Judge Roy Moore and the Civil War

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 02-11-2015, 11:00 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Judge Roy Moore and the Civil War

In the early 1860's a war was fought in this country over slavery and over the right of each individual state to nullify the federal government. The south lost.

In the 1950's after years of Jim Crow laws circumventing the equal protection of blacks, the Supreme Court decided that segregated education was unconstitutional. And by that the court meant any state law which restricted blacks from attending any public school was contrary to the US Constitution. It is well established law that the US Constitution supersedes any state or local law or judicial degree which is contrary.

When George Wallace in 1963 declared "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stood in the doorways to the state university to defy federal authority he was refighting the civil war (and making himself the hero and poster boy for the racists through the nation).

Judge Roy Moore
Roy Moore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
was elected chief judge of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2000 and promptly installed a huge 10 commandments in the courthouse even though he was aware this was contrary to law. His refusal to take it down when ordered to do so by Federal trial and appeals courts resulted in his being removed from the bench by the Alabama ethics court where he stated he would defy a federal court order again if he felt the order were contrary to his beliefs. Moore was re-elected in 2012 as chief justice of the Alabama court. A Federal court with jurisdiction held that the law in Alabama prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional but stayed the implementation of that decision pending appeals. That appeal went all the way to the US Supreme Court where by a 7 to 2 finding, the SCOTUS told Alabama that they must allow gay marriage.

Judge Moore in defiance of that order sent an email to every county office telling the officers of the court to defy the SCOTUS or he would see they were punished for defying Alabama law.

Leaving aside for just this thread, start your own if you like, should Roy Moore be removed from office again this time not for just his own failure to follow court orders but for attempting to coerce other officers of the court to defy a Federal court order?
  #2  
Old 02-11-2015, 11:03 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Last sentence should read, Leaving aside your feelings about gay marriage for this thread...
  #3  
Old 02-11-2015, 11:25 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

He should be removed AND disbarred!
  #4  
Old 02-11-2015, 11:35 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Last night on FOX News, some of the commentators even believed that the Federal decision trumps State decisions. They made the correct call.
  #5  
Old 02-11-2015, 12:18 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What is frightening to me is that he was re-elected after being removed. Guess Alabamans still think State law supercedes Federal law in all instances. Mr. Moore (sorry, can't call a person a judge when he refuses to follow the law) should be removed from office, disbarred and possibly tried for civil disobedience and usurpation of Federal law.

As difficult as it may be, a judge has a moral, ethical and legal duty to follow the law regardless of personal feelings and beliefs.
  #6  
Old 02-11-2015, 08:38 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am totally in favor of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman and will not waiver on that position.

I am also a believer in the fact that this country is founded on the law, thus the Judge is a problem, and I respect the law. If the Supreme court finds gay marriage to be legal, then I must live with that as the law, but WILL ALWAYS be opposed.

Do not know if that makes sense but that is pretty much it.

Of course, most liberals and many organizations would call me a name of some sort...sorry...I believe in marriage as one man and one woman but I support the law of the land.

Whatever name you all reserve for me is ok...just saying.
  #7  
Old 02-11-2015, 08:47 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I am totally in favor of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman and will not waiver on that position.

I am also a believer in the fact that this country is founded on the law, thus the Judge is a problem, and I respect the law. If the Supreme court finds gay marriage to be legal, then I must live with that as the law, but WILL ALWAYS be opposed.

Do not know if that makes sense but that is pretty much it.

Of course, most liberals and many organizations would call me a name of some sort...sorry...I believe in marriage as one man and one woman but I support the law of the land.

Whatever name you all reserve for me is ok...just saying.
mm

Here is one liberal that will tell you you have a right to your opinion. Doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with your opinion (or mine) but no one should deprive you of your right to believe as you do. As you said, you may not like a law but you will abide by it. I just wish Mr Moore had half as much honor as you do.
  #8  
Old 02-11-2015, 08:53 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I am totally in favor of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman and will not waiver on that position.

I am also a believer in the fact that this country is founded on the law, thus the Judge is a problem, and I respect the law. If the Supreme court finds gay marriage to be legal, then I must live with that as the law, but WILL ALWAYS be opposed.

Do not know if that makes sense but that is pretty much it.

Of course, most liberals and many organizations would call me a name of some sort...sorry...I believe in marriage as one man and one woman but I support the law of the land.

Whatever name you all reserve for me is ok...just saying.
I'll call you an American if you'll accept the label. Those of us who believe that marriage is a civil institution as one need not adhere to any faith to qualify for marriage and need not have the blessing of any clergy to be married have no issue with those who want the addition of a religious ceremony to consecrate their marriage. And no desire to make you change your feelings. I hope you may come to not only accept it as a matter of equal protection but may someday see that allowing others to marry in no way diminishes your marriage or the vows you made.
  #9  
Old 02-12-2015, 09:54 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I am totally in favor of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman and will not waiver on that position.

