See other Resistance Articles
Title: # POUND MORE SAND # - OK governor defies Supreme Court — Ten Commandments will stay at capitol
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/sh ... monument-to-remain-at-capitol/
Published: Jul 8, 2015
Author: Olaf Ekberg
Post Date: 2015-07-08 12:19:05 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: supreme court, first amendment, state rights, pound sand
Views: 223
Comments: 11
There’s a showdown at the OK capitol. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has vowed that a Ten Commandments monument on capitol grounds, which the state Supreme Court recently ruled was unconstitutional, will remain through appeal, KOCO reports. “The Ten Commandments monument was built to recognize and honor the historical significance of the Commandments in our state’s and nation’s systems of laws,” Fallin says in a statement. “The monument was built and maintained with private dollars. It is virtually identical to a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol which the United States Supreme Court ruled to be permissible. It is a privately funded tribute to historical events, not a taxpayer funded endorsement of any religion, as some have alleged.” Fallin and Attorney General Scott Pruitt are appealing the Supreme Court’s ruling. “Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions. However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government. At this time, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, with my support, has filed a petition requesting a rehearing of the Ten Commandments case,” according to the governor. “Additionally, our Legislature has signaled its support for pursuing changes to our state Constitution that will make it clear the Ten Commandments monument is legally permissible. If legislative efforts are successful, the people of Oklahoma will get to vote on the issue.” In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the ACLU and its three plaintiffs. The group immediately denounced Fallin’s decision. “The Supreme Court did not give any leeway in their opinion. The bipartisan, seven-member majority did not say remove the monument except if you look into your crystal ball and think the law might allow it at some point in the future and go ahead and keep it,” ACLU of Oklahoma executive director Ryan Kiesel tells the Tulsa World. “The court said remove the monument.” Kiesel believes Fallin is in “contempt” of the court’s ruling. “Frankly, I would be astonished if we get to a point where the governor outright defies an order of our state’s highest court,” he says. “That said, if she does, there is a word for it. It is called contempt.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
(Edited)
Really? What historical significance is Fallin referring to? If he is referring to it being of Christian origin he is dead wrong. The Ten Commandments were never of Christian origin and is supported by references in Deuteronomy, Exodus, and in Matthew. These laws were written on account of Moses (noted for freeing his people from bondage in Egypt) by speaking to the Jewish people those Ten Commandment laws spoken through Moses by God.
By traditional mainstream interpretation, "the OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed." The OT is studded with prophecies of the Redeemer to come, he has direct parallels in Joseph, the Holy Spirit is said to be the pre- incarnate Christ, the Lamb "slain from the foundation of the world". In other words, Christ is king of the OT world too -- it's an unbroken continuum from Eden to Calvary and beyond. The OT mere window dressing in Judaism, BTW. The Jues are Edomite knockoffs of God's OT Adamite/Israelite people, which some of them acknowledge when they think nobody's paying attention. A key quote features the rare word Hebrewism but I can't seem to find it. Anyhow, Fallin didn't mention Christ. You did. And if you don't know how prominent the Commandments are in American history, what planet did you just touch down from?
I have no issue with the Ten Commandments being in our courts. As a matter of fact I would absolutely love to see them in those courts. The problem is that our court system is derived from Caesars (The law of Merchants). Jewish law is totally different than Caesars law. To put into better understanding Jewish law and the law of Merchants (Roman law) just don't mix. They are incompatible. Roman law is the law of Man. Jewish law is the law of God from Moses on down to Abraham. The problem started when Rome conquered much of Europe, Africa, and even the Middle East. When the Romans took over Israel, they destroyed much of the Jewish temples and bibles and replaced with Roman law. This spread to the New World today that we now call The New World. You will notice how our courts operate and even use Latin as their language when communicating in court. I know this from 16 years experience in the federal courts. They operate using Canon law which is straight from Rome. Christianity came from Rome and never had a single thing associated with those Ten Commandments at all. If we were to put in those Ten Commandments in those courts, you would never again see judges wearing black robes or sitting with flags with yellow fringe on the bottom behind them. That is the real secret behind those judges being in opposition to having those ten commandments in the courts.
Atheism and Agnosticism are both faith-based religious belief systems. The Atheists' faith is that there is no God/Creator and the Agnostics' faith is unsure whether there is or isn't a God/Creator. America needs to stop indulging those faith-based religious belief systems with pretentious "dominion" over all others here. They are the ones violating the equal standing and co-sharing precepts of our 1st Amendment rights. Were they refused a monument somewhere on public property about their tenets of law, if they wanted to build one? Probably not, since they haven't gone to court over a litigation issue like that, afaik. They and the ACLU just mean to target Christianity and this nation's government structures and that's prosecutable as harassment, etc.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Roman law was far from secular/temporal but, characteristically, the various religions of the world within their sphere remained extant or semi-so to some tolerant extent. The Maccabean scriptural accounts of the Jerusalem temple during Roman rule to the Hanukkah celebration are about Roman enforcement of religious laws and obedience in observances to their deities as the supreme powers of divinity. iirc, for example, some taxations were collected in connections with the Roman pantheon. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
============================================= I say it takes no faith to believe in nothing (but yourself). And that is just it. Mankind worships HIMSELF, thus producing a generation of the worship of the creation instead of The Creator. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." really does have a lot of truth in it. As this nation washes God from it's memory, God will also wash this nation from his. U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
================================================ This is vividly played out in Roman history. As in Paul's time; we also now have a 'Caesar' sitting on his throne, with his subjects fully engaged in self-worship. Caesar was the emperor of Greece when this was recorded. While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.) Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’b As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ Acts 17 U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Texas: Van Orden v. Perry - Wikipedia The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, by a vote of 5 to 4, that the display was constitutional. Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the plurality opinion of the Court; Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment but wrote separately. The similar case of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky was handed down the same day with the opposite result (also with a 5 to 4 decision). The "swing vote" in both cases was Breyer. Kentucky: McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, in a 5-4 decision, that the display was unconstitutional. The same day, the Court handed down another 5-4 decision in Van Orden v. Perry with the opposite outcome. The "swing vote" in the both cases was Justice Stephen Breyer. Interposition - Wikipedia ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
There you go. The founders wrote up interposition, so they would have disagreed with ape linkum that the Union is permanent and unbreakable even if 90% of the people don't want it anymore.
If you have no faith in Jesus Christ than there is nothing left to believe in but death.
If you have no faith in Jesus Christ than there is nothing left to believe in but death. =============================================== Faith the substance of things hoped for, but the evidence of things not seen. U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
“The Ten Commandments monument was built to recognize and honor the historical significance of the Commandments in our state’s and nation’s systems of laws Fallin says in a statement.
#2. To: purplerose (#1)
#3. To: NeoconsNailed (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
(Edited)
#5. To: purplerose (#3)
(Edited)
Roman law is the law of Man. Jewish law is the law of God from Moses on down to Abraham. The problem started when Rome conquered much of Europe, Africa, and even the Middle East. When the Romans took over Israel, they destroyed much of the Jewish temples and bibles and replaced with Roman law.
#6. To: GreyLmist (#4)
Atheism and Agnosticism are both faith-based religious belief systems. The Atheists' faith is that there is no God/Creator and the Agnostics' faith is unsure whether there is or isn't a God/Creator. America needs to stop indulging those faith-based religious belief systems with pretentious "dominion" over all others here. They are the ones violating the equal standing and co-sharing precepts of our 1st Amendment rights. Were they refused a monument somewhere on public property about their tenets of law, if they wanted to build one? Probably not, since they haven't gone to court over a litigation issue like that, afaik. They and the ACLU just mean to target Christianity and this nation's government structures and that's prosecutable as harassment, etc.
#7. To: GreyLmist (#5)
Roman law was far from secular/temporal but, characteristically, the various religions of the world within their sphere remained extant or semi-so to some tolerant extent. The Maccabean scriptural accounts of the Jerusalem temple during Roman rule to the Hanukkah celebration are about Roman enforcement of religious laws and obedience in observances to their deities as the supreme powers of divinity. iirc, for example, some taxations were collected in connections with the Roman pantheon.
In Athens
#8. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
(Edited)
“Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions. However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government.
545 U.S. 677 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into account under an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment analysis.
Pennsylvania: Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia
403 U.S. 602 (1971) ... The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon), which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion.
[assertion] that the states have the right to determine whether actions of the federal government exceed constitutional limits. ... an asserted right of a U.S. state to oppose actions of the federal government that the state deems unconstitutional. ... Under the theory of interposition, a state may "interpose" itself between the federal government and the people of the state by taking action to prevent the federal government from enforcing laws that the state considers unconstitutional. ... [James] Madison argued [in the Virginia Resolutions -- political statements drafted in 1798] that interposition would involve some sort of joint action among the states,
Oklahoma and Kentucky, perhaps Pennsylvania too, could interpose a case to overturn all of the governmental decisions and actions that are discriminatory against every faith-based religion other than that of the Atheist and Agnostic faith-based belief system of Humanism.
#9. To: GreyLmist (#8)
(Edited)
#10. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#6)
I say it takes no faith to believe in nothing (but yourself).
#11. To: purplerose (#10)
I say it takes no faith to believe in nothing (but yourself).
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest