Judge Roy Moore

[icanthearyou 4,463]

You are historically correct that the thirteen original states created the federation.

They then ceded ultimate power to the federal government in ratifying Article 6, Sec b of the U.S. Constitution. Power, once given away, cannot be reclaimed on demand. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, gives the states or the people the right to decide which, if any, federal acts "usurp" their own authority, much less the power to "nullify" federal law at their discretion. Only federal courts in interpreting the U.S. Constitution may determine what constitutes federal authority, or nullify federal law! In Judge Roy's case, the same section of the U.S. Constitution specifically mentions state judges, and only state judges by name, as being bound by the U.S. Constitution! (Congress and the Executive Branch have no power to define federal authority, either. Their actions are simply assumed to carry the weight of Constitutional authority unless/until determined otherwise by the federal Judiciary.)

Amendment 10 of the Constitution reserves to the States or the people only powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to them by it. Judge Granade's ruling--which is the final authority unless/until some higher federal court overrules it--is that the Constitution, in particular the 1st and 14th Amendments, prohibits States from banning same-sex marriage.

The state of Alabama of course did not exist until 1819, and then only with the permission of the federal government as provided by Article 4, Sec 3a. A condition of statehood for the admission of every state since the original 13 has been acceptance of the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.

But we certainly agree that Roy Moore is a moron. Just speaking for myself, I've never needed any lesson or discussion of constitutional law to recognize that!

Excellent! Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Gracias...de nada.

(Just thought I'd say it in Spanish for the xenophobes out there. )

Yes, it was an excellent effort. Mucho Appreciado.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

JRM in public:

He is a clown on many levels.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

Begging your pardon from AL, but everyone didn't want him. Flowers are excellent apologies, Mr. Homersapien.;-)

AMEN! I didn't vote for him.

I am curious if anyone that did will admit to it and tell us why?

[JoeBags7277 734]

http://www.nbcnews.c...tyranny-n294991

I’ve probably bashed this particular deceased equine to a bloody pulp in the past. (Although truth be told, a less noble cousin of the horse comes to mind when I think of Judge Roy. And frankly, I’m rather surprised he waited this long to start braying about the recent court ruling.) But pointless and redundant as it may be, I can’t bring myself to stop commenting on and laughing at his stupidity:

Quotes from this link:

“…nothing in Alabama's constitution allowed the federal government to 'redefine' marriage”

—I actually agree with you here, Roy. Nothing in any state constitution ‘allows’ the federal government to do anything, because it works the other way around: It’s the federal government that allows states to exist and have state constitutions. The United States Constitution (and certainly not the Bible or Alabama’s constitution) is the supreme law of the land

Roy Moore is a moron and everything, but this is patently false. The states created the federal government. They, in fact, allow the federal government to exist. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government, it does no such thing to the states. Reason being, the Constitution would have never been ratified if the powers currently falsely claimed by the feds under the Supremacy Clause had been granted at ratification. Why go through the trouble of explicitly listing the powers granted to the federal government if we're just going to assume that it can do whatever it wants, since it is bigger? The Supremacy Clause only applies to those laws passed in accordance with the Constitution- which isn't nearly as difficult to interpret as so many attempt to make it. Should the feds pass laws that usurp the authority of the states or of the people, the offended parties are duty bound to resist through nullification.

I repeat, Roy Moore is a moron.

You are historically correct that the thirteen original states created the federation.

They then ceded ultimate power to the federal government in ratifying Article 6, Sec b of the U.S. Constitution. Power, once given away, cannot be reclaimed on demand. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, gives the states or the people the right to decide which, if any, federal acts "usurp" their own authority, much less the power to "nullify" federal law at their discretion. Only federal courts in interpreting the U.S. Constitution may determine what constitutes federal authority, or nullify federal law! In Judge Roy's case, the same section of the U.S. Constitution specifically mentions state judges, and only state judges by name, as being bound by the U.S. Constitution! (Congress and the Executive Branch have no power to define federal authority, either. Their actions are simply assumed to carry the weight of Constitutional authority unless/until determined otherwise by the federal Judiciary.)

Amendment 10 of the Constitution reserves to the States or the people only powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to them by it. Judge Granade's ruling--which is the final authority unless/until some higher federal court overrules it--is that the Constitution, in particular the 1st and 14th Amendments, prohibits States from banning same-sex marriage.

