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,, 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