Q: Should More Conservative Officeholders Defy Outrageous Edicts of Federal Courts? NO: The Rule of Law Obliges Officials to Comply or Resign for Reasons of Conscience

By Land, Richard | Insight on the News, October 14, 2003 | Go to article overview

Q: Should More Conservative Officeholders Defy Outrageous Edicts of Federal Courts? NO: The Rule of Law Obliges Officials to Comply or Resign for Reasons of Conscience


Land, Richard, Insight on the News


Byline: Richard Land, SPECIAL TO INSIGHT

As we have seen in the Ten Commandments/Judge Roy Moore controversy in Alabama, determining which extreme circumstances morally would justify defiance of a court's authority generates great controversy even among conservative Americans who agree on a wide range of other issues. The federal judiciary has bombarded the American people in the last few decades with so many "outrageous" decisions that they have precipitated a crisis by causing millions of U.S. citizens to question not only the correctness of their rulings, but the legitimacy of their authority.

As a Christian and as a conservative I, too, am righteously indignant at the federal courts' attempts to deny our Judeo-Christian heritage and to enforce a rigid and artificial secular bias on our public spaces. I am as angered as anyone by the declaration of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God."

I, too, am angered when courts uphold teachers presenting classes on Islam to encourage tolerance but deny student-initiated, student-led, student-content-dictated prayer before high-school sporting events simply because the government paid for the public-address system (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe).

I, too, am angered when courts rule that competitively won, publicly funded scholarships can be used by students to major in anything but religious studies.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' outrageous decision that Moore did not have the right to display the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court rotunda is the poster-child example for an out-of-control federal judiciary that blatantly is discriminating against religion and religious expression.

I have and will continue vigorously to protest such hostile and unconstitutional court rulings. I have and will continue to do everything I can to encourage evangelical Christians and others to rise up and reform this government and its courts.

The Ten Commandments/Judge Moore case does focus attention on several issues of controversy concerning the issue of if, and when, to defy court orders. Moore has argued that the federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments display was unconstitutional, that he had to obey a higher law than the federal court and that he had a moral duty to disobey or defy it.

Actually, Moore has made two different arguments that need to be addressed. First, he has asserted that the federal appeals court did not have the constitutional authority to order him to remove the Ten Commandments display because it said he was violating the First Amendment's "establishment clause," and the First Amendment does not apply to state government, only to Congress. This is an argument that has been made before and is an intriguing legal theory, but it has been rejected by federal courts, including the Supreme Court, for about a century.

The Supreme Court has been ruling for at least that long that the "equal-protection" clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) applies all the Bill of Rights prohibitions against federal-government action to state and local governments as well. Moore and others may disagree, but the institution given the authority to adjudicate the issue, the Supreme Court, has ruled for numerous decades that the First Amendment must apply to state and local governments.

Attorneys consistently are winning free-exercise-of-religion cases against state governments and county zoning commissions by going into federal court and arguing that the First Amendment's protection against government "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion applies not just to Congress, but to government at all levels. If the Supreme Court were to reverse itself and agree with Moore that the First Amendment applies only to Congress, Christians and other people of faith would be at the mercy of zoning commissions telling them they could not have Bible studies above a certain size in their own homes (a Connecticut case) or how many worship services and what maximum attendance would be allowed to ease traffic concerns (a case in the Pacific Northwest). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Q: Should More Conservative Officeholders Defy Outrageous Edicts of Federal Courts? NO: The Rule of Law Obliges Officials to Comply or Resign for Reasons of Conscience
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.