Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sixpence on November 13, 2003, 03:57:52 PM
-
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/317/nation/Alabama_chief_justice_removed_:.shtml
-
Hopefully it would not dissuade other people from attempting to uphold the Constitution.
miko
-
Moore said he had consulted with his attorneys and with political and religious leaders and would make an announcement next week which he said ''could alter the course of this country.'' He did not elaborate. He could appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Selfrightous ass...
Last I checked getting fired was low on the list of punishments for contempt of the court. 170k salary ? i'm in a wrong fricking business. Want to cut government spending ? HELLO !!! :D
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Hopefully it would not dissuade other people from attempting to uphold the Constitution.
miko
He got what I would have got for ignoring a court order. Although, I think I would have got worse. Interpeting the constitution to ignore a court order doesn't fly.
-
Sixpence: Interpeting the constitution to ignore a court order doesn't fly.
The Constitution does not grant the Federal Government - of which the Supreme Court is a branch - a power to issue such an order.
First ammendment is a limitation on the federal government. A state can establish an official religion as long as it does not prevent any citizen from freely exercising theirs - according to the Fourteenth ammendment.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Hopefully it would not dissuade other people from attempting to uphold the Constitution.
miko
He clearly violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
-
It also says I don't have to pay taxes, that doesn't fly either. Or is that somewhere else? nm
Wow, this search is bringing mixed results, I take that back, I have to pay taxes:(
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sixpence: Interpeting the constitution to ignore a court order doesn't fly.
The Constitution does not grant the Federal Government - of which the Supreme Court is a branch - a power to issue such an order.
First ammendment is a limitation on the federal government. A state can establish an official religion as long as it does not prevent any citizen from freely exercising theirs - according to the Fourteenth ammendment.
miko
"The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another."
One religion is established in the ten commandments.
-
This self rightious arse is slicker than you give him credit. Want to lay odds on his announcing an upcoming Gubenatorial or Senate campaign?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/317/nation/Alabama_chief_justice_removed_:.shtml
I'd find the judiciary ousting an elected official a hard pill to swallow if I lived in that district.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'd find the judiciary ousting an elected official a hard pill to swallow if I lived in that district.
Being elected does not put you above the law. I voted for Clinton, but I do not believe he should have stayed in office after lying to a grand jury. You know where that would have landed us.
-
midnight Target: He clearly violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
No, he did not. He could not have possibly even if he tried.
"The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another."
Prohibits to the Federal Government - not to state governments!
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
See? "Congress", not "states' legislatures".
In fact,
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Show me where in the Constitution are the states prohibited from establising or promoting a religion?
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
See anything about not promoting a religion?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
midnight Target: He clearly violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
No, he did not. He could not have possibly even if he tried.
"The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another."
Prohibits to the Federal Government - not to state governments!
See? "Congress", not "states' legislatures".
In fact,
Show me where in the Constitution are the states prohibited from establising or promoting a religion?
See anything about not promoting a religion?
miko
It does not separate state and federal governments.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html
"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state."
I do not see where it states the state government is above the federal government.
"The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments" Which would include the establishment clause.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Being elected does not put you above the law. I voted for Clinton, but I do not believe he should have stayed in office after lying to a grand jury. You know where that would have landed us.
But he DID stay in office.
He was elected by the people. If he broke the law, then suitable punishment should be issued. He works for the people, he should be fired by them.
-
Sixpence: It does not separate state and federal governments.
It absolutely does: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I do not see where it states the state government is above the federal government.
I do not know what you mean by above. The federal government has aonly the powers specifically enumerated - thus limited.
The states have powers except those expressly forbidden - thus unlimited.
The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress.
Right, so the Congress cannot pass a law restricting the state, so the court would have nothing to uphold.
Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments" Which would include the establishment clause.
Right - the rights as in "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
And what does Fourteenth Amendment say?
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The judge Moore's act did not abridge "the privileges or immunities of citizens" and did not deny "the equal protection of the laws", did not "prohibit the free exercise thereof".
Read the document yourself.
I will be the first to admit that it does not matter any more and that I may be silly referring to it, but I least it is quite clear what it says.
miko
-
Originally posted by Martlet
But he DID stay in office.
He was elected by the people. If he broke the law, then suitable punishment should be issued. He works for the people, he should be fired by them.
Who was it that removed him?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
He clearly violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
This wasn't the issue any longer. The attorney general stated that Moore flagrantly disobeyed a court order.
He asked for it... he got it.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Who was it that removed him?
Judiciary ethics committee
-
Originally posted by miko2d
It absolutely does: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
No, it says the states cannot .
"Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments" which would include the establishment cause
The states have powers except those expressly forbidden - thus unlimited.
From what I read of it, it is said that the states cannot promote religion
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html
This is what the courts have interpeted and ruled on, Miko's or sixpence interpetation is irrelevant
miko
im not good with the bold letter stuff
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Judiciary ethics committee
What(who) consists of this commitee?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
What(who) consists of this commitee?
Do the research yourself. I'm not playing 20 questions with you. If you have something to say, say it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Do the research yourself. I'm not playing 20 questions with you. If you have something to say, say it.
c'mon, humor me.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
c'mon, humor me.
This is your last freebie. After this you have to stop being the typical liberal, and educate yourself before you spout off.
The Court of the Judiciary is made up of lawyers, judges, etc and can be appointed by judges, governor, etc. They aren't elected. They aren't representative of the people.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Being elected does not put you above the law. I voted for Clinton, but I do not believe he should have stayed in office after lying to a grand jury. You know where that would have landed us.
Was the whole matter from the beginning worth the money and trouble?
With such a determination alot more useful things could be digged up from Bush Jr., something which really would affect politics.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Was the whole matter from the beginning worth the money and trouble?
With such a determination alot more useful things could be digged up from Bush Jr., something which really would affect politics.
Yeah? Like what?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
This is your last freebie.
The Court of the Judiciary is made up of lawyers, judges, etc and can be appointed by judges, governor, etc. They aren't elected. They aren't representative of the people.
Ok, that was what I was getting at. I was under the impression they were in the same capacity as he was.
I am having a web confrence with my brother and trying to do both with yahoo mess and msn mess, msn keeps crashing. So while I am trying to type and read, he is *****ing at me that I am not listening. So having you answer was making it easier.
And trying to reply to Miko at the same time.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Was the whole matter from the beginning worth the money and trouble?
With such a determination alot more useful things could be digged up from Bush Jr., something which really would affect politics.
That is not the point, Bush didn't lie to a grand jury, it has nothing to do about Bush. Clinton lied to a grand jury, period. And he did that in capacity as the pres. You cannot run a country without credibility. He broke the law.
I'll add to that, what he did with lewinsky is not the issue. he who lives in glass houses should not throw stones(is that applicable?)
But I assume it is safe to say none of us here has lied to a jury.
-
Are you all aware that ever session of the Senate starts with Prey? And the Senate has a clergyman on staff to do this.
And the Supreme Court of the US has the Ten Commandments on the wall over the bench at which they sit.
And placing the commandments in the lobby of the court house is not “state sectioned religion”
When that was writing membership in the Church of England was mandatory.
-
"If his removal stands, Gov. Bob Riley would appoint a new chief justice to finish the term, which expires in 2006. "
Why does he get to appoint a new one? Is this some provision if the justice gets removed?
-
http://www.judicial.state.al.us/judiciary.cfm
So actually there is representation of the people.
The Court of the Judiciary is created consisting of one judge of an appellate court, other than the Supreme Court, who shall be selected by the Supreme Court and shall serve as Chief Judge of the Court of the Judiciary; two judges of the circuit court, who shall be selected by the Circuit Judges' Association; and one district judge who shall be selected by the District Judges' Association.
Other members of the Court of the Judiciary shall consist of two members of the state bar, who shall be selected by the governing body of the Alabama State Bar; two persons who are not lawyers who shall be appointed by the Governor; and one person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor.
Members appointed by the Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be subject to Senate confirmation before serving. Provided, however, that on January 1, 2005, the appointment authority granted to the Lieutenant Governor shall revert to the Governor and the Governor shall therefore be entitled to appoint three persons who are not lawyers, subject to Senate confirmation.
The court shall be convened to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission. The court shall have authority, after notice and public hearing (1) to remove from office, suspend without pay, or censure a judge, or apply such other sanction as may be prescribed by law, for violation of a Canon of Judicial Ethics, misconduct in office, failure to perform his duties, or (2) to suspend with or without pay, or to retire a judge who is physically or mentally unable to perform his duties. Taken from the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, Amendment 581, §6.18.
-
In what warped reality is that a representation of the people?
-
Are they not appointed by the people you elect? Is the judiciary court not appointed to prevent misconduct?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
In what warped reality is that a representation of the people?
As I understand it... the judiciary are not there to represent the people. They represent the law, the constitution, the state.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Are they not appointed by the people you elect?
In that case, Bush should be able to appoint state representatives. Someone should get on that.
Who elects the state bar?
-
It's there to prevent misconduct in the judiciary system.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
It's there to prevent misconduct in the judiciary system.
Who elects the governor?
-
Bush appoints many people..like poindexter.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Who elects the governor?
What's that got to do with anything?
Who elects the state bar? How are they representative of the people?
-
That's what the state judiciary is for, to prevent misconduct. And it was put in place by people who were elected by the people.
"two persons who are not lawyers who shall be appointed by the Governor; and one person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor'
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
That's what the state judiciary is for, to prevent misconduct. And it was put in place by people who were elected by the people.
"two persons who are not lawyers who shall be appointed by the Governor; and one person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor'
As I said, if the Judiciary was removing elected officials I put into office, I'd have a problem with that. The Judiciary is not elected. Some members of it aren't even appointed by public servants.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
As I said, if the Judiciary was removing elected officials I put into office, I'd have a problem with that. The Judiciary is not elected. Some members of it aren't even appointed by public servants.
Right, but that's how the system works, how you or I approve of it doesn't matter. It does not rule on all elected officials, only judges. You can't have rogue judges making their own rules.
"The court shall have authority, after notice and public hearing (1) to remove from office, suspend without pay, or censure a judge, or apply such other sanction as may be prescribed by law, for violation of a Canon of Judicial Ethics, misconduct in office, failure to perform his duties, or (2) to suspend with or without pay, or to retire a judge who is physically or mentally unable to perform his duties. Taken from the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, Amendment 581, §6.18. "
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Right, but that's how the system works, how you or I approve of it doesn't matter. It does not rule on all elected officials, only judges. You can't have rogue judges making their own rules.
You're right, you can't. Judges have to follow laws like everyone else. If he broke the law, then he goes to trial just like you or I would. If he's found guilty, then he is punished.
If the people want to boot him, then they can raise the signatures and put it on a ballot. In my opinion, it's not for members of the bar to decide.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If the people want to boot him, then they can raise the signatures and put it on a ballot. In my opinion, it's not for members of the bar to decide.
Well, 3 people are appointed by the governor, so he will have to answer to the people. How those three voted will affect him. And yes, you are entitled to your opinion.
As I am reading it only two are from the bar, it is interesting reading.
The Chief justice of the judiciary is selected by the supreme court from an appellate court.
Two are from the circuit court appointed by the curcuit judge association.
And one district judge appointed by the district judge association.
here is a link to the appellate(alabama) court.
http://www.alalinc.net/appellate/appellate_main.cfm
Wow, if I only had the internet when I was doing reports. I had to go to the library, search for books, etc. All this info at your fingertips.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If he broke the law, then he goes to trial just like you or I would. If he's found guilty, then he is punished.
Ok, i've done a little reading. Actually, he did go to court. He does not go to a normal court like you or I. The judiciary committee is court for judges, and he was found guilty of misconduct. His punishment was removal.
But, as you have stated, you do not think they should have the power to remove him.
He could appeal to the supreme court, but as stated above, the supreme court appoints the chief of the judiciary committee. So it would be tough to get it overturned.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Ok, i've done a little reading. Actually, he did go to court. He does not go to a normal court like you or I. The judiciary committee is court for judges, and he was found guilty of misconduct. His punishment was removal.
But, as you have stated, you do not think they should have the power to remove him.
Which was my point initially. If he is guilty of a crime, then he should go to court, like you or I, and be sentenced as you or I would. Then, the people should decide if they'd like to remove him.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Which was my point initially. If he is guilty of a crime, then he should go to court, like you or I, and be sentenced as you or I would. Then, the people should decide if they'd like to remove him.
Well, he can appeal to the supreme court, but as stated above, the supreme court appoints the chief of the judiciary commitee. I don't think the people should vote to put a judge above the law though. That's why I do not believe the people should have voted if Clinton was to be removed or not. He did just as bad as the judge did, if not worse. He should have been toast.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, he can appeal to the supreme court, but as stated above, the supreme court appoints the chief of the judiciary commitee. I don't think the people should vote to put a judge above the law though. That's why I do not believe the people should have voted if Clinton was to be removed or not. He did just as bad as the judge did, if not worse. He should have been toast.
I agree. He should not be above the law. I just wouldn't want the neighbors disciplining my kids in my yard while I'm standing right there, either.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7254764.htm (http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7254764.htm)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I agree. He should not be above the law. I just wouldn't want the neighbors disciplining my kids in my yard while I'm standing right there, either.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7254764.htm (http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7254764.htm)
Well, if the ruling were ignored there would be consequences. If a judge ignored the ruling and removed it, he would have to answer to it. We can argue the ten commandments and it's place(honestly, it does not affect me one way or another, I do not need a stone to tell me it is wrong to kill, lie , or steal), but we cannot argue a court order, we obide by it or face the concequences.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, if the ruling were ignored there would be consequences. If a judge ignored the ruling and removed it, he would have to answer to it. We can argue the ten commandments and it's place(honestly, it does not affect me one way or another, I do not need a stone to tell me it is wrong to kill, lie , or steal), but we cannot argue a court order, we obide by it or face the concequences.
I think we agree on that. I could care less about the ten commandments. I just threw that link there because it was applicable to the topic.
It doesn't matter whether the judge was right or wrong. What matters is he was outside the law. He should be punished. The Judiciary should be able to punish him. We agree up to that point, I think. I don't think they should have the power to remove him, though. Now that I'm thinking about it. I'll have to check on the MA laws, too.
-
Well, while you are at it, can you tell me why the speaker of the house cannot be removed? I'm told his appointed positon is untouchable.
-
Martlet,
As a citizen of Alabama I agree that they shouldn't have the authority to remove someone who was an elected official. The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (aka Judge Roy Moore) was elected by a wide margin by the people of the state of Alabama. Our representatives in the Legislature should have been the people who put him on "trial" and either voted to remove or reinstate.
However this allow Judge Moore to begin his bid for the Governor's seat in a little less than 2 years. I think the man will be elected because of one thing. At least he is honest to his constituants. Ask hblair about him; they are from the same area/town in Alabama and I believe that hblair might have some better insight on the matter than I would.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, while you are at it, can you tell me why the speaker of the house cannot be removed? I'm told his appointed positon is untouchable.
First I'd heard of it. If I don't find anything, I'll ask my mother this weekend.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
One religion is established in the ten commandments.
Just to be a nitpicker.... Moses was Jewish, and both the Jewish and Christian religions share the ten commandments.
So (at least) two religions are 'established' with the ten commandments.
The separation of church and state doctrine that Jefferson wrote of (it is not per se in the constitution, but an interpretation of the intent) was not IMHO broken by a piece of rock in the lobby of the courthouse. This whole issue was blown way out of proportion.
"God save this honorable court" is the same as that rock, and the ex Alabama Chief Justice stands on very solid ground when he points out hypocrisy of the courts.
-
As an atheist, I feel that having the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament Bible in a government building is a form of intimidation. The message: "Justice for Christians & Jews. Any others need not apply."
I am saddened but not surprised that religious types would support this guy because they like the religion being pushed. If your local courthouse put up witchcraft scrolls on a big monument, or the Quran, would you be so quick to support it?
-
As an Apatheist, I could not care less what is carved on a piece of rock in the lobby. That stone will not break my bones but the words in the adjudication of my case can hurt me.
-
I have been following this thread with interest. We don't have any elected judges in the UK so many of the points being discussed could never arise here.
I have a couple of questions which the net has not answered for me and wondered if anyone here could help.
1. Can Judge Moore run again for the same office? How often are the elections held?
2. Does the ethics committee publish the reasons behind its decision? If so does someone have a link to the 'judgment' of the ethics committee?
thanks in advance,
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As an Apatheist, I could not care less what is carved on a piece of rock in the lobby. That stone will not break my bones but the words in the adjudication of my case can hurt me.
You are right, but like Clinton, it is not his moral decision that is the problem, it's that he broke the law.
You or I can say or think what we want about child support, but if we get a court order to pay it, we have to pay it or go to jail.
Here is an opposite decision posted by Martlet
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7254764.htm
But if a judge ignores that court decision and removes the ten commandments, he will suffer the same fate.
-
Here is some from the Alabama constitution
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245534.htm
Now, technically, they are not using the law to promote religion, but you can see where having the ten commandments there goes against what section 3 is all about. And you could see why a court would rule the ten commandments where law presides would be a contradiction.
Now here is a section that Miko would be interested in
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245566.htm
So while section 35 says it can't make that decision, section 31 says it can.
Here is something interesting, could misconduct as a judge be "an infamous" crime?
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245595.htm
-
Originally posted by ravells
I have been following this thread with interest. We don't have any elected judges in the UK so many of the points being discussed could never arise here.
I have a couple of questions which the net has not answered for me and wondered if anyone here could help.
1. Can Judge Moore run again for the same office? How often are the elections held?
Yes he can run for the same office and he is eligible to run for other office as well.
Originally posted by ravells
2. Does the ethics committee publish the reasons behind its decision? If so does someone have a link to the 'judgment' of the ethics committee?
thanks in advance,
Ravs
If they do publish their reasons they may not have done it yet. I can easily find out since I have a few buddies who are attorneys here locally and one of them knows a member of the Judiciary Ethics panel.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Yes he can run for the same office and he is eligible to run for other office as well.
he has a 6 year term limit
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245693.htm
I'll have to revise that, not sure if that is a term limit, or just the length of the term, so scratch that.
And he may have to fight if they rule is not eligible to run for another office.
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245595.htm
-
Originally posted by rpm371
This self rightious arse is slicker than you give him credit. Want to lay odds on his announcing an upcoming Gubenatorial or Senate campaign?
This Judge reminds me of David Duke in a conservative coat and tie... no wait that's Rush Limbaugh.
-
Thanks Reschke, Sixpence.
Look forward to hearing if the Ethics Committee's judgment is a public document.
all the best
Ravs
-
Myself being from Alabama hope that someone makes Moore a copy of the 10 commandments and gags him with it. Alabama is suffering from budget cuts like many other states in the union. I have heard cost estimating Moores self-rightous stance costing the state over $10k/day at some points.
To me, Moore is a hypocryte. Hes a sinner. Something about erecting golden statues and worshiping them?? Thats how I see his rock commandment statue. He erected its cause above himself, his people, his state, even his god. For that, he should BURN!!! (maybe thats too far)
I just want him to go away. Most all that I talk with in this state believe his actions to be too religious, egotistical, and a embarrasment. He would have no chance for governer from what I have heard and seen.
Also, I believe alabama's constitution upholds the seperation of church and state. Artical 1 Sections 3 & 4:
Section 3
That no person within this State shall, upon any pretence whatever, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in the manner most agreeable to his own conscience ; nor be hurt, molested, or restrained in his religious profession. Sentiments, or persuasions, provided he does not disturb others in their religious worship.
Section 4
Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
k
AoM
-
I have section three linked above. So yes, he kind of makes an argument against himself. He says the state is separate from the federal government. But he is snubbing his nose at his own state's constitution.
He may have a problem with section 60 also.
-
Sixpence,
His term would have been 6 years long and you can run for election/re-election unless you were a convicted felon. I don't know how his removal from office will be handled but I don't believe he actually broke any criminal laws.
Kappa,
What part of the state do you live in? I am near Birmingham myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of my buddies made a case for him being disbarred today at lunch. However I don't think it should go that far. Although I do believe that he put himself above both his sworn oath to preserve and uphold the laws of the State and Nation. I think that I am able within my faith as a Christian to see both sides of the coin here. It is my hope that this matter will be resolved by both sides in a manner that will allow them both to move forward instead of dragging the rest of us down with them.