InfoQuest*
ALERT
Defend Morality Law And State
Rights!
Federal Marriage Amendment Trojan
Horse
The Only Way to Preserve
Morality Law in The USA:
We Must Preserve State Rights And Stop Federalizing Morality Law!
***Listen NOW! Radio Show Audio File! "The FMA Is A Trojan Horse!"
Action UPDATE 3 - Restore the Constitution Rally Report
Action UPDATE 4 - PRESS RELEASE
Action UPDATE 5 - Endorsement from Mychal Massie!
Action UPDATE 6 - The New American Provides Marriage Law SOLUTION!
Action UPDATE 7 - Endorsement from Judge Roy Moore, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Michael Peroutka, and Howard Phillips!
Action UPDATE 8 - Marriage Protection Act of 2003 (HR 3313)
Action UPDATE 9 - Article & Endorsement from Kelly McGinley!
Action UPDATE 10 - 10 Commandments Judge Moore Blasts the FMA!
The Federal Constitutional Marriage Amendment Is A Trojan Horse!
I am greatly concerned over the thoughts and actions of misguided well-intentioned Christians and pro-family groups who are campaigning for a *federal* Constitutional amendment that will give legal protection to God's definition of marriage at the *federal* instead of the *state* level.
You may be scratching your head right now, and with all of the "conservative" media coverage on this promoting the idea, it's understood why you could be surprised at my statement. Please prayerfully allow me to explain.
Our Christian Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. understood that laws on morality must be kept away from "the few" and given to "the many - We the People" so that tyranny and despotism would be prevented.
If our elected officials followed our Federal Constitution, Roe v Wade would never have gone to the Supreme Court because the Federal Constitution does not give any power over moral issues (like capital punishment) to the federal level (which is why some states have capital punishment and some do not).
If our elected officials in our Federal Congress followed our Federal Constitution (Article III, Section 2), they would not have allowed the U.S. Federal Supreme Court to hear the Roe v Wade case; our Federal Representatives would have said that such "moral" law is reserved Only for *State* Supreme Courts (Amendment 10 in The Federal Bill of Rights). Then, abortion would still be illegal in the states that are pro-life!
Here is a snip from a short article, Constitutional Trojan Horse, by George Detweiler:
The proper remedy to judicial usurpation is to employ a little-known power contained in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This power applies, by extension, to all federal courts, since the Supreme Court is the only federal court established by the Constitution and Congress established all other federal courts. This power could be used to prevent the federal courts from hearing cases from abortion to the Pledge of Allegiance. If this were done, myriad pretexts for endlessly tampering with the Constitution would be lost.
Update:
H.R.3313Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Sponsor: Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] (introduced 10/16/2003) Cosponsors: 22
Latest Major Action: 10/16/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Do you see where this "amend our Federal Constitution with moral laws" is going?
If we allow our Federal Representatives to make moral law a Federal issue instead of a States issue, then our ability to keep the U.S.A. God-honoring (in our government) will diminish, thus, surely, fully removing God's hand of protection over us (see the Book of Judges for examples)!
This is a fantastic example of why our Christian Founding Fathers established the U.S.A. as a Republic and Not a Democracy (this is super-easily explained in the Free 4-page 'Civics in Seconds.
If Californians decide that homosexual marriage or abortion is legal in their state and make it California law, ethical Californians can move to a pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage state. This could hit California hard (gone tax money, employees, etc.) and could pressure CA to change its laws, and this would help the pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage state to which the ethical Californians moved. Either way, it gives more control to We The People.
We allowed our Federal Government to decide that Abortion is legal in Roe v Wade. We allowed our Federal Government to decide that prayer in school is illegal (Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212 (1963)).
If we allow our Federal Government to decide that only Judeo-Christian marriage is legal, then later, guess what? Our Federal Government would be empowered to change that law so that homosexual marriage, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and other abominations are legally protected at the Federal level!
A traditional marriage constitutional amendment must be passed, but at the State Level, Only at the State Level, and in every State in our Republic!
Let us remember that the U.S. Federal Constitution was written by Christians. They knew what they were doing because they just survived tyrannical oppression and because they prayed and sought guidance from Jesus Christ in all of their meetings.
We must preserve the political protections that the Founding Fathers, guided by Jesus, placed in the Federal U.S. Constitution! When we study history and the Federal U.S. Constitution, it all makes perfect sense!
Please follow these ACTION ITEMS:
(1) Pray for Jesus Christ to fill us with His Truth and Wisdom in all things.
(2) Forward this information to all of your like-minded friends and family ASAP!
(3) Contact your State and Federal Representatives to remind them of States Rights vs. Federal Power.
Click Here for a pre-written letter in Microsoft Word!
(In Winzip file Letter_Fed_State_Reps_FMA.zip)
(Right-click and "Save target as" to save file to your PC for keeping/e-mailing/sharing.)
Click Here for a pre-written letter in PDF!
(Move your mouse cursor over the PDF letter to find fields for typing addresses. After typing From and To addresses, click out of the field before printing the letter.)
(Right-click and "Save target as" to save this file to your PC for keeping/e-mailing/sharing.)
Send them a copy of each article:
(4) Contact
each "pro-family/conservative" group that you learn is pushing this Federal
Constitutional Amendment, to educate them in the Danger of murdering States
Rights.
Click HERE for a sample
letter to copy/paste into your letter/e-mail.
Here are a few of these organizations, with the person to whom you should address your e-mail/letter/call:
(5) Write a letter to your newspaper editors now!
Click
HERE for a sample
letter!
Thank you for working to keep the U.S.A. under God's protection by keeping our governing body honoring to God!
"And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary!" Galatians 6:9
Listen Now!
Radio Show Audio File!
"The FMA Is A Trojan Horse!
Radio
Interview - (8.01 MB)
Click to Listen Now!
E-mail for Free Audio File:
Just an e-mail to request a FREE Windows Media Audio File or a FREE MP3 File!
Any of the files can be played on the FREE Windows Media Player!
These files are large, so I'd recommend that you only ask if you use TV cable internet, a DSL line, or a T1 line. If you use telephone dial-up, it could take over an hour to download the file.
Choices:
Click Here to Send An E-mail to request the Radio Show! Include the file type that you want!
---
How Do We Fight Judicial Tyranny?
FIRST: We must limit the appellate jurisdiction of the
U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution, Article III,
Section 2, states that "the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions,
and under such regulations as the Congress shall
make." Under this provision of the Constitution, Congress
can pass a law or series of laws that prohibit the
Court from cases involving such issues as abortion,
homosexuality, school prayer, pornography, etc.
SECOND: Under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution,
Congress has the power to create or abolish
federal courts. Congress can also cut off salaries to
renegade judges and their staffs. Congress has the
power to abolish federal judgeships if it wishes. Perhaps
it should abolish a few judgeships to make it clear
that judicial usurpation will not be allowed to continue.
A judge who knew his position would be abolished
might be more restrained in his rulings.
THIRD: The Constitution provides in Article III, Section
2, that judges can remain in power as long as they
are on "good behavior." The Constitution provides
for the impeachment of judges who fail to fulfill their
duties. Grounds for impeachment are broad in the
Constitution. We should urge impeachment proceedings
against out-of-control judges.
---
Restore the Constitution Rally Report
The Federalization of Morality Law
Erich G. Lukas, Director of InfoQuest* for Truth Ministry
November 22, 2003
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
The removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore by a
federal court
is just one example of a judicial trend that has been going on in our
country over the past few decades; the federalization of morality law.
Morality law, like capital punishment, is reserved
for state legislatures
and courts.
When our Federal Congress allowed our
Federal Supreme Court to hear
a state abortion case, what happened? Every pro-life state in our Republic
was forced to become pro-abortion, all at once, with one flick of the switch!
