|
Supreme
Court Rejects Appeal on Ten Commandments
DAILY NEWS ~ By James Vicini ~ April 28, 2003
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Kentucky of a ruling that barred the display of a large granite monument with the Ten Commandments on the state Capitol grounds in Frankfort. Without comment, the justices let stand a federal appeals court ruling that the display would violate church-state separation under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. The governor in 2000 signed into law a resolution adopted by the state legislature that required placement of the monument, which is more than six feet tall and almost four feet wide, outside the Capitol. At the top of the monument are the words, "I AM the LORD thy God" followed by the commandments, a sacred and religious text for Jews and Christians. At the bottom are two small Stars of David and a symbol representing Christ. The monument was given to the state in 1971 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles group. It was displayed until 1980, when it was removed to make room for construction. It has remained in storage since then. The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, and five individuals, including a rabbi and three ministers, sued in 2000, claiming the required display was unconstitutional. A federal judge and then the appeals court agreed, barring the state from erecting the monument on the Capitol grounds because it would be an unconstitutional governmental endorsement of religion. Kentucky Attorney General Albert Chandler appealed to the Supreme Court. He said the 2000 law required an overall public display of historic documents that included the Ten Commandments, a religious symbol. He said the display was proposed under the law, but it had not yet been designed or installed. He said the appeals court should not have made a constitutional decision based on "speculation and conjecture" over the display's appearance. Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah supported Kentucky's appeal. The states said the permissibility of governmental displays of the Ten Commandments raised a question of "national importance." They urged the high court to hold that governments may have such displays to acknowledge the Ten Commandments' historical role in American culture and law. The ACLU replied that the appeal should be denied. It said the appeals court applied well-settled principles of law in determining the monument would impermissibly endorse religion. Last year, the Supreme Court rejected a similar appeal by Indiana arguing that it should be allowed to erect a limestone monument with the Ten Commandments on the statehouse lawn in Indianapolis.
The following are comments from Ron Loeber, Ron@NYjail4judges.org, the JAILer-In-Chief (JIC) of New York
Subject: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on Ten Commandments .
The problem we are encountering today with the courts is the corruption
resulting from what they call Judicial Immunity. There is a
legitimate reason for Judicial Immunity. But the way it is
administered today is nothing more than the doctrine of the
Divine Right of Kings. It's roots are in the expression "God,
save the King" dating back to the days of the old English
Kings. This is not a plea to the Almighty to save the King from
disaster or to even bless him as some presume. What it does mean
is that The Creator is the highest authority "except" for the
King. In the days when first uttered, "save" meant
"except". So what we have today is the little Kings in
Black Robes saving, i.e., exempting, themselves from
accountability and responsibility.
Have you ever thought about what it takes to become a judge? Most
would say, "yeah... ya have to be appointed or elected".
Though this is true, it is not enough. Once the election or
appointment is over, the next step is the swearing in ceremony.
Suppose the guy says "no... I won't uphold the constitution(s)"?
Then he ain't a judge!
Not only must he take an Oath to uphold the Constitution(s), but he must
utter the specific words required by those Constitutions. But that
still ain't enough... because mere words are like birds. They
fly away in the breeze. He must also sign an oath bearing
those specific words. But just because he signs it, that
still ain't enough.
The law requires that he be able to prove he took the oath...
just in case anyone questions it later. He must be able to provide
legal evidence he actually is a judge. Makes sense, doesn't it?
So... what must he do to prove it? He must file that Oath bearing
his signature with the official Keeper of the Record... the County
Clerk. But even that is not enough to prove he is a judge.
Heck, you or I could file the same thing with the County Clerk.
That wouldn't make us a judge. The one who administered the Oath
must also file an affidavit, signed under pain an penalty of perjury,
with the same Keeper of the Record. And the law requires it be
done within a specific time period. If it ain't all done, and done
on time, he ain't a judge.
But even this is not enough. When he takes that Oath of Office and
utters the required words, he must place his hand upon a book. And
that book ain't Humpty Dumpty. That book is the 2000 year old
Evidence of the Law. And there is a reason for it. That
Evidence of the Law was given to us by the original Giver of the Law.
That Oath of Office means he will uphold the Law upon which he has his
hand... as well as the Law of the Land.
And now we have a bunch of supreme jackasses saying government cannot
publicly display an artistic rendering of the Law upon the Stone Tablets as
it was given to us some 2000 years ago - the Law upon which
our entire civilization is based. I wonder what would happen if
every one of us, when we had to be in court, took with us our
own copy of the Law Book upon which the judge placed his hand when
he took his Oath of Office?
|
Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship |
Last revision: April 03, 2009 09:15 AM |
| This private system is NOT subject to monitoring |