laws, which should be defined as "a rule of civil conduct . . . commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." Brief of Appellant at 19 (quoting 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *44). Any governmental action promoting religion in general or a particular religion is free from constitutional scrutiny, he insists, so long as it does not command or prohibit conduct. The monument does neither, but instead is what he calls "a decorative reminder of the moral foundation of American law." Brief of Appellant at 19. (Emphasis added.)

wtf? He's smuggling common law principles into a constitutional analysis? Or am I in over my head here? I thought that to do so was at least frowned upon, or maybe I'm all f*cked up.

Wouldn't this tactic necessarily bring to mind Louis Brandeis' 1890 Harvard Law Review article on the tort of invasion of privacy, and by extension undermine Moore's fellow travellers' outrage with Griswold, resulting in one of the most fabulously subtle cognitive dissonances in the history of conservative legal analysis?

Either I'm deeply confused, or Moore is running out of feet to shoot.

[hezekiah jones]

Also, if SLD (or anyone) would like to comment on Moore's potentially imminent act of civil disobedience and Alabama's code of judical conduct, I'd be very interested.

[Overgrowngoblin]

Originally posted by BibleBelted
I didn't hear a peep about this case on the news last night, and I really don't understand why the mainstream press seems to be totally uninterested. Are we just a bunch of cranks here? Is Laci Peterson, a missing Baylor basketball player, and opinions on the opinions of movie stars really that much more important than stemming the tide of fundamentalist fascism?
Right here on the Internet Infidels Web site, the Church-State Separation & Secular Activism forum has 19,247 posts whereas the Media & Popular Culture forum has 52,980 posts. So even on II, media & popular culture is 2.75 times more important than church-state separation issues. I guess we are a bunch of cranks.

Also, something tells me that Moore is going to have a long life in politics. We are going to be hearing from this guy for many moore years to come (think governor of Alabama). The only punishment he would possible get out of this is a slap on the wrist and the right would love him all the more.

Oh wait, there’s an update on that missing basketball player . . . I’ve got to go.

[dangin]

Hey, I mod in both those fora. Doesn't quite add up though. There are tons of posts in M&PC that are simply lists of favorite songs, books, and music. This forum often has, shall I say, a little more substance. Not to disparage M&PC, that's a fun place to hang out. But comparing post counts doesn't really tell the story.

[hezekiah jones]

Seems to me this forum has a disproportionate ratio of views to posts per thread compared to at least some of the other forums. So lots of folks are at least checkin' it out, which is a good thing.

[Bill]

Well, CNN has highlighted Moore's rejection of the appeals court decision (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/02/tencommandments.ruling/index.html), so the matter isn't exactly being ignored by the mass media. They were just waiting to give Moore the spotlight, which didn't happen until today's 2:00 PM (EDT) news conference, so keep your eyes out for Moore during tonight's news cycle.....

== Bill

[Overgrowngoblin]

I knew I should have put a smiley face in that first paragraph on my last post. Sorry my bad.

I'm actually quite happy when I see not a lot going on in this forum; it means that we're not under content siege. The same can be said with the Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s Web site. I dread every time they put up a new article.

[RufusAtticus]

It was on the front page of the AJC in big letters: COMMANDMENTS BARRED. I also first heard about it on CNN:HN.

[Bill]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
It was on the front page of the AJC in big letters: COMMANDMENTS BARRED. I also first heard about it on CNN:HN. Well, the AJC article (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0703/02judge.html) wasn't quite that prominent on its web site this afternoon.

Also, from that article, these paragraphs give some additional background on Moore and his support: Moore, 56, has established himself as a lightning rod for religious issues since he was a circuit judge in Gadsden. In 1995 the American Civil Liberties Union announced its intention to sue the judge because he displayed a carving of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. Moore rode the notoriety from that case to election to the Alabama Supreme Court in 2000.

