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: 245
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#8. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
(Edited)
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
#9. To: GreyLmist (#8)
(Edited)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest“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.
Replies to Comment # 8.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.