I am also a believer in the fact that this country is founded on the law, thus the Judge is a problem, and I respect the law. If the Supreme court finds gay marriage to be legal, then I must live with that as the law, but WILL ALWAYS be opposed.

Do not know if that makes sense but that is pretty much it.

Of course, most liberals and many organizations would call me a name of some sort...sorry...I believe in marriage as one man and one woman but I support the law of the land.

Whatever name you all reserve for me is ok...just saying.
I reserve for you, the name........Guest
  #10  
Old 02-12-2015, 02:21 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Last night on FOX News, some of the commentators even believed that the Federal decision trumps State decisions. They made the correct call.

I had to smile at the phrase "some of the commentators" Did they actually have people on Fox who believe in the state's right to nullify Federal law? Oh never mind, sure they do.
  #11  
Old 02-12-2015, 02:28 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To the smiler....I think, but did not see, but second hand was told the discussion was a legal discussion concernn the Supremacy Clause...

"The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.[1]


Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A very fair and appropriate discussion to be held in todays world.

Thus your mocking of Fox, a very dumb thing to do based on the alternatives that are available, is somewhat head scratching, OR perhaps just your usual knee jerk reaction.
  #12  
Old 02-12-2015, 04:01 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[/QUOTE]

Thus your mocking of Fox, a very dumb thing to do based on the alternatives that are available, is somewhat head scratching, OR perhaps just your usual knee jerk reaction.[/QUOTE]

Very appropriate to include Fox News and jerk in the same sentence. There are many alternatives available, some of which are actually unbiased. Anyone who does not recognize that Fox News is at best, slanted hard right, and at worst a right wing propoganda machine is living in denial.
  #13  
Old 02-12-2015, 06:19 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
To the smiler....I think, but did not see, but second hand was told the discussion was a legal discussion concernn the Supremacy Clause...

"The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.[1]


Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A very fair and appropriate discussion to be held in todays world.

Thus your mocking of Fox, a very dumb thing to do based on the alternatives that are available, is somewhat head scratching, OR perhaps just your usual knee jerk reaction.

As I continue to smile, I appreciate your taking the time to research and post information on the legal basis of the requirement that state's yield to Federal superiority. It is absolutely unequivocally the law. As this is a situation where a Federal court told that state of Alabama that the US Constitution requires equal protection and that applies to marriage there is no issue here of any lack of clarity as to the law. The SCOTUS refused to stay the judge's order. The Supreme court has rejected nullification. There is no issue in this situation (and it is THIS situation) of Congressional power as the Congress has not passed any laws for Judge Moore to fight regarding the issuance of marriage licenses.

If any commentator on Fox, as was suggested in the earlier post, that state law trumps federal law he or she is a fool and did not bother to do the same homework as you did. I doubt you will hear any similar statement on any other network. Perhaps the guest who posted the comment about the discussion on Fox can return and provide a transcript as most recent Fox bits are still on their website.

there is nothing fair or balanced about a discussion of "Is the Federal Constitution superior to that of the State of Alabama?" There is only one side of that issue and no need for balance. To suggest this is an open issue for discussion is to give support to legal anarchists.
  #14  
Old 02-12-2015, 06:32 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
As I continue to smile, I appreciate your taking the time to research and post information on the legal basis of the requirement that state's yield to Federal superiority. It is absolutely unequivocally the law. As this is a situation where a Federal court told that state of Alabama that the US Constitution requires equal protection and that applies to marriage there is no issue here of any lack of clarity as to the law. The SCOTUS refused to stay the judge's order. The Supreme court has rejected nullification. There is no issue in this situation (and it is THIS situation) of Congressional power as the Congress has not passed any laws for Judge Moore to fight regarding the issuance of marriage licenses.

If any commentator on Fox, as was suggested in the earlier post, that state law trumps federal law he or she is a fool and did not bother to do the same homework as you did. I doubt you will hear any similar statement on any other network. Perhaps the guest who posted the comment about the discussion on Fox can return and provide a transcript as most recent Fox bits are still on their website.

there is nothing fair or balanced about a discussion of "Is the Federal Constitution superior to that of the State of Alabama?" There is only one side of that issue and no need for balance. To suggest this is an open issue for discussion is to give support to legal anarchists.
Well, please continue to smile.

At NO time in my post did I ever make or insinuate anything but defense of, I suppose, your snide dismissive remark relative to Fox.

I then tried to show that there was a reason to have the discussion despite you being so smug on here about it.

My feelings on the subject are already posted and I did not come down on the side of anyone but the law.

My post was an attempt to show how people just come on here and mock without any facts whatsoever.

So, your smug, know it all attitude in this last post was wasted.

I have no idea of what anyone said on Fox....I just know a discussion was held and in my opinion, obviously not yours, it was an appropriate discussion to be held.

Save your lectures for others and try to comprehend what people post so you dont waste those lectures. My post was extremely clear as to its intent and it never broached the area you felt obligate to lecture me on.
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.