During the election campaign, The Birmingham News reported that conservative political groups had flown Moore across the country to deliver his message of a First Amendment right to acknowledge God and a judicial responsibility to base laws on biblical scripture. == Bill

[Grumpy]

[Moore] argues that because of its "no law" language, the First Amendment proscribes only laws, which should be defined as "a rule of civil conduct . . . commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong."

By that logic, a teacher can ban students from praying before a math test. It's not a prohibition of Free Exercise unless Congress makes a law, right? Right?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by Bill
Supreme Court jurisprudence is like that: sometimes lightning does just strike you.

Yep, that's the truth, Bill. The Supreme Court can be unpredictable if for no other reason than it has the final say in these matters. I'm convinced that it won't happen here, though. I agree that the Triumvirate would like to remake Establishment Clause jurisprudence in its own image, but Moore's case isn't the vehicle for it. The facts are downright awful and the arguments Moore's counsel preserved for appeal are ragingly crackpottish even by Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas standards.

Also, I respectfully disagree with the idea that the Moore decision and last week's Third Circuit decision establish a circuit conflict. Roy's Rock and the plaque at issue in the Chester County case are vastly different animals, as the Eleventh Circuit did a fine job of detailing in its opinion. The Third Circuit case might have a chance of getting in, albeit a tiny one, but Glassroth looks like a non-starter all the way.

Then again, I could be wrong. That happens often enough. :D

[Worldtraveller]

Damn, I don't want to get off topic, but the guys over at freerepublic.com are downright scary!
I particularly like this one:

....it's really not a legitimate act of any governmental body or official in this country to decide what is or is not religion.

Does that mean I can declare IPU a viable religion and get my tax exemption?? Woohoo!! :)

I won't hold my beath.

I have a feeling this is going to wind up like the previous decision at the high school (I'm too lazy to search for the thread right now :p)

There will be a fair amount of organized protests, and they are going to have to call in the local police and force the issue.

Let's hope.

-Lane

[DMB]

Originally posted by Overgrowngoblin
Right here on the Internet Infidels Web site, the Church-State Separation & Secular Activism forum has 19,247 posts whereas the Media & Popular Culture forum has 52,980 posts. So even on II, media & popular culture is 2.75 times more important than church-state separation issues. I guess we are a bunch of cranks.


I read a lot of threads here but usually fail to post because most of them refer to happenings in the USA, and I often know too little to make any meaningful contribution to such debates. I would suggest also that the majority of visitors to this forum either have no interest in or don't know enough about the establishment and maintenance of secular systems in other parts of the world to get involved in threads about those subjects.

I find this forum immensely useful in my efforts to understand what is going on in America. I have the utmost admiration for the American constitution and feel very concerned about the attacks on it from the fundies and the current Adminstration. But I am also very concerned about the lack of separation of mosque and state in many islamic countries and about the ongoing battles against cynical governments in Europe. I think it is of the utmost importance that we lift our eyes from time to time from our parochial concerns to see the wider picture.

[Jewel]

Originally posted by DMB
I think it is of the utmost importance that we lift our eyes from time to time from our parochial concerns to see the wider picture.

I think that applies to us as well. All too often Americans act like the US is the entire world. There is so much more out there. I think the education system here could do so much more to prevent the majority from getting tunnel vision.

[Bill]

Originally posted by Grumpy
By that logic, a teacher can ban students from praying before a math test. It's not a prohibition of Free Exercise unless Congress makes a law, right? Right? I don't think that Moore's argument will stretch THAT far. If a teacher creates a ban, then that most certainly is "a rule of civil conduct . . . commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." I don't think that Moore is necessarily arguing (with that phrase, anyway) that the 14th Amendment is a legal nullity when it extends all federally-guaranteed rights down to state and local governments (including prohibiting school teachers from enacting "a rule of civil conduct . . . commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.").

== Bill

[Bill]

Originally posted by Worldtraveler
Does that mean I can declare IPU a viable religion and get my tax exemption?? Woohoo!! :) Yes, actually, so long as your belief in the IPU is truly sincere. :D

But of course, yours won't be the only IPU-centered religion: The Virtual-Temple of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/) The Institute For Unicorn Research (http://www.geocities.com/ipuprophecy/ipu.html) == Bill

[NonHomogenized]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
Click here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938887/posts) to see the right-wing fundy reaction.

From that site:

That court is tyrannnical. How can they order another branch of govt. what to do?

posted on 07/01/2003 3:25 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)

Well, someone doesn't understand checks and balances :D

I thought it surely had to be satire, until I noticed the author, and what else they'd written. :banghead:

[hezekiah jones]

I was thinking about having some IMPEACH JOHN MARSHALL bumper stickers made up. I bet I could make a fortune from the freepers. After all, he started this "judicial review" horseshit (not).

On second thought, maybe REPEAL ARTICLE III would be a good one too.

[atheist_in_foxhole]

Judge Moore is defying (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33407) the ruling.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore vowed yesterday to keep a 2½ ton granite monument depicting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the judiciary building in Montgomery, in defiance of a federal appeals court order to have the testimonial removed.

"We must defend our rights and preserve our constitution," Moore told reporters. "For the federal courts to adopt the agenda of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and to remove the knowledge of God and morality from our lives is wrong."


And the fundies are thrilled. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940143/posts)

:banghead:

[beejay]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
Judge Moore is defying (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33407) the ruling.

:banghead:

Unfortunately (?), he's not defying a court order yet. He's just talking about it.

It seems that Alabama has a long history of politicians saying they will disobey the court, and then caving. George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door until they let him pose for photos, and then he moved aside, if I remember my history right.

Let's see what Moore does when a Federal judge tells him exactly what the consequences are of disobeying the courts. (And you can tell from the Circuit Court's opinion that they aren't in any mood to play games.)

Since there is little chance that Moore can prevail on appeal to the Supreme Court, I hope the Federal court orders the monument removed now.

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by hezekiah jones
wtf? He's smuggling common law principles into a constitutional analysis? Or am I in over my head here? I thought that to do so was at least frowned upon, or maybe I'm all f*cked up.

Wouldn't this tactic necessarily bring to mind Louis Brandeis' 1890 Harvard Law Review article on the tort of invasion of privacy, and by extension undermine Moore's fellow travellers' outrage with Griswold, resulting in one of the most fabulously subtle cognitive dissonances in the history of conservative legal analysis?

Either I'm deeply confused, or Moore is running out of feet to shoot.

Well, from how I understand it, bringing in respected sources of common law like Blackstone is often used to illuminate various obscure historical terms. When interpreting terminology from an "originalist" perspective, as conservatives like to do, using these sorts of ancient, but possibly still relevant legal treatises can actually be quite common.

However, I don't think you'll see any Supreme Court Justices arguing over the definition of the word "law" (or the word "religion", for that matter). Some terms have simply become too saturated with very specific meanings over the course of the last two and a half centuries to be redefined, and "law" is one of them. Just another throwaway argument, as far as I can tell- no real attorney could really expect a national Circuit to start completely redefining the legal vocabulary in order to preserve this monument.

[Bill Snedden]

"We must defend our rights and preserve our constitution," Moore told reporters.

Riiiight....by violating it! Yeah, that's the ticket!

"For the federal courts to adopt the agenda of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and to remove the knowledge of God and morality from our lives is wrong."

I agree. Good thing that's not at all what they're trying to do.

I keep asking myself why it is that these scumbags inevitably resort to these same old lies. And then I remember....it's because they're scumbags!

When do you think we'll see an editorial from the "liberal media" that calls Mr. Moore what he is: a liar?

[Toto]

Christian clergy urge civil disobedience if Ten Commandments is removed (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030717/NEWS/307170341/1007)

. . .
Standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, the Rev. Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, decried a July 1 decision by a federal appeals court that the religious monument, which was placed in the building by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, must be removed.

"My sense is a line in the sand needs to be drawn in Montgomery, Alabama," said Mahoney. "We’re seeing an incredible erosion of civil liberties and free speech rights, particularly in the area of religious free speech and expression in the public square."

Mahoney, who was joined by other defenders of Moore’s stance, said removing the monument would spark an uproar from Christians as significant as the civil rights movement that started there with the Montgomery bus boycott.

. . .

"It appears that we will have at least 48 to 72 hours notice before the Ten Commandments are ordered to be removed," said Mahoney. “Before this can occur we are calling for hundreds of Christians to lay down their lives and kneel in prayer around the Commandments and the courthouse. We may have to face arrest for this action."

. . .

[Abel Stable]

So what's the timetable on this? When are they going to be removed? I've really got no problem if people want to circle around and pray...no skin off my back, and its not going to stop anything no matter how hard they pray.
But wait, aren't there special "free-speech zones" now for this sort of thing? Or is that only when gov't officials congregate or WTO meetings are going on?

EDITED TO ADD:
"We’re seeing an incredible erosion of civil liberties and free speech rights, particularly in the area of religious free speech and expression in the public square."
In the public square? This is a government building! Do these people really understand what they're staying, or do they just not care about misrepresenting their positions? (Or, I guess there's the other alternative: The 10C should be in all courthouses, since all of our laws are so obviously derived from it. ugh.)

[beejay]

Originally posted by Abel Stable
So what's the timetable on this? When are they going to be removed?

The order to move the monument has been stayed pending appeals. There are two possible appeals (en banc hearing by the Federal Court and the Supreme Court), so it will be a while (perhaps this year?) before it is finally moved.

[enfant terrible]

So if Moore thinks our laws are based on the Commandments, does he think it is against the law to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? After all, it violates at least two of the Commandments (graven images and, in the post-1954 version, saying the Lord's name in vain)... :cool:

[Worldtraveller]

Damn, I have to go buy a new irony meter.....again!

"My sense is a line in the sand needs to be drawn in Montgomery, Alabama," said Mahoney. "We’re seeing an incredible erosion of civil liberties and free speech rights, particularly in the area of religious free speech and expression in the public square."

So, civil liberties are only important when they are protecting xians free speech!! NOW I understand!! :banghead:

Maybe I'll stay here in Europe a little longer.....

Cheers,
Lane

[beejay]

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is headed to the nation's highest court. In a statement issued Tuesday, Moore said he wants the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the legality of a Ten Commandments monument housed in the Alabama Judicial Building.

Two federal courts have ruled the monument's presence in the judicial complex is unconstitutional.

Moore had the choice of asking the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case. Tuesday was the deadline.


(This will be all over the news so I didn't post the temporary link to the TV site that I copied this from).

I think he has until this fall to file. And then we have to wait for the Supreme Court to deny cert, and then wait for it finally play out in Federal Court.

[Jewel]

Here's a link from the Huntsville Times (http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1058896185242430.xml)

MONTGOMERY - Chief Justice Roy Moore wants the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether he will be permitted to keep a Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the state judicial building.

Moore released a statement this morning saying he will not appeal to the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals a decision by three of its judges that the monument must be removed.


"I will not delay by seeking further hearings before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals," the statement reads.

"To prohibit the acknowledgment of God upon whom our justice system is established is to undermine our entire judicial system."

[Toto]

Interesting note: There are actually 11 commandments on Judge Moore's monument (http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.07.18/philologos.html) - because the designer tried to design an ecumentical set of commandments.

[Division By Zero]

From the Free Republic board someone posted a link to...


dogbyte12:
A Buddhist lawyer or a Hindu defendent might feel that by the court's endorsement of the 10 commandments, it is prejudicial against them or their clients.

SickOfItAll:
That's just tough sh#t, we've "progressed" as about as far as we need to "progress" in this country. If that's what progress is these days I don't want anymore of it???


I'm going to be sick.

The worst part of this whole mess is that Moore "wins" either way. If he's allowed to keep his rock, it's a lost battle for church / state seperation, much to the glee of the fundamentalists. But if he's forced to remove it, the ignorant masses, with no clue that seperation is protecting them, right now, will see him as a martyr for his faith and a victim of the tyrannical secularists that are taking over the government and eating through the moral fabric of our great Christian nation.

I bet Moore was thinking the same thing when he dragged that rock into the courthouse.

I'm extremely pleased that the 11th Circuit ruled against this fool- how could I not be?- but I think it's only going to fuel the Christian persecution complex...

[SLD]

OK, anybody want to take bets on whether the Supremes will deny cert or not?

I say they will deny it. There's no win for them if they take it. The law is already clear cut and established so they won't be clarifying the law or making new law that they want to make; they can only get a lot of crap by taking the case. Of course Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist will want to take the case so that they can reverse the Lemon test, but it takes four for cert.

SLD

[beejay]

Originally posted by SLD
OK, anybody want to take bets on whether the Supremes will deny cert or not?

SLD

I think we'll have to offer odds to get anyone to take the other side.

I agree entirely with your analysis. This is just like the appeal from the 7th Circuit on the Elkhart 10C monument (where they denied cert.)

And the S-T-R trio needs a better case to reverse Lemon on...this one is so over the top that I can't imagine the Supreme Court reversing....

[Jewel]

Court clears way for 10 Commandments removal (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0703/31tencommand.html)

The federal appeals court in Atlanta on Wednesday cleared the way for a 15-day deadline for the removal of a Ten Commandments monument at Alabama's Judicial Building in Montgomery.

In response, some conservative Christians were preparing a campaign of civil disobedience to keep the monument.


Leaders of three Christian groups are urging supporters to participate in civil disobedience by kneeling in prayer and blocking the monument's removal from the Judicial Building.

"We don't want the monument to come out," Alabama Christian Coalition President John Giles said in a phone interview Wednesday. "We're prepared to do whatever it takes, even if it requires us going to jail."

Moore has said he would neither encourage nor discourage nonviolent protests.

"People have a right to stand up for what they believe," he said in a recent interview on Alabama Public Television.


Such drama and granstanding -- "We're prepared to do whatever it takes, even if it requires us going to jail." :rolleyes:

And Judge (I use that term loosely) Moore should be ousted along with the 10C's. People aren't being prevented from believing or practicing their religion. :banghead:

[Ronin]

Hey, if they need someone to yank it out of there...I'd be up to it...free of charge.

[atheist_in_foxhole]

The Ten Commandments Exterminators (http://www.bushcountry.org/news/jul_news_pages/g_072603_zeiger_ten_commandments_exterminators.htm)

The real reason why the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are so aggressive about taking down the Ten Commandments is because they’re interested in breaking the Ten Commandments. The atheists and moral relativists who work for and contribute to the anti-commandment cause are itching to open up the floodgates of sin and ride the waves of dark, sticky, smelly immoral muck as it oozes over the cities and plains of America.

In other words, the people who are offended by the Ten Commandments are the ones who are eager to make it easier to violate them. They may not be murderers, rapists, and robbers, but they probably want greater leeway in the sentencing of thugs. They probably don’t cheat on taxes, but they didn’t mind when a president lied in court. They don’t want you to have a gun, but they don’t care about criminals with guns. They’re the same folks who want to trash the fifth and seventh commandments about the family by declaring a right to sodomy and doing away with traditional marriage.
:eek:

[Jewel]

Scary article, atheist_in_foxhole :eek:

America needs the Ten Commandments. Our civil laws, our culture, our families, our communities, our freedom – all of it depends on a moral law that is higher than the devices of mortal man. As the Father of the Constitution, James Madison said, “We stake the future of this country on our ability to govern ourselves under the principles contained in the Ten Commandments.”


Predictably enough, the "Madison" quote is one of the fakes that appears in David Barton's Myth of Separation book. From the Positive Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/madphony.htm) website:


Unfortunately for Barton's cause (and for his credibility as a man of truthfulness), John Stagg and David Mattern, editors of The Papers of James Madison issued the following statement concerning this misquotation:

"We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private." (Letter dated November 23, 1993, to which the editors refer all who inquire about this falsehood.)



edited to modify how much I quoted from Cliff Walkers website

[Jewel]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
The Ten Commandments Exterminators (http://www.bushcountry.org/news/jul_news_pages/g_072603_zeiger_ten_commandments_exterminators.htm)


:eek:


The author's email address appears at the bottom of the article. I'd love to see Buffman, Ronin and/or Ron Garrett take him to task.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Jewel
The author's email address appears at the bottom of the article.

"Hans Zeiger, 18, is a Seattle Times columnist, activist, and student leader. As an Eagle Scout, he is president of the Scout Honor Coalition."

Be gentle, he's just a kid.

I wonder if he's getting a merit badge for this essay.

[beejay]

Originally posted by Toto
"Hans Zeiger, 18, is a Seattle Times columnist, activist, and student leader. As an Eagle Scout, he is president of the Scout Honor Coalition."

Be gentle, he's just a kid.



I was going to quote from his article, but I see that atheist_in_foxhole 4 posts above has already provided the two paragraphs I was going to quote.

While I generally applaud the "be gentle" approach, look at what he is saying about us:

The atheists and moral relativists who work for and contribute to the anti-commandment cause are itching to open up the floodgates of sin and ride the waves of dark, sticky, smelly immoral muck as it oozes over the cities and plains of America.

That's a pretty nasty thing for a "kid" (or anyone) to say about anyone. I'm not sure you can have a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks that of you.

[Toto]

It could be that he has picked up some colorful language from his preacher or parent, and doesn't realize exactly what he's saying. He probably has never considered that a government that can post the 10C can decide which version to post, and what other religious doctrine to cram down people's throats.

Pointing out that he has relied on a quote that is false might undermine his faith, especially if he hasn't been backed up against a wall.

Want to bet that he has been home schooled?

[Jewel]

Originally posted by Toto
Want to bet that he has been home schooled?

If he has you can bet he hasn't had much exposure to opposing viewpoints. I wouldn't suggest making him cry or anything, but someone who writes well and can point out his errors to him I think would be a good thing.

[beejay]

Originally posted by Toto


Want to bet that he has been home schooled?

OK, Toto, I'll take that bet.

From a quick Internet search:

He has been a guest on numerous radio and television programs, including National Public Radio, Focus on the Family with Dr. James Dobson, Republican Radio, KCTS Connects, Crosstalk, the Laura Ingraham show, and the PBS Online News Hour. Hans has been noted in newspapers and magazines, including Culture and Family Report, Todays Global News, I.E., Education Week, Traditional Values Coalition Weekly News, Boys Life, and Christianity Today. Hans has spoken to business conferences, colleges, rallies, civic groups, and churches.


Dubbed in a 2000 Eastside Journal article as a political veteran, Hans was a Pierce County coordinator for the Senate campaign of Linda Smith in 1998, leading phone banks for three legislative districts at the age of 13. In 1999, Hans served as the northwestern director of the Youth for Dan Quayle coalition, then as state chair of Students for Alan Keyes. He was chair of Take Back Washington 2000 in the gubernatorial campaign for Harold Hochstatter, then director of Students for John Carlson for Governor. In 2002, Hans was political director for Sarah Casada for Congress. Currently, Hans is the managing consultant for the Defense of Family Initiative in Tacoma, Washington.


Hans teaches Sunday School to 9-12 year olds, led a school Bible study, served as Class President at Puyallup High School, ran track and cross country, founded the schools Sportsmanship Campaign, plays the violin and piano, practices Lincoln-Douglas and Controversy debate, and is the 2003 American Legion Orator for Washington State.



I think he can take criticism of his views, but I'm not sure he'll listen.

[atheist_in_foxhole]

Take a look at what the little twit wrote about abortion a few months ago:

The Lost Generation: 30 Years of Roe v. Wade (http://www.americasvoices.org/archives2003/ZeigerH/ZeigerH_012503.htm)

[Ronin]

I just sent him this ~

---------

Dear Hans:

I appreciate your dedication to the tenets of your religion. The Ten Commandments are especially meaningful to Christians around the world. Christians should and do have every ability to cherish all the significance that can be gleaned from them in private and privately owned public displays.

However, the issue of promoting just one religion’s creed or dogmatic preference in a governmental arena does an injustice to that religion. You may agree with me that the spirituality, religion or universal understanding of each seeker should be attained individually without manipulation, coercion or exploitation.

Our government represents all of the people and is where people must come to redress grievance and seek justice. To submit all of the people to the idea that only one creed, spirituality, religion or universal understanding is valid or uniquely endorsed by governmental representation makes a mockery of that very religion and gives the impression that there will not be an unbiased review of a particular concern.

So, while I am not a Ten Commandments “exterminator”, I do fully understand the need for a government of the people and by the people (even non-Christian people) to remain free of the religious endorsement, icons and supernatural claims.

I think that it is a wonderful display of unity when a group of likeminded individuals can express themselves regarding any important issue important to them. The ability to protest both for and against this issue directly addresses the importance of our government to remain religiously neutral in order to fairly address the issues brought by a plurality of cultures and peoples.

Repression of thought or ideology by an overbearing government that seeks to impose a singular creed upon others should be offensive not only to those that don’t hold a reverence to that creed but, equally, to those that do (for it may not always be their creed that holds sway).

I think that the 5,300 pound Moore monument, the Fraternal order of Eagles monument and any other such graven images are lavish testaments of religious dogma that would be well preserved within the Christian churches of their choice.

Should I, or anyone else in this country, choose to exercise our free will and desire to travel to these churches and appreciate the aesthetics and craftsmanship of the works we can do so.

It is very important to note that the Ten Commandments are alleged to be the decree of a supernatural being known by Christians as having many names, yet given the common moniker “God”, whose followers maintain a certain specific set of legends that are the formation of a ‘belief’.

Those that do not maintain that belief are citizens of this country and should not be expected to be confronted with the particular claims of one religion or given the notion that their own government endorses these supernatural claims.

The offense given is that there will not be a fair and impartial treatment of these citizens over the favored religion.

The very reason that our secular government has evolved, through case law, an enormous and complex system of real human legislation that addresses our true life experiences is direct evidence that there is a primary need for less of a reliance on religious claims or creeds and more express and specific examinations of facts and circumstances as they apply to the human condition.

Atheists, humanists and other more liberal and understanding theists are not attempting to remove our civil or criminal laws from the land.

As a matter of fact, we encourage a constant review of these laws in light of reason and experience. Just as slavery, not denounced by the Ten Commandments, was once an accepted value, it is now rightly perceived as an obvious abomination and rejected through human intervention.

People striving to bring acceptance of the plurality of our population to those regions in our country that would impose religious edict within public governance are merely leveling the playing field for all understandings, religious or otherwise.

We are simply trying to bring order, liberty and justice to all families, all communities, all cultures and all individuals in order to allow for the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

~ Steven T. Schlicht, 39, is a 13 year veteran police officer, awarded criminal investigator and social activist. He is an atheist and a member of the American Humanist Association and the Internet Infidels.

-------


He's sure to come to understand our position any second now.

[SLD]

I was a lot harsher on him. I always though Boy Scouts weren't supposed to lie? I sent him this:



Anyone who uses the fake Madison quote in an essay should be kicked out of Scouting for lying. I am sure that many others have told you that the quote you used was another example of Christians lying for Jesus. It seems to me that your argument is that it is all right for Christians to lie and break the ten commandments as long as they are doing so for the advancement of their narrow minded religion, while those of us who do not subscribe to Christianity are automatically evil regardless of whether there is any evidence of our alleged foibles.
It is painfully obvious from reading your vitriolic diatribe that you know nothing about the history of this country, nor the history of religion. The real question though is whether you have the integrity that the Boy Scouts are allegedly known for and will print a retraction of your essay.



