“Words have meaning. And the meaning of the words in the Constitution should be enforced,” commented Foundation President Kayla Moore. “The origination clause is clear. If a bill raises revenue it must be proposed by the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Our Founding Fathers added this protection to the Constitution to ensure that we the people were not unfairly taxed. Now that ObamaCare has unequivocally been declared a tax, under the origination clause, it must go.

The brief, which was authored by the Foundation’s Senior Attorney and Resident Scholar Colonel John A. Eidsmoe and Executive Director and Chief Counsel Joshua M. Pendergrass, suggested that the Fourth Circuit was bound by the words of the Constitution, no matter what steps may have been taken to pretend the bill was started in the House. The Foundation argued that the bill cannot stand, even though it may be Constitutional as a tax according to the Supreme Court, it must still comply with other Constitutional provisions, including the origination clause.

The case which is now pending before the U.S. 4th Circuit, is expected to be decided later this year. The entire brief filed by the Foundation can be retrieved here: http://morallaw.org/PDF/Liberty-v-Geithner.pdf.

The Foundation for Moral Law is a non-profit, 501(c)(3), legal foundation based in Montgomery, Alabama which was founded by Judge Roy Moore. The Foundation is committed to protecting religious liberty, honoring the Constitution and preserving the right of all people to publicly acknowledge God. Learn more at www.MoralLaw.org.

“The Foundation for Moral Law is committed to ensuring that state governments and the judiciary in our Country follow the Constitution and honor the intention of our Founding Fathers,” commented Moore. “There is no doubt that the State of California erred in outlawing a counselor to express his or her personal opinions on the matter of homosexuality. The Foundation for Moral Law is proud to have defended religious liberty in this case and we will continue to do so throughout the United States.”

The brief, which was authored by the Foundation’s Senior Attorney and Resident Scholar Colonel John A. Eidsmoe and Executive Director and Chief Counsel Joshua M. Pendergrass, suggested that the Ninth Circuit had a duty to affirm that the law was due to be struck down. The Foundation argued that counselors, parents and children all have a right under the First Amendment to seek counseling which suggests that homosexuality is abhorrent.

The case which is now pending before the U.S. 9th Circuit, is expected to be decided later this year. The entire brief filed by the Foundation can be retrieved here: http://morallaw.org/PDF/Welch-v-Brown.pdf.

The Foundation for Moral Law is a non-profit, 501(c)(3), legal foundation based in Montgomery, Alabama which was founded by Judge Roy Moore. The Foundation is committed to protecting religious liberty, honoring the Constitution and preserving the right of all people to publicly acknowledge God. Learn more at www.MoralLaw.org.

In Hollingsworth, the Foundation argued that California’s Proposition 8, which made gay marriage unconstitutional in that state, was itself a constitutional way to define marriage. FML also argued that same sex-marriage is not a right but that marriage is a government recognition of a divinely established institution. Eidsmoe wrote in part “the Constitution is utterly silent about same-sex marriage. To read into the Constitution a protection of same-sex marriage, is to commit the very folly that President Washington warned against: changing the Constitution by usurpation.” You can read the Foundation’s brief here.

Windsor is a case which challenges the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Foundation argued that DOMA is allowed under a plain reading of the Constitution. The Foundation told the Court they should follow the Constitution, plain and simple. “The Second Circuit says the nonexistent equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages, even though the Supreme Court has never said the actual Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the states recognize same-sex marriages. How can it be, that the non-existent equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment is stronger than the actual Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth? This anomaly demonstrates the danger and folly of allowing the federal judiciary to depart from the plain language of the Constitution and the intent of its Framers, and to wander aimlessly in the trackless fields of their own imaginations.” You can read the entire filing here.

The Foundation for Moral Law is committed to protecting the Constitution on every judicial level. Your support of the Foundation makes our invovlement in cases like these possible.

Since 2003 the Foundation for Moral Law has worked to defend the United States Constitution and our unalienable right to acknowledge the sovereignty of God under the First Amendment.  We have provided seminars to pastors, lawyers, and judges regarding the true meaning of the First Amendment and have filed legal arguments in state courts, federal district courts and nearly every federal appellate court in the Country to include the United States Supreme Court.  The Foundation is unique in explaining the truth of the Bill of Rights as our founders intended.  I know that the new leadership at the Foundation is ready to continue the mission we began years ago, and will continue the outstanding work we have just begun. 

The Foundation for Moral Law, a national non-profit legal organization located in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 2003, is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government, and handles legal cases regarding religious liberty and moral issues such as the sanctity of life and of marriage.

This regressive “progress” of usurping government power was obvious to students of world history like Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues. But what of the modern statesman, judge, or citizen? Well, he would do well to learn from the magnificent new work by the Foundation for Moral Law’s own Col. John Eidsmoe, Historical and Theological Foundations of Law, just released by American Vision and Tolle Lege Press.

This three-volume set–we’ll call it HTFL–covers an astounding breadth of ancient societies–from ancient Egypt and Babylon until the U.S. Constitution’s ratification–and walks the reader through the common threads and differences woven through all. Seeking to answer the question, “What is Law?” Col. Eidsmoe masterfully demonstrates how religion and theology have been not simply one influence on law throughout world history, but the driving force and direction in each era and in each corner of the globe.

For the unthinking secularist who loves to parrot that “God and religion have nothing to do with law,” we recommend Col. Eidsmoe’s new book set. And for the sincere citizen who wants to understand better what role the law of God plays in limiting or reversing the “natural progress” of man’s law toward authoritarianism, HTFL is the perfect place. Know any aspiring or current lawyers? Follow this link and get them all a great Christmas gift in Historical and Theological Foundations of Law.

Judge Roy Moore commented:

“The Freedom From Religion Foundation is an atheist organization seeking to remove the knowledge of God from our land. To say that cheerleaders at Marbury High School cannot encourage their football team with expressions of faith is ridiculous.  These bullish tactics may result in some Americans giving up their rights, but we at the Foundation for Moral Law are prepared to defend these students at all costs.”

In the letter, Judge Moore urged Autauga County to “to ignore the sound and fury of radical atheists and instead protect the religious liberty of Marbury cheerleaders, football players, and other students.”  The Constitution should not be used to censor students expressing their faith. After all, said Judge Moore, “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

Judge Moore offered the legal services of the Foundation and assured Autauga County that “we at the Foundation are ready to go the distance in this battle for religious liberty.”

The Foundation for Moral Law, a national religious-liberties legal organization located in Montgomery, Alabama, is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government through litigation and education relating to moral issues and religious liberty cases.

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA — After months of delays and several recusals, trial scheduled October 23 for two Montgomery, Alabama, pro-life sidewalk counselors sprayed off the public sidewalk by a Montgomery abortion clinic and charged with trespass was again delayed.  The prosecutor for the City of Montgomery filed a motion to continue late Friday, October 19, and then failed to show for trial due to a family health issue.  Judge Charles Price, who has not ruled on the motion for speedy trial, told David Day and Jeshua Screws, represented by counsel with the Foundation for Moral Law, that the case would again be reset to a future date.

Even though the abortion clinic repeatedly turned on and off the forceful, 25-foot jet of water and used it to block the public sidewalk in violation of the city code, David Day and Jeshua Screws were arrested in June of 2011 and accused of criminal trespass when they stepped out of the way of the sprinkler jet.

As seen in the picture above, to avoid the jet of water at Reproductive Health Services, pedestrians and joggers frequently walk behind the sprinkler head and onto the clinic property and then return to the sidewalk to proceed. However, when Jeshua and David, trying to exercise freedom of speech and religion on public property, tried to avoid the water jet in the same manner as they had seen passersby frequently do, the abortion clinic owner had them arrested and the City of Montgomery is claiming they committed criminal trespass.

Ben DuPré, the Foundation attorney representing Screws and Day, said the abortion clinic cannot force pro-life advocates off the public sidewalk and then claim the pro-lifers are violating the law. “Montgomery’s abortion clinic does not have a right to wrongfully spray people off the sidewalk because they don’t like their message of saving life and finding hope in Jesus Christ, and then turn around and accuse them of trespass for avoiding the sprinkler.”

Moreover, this case has been repeatedly delayed, primarily because the judges assigned to the case recused for unknown reasons. Originally set for trial in February, then March, and then April of this past year, no fewer than three judges recused before this case was assigned to the current judge.  Day and Screws have asked Judge Price to dismiss the case for failure to give them a speedy trial as required by the United States and Alabama constitutions.

DuPré noted that the sprinkler is not there to water the grass. “The abortion clinic staff routinely turn the sprinkler on and off in an attempt to hit pro-life advocates standing on the public sidewalk. They are trying to protect their cash flow by intimidating, harassing, and silencing those peacefully urging women not to give the clinic hundreds of dollars to take an innocent life.”

The Foundation for Moral Law, a national non-profit legal organization, is located in Montgomery, Alabama, and is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government through litigation and education relating to moral issues and religious liberty cases.

Personhood Oklahoma and proponents of the initiative have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this historic case–the first “personhood” case to be presented to the High Court.

Judge Roy Moore commented:

“Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that life is an unalienable right endowed by our Creator. Our Founders understood that fact because the common law when our Country began recognized that ‘Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual.’ The people of Oklahoma and every other state should be able to recognize that the right to life for every person, born and unborn, begins at conception.”

