?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I just now sent a letter to the author of this article:

Alabama Chief Justice Excommunicated

by Steven Yates
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates85.html


Dear Dr. Yates,

Hello. I encountered the term "paleolibertarian" for the first time this evening as I perused the LiveJournal (a species of blog) of an on-line acquaintance. I searched the web for a definition and ended up on LewRockwell.com. I proceeded to read several articles and found myself impressed by the quality of the thought that went into their writing. I voted for Harry Browne in the 2000 election, so it’s not as if I underwent any sort of political conversion as a result of the material I found on LRC, but I was glad to discover the site.

Then I read your most recent article on the firing of Judge Roy Moore. (I have not read the two previous articles you wrote on that topic.) I read your opening paragraphs with incredulity. How could an article in defense of Judge Moore’s actions make its way onto a website like LRC? I didn’t much care for the “What rock did you crawl out from under?” tone of the reader whose feedback you quoted in your article, but I did agree with the general content of his criticism. I do not identify myself as a Christian, and I have no desire to live under the rule of a Christian government.

I hadn’t followed the story of Judge Moore’s dismissal very closely. From what I did hear of it in passing on NPR (my primary source of off-line news) I didn’t see Judge Moore or his supporters as occupying any sort of defensible position on this issue. I saw them simply as religious fanatics attempting to usurp the power of the state to advance their own religion and trample the rights of people of other faiths (including those of no faith).

After reading your article, I’ve changed my mind. You raised the following two points which, for me, made all the difference:

1) Judge Moore is not Congress.

2) Judge Moore’s Court is not a federal court.


While you didn’t say so explicitly, I think it follows from the two points listed above that Judge Moore did not use federal funds to pay for the 10 Commandments monument, and from there it follows that nobody outside the state of Alabama has any Constitutional cause to object to Judge Moore’s actions, and from what I’ve heard in the media, he enjoys popular support within his home state. From here, the issue easily resolves in my mind to a contest between federal hegemony and states rights, and in such a contest I throw my moral support to the advocates of states rights without reservation.

I don’t believe, as you seem to, that a secular state is any more likely to grow tyrannical than a theocratic state, but in terms of the constitutionality and defensibility of Judge Moore’s actions, my disagreement with you on that point is neither here nor there. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter. Your words have changed my thinking on this matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin M. O’Connor
Berryville, Arkansas

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
rmbrodie
Nov. 16th, 2003 06:14 am (UTC)
Moral of the story: Don’t mess with FedGov. Or do, but be prepared to pay.
kmo
Nov. 16th, 2003 06:59 am (UTC)
Don't mess with FedGov
Given that he's still drawing breath, I think Judge Moore will come out on top in this struggle. The job from which the Feds just dismissed him is an elected position, and there's nothing to keep him from running again. Or he could run for govenor. Given his popularity, I think he would win either election.

On a different though familiar note, the King's birthday is coming up in a few weeks. Dr. Taksin promised a drug-free Thailand in time for the King's birthday. He must be down to the last few Yaba addicts by now. Got your shades handy? Dr. T promises a bright new day.
rmbrodie
Nov. 16th, 2003 07:46 am (UTC)
Re: Don't mess with FedGov
Do you think Judge Moore is playing chess with FedGov?

I'm sure Dr. Taksin will falsify results in a way that benefits him. Someday hopefully he will be discredited, but I fear after Thailand suffers immeasurably.
kmo
Nov. 21st, 2003 10:56 am (UTC)
Re: Don't mess with FedGov
Do you think Judge Moore is playing chess with FedGov?

I don't know. I really haven't followed the story that closesly.
nobody123
Nov. 16th, 2003 04:38 pm (UTC)
I think the real issue here is Roy Moore defying a Federal court order. The merits of his paradigm notwithstanding, it seems to me that the man has no right whatsoever to participate in the administration of the same government he (rig.tly or wrongly) disregards so flamboyantly.

That's The Way I See It, at any rate.
kmo
Nov. 22nd, 2003 07:08 am (UTC)
Strom Thurman is dead! Strom Thurman is dead! Strom Thurman is dead! Strom Thurman is dead!
I think the real issue here is...

That never bodes well at the start of a sentence.

The merits of his paradigm notwithstanding, it seems to me that the man has no right whatsoever to participate in the administration of the same government he (rig.tly or wrongly) disregards so flamboyantly.

Judge Moore held the highest office in the judiciary branch of the government of the state of Alabama.</a> He "flamboyantly" disregarded an order from a federal judge. The Constitution of the United States does not describe state governments as lower eschelons of a Supreme Federal State, but rather it establishes federal and state governments as seperate power structures with different powers and responsibilities. To an advocate of the continued advancement of federal hegemony over domains constitutionally reserved for the states and the people it makes sense to depict Judge Moore as a humble functionary of the federal government who holds office only at the behest of his federal "superiors." To such an advocate, the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama does indeed "participate in the administration of the same [i.e. federal] government" that Judge Moore refused to obey.

As an advocate of the containment of the expansion of the federal government, I see Judge Moore's "flamboyant" defiance of a federal court order as the taking of a principled and commendable stand against the incursion of federal power into areas explicitly denied the federal government by the US Constitution.

That's The Way I See It, at any rate.

Fair enough, but I think your disdain for Christian moral busybodies has dictated your conclusion and that you've selected and weighed the premises of your position in order to reach a pre-ordained conclusion unfavorable to Judge Moore's actions.
kmo
Nov. 22nd, 2003 07:12 am (UTC)
formatting
Didn't mean to "shout." I forgot to close the "bold" tag after "the state of Alabama".
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2017
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes