# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Alabama Chief Justice Urges Defiance of Federal Tyranny

## William Tell

> In a powerful letter sent  to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley this week, Chief Justice Roy Moore of  the Alabama Supreme Court encouraged the Republican governor and lower  courts to defy judicial tyranny  specifically, a recent  unconstitutional ruling by a federal judge purporting to overturn the  states constitutional protections for the divine institution of  marriage. Quoting scripture from the Holy Bible, the state Constitution,  as well as previous federal and state Supreme Court rulings, Chief  Justice Moore argued that federal courts were using specious arguments  aimed at destroying marriage, with far-reaching consequences for  Alabama and beyond. Moore warned in the letter that issuing marriage  licenses to homosexuals would be a violation of state law and Alabamas  Constitution. The governor also indicated in a statement that he would  continue to defend the state Constitution and the will of the people.
> 
> 
> The letter from Chief Justice Moore, the states highest judicial official, was released days after U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade issued a ruling purporting to expand the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. For Chief Justice Moore and other top Alabama officials, however, the controversial federal order goes far beyond any semblance of legitimate constitutional power. As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage, Moore wrote in his letter, adding that the people of Alabama had specifically recognized in the state Constitution that a marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman. The state Supreme Court has also ruled that marriage is a divine institution.
> 
> As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, Moore concluded in his letter to Gov. Bentley. I ask you to continue to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity. Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority. The chief justice also said he was encouraged by the Alabama Probate Judges Association advising judges to follow Alabama law in refusing to issue marriage licenses to those who do not meet the legal qualifications outlined in the state Constitution.  
> 
> Moores letter is packed with support for his position. In addition to the state Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and previous Alabama Supreme Court rulings protecting the institution of marriage, the chief justice also cited a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the basic foundation of marriage and family upon which our Country rests is the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement, Moore explained, quoting the U.S. high courts decision in Murphy v. Ramsey.  
> 
> ...


http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...ederal-tyranny

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Roy Moore is a moronic theocrat who has no clue about constitutional law.  Had he been a judge in 1967, he would have no doubt decried the Supreme Court's "thwarting the will of the people" by overturning anti-miscegenation laws.

----------


## Ronin Truth

How'd that turn out in the early 1860's?

----------


## William Tell

We need more judges willing to stand up for like Roy Moore.

----------


## William Tell

> Roy Moore is a moronic theocrat who has no clue about constitutional law.  Had he been a judge in 1967, he would have no doubt decried the Supreme Court's "thwarting the will of the people" by overturning anti-miscegenation laws.


Your comment is worthy of the Huffington Post. All name calling and no substance.  Its a false smear to suggest he supports racist policies. And he seems to have an excellent understanding of constitutional law. I'd take him over almost any other Judge.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

His "excellent understanding of constitutional law" is what got him removed as Chief Justice in 2003.  And he wasn't removed by the federal government but by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, whose decision was affirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court.

His current defiance is the same demagoguery he pulled in the Ten Commandments controversy, and we can only hope it ends up the same way -- with his removal..

----------


## Stratovarious

> His "excellent understanding of constitutional law" is what got him removed as Chief Justice in 2003.  And he wasn't removed by the federal government but by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, whose decision was affirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court.
> 
> His current defiance is the same demagoguery he pulled in the Ten Commandments controversy, and we can only hope it ends up the same way -- with his removal..


Link to the reason he was removed please.



..

----------


## wizardwatson

Too little too late.  Gay marriage is a fait accompli. Last nail in Babylon's coffin.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Link to the reason he was removed please...


Sure thing.




> On August 22, 2003, two days after the deadline for the Ten Commandments monument's removal had passed, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) filed a complaint with the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ), a panel of judges, lawyers and others appointed variously by judges, legal leaders, the governor and the lieutenant governor. The complaint effectively suspended Moore from the Chief Justice position pending a hearing by the COJ.[22]
> 
> The COJ ethics hearing was held on November 12, 2003. Moore repeated his earlier sentiment that "to acknowledge God cannot be a violation of the Canons of Ethics. Without God there can be no ethics." He also acknowledged that he would repeat his defiance of the court order if given another opportunity to do so, and that if he returned to office, "I certainly wouldn't leave [the monument] in a closet, shrouded from the public." In closing arguments, the Assistant Attorney General said Moore's defiance, left unchecked, "undercuts the entire workings of the judicial system.... What message does that send to the public, to other litigants? The message it sends is: If you don't like a court order, you don't have to follow it."[23] Moore had previously stated his belief that the order was unlawful, and that compliance with such an order was not an enforceable mandate.
> 
> The next day, the COJ issued a unanimous opinion ruling that "Chief Justice Moore has violated the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics as alleged by the JIC in its complaint." The COJ had several disciplinary options, including censure or suspension without pay, but because Moore's responses had indicated he would defy any similar court orders in the future, the COJ concluded that "under these circumstances, there is no penalty short of removal from office that would resolve this issue."[24] Moore was immediately removed from his post.
> 
> Moore appealed the COJ's ruling to the Supreme Court of Alabama on December 10, 2003. A special panel of retired judges and justices was randomly selected to hear the case. Moore argued that the COJ did not consider the underlying legality of the federal courts' order that the monument be removed from the courthouse. The Alabama Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying that the COJ did not have the authority to overrule the federal courts, only to determine whether Moore violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Therefore, the Court reasoned, it was enough to show that a procedurally-valid order was in place against Moore. Moore also argued that the COJ had imposed a religious test on him to hold his office, and that the COJ's actions had violated his own rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.[25]
> 
> The Supreme Court of Alabama rejected each of these arguments as well, and ruled on April 30, 2004 that the COJ had acted properly. The court also upheld the sanction of removal as appropriate.[25]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore


The opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court can be read here:  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...92902035202454

----------


## jmdrake

> Sure thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court can be read here:  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...92902035202454


Right.  Cause you can't have overtly religious symbols on public spaces.....unless it's a symbol unique to Judaism.

----------


## jmdrake

> Too little too late.  Gay marriage is a fait accompli. Last nail in Babylon's coffin.


True.  It's a stupid hill for Christian conservatives to die on.  Alabama and other red states need to outflank the social engineers by throwing state licensed marriage itself under the bus.  Open the door to polyamory and watch the U.S. tax code implode.  Force the IRS to explain why they can't come up with new forms where 10 people can't file "married filing jointly."

----------


## William Tell

> His "excellent understanding of constitutional law" is what got him removed as Chief Justice in 2003.  And he wasn't removed by the federal government but by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, whose decision was affirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court.
> 
> His current defiance is the same demagoguery he pulled in the Ten Commandments controversy, and we can only hope it ends up the same way -- with his removal..


Well, you more or less got your wish. And because of that it looks like it will end up with him as a U.S Senator. I'm thrilled, hope you are too.

----------


## William Tell

> Too little too late.  Gay marriage is a fait accompli. Last nail in Babylon's coffin.





> True.  It's a stupid hill for Christian  conservatives to die on.  Alabama and other red states need to outflank  the social engineers by throwing state licensed marriage itself under  the bus.  Open the door to polyamory and watch the U.S. tax code  implode.  Force the IRS to explain why they can't come up with new forms  where 10 people can't file "married filing jointly."


Well guys, he won a Senate nomination by standing up for what he believes in. I agree we should get rid of licenses but their persecution of Moore backfired in the biggest possible way. Maybe there is hope for this nation.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Well, you more or less got your wish. And because of that it looks like it will end up with him as a U.S Senator. I'm thrilled, hope you are too.



If the voters in Alabama prefer a theocratic hypocrite for their Senator, that's their business.

----------


## Weston White

> The message it sends is: If you don't like a court order that is anti-constitutional, then it becomes your station to protest it."


Separation of church and state does not mean avoidance of religion, only that governmental privilege does not extend into the church--as a theocracy.  Busy bodies want to busy-body, how about instead starting with our (worthless) fiat currency that is filled to the brim with the occult and religious references.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Roy Moore is a moronic theocrat who has no clue about constitutional law.  Had he been a judge in 1967, he would have no doubt decried the Supreme Court's "thwarting the will of the people" by overturning anti-miscegenation laws.


So, you believe the federal government has jurisdiction over marriage laws?

----------


## William Tell

> If the voters in Alabama prefer a theocratic hypocrite for their Senator, that's their business.


You didn't think it was their business when they elected him as Chief Justice and you were cheering for his removal.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> So, you believe the federal government has jurisdiction over marriage laws?


If a marriage law violates the Constitution a federal or state court may declare it void, as happened in the 1967 anti-miscegenation case.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You didn't think it was their business when they elected him as Chief Justice and you were cheering for his removal.


The people can elect whomever they want.  They can also remove the person they've elected if, as in Moore's case, he violates the law or judicial ethics.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> If a marriage law violates the Constitution a federal or state court may declare it void, as happened in the 1967 anti-miscegenation case.


How can a marriage law violate the Constitution if the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

If Roy Moore is a theocrat, then the founding fathers were theocrats, and so were most of the people who have been nominated for President by the Republicans and Democrats in the past.

As for gay marriage, the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision was about race, with marriage being the particular issue in question.  People today take the decision to mean you can marry whoever you want, and that right to marry should be enforced nationally, but people in 1967 didn't.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> How can a marriage law violate the Constitution if the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage?


It doesn't say anything about schools either, so are you OK with racially segregated public schools (assuming that there will be such schools)?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If Roy Moore is a theocrat, then the founding fathers were theocrats, and so were most of the people who have been nominated for President by the Republicans and Democrats in the past.


Just the opposite.  The founding fathers wisely put a provision in the Constitution prohibiting religious tests for federal office.  Moore, on the other hand, wants to ban Muslims from serving in Congress.  In addition, I don't recall that the founders violated court orders or thought themselves above the law.

----------


## Origanalist

> Just the opposite.  The founding fathers wisely put a provision in the Constitution prohibiting religious tests for federal office.  Moore, on the other hand, wants to ban Muslims from serving in Congress.  In addition, I don't recall that the founders violated court orders or thought themselves above the law.


Pretty sure they did both.

----------


## Origanalist

This is now the official Trigger Sonny Tufts Thread.

----------


## William Tell

> Pretty sure they did both.


 I thought they peacefully exercised their 1st amendment rights under the Magna Carta, got a permit for a tea party and were granted a nation in British court because they had a good lawyer?

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## tod evans

> are you OK with racially segregated public schools (assuming that there will be such schools)?


I am.

Lunch counters, bathrooms and water fountains too. 

Neighborhoods, churches, businesses, etc...

What I'm absolutely not okay with is government mandated segregation.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> It doesn't say anything about schools either, so are you OK with racially segregated public schools (assuming that there will be such schools)?


Recognizing it's not unconstitutional and being ok with it are two different things. I don't think pretty much any institutions should exclud/include people based on race/ethnicity/color, but dealing with that is not the federal government's job any more than it's IBM's job or The Florida Fish and Wildlife Department's job or Brian4Liberty's job.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> What I'm absolutely not okay with is government mandated segregation.


And there you have put your finger on the issue.  Government-mandated segregation was what the Brown case ruled unconstitutional in 1954.  But there are some who would claim the case was wrong because the Constitution doesn't mention schools.

As far as the federal government's involvement is concerned, the Brown case was brought by private parties, not the federal government, and some institution (e.g., the Supreme Court) had to decide the plaintiff's 14th Amendment claims.  In any case, the 14th Amendment explicitly gives Congress the power to enforce the Amendment through appropriate legislation, so Congress could have theoretically outlawed racially segregated schools via legislation (although in 1954 this would have been politically impossible).

----------


## jmdrake

> Well guys, he won a Senate nomination by standing up for what he believes in. I agree we should get rid of licenses but their persecution of Moore backfired in the biggest possible way. Maybe there is hope for this nation.


Yeah.  Of course Trump campaigning for Moore's opponent probably helped Moore too.

----------


## Identity

Moore was the political upset of the year. Don't think the GOPe hasn't taken notice, Corker resigned shortly afterwards. I wonder if 2018 is going to be the year of the Populist-Conservative insurgence which is fueled by the leftovers of the 2016 "MAGA" movement. Ann Coulter the other day said "MAGA movement" people will go beyond Trump if necessary, and it seems like Alabama proves such is the case.

----------


## Origanalist

> Moore was the political upset of the year. Don't think the GOPe hasn't taken notice, Corker resigned shortly afterwards. I wonder if 2018 is going to be the year of the Populist-Conservative insurgence which is fueled by the leftovers of the 2016 "MAGA" movement. Ann Coulter the other day said "MAGA movement" people will go beyond Trump if necessary, and it seems like Alabama proves such is the case.


Well hell, if they don't go beyond Trump then WTF are they good for?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Alabama Chief Justice Urges Defiance of Federal Tyranny







> specifically, a recent  unconstitutional ruling by a federal judge  purporting to overturn the  state’s constitutional protections for the  “divine institution” of  marriage




I'm expecting a lot more of this from soon-to-be Sen. Moore.

Great rhetoric about fighting tyranny, fighting for the Constitution...

...but in practice it's all about trivial culture war issues.

The Fed, spending, regulations, wars, and the PATRIOT Act will be lucky to get 5% as much attention as gay marriage et al. 

Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

----------