SLD

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by Toto
"Hans Zeiger, 18, is a Seattle Times columnist, activist, and student leader. As an Eagle Scout, he is president of the Scout Honor Coalition."

Be gentle, he's just a kid.

I wonder if he's getting a merit badge for this essay.

Hey, no need to automatically assume that he can't hold his own in an argument just because he's a teenager! While I agree that there's enough in that editorial to demonstrate a complete absence of independent critical thinking, let's attack him for what he wrote, not how old he is. There are plenty of people his age (and younger) who could make an excellent showing for the other side of that issue. And there are plenty of idiots older than him who could also be outclassed by teenaged separationists.

[Jewel]

Ronin -- That was masterfully done. Although I have my doubts that he will actually learn anything from it, I would live to be proven wrong. Perhaps, once all that teenaged energy burns off, he will think back to your letter as one that started that nagging little voice in the back of his mind. A girl can dream can't she? Anyway, I really liked your letter. I sincerely hope he gives it some thought.

[RufusAtticus]

Well zeiger has a new piece up:

God Bless Judge Roy Moore (http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_792.shtml)

In a recent piece of hate mail, I was taken to task for using the term “God-given rights.” “GOD doesn't give rights; the CONSTITUTION does,” wrote the critic from Surf City, California. Actually, the constitution acknowledges the rights that are established in the Ten Commandments of God.

Where you stupid biblebot? Where? Could it be in this section?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

No, that's the section that says that the constitution is a people-given document.

The First Commandment is, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." In response to this commandment, the Left talks about “freedom from religion.” Yet from the First Commandment to the First Amendment, there is no such thing as freedom from religion.

In fact, the First Amendment doesn’t even grant freedom OF religion. God does.

Nothing could be more illogical. For a God who grants freedom of religion, he sure has a funny way of showing it to Moses.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[BibleBelted]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Well zeiger has a new piece up:

<snip>

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

That's an understatement.

The neo-cons and fundies seem to be trying to calibrate their new strategery to implement a Christo-fascist theocracy.

They are arguing that the Constitution does have religious content, and of course that religious content is Judeo-Christian because "52 of the 55 framers of the Constitution were evangelical Christians." Puke.

The religious content is:

(1) The phrase in the Preamble, "blessings of liberty," comes from the Bible. Everyone knows you can't have "blessings" without Jesus.

(2) The DATE:

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

The friggin' DATE is their proof that they were all singing hymns and praisin' the Lawd at the Convention.

They also are claiming the atheist, left-wing, god-hating SCOTUS has bastardized the 14th Amendment because the First Amendment was meant to only apply to the US Congress. State's Rights (where have we heard this before) include the right to establish a religion according to the will of the majority, although the Feds cannot.

Only a moron could be persuaded by arguments like these, but the morons (or shills) refuse to believe anything else.

Plus all the wails of persecution. You would think they were being carted off to the Colosseum to be fed to wild animals.

[Gamer4Fire]

Originally posted by Ronin
Hey, if they need someone to yank it out of there...I'd be up to it...free of charge.

Yank it? Hey, I'd even rework it with their choice of custom re-inscription if they gave me a chance! Not only moved from the building, but relocated to (almost) any destination of their choice! (bottom of the ocean sounds like a great place for a large funky shaped rock)

[Gamer4Fire]

From The Lost Generation: 30 Years of Roe v. Wade by Hans Zeiger

But the year I was born, abortion claimed more of my peers than all of the deaths in all of America's wars combined.


For the 43 million dead, we can only commit to intensify our efforts, through God's grace.

Can anyone confirm (or more likely deny) this for me?

[hezekiah jones]

That's 43 million more $300 cheques Bush would have had to send out, another $12.9 billion added to the federal deficit, which would make Jefferson spin in his grave even faster than Roy Moore makes him.