Judge Moore and the Foundation for Moral Law, a national pro-life, religious-liberties firm that leads Personhood Alabama, along with The Adoption Law Firm (TALF), an Alabama nonprofit orphan-care and adoption firm, argued in its brief that the Oklahoma personhood initiative was a constitutionally-sound approach to granting equal protection of the law to preborn children. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade even acknowledged,

“If this suggestion of personhood [of the unborn] is established, the appellant’s [Roe's] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156-157 (1973). Today, many states including Alabama protect the preborn through fetal homicide laws and chemical endangerment laws that protect children (when in the womb or not) from exposure to controlled substances. Finally, the Holy Bible recognizes the personhood of the preborn child. The Foundation and TALF urged the Supreme Court to hear this important case and to permit the people of Oklahoma to protect their preborn children equally under the law.

Click here to read the brief in Personhood Oklahoma v. Barber.

“State personhood laws like the one proposed in Oklahoma are cutting-edge efforts to affirm the value of all human life against all threats against it,” said Ben DuPré, the director of Personhood Alabama (which endorses a personhood amendment in Alabama) and an attorney with the Foundation for Moral Law. “If a person’s a person no matter how small, then abortion procedures and drugs, embryonic stem-cell destruction and lethal cloning all must go. It’s what makes personhood measures proposed in Oklahoma, here in Alabama, and many other states so comprehensively pro-life–and so hated by the pro-abortion industry.”

“The preborn child abandoned to the horrors of abortion is as much an orphan as those children left to themselves by the death or neglect of their parents,” said Sam McLure of The Adoption Law Firm. “The personhood amendment proposed in Oklahoma gives the state the authority to protect pre-birth orphans from having their lives intentionally taken without just cause.”

The Foundation for Moral Law, a national non-profit legal organization located in Montgomery, Alabama, is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government through litigation and education relating to moral issues and religious liberty cases. Personhood Alabama, a joint project of the Foundation and Personhood USA, seeks to provide equal protection to unborn children by defining them as persons under the laws of Alabama.

The Adoption Law Firm is a non-profit law center based in Montgomery, Alabama, promoting a culture of orphan-care and providing excellent legal services to effectuate ethical adoptions.

Click here to read the Foundation’s CA marriage brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Judge Roy Moore commented on this important case:

“Throughout history, marriage has been recognized as the union of male and female, a contract between husband and wife, the ‘most solemn and sacred of all,’ according to the United States Supreme Court in 1819. When the people of California tried to reaffirm that definition of marriage in their own Constitution,  a federal district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the will of the people. We at the Foundation for Moral Law are asking the United States Supreme Court to hear this case and reverse the unlawful decisions of the lower courts. By attempting to redefine marriage as the union of two persons of the same sex, the courts are trying to make a law which contradicts the Common Law, the Constitution of California, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress in 1996, opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the United States Constitution, and the ‘laws of nature and of nature’s God’ upon which our Country was founded.”

After the federal courts in San Francisco struck down California’s Proposition 8, proponents of the marriage amendment asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

In its brief supporting Proposition 8, Judge Moore and the Foundation argued four main points: (1) the text of the Constitution should be the standard for determining whether Proposition 8 is constitutional, not judicially-fabricated “tests”; (2) marriage is an institution for human government, not merely an individual right; (3) just because California courts recognized same-sex “marriage” in California, which lasted for a mere 140 days, does not make it a time-honored, God-given right; and (4) contrary to the lower courts’ opinion, a “rational basis” for traditional marriage exists.

The Foundation urged the Supreme Court to hear this crucial case and to permit the right of the people of California to legally affirm the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman–just as Alabama and a large majority of all the states have done.

The Foundation for Moral Law, a national non-profit legal organization located in Montgomery, Alabama, is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government through litigation and education relating to moral issues and religious liberty cases.

Judge Moore and the Foundation, together with Col. Ron Ray and First Principles Press of Kentucky, had filed an amicus curiae brief in this case on behalf of 35 Kentucky Senators arguing that an acknowledgment of God does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Click here to read the Kentucky Senators’ Brief.

Judge Roy Moore commented:

“I am proud of the people of Kentucky and their state legislators, who stood up for the acknowledgment of God as the source of their homeland security. America has always trusted in God for its defense–that is why our National Motto reads, ‘In God We Trust.’”

After the Kentucky law was enacted, the radical American Atheists group filed a suit against the Commonwealth to block the law. Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin Circuit Court ruled the law to be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and a violation of the Kentucky Constitution.

On appeal, the Foundation’s brief on behalf of the Kentucky Senators explained that the Establishment Clause only forbids laws “respecting an establishment of religion,” not laws that simply recognize our need for God’s protection.  The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent an official, national denomination, but even they acknowledged God and His Divine Providence in many official acts and laws.  Neither the words of the First Amendment nor their meaning have changed, and all judges ought to apply the original meaning of those words when interpreting the Constitution.  As the Kentucky Court of Appeals and now the Supreme Court affirmed, the Kentucky Homeland Security law does not establish a religion, but acknowledges God in a perfectly constitutional manner.

The Foundation for Moral Law, a national non-profit legal organization located in Montgomery, Alabama, is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government through litigation and education relating to moral issues and religious liberty cases.