Roy Moore & Foundation Defend Dixie County Decalogue in Brief
Connect With Us
Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Foundation for Moral Law (http://morallaw NULL.org), a religious liberties legal organization in Montgomery, Alabama, filed an amicus curiae brief (http://morallaw NULL.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/No NULL.11-13457_ACLUv NULL.Dixie-CountyAmicus9 NULL.26 NULL.11 NULL.pdf) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (http://www NULL.ca11 NULL.uscourts NULL.gov/) today, urging the Court to uphold the constitutionality of a granite monument of the 10 Commandments installed and maintained by a private citizen in front of the courthouse in Dixie County, Florida.
Read the Foundation’s amicus brief in ACLU of Florida v. Dixie County, Florida here. (http://morallaw NULL.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/No NULL.11-13457_ACLUv NULL.Dixie-CountyAmicus9 NULL.26 NULL.11 NULL.pdf)
Roy Moore stated:
“Each Ten Commandments case seems to bring us a different outcome than the last, depending only upon the particular judge or judges involved. The only consistency is inconsistency. Are we a nation under God and law, or an oligarchy under judicial tyranny? The Ten Commandments are the moral foundation of our law and the First Amendment lays out our religious liberties under the Constitution—and neither has been altered since they were first enacted. If usurping federal judges continue to hold that God’s law violates the Establishment Clause, then it is those judges that need to be removed, not the Ten Commandments.”
In their brief, Judge Moore and the Foundation urge the Court to rule based upon the words of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as it was understood by its framers at the time of its ratification. The question is not whether the display violates some court-created test like the “Lemon Test” or the “Endorsement Test,” but whether it is a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Foundation argues that the Dixie County Ten Commandments monument is not a “law,” it does not dictate to anyone what their “religion” must be, it does not “establish,” recognize, or fund any particular religion, and therefore it is not a violation of the First Amendment.
The Foundation for Moral Law (http://morallaw NULL.org), 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.
Posted by admin on Monday, September 26th, 2011 @ 7:30PM
Categories: News
Tags: ACLU, Constitution, courthouse, Establishment Clause, Ten Commandments
If a lower court decides that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed on government or public property they must justify the display of the Ten Commandments and prayer that occures in other government/public buildings around this country. The highest court in the land the “Supreme Court” has many references to God and the Ten Commandments all over the Supreme Court building and they regularly have prayers to begin their sessions. Whats good for the goose in this country has to be equally good for the gander. My thoughts on this issue and others like it would be for the courts to require that a majority of those being affected in a specific community sign a patition for or against the issue before it could be heard in a court of law.
According to the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 the document says, “THE conventions of a number of States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE OF POWERS, that further Declaratory and RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES should be added: And as EXTENDING TO PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in government, will BEST ensure the beneficent ends to its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposes to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as PART OF THE SAID CONSTITUTION viz: ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution. Is our First Amendment declaring something or is it restricting something?
Looks to me like I see a Wall of Seperation between Church and State in our First Amendment. There are restricted areas where WALLS were put up so that our Legislatures could not sneak in and change the LAWS of our land. Those walls set up our legislatures boundaries as to how far they could go with the LAW. Lets see–Article I Congress shall make no law (declaratory) respecting an establishment of religion, (restrictive) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (restrictive) or (Congress shall make no law) abridging the freedom (declaratory) of speech, (restrictive) or of the press, (restrictive) or (of) the right of the people peaceably to assemble, (restrictive) and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.(restrictive) It seems to me that the only restrictive clause’s that our Supreme Courts have restricted from our country is the establishment of religion clause and prohibiting the free exercise thereof clause. Now this restriction all can from Thomas Jeffersons famous quote of, “building a wall of seperation between church and state”. Doesn’t our Courts know that they are not suppose to go into the “restricted areas” of our Constitution like religion was given unto us as a priviledge; or favors granted? See that is what the Danbury Baptist Association thought. Lets fish for just a minute in the Danbury River to see if we can catch any meat. The Establishment of the Constitution was ratified in the Year of our Lord, September 17, 1787; twelve Amendments to the Constitution, which are called our Bill of Rights, were added Four years latter on December 15, 1791. The Danbury Baptist letter was written to Thomas Jefferson 10 years later on October 7, 1801, which stated, “Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty–that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals–that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of religious opinions–that the legitimate power of civil government extends no more than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor; But Sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Today, I feel the same as these people did back in 1801. Our constitution of government is not specific and is very hard to understand until one finally realizes that this Constitution is not a LAW BOOK for the people; it is the LAW BOOK for our Legislators. We, the people, made that LAW BOOK for our legislatures to obey and explicitly follow. The Danbury Baptist go on to say, “Our ANCIENT CHARTER together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the BASIS OF GOVERNMENT, at the time of the resolution; and SUCH had been our laws and usages, AND SUCH STILL ARE; that religion is considered AS THE FIRST OBJECT OF LEGISLATION; and therefore what religious PRIVILEGES we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy AS FAVORS GRANTED, and NOT as inalienable rights; and these FAVORS we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen”. Religious liberty is NOT priviledges or favors granted by our legislatures. It is total freedom; it is an inalienable right. If we read his letter and pay close attention to all the words, you will see that it was WE, the people, who built the WALL of seperation between church and states LAWS. State LAWS can not touch any kind of establishment of religion unless ACTIONS are breaking the laws of the land. Opinions are not actions. Now lets go fishing in the Jefferson River. Maybe we can get some meat of understanding. I’ll bring the Waters (of understanding) to you. Gentlemen, The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the LEGITIMATE POWERS of government reach ACTIONS ONLY, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverenceTHAT ACT of the WHOLE AMERICAN PEOPLE which declared that their LEGISLATURE should “make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” THUS building a wall of separation between Church & State. ADHERING TO this expression of THE SUPREME WILL OF THE NATION in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction THE PROGRESS of those sentiments which TEND TO RESTORE TO MAN all his NATURAL RIGHTS, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802. Religion is the SUPREME WILL OF THE NATION. It is no longer a privilege or favors granted by our legislatures or Supreme Court Judges; they do legislate laws also, don’t they? According to Jeffersons letter, our Supreme Court Judges can not tell us that we have to keep anything religious out of government. Our Supreme Court Justices can not build a Wall of Seperation between government and the freedom of religion because religion does not live under the law; ACTIONS DO. Some of the laws of Our Ancient Charters is still in effect. The Supreme Will of our Ancient Charter is still the same today as it was yesterday. That will is Gods WILL to be done in government as well as society and in families in order to create, form, and make a Christian Nation.
Very simply: we left England to escape tyranny of religious freedoms, and other freedoms. the signers of the Decl. of Indep., all but one, were Christian leaders of the new America. It is the law of the land. Period. We must remove anyone or anything that does notuphold this mandate, no matter who it is.
i need to add one more thing. Where are our English Professors? Our First Amendment is a sentence. Look up the word respecting in any dictionary. It means regarding–concerning or about. Now read the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting; about; concerning or regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That makes much sense to me now. Our Supreme Court Justices have MISCONSTRUCTED our First Amendment and they abused their Powers by using their powers to remove Judge Moore’s Monument of The Ten Commandments; AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion. The meaning to the word respect changes once you add the “ing”.
As I study and study this First Amendment to try to understand where the Restrictive Clause’s are, I see that the restrictive clause is “an establishment of”.
If I take the restrictive clause out of that sentence it reads, Congress shall make no law respecting religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of; Or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; OR the right (of the people) to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I am probably the only person in the world who sees that this sentence is only regarding religion and it’s free exercises. The semi colon helps us understand that the free exercises are explained to be the freedom of speech, or of the press (the power of religious persuasion); OR of the right of the people (all people) to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Now this makes sense to me. All of these things perfectly line up with religion. They are parallel to each other. It is a parallel sentence. Where are our English professors?? A parrallel sentence is conformity in essential points. Every one of these points are essential to the free exercise of religion.
No matter how you look at it–it is a sentence. Sentences explain themselves if you know the rules to learning English. Let an English Professor outline this sentence. These were LEARNED men who wrote this sentence; well educated in the field of writing. Are we educated enough to understand the structure of this sentence? NO!! My common sense alone tells me that this sentence is concerning religion only because every item relates to religion. It is speech not related to religion that has to live under the law; not religious speech.
There are laws concerning speech. All speech is not free. People take you to court for slandering someone’s character or name which comes from speech. We are NOT free to say whatever we want. Religious speech does not live under the law. It could have been freely spoken anywhere until our Supreme Court Justices started MISCONSTRUCTING the meaning to our First Amendment. Now religious speech has to pay if we say a prayer in schools or mention the name of God in any government owned school. It was religious speech that should have been free–not all speech. Kids can use the F word in schools because they have freedom to express themselves. F word can be in our movies–it has freedom–just don’t mention the G word in school or you’ll be brought to court. God Forbid! We are so mixed up and confussed.
All press is not free–Just write something that isn’t true about someone and see if you won’t be held under the law. So where is the freedom of the press–it is the religious press. Show me one article that was written before our time about religion that has broken the law. If we had freedom of the press; we could bring our Bibles to school. The Bible is words written. Where is the freedom??
So this proves to me that our First Amendment is about completely protecting attacks on account of religion ONLY. I have fought over this one sentence for over twenty years of my life–
When Congress amends our Counstitution they amend one subject at a time. The main subject in this sentence is Religion. Show me another sentence that discusses 5 other subject matters in the same sentence that are all unrelated.
Every one of the items listed after the free exercise thereof relate back to the actions of an establishment of religion. Religious speech helps establish religion; religious books or gospel Tracts help establish religion; people peaceably assembling at tent revivals or on the streets preaching the gospel helps establish religion.
If Congress was ordered not to make any laws concerning the freedom of speech–than all speech whatsoever would be free. Is it?
As I got off of this sight and God just told me to look up moral law. So I did. Moral law is the solid rock foundation that all law is built on.
Look at this Opinion on the French Treaties (Avalon Project) April 28, 1793
I proceed, in compliance with the requisition of the President, to give an opinion in writing on the general Question, Whether the U S. have a right to renounce their treaties with France, or to hold them suspended till the government of that country shall be established?
The Law of nations, by which this question is to be determined, is composed of three branches. 1. The Moral law of our nature. 2. The Usages of nations. 3. Their special Conventions. The first of these only, concerns this question, that is to say the Moral law to which Man has been subjected by his creator, & of which his feelings, or Conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his creator has furnished him. The Moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society & the aggregate of the duties of all the individuals composing the society constitutes the duties of that society towards any other; so that between society & society the same moral duties exist as did between the individuals composing them while in an unassociated state, their maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation. Compacts then between nation & nation are obligatory on them by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances however which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man & man: so are there also between nation & nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral. So if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation to others. For the reality of these principles I appeal to the true fountains of evidence, the head & heart of every rational & honest man. It is there Nature has written her moral laws, & where every man may read them for himself. He will never read there the permission to annul his obligations for a time, or for ever, whenever they become `dangerous, useless, or disagreeable.’ Certainly not when merely useless or disagreeable, as seems to be said in an authority which has been quoted, Vattel. 2. 197, and tho he may under certain degrees of danger, yet the danger must be imminent, & the degree great. Of these, it is true, that nations are to be judges for themselves, since no one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another. But the tribunal of our consciences remains, & that also of the opinion of the world. These will revise the sentence we pass in our own case, & as we respect these, we must see that in judging ourselves we have honestly done the part of impartial & vigorous judges.
In every official document that I read ” respecting an establishment of religion” religion to be is protected: so, I guess that is why our First Amendment starts off with Congress shall make NO LAWS against it. Went fishing at 4 Am to find some food for thought. Jesus did say “Follow me, and I will make you FISHERS of MEN”. So I went to the River called “The Avalon Project” and I caught some food for thought. I keep fishing for the thoughts of our forefathers on how they formed our government. I hooked onto this. Northwest Ordinance July 1787–An ordinance FOR THE GOVERNMENT of the United States northwest of the Ohio River.—
Sec. 13. And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which FORM THE BASIS whereon these republics, their LAWS and CONSTITUTIONS ARE ERECTED; to fix AND ESTABLISH those principles as the basis OF ALL LAWS, Constitutions, and Governments, which FOREVER HEREAFTER SHALL BE FORMED in the said territory: to provide also for the Establishment of States, and PERMANENT government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an Equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest:
Sec. 14. It is hereby ORDAINED and DECLARED by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as Articles of Compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and FOREVER REMAIN UNALTERABLE, unless by common consent, to wit: (read it again) It says FOREVER REMAIN UNALTERED. No one can ALTER these Articles of Compact at all.This means that the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES can not ALTER this either.
Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall EVER be molested on account of his MODE of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being NECESSARY to good government and the happiness of mankind, SCHOOLS AND THE MEANS OF EDUCATION shall FOREVER be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall ALWAYS be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being NECESSARY to good government and the happiness of mankind, SCHOOLS AND THE MEANS OF EDUCATION shall FOREVER be encouraged. Here is our answer to WHY Congress shall make NO LAW respecting, regarding, concerning or about an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof–Religion, MORALITY, and knowledge is NECESSARY to GOOD government–I just caught a WHALE instead of a fish! Let us FOREVER END these ATTACKS on account of religipon–God Bless our Christian Nation and Lord, thank you for this food this morning.