Just some friction in The Machine |
Thursday, August 28, 2003
Posted
10:17 PM
by Gerald Klaas
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Posted
9:49 PM
by Gerald Klaas
The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.I do believe that a subordination clause like this would invite federal jurisdiction in 1st Amendment cases. Yet I still don't see how the Ten Commandments monument violates the 1st Amendment. The first amendment forbids establishment of religion, in my view what it forbids is establishment of religious government as had been done in England with the Anglican church. The placement of a monument does not establish any type of ecclesiastical government, however removal of the monument may well violate the prohibition on interference with the "free excercise thereof". Just as a statue can be an icon (religious) or a monument (historical), this carving could be religious or historical. In its current setting I interpret it as a historical monument. If you pick up the same piece of rock and put it inside of a catholic church, I'd interpret it as religious. Likewise, I view a statue of the goddess Venus holding the scales of justice in a court building as a historical monument paying tribute to the lexical contributions of greek and roman societies to our legal system, yet if the same statue were put into a catholic church I would find it to be an icon (and a violation of the 1st Commandment). Although Allen makes a point of taxpayer money being spent on the Alabama Supreme Court building, I believe that point is not material to the current case, as while the states may have subordination clauses that invite enforcement of federal crimes within the state, that does not mean that the federal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate state laws. Since the decision of interest is of a federal court, it doesn't matter that the test for establishment in Alabama is defined by spending taxpayer money, it is only the federal constitution that should be interpretted, not the State constitution. It's a whole other issue if State of Alabama wishes to pursue Judge Moore for violations of the State constitution, but that is not what's happening here. So although I now accept the federal jurisdiction for Constitutional violations, I still don't see the violation. Where has a law been passed that establishes a religion? If this is religion, then lady justice has to go, as would all of the gargoyles and bas relief statues on all of our court and capitol buildings. I don't think we have to worry about the "In God we trust" on our money though, because it's all owned by a private corporation, not the government. ;-) Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Posted
7:47 PM
by Gerald Klaas
|
Gerald Klaas
I'm trying to follow the ideals of Henry David Thoreau, in his essay On Civil Disobedience. Thoreau refused to cooperate with The Machine of oppressive government and encouraged all moral people to do the same. He referred to this "civil disobedience" as creating friction in the machine. Given enough friction for a long enough period of time, the machine will break.
Courses I teach at the local Community College
|