When our Federal Congress allowed our
Federal Supreme Court to hear a
state case on prayer in government schools, what happened? Every pro-prayer
state in our Republic was forced to become anti-prayer, all at once,
with one flick of the switch!
When our Federal Congress allowed our
Federal Supreme Court to hear a
state case on sodomy, what happened? Our Federal Supreme Court sodomized
every anti-sodomy state in our Republic, all at once, with one flick of the
switch.
Now some members in our Federal Congress are
pushing for a
federal marriage
law amendment to the Constitution. Beware, my friends, because such a switch
can and will be pushed both ways if we allow it to fall under federal
jurisdiction!
Displaying the 10 commandments on government
property is a morality issue
that is reserved for state legislatures and courts. The federal courts have no
right to intervene.
There is already a solution in our Federal
Constitution for this federalization
of state morality law problem. Allow me to quote George Detweiler, Esquire,
who writes for
The New American Magazine. “The proper remedy to judicial
usurpation is to employ a little-known power contained in Article 3, Section 2
of the [Federal] Constitution, which allows Congress to
make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This power
applies, by extension, to all federal courts, since the Supreme Court is the only
federal court established by the Constitution, and Congress established all other
federal courts. This power could be used to prevent the federal courts from hearing
cases from abortion to the Pledge of Allegiance. If this were done, myriad pretexts
for endlessly tampering with the Constitution would be lost.”
The founding documents of our country have never
been broken and have never
required post-Bill-of-Rights amending. Our
Declaration of
Independence, the legal
document that defines the purpose of our nation, declares that All people, which
includes all races, are created equal. The preamble of our
United States
Constitution
states that the Constitution is written to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves
and our Posterity,” our posterity, as we all know from any dictionary,
are unborn Americans!
Hold your federal representatives accountable to
Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution
to which they swore to uphold. Remind them of state rights over state morality
law.
Demand that your state representatives fight to retain and take back
morality law from
federal government.
Demand from your state and federal representatives that they are to
impeach judges
who ignore our constitutions.
To help you with this effort, I implore you to
visit the InfoQuest* for Truth website and
click on the “Federal
Marriage Amendment – Trojan Horse!” link for more information.
Look to the John Birch Society for understanding our government. And most of
all, pray
to God that the hearts and minds of our citizens are opened to His Truth, for as
John Adams
wrote, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or
gallantry, would
break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our
Constitution
was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government
of any other.”
I leave you with fantastic news, my friends. I know
for a fact that the following is true!
“Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not
grow weary.”
(Galatians 6:9)
Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment FederaBack to Top
Marriage Amendment to Be Introduced in the U.S. Senate
November 25, 2003 - Tuesday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 25, 2003
CONTACT: Erich G. Lukas, InfoQuest4Truth@comcast.net (E-mail to set up phone conversation; include your phone number).
Press Release Online: http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/Federal_Marriage_Amendment.htm#PRESS_RELEASE
PERKASIE, PENNSYLVANIA - Upon learning that a federal marriage amendment would be introduced in the United States Senate tomorrow, InfoQuest* for Truth Ministry Director Erich G. Lukas released the following statement:
"I am greatly concerned over the thoughts and actions of misguided well-intentioned pro-family groups and legislators who are campaigning for a federal Constitutional amendment that will give legal protection to God's definition of marriage at the federal instead of the state level.”
“Morality law, like capital punishment, is reserved for state legislatures and courts.”
“When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state abortion case, what happened? Every pro-life state in our Republic was forced to become pro-abortion, all at once, with one flick of the switch!”
“When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state case on prayer in government schools, what happened? Every pro-prayer state in our Republic was forced to become anti-prayer, all at once, with one flick of the switch!”
“When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state case on sodomy, what happened? Our Federal Supreme Court sodomized every anti-sodomy state in our Republic, all at once, with one flick of the switch.”
“If we allow our Federal Government to decide that only Judeo-Christian marriage is legal, then later, guess what? Our Federal Government would be empowered to change that law so that homosexual marriage, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and other abominations are legally protected at the Federal level! “
“A traditional marriage constitutional amendment must be passed, but at the State Level, Only at the State Level, and in every State in our Republic!”