The state of Alabama of course did not exist until 1819, and then only with the permission of the federal government as provided by Article 4, Sec 3a. A condition of statehood for the admission of every state since the original 13 has been acceptance of the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.

But we certainly agree that Roy Moore is a moron. Just speaking for myself, I've never needed any lesson or discussion of constitutional law to recognize that!

Perhaps you glossed over this part- "The Supremacy Clause only applies to those laws passed in accordance with the Constitution" (I.E.- laws passed in accordance with those explicitly delegated powers I mentioned.) If the federal government was to be allowed the ability to unilaterally arbitrate the limits of its own power, the states would immediately cease to be states- they would instead be provinces. No one would have ever gone along with such an idea, there's a reason the Constitution had to be conceived and drafted under cover of darkness.

As to the condition of statehood being that the state recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land- once again, the Constitution properly understood grants to the feds only those powers expressly delegated to it. The Supremacy Clause is valid insofar as the actions of the feds themselves are not in defiance of the document crafted to restrain it. To argue anything else is to say the states are forever bound to be enslaved to a monster of their own creation.

[DKW 86 7,426]

I know you arent going to believe this one, but years ago when i was on staff at a SBC Church, i wasnt an SBC member myself, JRM was off on one of his crazy rants about how he was going to have only Christian prayer in his court room, etc. But then he specifically stated that he would not allow a Muslim to pray in the court room. Folks, i can say that the SBC Pastors gathered for whatever function it was back in 96-98 or so almost ALL knew the man was nutz back then. The pastors, 7-9 maybe, for this random luncheon at the church just knew JRM was out in left field on that one. They wouldnt even defend what he said because they knew it was indefensible. So JRM plays to a very select, very right wing, very crazy bunch of folks.

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/judging-the-judges

Jury selection in Etowah County, Alabama, begins with an invocation given by a local minister invited to the courtroom by county judge Roy S. Moore, who invites only Christian clergy (who, of course, offer only Christian prayers).

[quietfan 233]

So JRM plays to a very select, very right wing, very crazy bunch of folks.

Not disagreeing at all.

Unfortunately, that select bunch of very crazy folks has succeeded in getting him elected to the Alabama Supreme Court twice. The second time even after the Alabama Court of the Judiciary had removed him from the office, ruling unanimously that "Chief Justice Moore has violated the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics ... there is no penalty short of removal from office that would resolve this issue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

Very crazy indeed!

[JoeBags7277 734]

Unfortunately, that select, crazy, right-wing bunch is large enough in numbers to propel him to victory in a three man race without a runoff. Oy.

[alexava 6,973]

Unfortunately, that select, crazy, right-wing bunch is large enough in numbers to propel him to victory in a three man race without a runoff. Oy.

scary. Plenty of JRM bumper stickers in north Alabama

[DKW 86 7,426]

Unfortunately, that select, crazy, right-wing bunch is large enough in numbers to propel him to victory in a three man race without a runoff. Oy.

Dont be shocked by what simple name recognition will get you in Alabama.

[quietfan 233]

Perhaps you glossed over this part- "The Supremacy Clause only applies to those laws passed in accordance with the Constitution" (I.E.- laws passed in accordance with those explicitly delegated powers I mentioned.) If the federal government was to be allowed the ability to unilaterally arbitrate the limits of its own power, the states would immediately cease to be states- they would instead be provinces. No one would have ever gone along with such an idea, there's a reason the Constitution had to be conceived and drafted under cover of darkness.

As to the condition of statehood being that the state recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land- once again, the Constitution properly understood grants to the feds only those powers expressly delegated to it. The Supremacy Clause is valid insofar as the actions of the feds themselves are not in defiance of the document crafted to restrain it. To argue anything else is to say the states are forever bound to be enslaved to a monster of their own creation.

I didn't think I glossed over it, but if you saw it that way I guess I didn't make myself clear. Let me apologize and try again:

I agree the Supremacy Clause only applies to laws passed in accordance with the Constitution and the powers & rights implicit therein, which is exactly how it's worded. Obviously, a "law" passed in contradiction to the Constitution is not a law at all and therefore a moot point in terms of the Supremacy Clause. However, only the federal courts, not the states, have the authority to make that decision. There is no such thing as "state review" of federal acts or powers, only [federal] "judicial review". If the states could individually "nullify" federal law by local law or state judicial fiat, that would make state law superior to federal law, which is exactly what the Supremacy Clause prohibits. Yes, the 10th Amendment restricts federal powers to only those delegated in the Constitution. But only the federal courts have the authority to determine or interpret what those delegated powers are. If states had the power to review or reject federal acts based on local interpretation or whim, then such state actions would be "the supreme law of the land", taking precedence over federal law.

Also to repeat: Amendment 10 explicit says that states do not have powers prohibited to them by the U.S. Constitution. In this particular issue--same sex marriage--the recent ruling was that the Constitution prohibits to states the power to discriminate based on gender or gender orientation.

I understand that a common fear of many is an over-powerful federal government, or "enslavement to a monster" to paraphrase you. The extent of federal power was one of the biggest issues in 1787 and obviously remains a concern of many today. For myself, I see no reason to assume state governments might be inherently less oppressive than the federal (or a "knight in shining armor" to rescue us from the evil Feds, if you will). It was the federal government, for example, that freed black citizens from the oppression of state Jim Crow laws. What protects us from tyranny by a state government?

The writers of the Constitution went to great lengths to provide a system of checks and balances on federal power partly because such necessary restraints could lead to the dissolution of the union if left up to t the states. The Articles of Confederation were a failure because federal powers granted therein were inferior to the states'. We're all familiar with most of those internal "brakes" on federal power: TheConstitution does limit federal powers, reserving some to the States or the people. It divides powers among three separate branches. It limits term lengths for Representatives, Senators, and Presidents, giving the people a "review" option at the end of each term. While Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, the joint approval of the Executive and half the Legislature (the Senate) is required to receive such appointments. Furthermore, the Judiciary cannot initiate any action on its own part, but must wait until someone asks, i.e., until a case or appeal is brought before them. Every official of the federal government is impeachable. And the people or States can amend the Constitution. They can even bypass Congress in the amendment process by insisting on a constitutional convention (Congress is responsible for calling such a convention on application of 2/3rds of the state legislatures, but Congress cannot halt or block the process.) But the Constitution does not give state law or state governments the authority to supersede federal law by review or nullification, or to define the extent of federal powers. Only a superior jurisdiction could superseded or nullify federal law or limit federal powers, and that is specifically what the Supremacy Clause forbids. The 13 original states agreed to this when they ratified the Constitution and every subsequent state has agreed upon being granted statehood.

[P.S. I'm confused by your distinction between 'states' vs. 'provinces'. Would you explain further, please?]

[JoeBags7277 734]

For myself, I see no reason to assume state governments might be inherently less oppressive than the federal (or a "knight in shining armor" to rescue us from the evil Feds, if you will). It was the federal government, for example, that freed black citizens from the oppression of state Jim Crow laws. What protects us from tyranny by a state government?

The Articles of Confederation were a failure because federal powers granted therein were inferior to the states.

[P.S. I'm confused by your distinction between 'states' vs. 'provinces'. Would you explain further, please?]

Living in this state (I assume), you have good reason to feel that way. However, state nullification has indeed allowed states to serve as the proverbial Knight in Shining Armor, most notably when the Supreme Court of Wisconsin used it to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional and void within its borders. It was the scolded by the US SCOTUS for doing so. The threat of nullification was also used against the Alien and Sedition Acts, unconstitutional searches and seizures during the embargo of 1807-09, and fears of military conscription during the War of 1812 which fortunately never came to pass. Nullification- like any tool- can be used for good or evil. States can of course be every bit as oppressive, but they are smaller, closer to the people, and more susceptible to popular revolt- something our dumbed down populace admittedly seems all but incapable of. And in the event that a state oppresses in a manner that infringes on a Constitutionally protected right, the feds are right and just to step in.

This is likely not going to be well received, but I would have preferred the Constituion to have included a sunset provision. It was necessary for the time in order to force the states to pay back the war debts, but I believe we'd have been better off instituting it for a temporary period, and returning to a retooled Articles. (which as it were, was what we were supposed to be getting at the Convention)

The American position has always been that an American state is created by the people, not the federal government- a position confirmed by Thomas Jefferson. When the people of Missouri drafted a constitution and applied for statehood, Jefferson informed them that were they not admitted for any reason, they would be an independent state, since the origin of their statehood was the drafting of a Constitution by a sovereign people, not the top-down nod of the head from the federal government. The train of thought that says any federal law is the law unless declared unconstitutional by a federal court (conflict of interest?), with no regard to Constitutional confines not theoretically egregious enough to be struck down by a federal court is much more emblematic of a centrally controlled national government with separate provinces than that of a Constitutionally limited federal government.

I must say it is nice to feel free to discuss things like this in a rational manner. There's not enough of that these days.

[quietfan 233]

Living in this state (I assume), you have good reason to feel that way. However, state nullification has indeed allowed states to serve as the proverbial Knight in Shining Armor, most notably when the Supreme Court of Wisconsin used it to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional and void within its borders. It was the scolded by the US SCOTUS for doing so. The threat of nullification was also used against the Alien and Sedition Acts, unconstitutional searches and seizures during the embargo of 1807-09, and fears of military conscription during the War of 1812 which fortunately never came to pass. Nullification- like any tool- can be used for good or evil. States can of course be every bit as oppressive, but they are smaller, closer to the people, and more susceptible to popular revolt- something our dumbed down populace admittedly seems all but incapable of. And in the event that a state oppresses in a manner that infringes on a Constitutionally protected right, the feds are right and just to step in.

I had never heard of these episodes, so I appreciate the history lesson.

But I don't take those situations to mean nullification was/is legal. Rather, it seems to me those are simply cases of persons (or the WI Supreme Court) wishing/trying to assume authority not granted them by the U.S. Constitution. I concede that those attempts may have motivated federal authorities to take a second look at their actions, which can be a good thing, but that doesn't make those attempts legal.

Wanting or trying nullification is not the same as achieving it, nor does it make it legal. I still don't understand how a state or the people being able to overrule federal law leaves any room for the U.S. Constitution/federal law to be "the supreme law of the land". How can something be "supreme" if it can be negated at will?

This is likely not going to be well received, but I would have preferred the Constituion to have included a sunset provision. It was necessary for the time in order to force the states to pay back the war debts, but I believe we'd have been better off instituting it for a temporary period, and returning to a retooled Articles. (which as it were, was what we were supposed to be getting at the Convention)

The American position has always been that an American state is created by the people, not the federal government- a position confirmed by Thomas Jefferson. When the people of Missouri drafted a constitution and applied for statehood, Jefferson informed them that were they not admitted for any reason, they would be an independent state, since the origin of their statehood was the drafting of a Constitution by a sovereign people, not the top-down nod of the head from the federal government. The train of thought that says any federal law is the law unless declared unconstitutional by a federal court (conflict of interest?), with no regard to Constitutional confines not theoretically egregious enough to be struck down by a federal court is much more emblematic of a centrally controlled national government with separate provinces than that of a Constitutionally limited federal government.

That might have been Jefferson's opinion, but not Jefferson's (or any President's) right/authority. Again, Article 4, Sec 3a clearly makes the admission of new states a Congressional decision in which the President is granted no role. The Constitution also gives the President no authority to give away U.S. territory (e.g., grant independence to Missouri), or even to acquire territory from a foreign power (the Louisiana Purchase in this case) without the concurrence of 2/3rds of the Senate. (Article 2, Sec. 2b)

I understand that some may feel uncomfortable with the supremacy of the federal government. Fear of tyranny is a reasonable and healthy trait! But as a legal argument or legal fact, states are subservient to federal authority. Philosophically, I agree with the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson's words for the most part): "Governments are instituted ... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". But of course the Declaration has no actual legal standing or authority, and I hold that the states/people granted their consent by accepting/ratifying the Constitution. Again, power, once given away, cannot be reclaimed by mere demand or desire.

(And speaking strictly for myself, I think the limitations, checks, and balances written into the Constitution to which I referred earlier are adequate defense against federal tyranny. IMHO, granting the states/people the right to independently accept or reject federal action willy nilly is not so much a path to freedom but a path to anarchy or the dissolution of the union.)

I must say it is nice to feel free to discuss things like this in a rational manner. There's not enough of that these days.

AMEN TO THIS!!!

P.S. Regarding your statement that "This is likely not going to be well received" in regard to the Constitution, a sunset clause, and a retooled Articles of Confederation: I wouldn't worry about it. You're merely expressing your opinion to which you are entitled. How someone else chooses to receive it is their burden, not yours!

[quietfan 233]

Philosophically, I agree with the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson's words for the most part): "Governments are instituted ... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". But of course the Declaration has no actual legal standing or authority, and I hold that the states/people granted their consent by accepting/ratifying the Constitution.

One last thought on this, then I must depart to take care of Saturday chores.

Presumably the "people" or the "governed" would mean the entire United States population when talking about the government of the United States. The only practical method I can conceive for identifying the will of the people would be to consider the will of the majority of the people (There was certainly a large, but apparently minority, portion of the colonial population that did not desire to break bonds with the government of Great Britain.) Who else, if not the majority, is to determine when an exiting form of government has become "destructive of these ends"? I doubt--but haven't actually measure of course--that the majority of all persons governed by the United States would go along with the idea that a single state can overrule or reject federal authority at will.

For that matter, simply claiming something is "self-evident" or "inalienable" doesn't make it so, it is still just the opinion of those claiming such. In fact, such an argument is rather "weak tea" in formal debate: "Well it's just obvious!" or "You can't change that!". Of course, the Declaration doesn't purport to be an argument, a defense, or a debate, only an explanation of the causes that impelled the Continental Congress to take the actions it took (out of "decent respect to the opinions of mankind").

Nevertheless, I still very much believe supporters of the Declaration and colonial independence had the moral right, perhaps even the moral obligation, to do what they did in the defense of their liberties. But it would be hard to make a case that they had a legal right to do so under the laws of their day.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/01/meet-alabama-chief-justice-roy-moores.html?utm_content=buffere8199&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&m=1

[quietfan 233]

http://joemygod.blog...aign=buffer&m=1

"I love coming to Montgomery to see my dad, I always return with a swoll [sic] wallet #bestdadever"

...and there's the problem right there, IMO: Another case of a parent mistaking money for parenting.

Sort of reminds me of someone I knew a long time ago who lamented to me: "I can't discipline my [teenage] son. His granddad gives him more money than I'll ever make!". I didn't reply, but my thoughts were:

1. I absolutely believe you can't discipline your son, because you have given up on that job, not because of Granddad...in fact, you can't discipline him now because you punted and didn't discipline him when he was a small boy!

2. Granddad could give him all the money in the world, but as his father you should decide how, where, or if he gets to spend it. Granddad could give him a Rolls, but you should control the car keys!

[CadillacCone 0]

So does anyone here know Roy Moore personally? I see him quite often (Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Veterans Day, Bday parties). He's my great uncle. He's no clown. Terrible church league softball coach though.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

CC......you better duck in here my friend. You must not have read the thread.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Suddenly I'm reminded of the time my dad found out the lady sitting behind him at JHS was Doug Barfield's great niece.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I play golf with Obama. Lot of bad information about the man on this forum.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

I play golf with Obama. Lot of bad information about the man on this forum.

I hear he hates America. ;-)

[CadillacCone 0]

CC......you better duck in here my friend. You must not have read the thread.

Used to it lol. People have different opinions on everything. Have some friends that don't agree with Roy. That's not gonna stop us from being friends. Off topic, Roy is friends with Chuck Norris (I'm serious, not a Chuck Norris joke). And his former bodyguard is Evander Holyfield's 1st cousin. I'll see if he can help us land 4* RB Elijah Holyfield.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I play golf with Obama. Lot of bad information about the man on this forum.

I hear he hates America. ;-)

State by state case!

Never trust a New Yorker to speak about a Chicgoan truthfully and vice versa.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

I play golf with Obama. Lot of bad information about the man on this forum.

I hear he hates America. ;-)

State by state case!

Never trust a New Yorker to speak about a Chicgoan truthfully and vice versa.

But Texans always tell the truth, right? ;-)

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The lies of Texas are upon you

All the live long day.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I play golf with Obama. Lot of bad information about the man on this forum.

I hear he hates America. ;-)

State by state case!

Never trust a New Yorker to speak about a Chicgoan truthfully and vice versa.

But Texans always tell the truth, right? ;-)

I don't. I will tell or say whatever best serves my interests and results in an advantage for myself.