“There is already a solution in our Federal Constitution for this federalization of state morality law problem. Allow me to quote George Detweiler, Esquire, who writes for The New American Magazine. ‘The proper remedy to judicial usurpation is to employ a little-known power contained in Article 3, Section 2 of the [Federal] Constitution, which allows Congress to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This power applies, by extension, to all federal courts, since the Supreme Court is the only federal court established by the Constitution, and Congress established all other federal courts. This power could be used to prevent the federal courts from hearing cases from abortion to the Pledge of Allegiance. If this were done, myriad pretexts for endlessly tampering with the Constitution would be lost.’”
“The founding documents of our country have never been broken and have never required post-Bill-of-Rights amending. Our Declaration of Independence, the legal document that defines the purpose of our nation, declares that All people, which includes all races, are created equal. The preamble of our United States Constitution states that the Constitution is written to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” our posterity, as we all know from any dictionary, are unborn Americans!”
“Hold your federal representatives accountable to Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution to which they swore to uphold. Remind them of state rights over state morality law.”
“Demand that your state representatives fight to retain and take back morality law from federal government.”
“Demand from your state and federal representatives that they are to impeach judges who ignore our constitutions.”
“To help you with this effort, I implore you to visit the InfoQuest* for Truth website (http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest) and click on the “Federal Marriage Amendment – Trojan Horse!” link immediately.”
Endorsement from Mychal Massie!
InfoQuest* has received another endorsement for
our Defense of Morality
Law Through State Rights Campaign by
Mychal Massie!
Here's Mychal's e-mail to me:
----- Original Message -----
From: Mychalmassie
To: InfoQuest4Truth@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: Homosexual marriage
Erich...just finished reading press release
per federal interdiction
re: homosexual marriage...found arguments lucent and cogent...
have forwarded same to think tank in DC which I am member of
National Advisory Council...keep up good work...all the best...
M (Mychal Massie)
--------------------------------------
The New American Provides Marriage Law SOLUTION!
The Sanctity of Marriage
Why a marriage amendment is the wrong approach.
Volume 20, Number 1
January 12, 2004
Many of us strategize over the best way to legally ensure that abortion is ended, marriage is protected, disease-exploding sodomy is outlawed, and on.
Hold onto your chair, true believers, because after I share this Efficient and Effective SUPER SOLUTION with you, you'll most likely jump through the roof with enlightenment!
Problem to ELIMINATE:
The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of Article 4 Section 1 of our Federal Constitution has been the reason for well-intentioned pro-family groups like the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, and a slew of others, for pushing an amendment to our Federal Constitution to define marriage!
Forget It! Why?
You'll see, beginning with the second paragraph in the snip below!
Rather than amending the Constitution, Congress should use its Article 3, Section 2 power to protect marriage against federal judicial activists. By simple statute, Congress can eliminate the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court over such issues as the constitutionality of state laws defining or regulating marriage. Such a statute could contain other exceptions for a wide range of topics where the Supreme Court has abused its discretion. The jurisdiction of inferior federal courts would likewise be limited.
One area of concern remains. Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution requires states to give "Full Faith and Credit" to the "...public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other State;...." If a state is cursed with an invertebrate legislature that provides by law for same-sex unions, this constitutional provision would compel other states to recognize the validity of these unions. For this reason, the congressional act limiting the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in matters of matrimony should also remove jurisdiction of federal courts to rule on any state's failure to accord full faith and credit to same-sex unions. One or more federal statutes of this kind would be easier to enact than any constitutional amendment. Congress can pass legislation by a simple majority vote in the House and the Senate, but a proposal for a constitutional amendment must be passed by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses. Even then, it must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states, which is no easy task.
Why do we even have state constitutions? Why
not just have a federal constitution?
What's the difference?
James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in The Federalist, No. 45: 'The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.' Federal powers must arise from the text of the Constitution, or they do not exist.
'Family policy has historically been regarded as a Tenth Amendment issue, one that's within the purview of the states,' comments Dr. Alan Carlson of the Howard Center on the Family. 'When the U.S. Constitution was written, one of the powers specifically not delegated by the states to the federal government was control of family law and governance.'
What's so bad about taking family/morality law away from the states and giving it to the federal legislative, judicial, and executive branches by putting it into the Federal U.S. Constitution?
The danger of such an [federal marriage] amendment lies in the fact that it would introduce the law of marriage into the Constitution, presenting federal courts with the opportunity to begin exercising control over the whole range of marital law. The danger exists no matter how carefully the amendment is drafted; it exists because the courts are looking for an opportunity to expand their powers and engage in social engineering rather than apply the Constitution to the facts of each case.
When the U.S. Supreme Court, or any other court, operates on the legal theory that the U.S. Constitution is a living, evolving document whose meaning only the court may discern, it is actually declaring that words have no fixed definitions and there is no written Constitution.
What else can the statutory approach of limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts solve?
The concept could be used, for instance, to allow states to outlaw abortion or local school boards to reinstitute school prayer without the federal courts being able to rule against them.
Is the statutory approach of limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts a complete remedy, or must we as citizens take an active role with our state legislators to see this approach work as well as it most certainly can?
The statutory approach of limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts is not a complete remedy. Some states may choose to give such full faith and credit to same-sex marriages even if the federal courts are prevented from coercing them to do so. A diligent state electorate will need to insist that legislators not do so.
A final remedy may rest with impeachment of state judges who willfully distort the law. This will be a matter for each state to determine, with adequate citizen insistence that the legislature take action.
Look at that, my friends!!
The BEST solution!
Endorsement from Judge Roy Moore, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Michael Peroutka, and Howard Phillips!
Event: Biblical Foundations of American
Law Conference
January 24, 2004 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Press Release
Marriage Protection Act of 2003
Update:
H.R.3313
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Sponsor: Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] (introduced 10/16/2003) Cosponsors: 22
Latest Major Action: 10/16/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Jump to: Titles, Status, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments, Cosponsors, Summary
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)
SUMMARY AS OF:
10/16/2003--Introduced.
Marriage Protection Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal judicial code to deny Federal courts jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal statute defining marriage.
Article & Endorsement from Kelly McGinley!
THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT - ANOTHER TROJAN HORSE
By Kelly McGinley
February 6, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
There are many movements that are commendable. Who could argue about trying to save marriage? But this marriage amendment is not only a bad idea; it is a scary Trojan horse. Just like our government to create a crisis in the family then use our ignorance against us to pretend to fix it. Most of the policy of the government for the last 50 years has been detrimental to the family, and now they want to be our friend. In 1996 Congress signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with Clinton signing it into law. It states that Marriage is between one man and one woman. This is good, so why a marriage amendment? This seemingly innocuous constitutional amendment appeals to the good, patriotic American, but contains hidden dangers that would greatly harm our republic. I would like to know who is behind this and how they have convinced the majority of pro family organizations to back it?
This is so bad I hardly know where to begin.
First major problem about a "marriage amendment" is the lie that needs to be told to convince Christians that the problem with this sodomy attack on marriage is the U.S. Constitution. That the Constitution is not adequate to handle this problem, so it must be changed. This is terrible propaganda and they should not be able to get away with this, and the pro-family organizations should not allow them to.
The problem is not with the Constitution. Hello, the problem is those who put their hands on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. They either have not read it, or just refuse to go by it. We have 400 years of case law that states that marriage is between a man and a woman. The judges, until just a few years ago, have always used the Bible as a reference to what was right. The case law in most states uses the scriptures to define sodomy and it is still against the law in this state. In 1971 Baker v. Nelson, Minnesota state Supreme court judge said: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." Dictionary definitions of terms were also used by judges as in 1973 Jones v. Hallan. And the dictionary definition of marriage is between two persons of the opposite sex. In 1975 Adams v. Howerton, the court ruled that the "spouse" means someone not of the same sex, because the dictionary said so. Of course Noah Webster defined all the terms in the first dictionary from the Bible not from his feelings. There have been many lawsuits since the 1970's to allow sodomites to marry and all the judges used case law, Bible, and the dictionary to make their decisions.
So why have judges now deviated from case law? Because congress and the president have allowed them to. Why have they allowed this? Because WE have allowed them to get away with not doing their job. And if they are not going by the Constitution or precedents now, what good is adding to the Constitution?
The second problem with this "Marriage Amendment" is that the U.S. Government has no authority or right to define marriage, only God has. James Madison observed in The Federalist, #45, "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." This amendment would, for the first time ever in history, give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage and the home. The 10th Amendment is our protection from the federal government getting involved where they should not be. Marriage should remain exclusively under state dominion. My state, as many others, already has laws that define marriage. When the Federal government decides that marriage can be anything it wants it to be, what happens to the state laws?
The third problem is that this focuses all the Christian effort in the wrong direction. The pro-family organizations do not understand the real problem or they are being given money designated by someone to push this amendment, basically leading us all in the wrong direction.
Fourth problem with the amendment is that it will not stop "civil unions". The President himself supports civil unions. He has signed legislation that supports it. Most of the Republicans support "civil unions". The Republicans and President Bush both voted for benefits for sodomites who work for the government.
To truly save marriage the way God intended it to be is to attack the root of the problem. The root of the problem is you and me, the Christians who are ignorant of the Constitution, who vote into office pro sodomite Republicans, Republicans who are afraid to take a stand, and Republicans who will not impeach judges or reign in their jurisdiction.
Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution has the remedy for tyrannical unconstitutional judges. Congress is to impeach them or reign in their unlawful rule.
They have not done their job because we have not made them do their job.
I am very concerned with why pro family groups like Focus on the Family and American Family Association who are behind this amendment when they know it will not help. Something strange is going on here. The cure is very simple - make congress do their job. Adding an amendment to the constitution takes 2/3rds of the states voting yes, a great feat and very expensive. It will not stop runaway judges!
© 2004 Kelly McGinley - All Rights Reserved
10 Commandments Judge Moore Blasts the FMA!
Moore Slams Marriage Amendment
By Ami Eden
http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=eden20040301109
Religious and social conservatives pushing for a
constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage have an unlikely critic:
Roy Moore.
In an exclusive interview with the Forward,
Moore, who was
removed from his post as chief justice of Alabama last year
after defying a federal order directing him to remove a
monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of
the state courthouse, criticized efforts to pass a federal
marriage amendment. Moore, viewed by many religious
conservatives as a hero, complained that an amendment
would represent a misguided intrusion into legal territory
historically left to the states and warned against the
unintended consequences of attempting to define morality
through constitutional measures.
"I don’t think you can make a constitutional
amendment for
every moral problem created by courts that don’t follow the
law of their states,” said Moore, who is currently waging a
legal appeal to get his chief justice job back. "If you do, you
pretend to do what God has already done and make it
subject to the courts. I think it’s a problem to establish
morality by constitutional amendments made by men when
the morality of our country is plainly illustrated – in
Supreme Court precedent and in state-law precedent and in
the common law – as coming from an acknowledgement of God.”
Moore warned that an amendment could eventually
be mistaken
as the source of morality and then be reinterpreted down the
road by judges or legislators. For example, he said, the
amendment being pushed by conservatives simply defines
marriage as a union between a man and a woman, leaving the
door open to future officials who could argue that the measure
does not prohibit incestuous unions.
For more details on the interview with Moore,
please read the
upcoming, March 5 issue of the Forward.
+++++++
VIEWPOINT: Right-Wingers Urging Judge To Take
On Bush
By Ami Eden
March 5, 2004
http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=20040304101
With the Democratic primaries all but over and
Ralph Nader
pledging to run for the White House, only one piece of the
November electoral lineup remains unsettled: Will President
Bush face an independent challenge from his right?
Speculation is rampant on the Web and among
dissatisfied
conservatives that Roy Moore — who grabbed national headlines
when, as chief justice of Alabama, he had a 5,300-pound
monument of the Ten Commandments installed in the rotunda
of the state courthouse — is considering a run. Moore, as it
turns out, is available, having been thrown off the bench by a
judicial ethics panel after he defied federal court orders directing
him to remove the monument.
But for now, Moore told the Forward, he is
focused on
waging a legal battle to get his job back in Alabama.
Too bad. For starters, a Moore candidacy likely
would cancel
out Nader's potential impact and generate some entertaining
campaign moments. More important, however, candidate Moore
would help fuel and frame the burgeoning debate on the role of
religion in the public square.
Often portrayed as a cartoonish mix between
George Wallace
and a fiery televangelist, Moore in fact offers a consistent, albeit
extreme, critique of the prevailing conception of the law and the
role of government officers in enforcing it.
But while many conservatives joined him in waving
the banner of
states' rights when it came to defending his mammoth monument,
few are expressing similar jurisdictional concerns while pushing
for a Federal Marriage Amendment. In contrast, Moore is at least
consistent, insisting that an amendment would represent a
misguided intrusion into legal territory historically left to the
states and warning against the unintended consequences of
attempting to define morality through constitutional measures.
"I don't think you can make a constitutional
amendment for every
moral problem created by courts that don't follow the law of their
states," Moore said, in an exclusive interview with the Forward.
"If you do, you pretend to do what God has
already done and
make it subject to the courts. I think it's a problem to establish
morality by constitutional amendments made by men when the
morality of our country is plainly illustrated — in Supreme Court
precedent and in state-law precedent and in the common law
— as coming from an acknowledgement of God."
Moore worries that an amendment could eventually
be
mistaken as the source of morality and then be reinterpreted
down the road by judges or legislators. For example, he said,
the amendment currently supported by conservatives simply
defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman,
leaving the door open to future officials who could argue that
the measure does not prohibit incestuous unions.
Still, beneath Moore's seemingly restrained
constitutional
views rests a radical legal philosophy, reflected in his belief
that the proper response to the decision of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court to mandate gay marriage is for the governor to
simply refuse to enforce the opinion. Moore has consistently
offered a similar defense of his refusal to remove his monument,
insisting that he swore an oath to the Constitution, not to federal
judges, so it would be unlawful for him to bow to an order that
violated his understanding of the law.
"A higher court can order a different result, but
it can't order a
lower-court judge to violate his conscience," Moore said. In
other words, if a federal court judge — or, for that matter, any
member of the Supreme Court — wants to break his back removing
a two-and-a-half-ton monument, fine, but he can't make Roy Moore do it.
As Moore sees it, his problem wasn't that he took
a stand,
but that his fellow Alabama justices, the state's Republican
governor and its Republican attorney general all folded in the
face of a federal court order, even though they agreed that Moore's
monument constituted a lawful acknowledgement of God.
"When we have judges who would blindly follow the
orders of
others, we have the same situation that Germany had in 1939
when they put the Jews to death," Moore said. "They were
following the orders of higher courts. Are we not becoming like
they were by following blindly?"
Well, no. The theory is sound, but the context is
off by at least
six decades, 4,500 miles and 6 million victims.
Even as the culture wars rage on several fronts,
and Red and
Blue voters gear up for the presidential election, most Americans
still feel a sense of shared community and belief in an orderly
status quo that leads them to defer to a legal chain of command
headed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But this consent of the governed cannot be taken
for granted.
Moore's vision is certainly gaining ground among religious conservatives,
fed up with what they see as several decades' worth of unlawful
judicial decisions eroding American values. And now, Moore is
receiving an unwitting boost from shortsighted liberals who think
the best way to secure gay rights is to urge government officials
to take the law into their own hands and perform same-sex marriages.
So, while a Moore run in 2004 seems unlikely, it's not too late for 2008.
Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment