A quote from Martin Luther, important to reflect on today.
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.
My God, I love Thee;
Not because I hope for heaven thereby,
Nor yet because who love Thee not must die eternally.
Thou, O my Jesus, Thou didst me upon the cross embrace;
For me didst bear the nails and spear, and manifold disgrace.
Why, then why, O blessed Jesus Christ, should I not love Thee well?
Not for the hope of winning heaven, or of escaping hell;
Not with the hope of gaining aught; not seeking a reward;
But as thyself hast loved me, O ever-loving Lord!
E’n so I love Thee, and will love, and in Thy praise will sing;
Solely because Thou art my God, and my Eternal King.
Anonymous seventeenth-century Latin poem
Translated by Rev. Edward Caswall
Tom Parker promises godly principle and godly action
Christians in Alabama and throughout the nation were frustrated and angered by the lack of godly leadership shown by the eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court in August 2003. The eight justices voted to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building–where the court sits–that Chief Justice Roy Moore had installed two years earlier. The Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama had ordered Moore to remove the monument, claiming that its presence was an establishment of religion. Moore refused to comply and the associate justices took action.
Tom Parker served as Deputy Administrative Director of Courts in the Alabama judicial system, a position to which Moore appointed him in 2001. In this office, he worked as general counsel for the court system and director of the Alabama Judicial College. He advised trial court judges and provided new judges with training and continuing education for trial judges in the state. He also served as legal advisor and spokesman for Moore, giving statements and arranging press briefings for Moore during the standoff at the judicial building. When Moore was removed from office for refusing to take away the monument, Parker also had his employment in the court system terminated because of his support of the chief justice.
Parker is campaigning in the Republican Primary for Alabama Supreme Court, Place 1. His opponent in this race is one of the associate justices who ordered the Ten Commandments monument removed. Parker points out that the Alabama judicial building is leased from the Alabama Building Authority and that the chief justice is the leaseholder of the building–and, therefore, can control the interior furnishings and decorations. When Moore was suspended from office, this authority passed to acting chief justice Gorman Houston who, according to Parker, could have ordered removal of the monument by himself. “The other justices did not have to get involved. They made a mistake by doing so,” Parker said.
A Montgomery native, Parker has been married for 22 years to Dottie. He attended Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire and received his law degree from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. He presently serves as Special Projects Manager for the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery. The Foundation had provided legal funds for Moore and continues to work to combat judicial tyranny.
Prior to his work with the judicial system, Parker worked under Jeff Sessions in the Alabama Attorney General’s Office. As an Assistant Attorney General, he handled criminal appeals and death penalty cases with experience presenting oral arguments before the Court of Criminal Appeals and the state Supreme Court.
Parker was a partner in the law firm of Parker & Kotouc. That firm was involved in two high-profile cases: the Mobile school prayer case Wallace v. Jaffree and the humanism textbook case Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. Parker also defended churches, ministries, Christian schools, and home schooling. He was founding executive director of the Alabama Family Alliance and the Alabama Family Advocates. Both organizations are associated with Focus on the Family and Dr. James Dobson. Parker also drafted pro-life legislation for Alabama and lobbied for the pro-life issue in the Alabama legislature. The Alabama Pro-Life Coalition was run out of his law office.
Parker believes the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court could have acted as buffers to the usurpation of the rights of the people and the state by thwarting efforts by the federal district court in the Ten Commandments case. “Instead, they voluntarily chose to get involved and vote to remove the Ten Commandments monument,” he said. Parker wants to serve the state with the interest of protecting the rights of the people–particularly the right to publicly acknowledge God. He says that, had he been a member of the Supreme Court during the standoff, he would have spoken out in opposition to attempts by the federal court to interfere with the state’s liberties.
Parker sees the courts as a body tasked with protecting liberty. Courts should not act as legislative bodies in order to create new laws or a pseudo-constitution. “Unfortunately, we are seeing the forces of political correctness at work in our nation and even coming here to Alabama to try to force their ways on us. We’ve seen the travesty of gay “marriage” being found to be a constitutional right by the state supreme court in Massachusetts. [And] the U.S. Supreme Court totally abandoned its means of judicial analysis in order to reach its desired goal of legitimizing homosexual activity.”
Parker knows from whence comes the authority to govern. He recognizes the same source of authority that the state constitution names: “Our constitution sets out God as the foundation for our judicial system. I cannot be faithful to our constitution [without recognizing] God as the One whose favor and guidance was invoked in the establishment of the state judicial system, as expressly set forth in the preamble of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901.”
He says that the acknowledgement of God is necessary to the constitutional government of Alabama. “Our state founding fathers, in every one of our constitutions throughout the history of Alabama, have included that important principle and cornerstone for our state government. Judicial systems have to have some moral or philosophical basis. Our system of justice is based on the Judeo-Christian belief system.”
“The Old Testament admonished judges not to make a distinction between the Jew and a stranger but to treat all equally. What that meant was that your national origins or your beliefs were not supposed to matter to the administrator of justice–it was only one–actions for which one could be held accountable. The whole concept of liberty of conscience was recognized in the judicial system of the Old Testament and protected by the first table of the Law, the Commandments I through IV. Your relationship as an individual with God is something that you were accountable to God for. And, government had no authority to try to–in any way–affect one’s belief in God or the manner of discharging the duties to God.”
Parker reminds Alabamians of their ability to counteract judicial tyranny: “We in Alabama are fortunate in having an elected judiciary. The check that the public has over judges at the polls saves us from what we have seen at the national level or in states with appointed supreme courts where those courts grabbed power and tend toward a totally new constitutional theory of judicial supremacy.”
One of the justices who sold out the rights of the state and of the people by bowing to the tyrannical will of a federal judge is campaigning for re-election. Alabama voters have a perfect opportunity to replace her with a man who is committed to acknowledging God and protecting citizens from the interference of despots. “Just like faith without works is dead, so too are principles without action. For too long, we’ve had judges telling us that they were opposed to judicial activism. But when the challenge came, they didn’t stand against it. We need state judges who have the moral courage to act on their principles and resist judicial tyranny.”
Phillip Jauregui wants to restore our governing document
There’s a congressional candidate from Alabama who’s a little out of the ordinary. His oddity comes not from the fact that he’s an attorney or a well-known figure in recent national events. It’s his commitment to the Constitution that makes him a rarity among congressional candidates and current members. That and his commitment to action: “The courts have literally betrayed their oaths to the Constitution and, … [members of] Congress are not keeping their oaths if they simply stand around and watch the Constitution being destroyed.”
Phillip Jauregui, 34, is campaigning in the Republican Primary for the 6th District of the U.S. House of Representatives. He hails from Birmingham, has two children and is married to Jennifer. Jauregui has been in private practice since 1998. Prior to that, he served as Deputy Attorney General for the Alabama Department of Public Safety, Assistant Legal Advisor to former Governor Fob James, attorney for former Chief Justice Perry Hooper, and was a clerk with the Alabama Supreme Court. He graduated from Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law.
Familiarity with Jauregui in Alabama and across the United States stems from his involvement with the legal cases of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and the well-known Montgomery Ten Commandments monument. Jauregui first began working with Moore in 1995, when he was a legal advisor to James in the earlier Ten Commandments case when Moore was a circuit judge. He also served as Moore’s campaign manager in the 2000 chief justice race in which Moore was elected. In the recent cases, Jauregui served as Moore’s lead counsel, arguing the appeal of Moore’s removal from office before a specially-selected Alabama Supreme Court.
Jauregui serves on the Prison Fellowship of Alabama Council, part of a national ministry headed by Chuck Colson. He also serves on the Sav-A-Life board, a pro-life ministry that provides counselling and other assistance to women who might otherwise undergo abortions. Jauregui is a member of the Church of the Highlands in Birmingham, where he also serves as a trustee.
The campaign Jauregui runs is focused on constitutional restoration. He wants Congress to take responsibility for its role as the legislative body–and to fiercely protect that authority from federal judges. He says that, if Congress is acting only as “an ad hoc body that makes policy recommendations to the Supreme Court, then Congress is not being Congress.” The Constitution must be restored to its place as the primary governing instrument of our nation. He fears that existence of Americans as a free people is threatened by judicial tyranny.
Congress must be true to the Constitution. Jauregui points out that congressmen don’t take oaths to get themselves re-elected or to keep their majority party status in Congress; instead, their oaths are to protect and defend the Constitution. In order for congressmen to uphold their oaths to the Constitution by limiting judicial abuse, Jauregui advocates four steps.
The first thing he says Congress must do is to simply “limit the court to its constitutional jurisdiction.” Instead of taking direction from the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, Congress should act as a separate body, making its own decisions about law. When the courts overstep their authority, Congress can also further limit their jurisdiction.
The second thing Congress can do to restrict abuse by the courts is to restrict funding. Jauregui suggests that the resolution the House of Representatives passed in the Montgomery Ten Commandments monument case is a good method of blocking enforcement of unconstitutional rulings by courts. In that case, the House said that it would not allocate any funds to the enforcement of the federal judge’s order to remove the monument. Similar restriction of funds in other cases could render out of control judges powerless to enforce their rulings. Jauregui said, “Congress has the authority–and, as a matter of fact, has the duty–to restrict funding” in cases where the courts try to tell Congress how to do its job.
The third thing Jauregui wants Congress to do is to “discipline members of the court who are refusing to confine themselves to their constitutional role as judges.” The Constitution provides for the impeachment and removal from office of judges who do not serve under good behavior. Jauregui said, “Judges are not behaving well when they defy their oaths and anoint themselves as legislators over Congress.” “… If they don’t … respect congressional action which is gentle, then maybe the only thing they’re going to respect is removal from office.” He said that impeachment is a discipline of last–but real–resort that should be used judiciously and strategically.
Jauregui’s fourth idea for accountability is the passage of laws by Congress to deal with particular court cases. Such a law would identify Congress as the lawmaking body, state that the court’s purpose is to decide controversy–not to make law–and identify rulings in specific cases as void. Jauregui said, “According to Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, if a ruling is repugnant to the Constitution, it’s void. The same way with a statute. If Congress does something that’s repugnant to the Constitution, it’s void. If a federal judge issues an order that is repugnant to the Constitution, that order is void. Judges, too, … take an oath to the Constitution and they are bound to it. … Accordingly, other officers … who have taken oaths to the Constitution … are bound to the Constitution, not to federal judges who have unbound themselves from their oaths to the Constitution and are now declaring war against it.”
Jauregui sees the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 as one means of reigning in runaway federal judges. If the act doesn’t pass in the current class of Congress, Jauregui would make it his first priority, if elected. He said, “I feel so strongly about it that I would have to talk with the leadership in Washington–congressional leadership–and I would tell them, ‘This must be our number one priority.’ And I would say that very respectfully and I would want them to make it the number one priority but if they did not, then I would have to say, ‘Then you’re not leading.’ And, I would then look for other leaders in Congress who would then make this their number one priority.”
On other issues, Jauregui is similarly conservative. He opposes the continuation of “most favored nation” trading status for China: “The main reason is that they’re persecuting the Church…” Jauregui also opposes abortion: “Life begins at conception and the taking of that life is wrong.” He is against stem cell research on materials from aborted babies because the children haven’t given their consent and also because using fetal tissues creates an incentive to kill children. “There are plenty of other ways we can do medical research without desecrating the bodies of innocent babies,” Jauregui said.
One issue on which Jauregui differs from many other conservative leaders is his position on the Federal Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment would define marriage as solely between a man and woman. Jauregui doesn’t believe this is enough. He says all the blood, sweat, and tears needed to pass such an amendment wouldn’t be well spent if it simply allows homosexual marriage to go forward under the name of civil unions.
He is even more adamant that this issue doesn’t require such an amendment at all. “The whole reason we’re dealing with this crisis in marriage today is because of what the US Supreme Court did last summer in Lawrence v. Texas. And what the court did in Lawrence v. Texas was absolutely unlawful and unconstitutional.” Jauregui believes what the Supreme Court did was illegitimate and that, because it was illegitimate, it should be ignored. Instead of the knee-jerk reaction of a constitutional amendment, Congress should “…stand up and be Congress and say, ‘No, we won’t allow you to do that.’” He also said, “I think it’s ridiculous if we allow the courts to do something illegitimate and then we treat it as legitimate and force ourselves to correct it through this long process, it’s the wrong way to go. The best way to handle it is to recognize what they’ve done is illegitimate, period.”
While others have been talking, Jauregui has been doing. We know very well that talk is cheap these days. But, Jauregui has actively worked to assist justice in Alabama and the nation. Many a congressman can introduce or co-sponsor a good bill, but making sure the right thing is done by fighting for the passage of that bill is quite another. We’ve long suffered the games of politicians who promise the moon and deliver nothing more than muck. Jauregui’s a man who is committed to doing the right thing whether he loses re-election, is expelled from Congress, or is vilified by the unsavory elements of the American Civil Liberties Union or Southern Poverty Law Center and their lot. He’s counted the cost and he’s willing to pay the price. He’s not interested in a political legacy–a godly one will do just fine.
He’s a leader committed to submission to the Supreme Ruler of the world. Jauregui understands that no judge, no president, no legislator can make right what God has declared wrong.
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004. Text of the bill introduced in Congress in coordination with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. ADERHOLT introduced the following bill
A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the “Constitution Restoration Act of 2004”.
TITLE I—JURISDICTION
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
Ҥ1260. Matters not reviewable
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
“1260. Matters not reviewable.”
(b) APPLICABILITY. Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of the enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL.
(1) Chapter 85 of title 28, United State Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following new section:
“1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title”.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
“1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.”
(b) APPLICABILITY.—Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of the enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE II—INTERPRETATION
SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law.
TITLE III—ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State Court.
SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.
To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of:
(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and
(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
Note: The message below came from a friend who commented on remarks I made about Bill Pryor’s treachery. My response follows.
Daniel,
I think you’ve got Bill Pryor wrong. A quick glance at Romans 13:1-4 reveals that God places individuals in governing positions and requires us to be subject to the authority of those offices. If we only follow those officials when we agree with them, then we are not submitting ourselves to their authority. Thus, we are disobeying God’s command.
I respect Justice Moore and the points he made. However, Justice Moore did not obey God’s command to Christians in Romans 13. After he lost the initial case regarding his display, he should have removed the display pending the hearing of his appeal. This is proper judicial behavior. If Moore had won his appeal, then he could have restored the display. If not, then Moore would have had to make the decision about to go obeying God in a way that brings the most glory to Him.
Actually, if Justice Moore had won his appeal, he probably would have still been removed from office. The rule is, an order must be obeyed until an appeal or stay removes the order. Disobeying an order that is ultimately overturned is still an offense against the law.
If Justice Moore did not in good conscience feel that he could have obeyed God’s command in Romans 13 while still displaying his monument, then he should have resigned his office. God calls us to live a quiet, peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Justice Moore could have been much effective in bringing attention to this matter and glory to God if he had resigned in protest and led the movement as a private citizen.
Bill Pryor demonstrated a willingness to humble himself before God and follow the rule of law–even when it cost him. Pryor did not prosecute Moore in order to gain brownie points with Senate Democrats. Pryor’s too smart to think that he would be cut any slack from them regardless of what he did. Pryor knew that prosecuting Moore would not make him any more popular at home, either. He could have refused to get into the mess and found himself elected governor or senator in a couple of years. Instead, he took his duty to God and the governing authorities seriously even to his own hurt.
Be careful before you impugn the reputation of a man or woman who is doing his or her best to understand God’s commands for us and how to apply those commands in an evil world. If it should prove out (when we all stand before God and ask His supreme opinion) that either or both of these men are right or wrong, we should not be in a position of being forced to recant our harsh words against them–regardless of that outcome.
I hope I’m not being too heavy. I follow these events closely through your list. Sometimes, though, I think that we may be doing a disservice by attacking a Christian so harshly–even if we are absolutely convinced he is wrong. Jesus commanded us to love one another as an example before a world that’s going to Hell. If we fight each other so harshly over disagreements such as this, how will the world ever see the love of God?
Feel free to disagree with me. If we can’t settle it here, we’ll just let our Big Brother settle it for us later.
Sincerely,
Concerned
Dearest Concerned,
We should certainly obey the word of the Lord. Yes, Romans 13:1-4 is a command to “be subject unto the higher powers.” However, to consider the Alabama Ten Commandments issue simply as a case of disobedience due to disagreement is a grave mistake and unjust trivialization.
If we must obey God’s commands, we must obey them in all things. Christ demands obedience and submission to him. By appealing to Romans 13 as the basis for the authority of those who govern, you are, in fact, proving Judge Moore’s point: all authority to govern comes from the hand of the Lord.
And this is the issue. This is not about a piece of stone in some building. Had Judge Moore been prohibited by law from placing the monument in the building, perhaps it would be about the monument. But, as I’m sure you are aware, no law prohibited the monument then and no law does so now.
See, this is about whether any court, any executive, or any legislature has any authority without God. As you’ve so plainly stated, they do not. Judge Moore realizes this. He went about the business of acknowledging the authority of God. He knows that, if we remove from our society the acknowledgement of God as the moral judge superior to our own sinful human desires, we will not long remain an ordered society and we will certainly not remain a just society.
There being no law to compel Judge Moore to remove the monument and there being no law to compel him to not acknowledge God, he was justified in his course of action. In fact, even if there had been a law prohibiting the acknowledgement of God, he still should have done so. No government exists without the authority of God and every government owes God recognition and submission.
Disobeying an illegal order is not illegal. The federal judge’s order had no basis in law. In fact, the plaintiffs alleged that Judge Moore had violated the First Amendment by installing the monument. The federal judge agreed with the plaintiffs. A simple reading of the First Amendment shows that the court’s conclusion was not based on the words of the First Amendment. In fact, the judge’s order that the monument be removed was designed to prevent Judge Moore from doing that which he had lawful authority to do. And, of course, as a constitutional officer of the state of Alabama, he had a legal and moral obligation to acknowledge God. We can’t at once say that the acknowledgement of God is illegal but that the obligation to do so is legal.
The federal judge said that he could not define the word “religion.” But, he also said Judge Moore had illegally established religion. Does that make sense? If I don’t know what a thing is, how can I recognize it when I see it?
The court said it would delay its order to remove the monument while appeals were ongoing. However, even though the appeals process had not been exhausted–the U.S. Supreme Court had yet to render its decision as to whether it would hear Judge Moore’s appeal (a decision that wasn’t given until more than a month later), the federal district court actually terminated the stay of its order and said that the monument should be removed.
You can understand, then, how resigning from office was not an issue or an option for Judge Moore. In fact, he did act in accord with Romans 13. He was living a quiet and peaceable life and was certainly acting godly and honestly. Had he resigned his office, he would have failed in his duty to honor God–a duty that is both religious and civic; it is codified both in Romans 13 and the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
Leading the movement as a private citizen would not have satisfied his Christian responsibility as a public servant. He would have taken the coward’s way out. It was his duty to stand between the tyranny of a federal judge and his cohorts and the liberties of the people as protected by both the federal and state constitutions. Had he simply bowed in obeisance to the ungodly ruling of a federal judge, he would have failed to uphold his responsibility to the people of Alabama, the constitution of our state, and the admonition of Romans 13. This Pauline passage enumerates both the responsibility of the individual and of the state. No government has the right to do that which God has prohibited.
Reflect on the history of the Protestant Reformation. When the Holy Roman Emperor was ready to effect the will of those who wanted to deprive Martin Luther of his life and liberty, the princes of Europe interposed themselves between the greater power of the emperor and the rights of the people. I wonder if the pattern of blind obedience to human rulers that you suggest Judge Moore should have followed would also mean that the German church and citizenry were justified in submission to Adolph Hitler. No, you know as well as I that men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer were justified in opposing the evil of the German state. It is the Scripture that gives the moral authority for us to oppose evil in high places. Rulers are to minister good and “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Romans 13:4). Instead, in this case, those in authority chose to persecute the one doing good.
This is the case against Bill Pryor. He chose to stand in opposition to God. He chose to persecute those who were doing their duty to both God and man. He chose to execute wrath upon the one who was doing good.
No, Mr. Pryor did not humble himself and follow the rule of law. Instead, he followed the path of tyrants and the ungodly. Had he been truly interested in honoring God and doing good and obeying Romans 13, he would have refused to prosecute Judge Moore and he would not have sought publicity so he could try to destroy the reputation of Judge Moore. Neither would Mr. Pryor have prejudiced the Court of the Judiciary by giving the governor an advisory opinion, saying that it was okay for two judges whose terms had already expired to stay on the court to hear Judge Moore’s case. He essentially hand picked two of the judges for the court that he stood before to prosecute Judge Moore.
I was in that courtroom. I saw and heard Bill Pryor say that Judge Moore was unrepentant. I witnessed him tell the court that Judge Moore was unfit for office because he had acknowledged God even when told he shouldn’t. See, there is one thing that both Judge Moore, the federal district judge Myron Thompson, and Bill Pryor agree about: this case was about whether the state may acknowledge God. Pryor stood and asked Judge Moore if he would continue to acknowledge God if returned to his position as chief justice. Of course, Judge Moore answered in the affirmative. And Mr. Pryor asked the court to remove Judge Moore from office.
This is a battle between light and darkness, good and evil. Mr. Pryor chose to stand on the side of those who oppose God. We both know that all we do in this world will be rewarded in the next. Judge Moore fears God more than men. He, like St. Paul, is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for he knows the power of God (Romans 1:16). A man is either justified or condemned by his own words (Matthew 12:35-37).
Indeed, as you mention, the Bible does say that the world will know we are Christ’s disciples by the love we have for one another (John 13:35). How can that love be seen when Mr. Pryor condemns a follower of Christ because that man refuses to deny Christ? Instead of showing love to his brother and, thereby, bringing honor to the name of Christ, Pryor brought a reproach against the name of our Savior. If we deny Christ before men, he will deny us before the Father (Matthew 10:32-33).
In our time, men “hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly” (Amos 5:10). “But, let judgement run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). And, we read in 1 Peter (4:11-19) that judgement should begin at the house of God:
(11) If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
(12) Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (13) But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. (14) If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. (15) But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. (16) Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. (17) For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (18) And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? (19) Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
So, friend, “here I stand: I can do no other.” I will not deny Christ before men–even before men who call themselves by Christ’s name but seek to destroy his children. I won’t close my eyes and hope it all works out in the end when we stand before God. I know my duty and I must do it now.
I will not walk in the counsel of the ungodly–instead, I will delight in the law of the Lord (Psalm 1). Those who oppose Christ and his commands are not his followers and not my brethren. As for those who simply disagree with me, I will consider them enemies in war, in peace friends.
Yours in the bonds of Truth,
Daniel
Following are notes made by Daniel Sparks of the trial of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore before the Court of the Judiciary on charges of ethical misconduct for refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state Judicial Building. Attorney General Bill Pryor prosecuted the Chief Justice.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
9:10 a.m.: Chief Justice Roy Moore enters the courtroom and sits at the defense table. He places books and papers on the table, including his Bible.
9:17 a.m.: Supreme Court Chief Marshal announces that, at counsel request, the proceedings will not start until 9:30.
9:33 a.m.: Court proceedings begin.
Attorney of Chief Justice Moore asks Chief Judge William Thompson if opening in prayer would be appropriate. “Absolutely,” says Judge Thompson. He leads in prayer, asking God to “bless this court.”
Judges and attorneys introduce themselves, stating their names, positions, and hometowns.
State prosecutors: Bill Pryor (Attorney General), Gibbs (Assistant Attorney General), Davis (Chief Assistant Attorney General), Atwood (Assistant Attorney General).
Defense attorneys: Jones, Butts, Wilson.
Charges are read. Allegation of violations of Canons of Judicial Ethics number 1, 2, 2a, and 2b.
Affirmation of pre-trial stipulations of parties, concerning admission of evidence.
Defense attorneys object to four exhibits.
Prosecutors do not object to Defense exhibits.
9:52 a.m.: Opening arguments begin.
Pryor begins opening arguments for State. Says State presentation will be brief. Says court must find Chief Justice guilty of violation of Canons of Judicial Ethics. Says court must remove Chief Justice from office. Says Chief Justice has exhibited “totally unrepentant behavior.”
Wilson makes opening arguments for Defense. Says Chief Justice campaigned for office on platform of restoring moral foundation of law. Says no one, “unless they were in a coma,” were surprised that Chief Justice placed Ten Commandments in the Judicial Building.
10:03 a.m.: State proceeds with case.
State wants to play two video taped speeches by Chief Justice.
Defense objects to playing of videos. Says both videos were taped from television broadcasts. Says there are television commentary and captions on the tapes that are not part of the Chief Justice’s speech. Says the two speeches in question have already been admitted as evidence in written form.
Thompson overrules objection of Defense. Says this was decided in pre-trial proceedings. Says that the judges will ignore the captions and not consider them.
10:35 a.m.: State rests. Presents no evidence other than the videos.
Defense makes immediate motion for acquittal based on lack of evidence by the State.
Thompson says court will consider motion during recess.
10:40 a.m.: Court recesses until 11:00 a.m.
11:07 a.m.: Court resumes.
Thompson announces that the defense motion for acquittal is unanimously denied by the judges.
Defense proceeds with case.
Calls Chief Justice as witness.
Defense attorney objects to placement of witness. Says that having the witness sit at a table facing the nine judges, with his back to the prosecutors/accusers is a highly unusual setting for a courtroom proceeding.
Thompson says that the table is used because of sound difficulties with the witness stand. Says that sound technicians checked the setup before the trial proceedings began and were unable to use any other configuration.
Defense attorney repeats objection. Says that witness stand is normally used and has no sound problems. Asks for sound technicians to be called back to correct problem.
Thompson states that the sound technicians are no longer present.
Defense attorney repeats objection. Says that the Judicial Building normally employs such technicians who could be called to check the configuration.
Thompson states that the witness stand will not be used but that the table and witness’ microphone may be moved somewhat in order to accommodate the witness.
Defense attorney repeats objection and asks that it be entered on the record. Asks if court really wishes to overrule this objection and have the Chief Justice face the judges with his back to his accusers, similar to an inquisition.
Chief Justice comes to table to testify. He moves the table and chair around so that it diagonally faces the prosecutors.
Defense questions Chief Justice.
12:01 p.m.: Court recesses for lunch until 1:30 p.m.
1:32 p.m.: Court resumes.
1:34 p.m.: Pryor begins cross-examination of Chief Justice.
Asks if Chief Justice will continue to acknowledge God if he is returned to the bench. Chief Justice says he will continue to acknowledge God just as the court did when it opened the trial proceedings with prayer.
From the Attorney General’s own mouth: Bill Pryor questions Chief Justice Roy Moore.
Q: Mr. Chief Justice? And your understanding is that the federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn’t that right?
A: Yes.
Q: And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today?
A: That’s right.
Q: No matter what any official says?
A: Absolutely. Without–let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgement of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the constitution of Alabama. It says so in the first amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read. So–
Q: The only point I’m trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as Chief Justice, you will continue to do that [acknowledge God] without regard to what any other official says; isn’t that right?
A: Well, I’ll do the same thing this court did with starting a prayer; that’s an acknowledgement of God. Now, we did the same say thing that justices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say, “So help me God.” It’s an acknowledgement of God. The Alabama Supreme Court opened with, “God save the State and this Honorable Court.” It’s an acknowledgement of God. In my opinion, which I have written many opinions, acknowledging God is the source–a moral source of law. I think you must.
1:47 p.m.: Cross-examination completed.
Defense has no redirect.
Judge Vowell questions the Chief Justice. Asks Chief Justice whether he would follow the injunction of the federal district court, if he were returned to the bench.
Chief Justice replies that the order was to remove the monument, that the monument has already been removed; thus, he cannot do what has already been done.
Vowell asks what the Chief Justice would do with the monument.
Chief Justice replies that he has not completely thought through the idea of what he would do with the monument but that he certainly would not leave it in a closet hidden from view.
1:50 p.m.: Defense rests.
1:52 p.m.: State (Assistant Attorney General) begins closing arguments.
Says that Chief Justice made a “public statement that he would not follow the law.” Says that the Chief Justice should be found guilty because he has refused “to comply with the law.” Says that, “in order to comply with the law … he [the Chief Justice] had no choice but to obey the order.”
2:06 p.m.: State ends closing arguments.
Defense attorney Butts gives excellent summary in closing argument.
2:37 p.m.: Defense completes closing arguments.
Pryor begins closing argument.
Calls for conviction of Chief Justice and removal from office. Calls the Chief Justice “unrepentant.”
2:44 p.m.: Pryor ends closing argument.
Thompson says that the court will recess and will “attempt to give sufficient notice” of ruling of the court.
2:45 p.m.: Court recesses.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
11:17 a.m.: Judges enter courtroom. Thompson announces he will read a synopsis of the judgement and that the actual judgement will be available to the media immediately after the court adjourns.
Thompson reads the charges.
Thompson reads the judgement.
“All the members of this court” find that the Chief Justice “willfully and publicly disobeyed a federal court order.” “In defying that court order, the Chief Justice placed himself above the law.” The court finds, by unanimous decision, that the Chief Justice violated canons 1, 2, 2a, and 2b. The Chief Justice has “maintained his defiance” and “showed no signs of contrition.” The court orders, by unanimous decision, that the Chief Justice is to be removed from office. This has been a “difficult decision” but there was “no other viable alternative” than to remove the Chief Justice from the bench.
11:23 a.m.: Court adjourns.
On October 10, 2003, the Red Mass was held at St. Matthew’s Cathedral (Roman Catholic) on Rhode Island Avenue. U.S. Supreme Court justices attended, as well as other government leaders. Ten Commandments supporters were present, both in the service, and on the sidewalks in front of the church. The supporters held signs of the Ten Commandments to remind the Supreme Court justices of the Law of God and to encourage them to hear Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s appeal of his Ten Commandments monument case.
Read the report of this event.
On Sunday, October 5, 2003, I walked a block from my hotel in Washington, D.C. to St. Matthew’s Cathedral on Rhode Island Avenue. A 10 a.m. service was scheduled at the church, where the Red Mass would be celebrated–a service held prior to the beginning of a new session of the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court justices normally attend.
I was walking with two ladies with whom I had been travelling on the Spirit of Montgomery Save the Commandments caravan from Montgomery, Alabama to Washington, D.C. When we approached the block where St. Matthew’s is located, we crossed the street behind police barricades that had been set up to block vehicle traffic on the street immediately in front of the church. Police officers told us to walk up the sidewalk nearest the church, which we did. There was a police line on the edge of the sidewalk on the far side of the street from the church.
We arrived in front of the church within a few seconds and I greeted a pastor who had been travelling with us. He stated that he was going in the church for the service but that others of our group were down at the far end of the sidewalk, outside of the police line, and that the police would not let them come inside the line if they were carrying signs with the Ten Commandments printed on them.
I spoke with others who were entering the church or passing by on the sidewalk. There were, in my estimation, in excess of a thousand people standing on the steps of the church or on the sidewalk in front of the church, all who were apparently waiting to enter the church for the service. There were also numerous others who were freely walking the sidewalks, whether they were simply passing down the sidewalk, coming to join the throng entering the church, or observing the crowd. Across the street, on the sidewalk opposite the church, were three or four television cameras and crews, as well as a couple of wandering news photographers.
After speaking with various people in front of the church, I crossed the street. There, I approached the police line, from inside the line, and spoke to a man standing outside of the line. He informed me that the police had instructed him not to come inside the line because he was holding a pole with a U.S. flag and a cross on it. There were several law enforcement officers who saw me inside the police line and who saw me speaking with this man outside of the line. These officers were located at various places: on the steps of the church, on the sidewalk in front of the church, on the street in front of the church, on the sidewalk across the street from the church, and standing at the far end of the block next to the police tape. One or more of these officers in each of these areas observed my free movement within the police line. At no point was I asked to leave the area.
After speaking to the man with the flag, I walked a few steps down the sidewalk to where the media personnel were located. I stood a few feet from them, observing the crowd. Two of my fellow Alabama citizens, Matt and Alicia Carden, who had been travelling with the caravan, walked up and stood beside me and we began talking. At that time, the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, one of the caravan organizers, walked up and stood immediately beside the television crews. He was holding a sign with the Ten Commandments printed on it. The Cardens and I walked over and stood beside the Rev. Mahoney.
Within a few seconds, federal marshals wearing business attire approached the Rev. Mahoney. The marshals told the Rev. Mahoney that he could not stand there with the sign. The Rev. Mahoney replied that he was going to stand there and that the marshals could arrest him if they had to. The marshals took the Rev. Mahoney by the arms and began leading him toward the far end of the block, where the other people with signs were standing. When the Rev. Mahoney tried to go down on his knees, the marshals dragged him outside of the police line–which had, by that time, been extended across the entire end of the street–and released him.
The Rev. Mahoney immediately turned around, ducked under the police tape, and walked down the same sidewalk toward the area where he had previously been standing. He stopped about twenty feet away from the previous point and stood with the Ten Commandments sign. Mr. Carden then went over to the police line and took a Ten Commandments sign from one of the people there. He then came over and stood beside the Rev. Mahoney. The federal marshals grasped the Rev. Mahoney’s hand and handcuffed him, causing him to drop his sign. They also seized Mr. Carden, causing him to drop his sign near one of the police cars. Mrs. Carden picked up the sign that the Rev. Mahoney had dropped. The marshals seized Mrs. Carden, causing her to drop the sign. The Rev. Mahoney called to Troy Newman, another member of our group, to take pictures of the arrests.
Seeing that the Ten Commandments sign was lying on the street, being trampled by the boots of federal marshals wearing tactical equipment and carrying assault rifles, I reached down and picked up the sign. I held the sign above my head. During this time, the marshals were handcuffing the Cardens. One of the marshals pointed toward me and said three or four times, “We need to get this one.” After the Rev. Mahoney and the Cardens had been handcuffed and lined up against the rear of one of the police cars, one of the marshals approached me. The marshal said, “Sir, put down the sign.” I replied, “No, sir.” He then grasped my left arm and twisted it behind my back, then grasped my right arm, doing the same, which caused me to drop the sign. He then handcuffed me and pushed me against the side of police car, next to the others who had been arrested.
The marshals then had us sit down on the curb, with our feet in the street. Mr. Newman, who was standing approximately ten feet or more away from the officers and us, was approached by one of the officers, who seized him. Another officer took Mr. Newman’s camera and handcuffed him. The marshals had Mr. Newman sit on the curb beside us.
The Rev. Donald Ely, another of our group, came from inside the church, where he had been sitting, waiting for the service to begin. He walked over to us and stood, asking what was going on. The marshals told the Rev. Ely to go outside of the police line. He stated that he wanted to stand there with us. The marshals again told him to go outside of the line, that they did not want to arrest him because he had done nothing wrong. The Rev. Ely affirmed that he had done nothing wrong and insisted that the others of us had done nothing wrong, either. He asked the marshals what we had done wrong. They refused to answer him and, when he refused to walk away, they handcuffed him and had him sit on the curb beside us.
The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police were present but were not involved in the arrests. The marshals had us placed in police cars belonging to the Metro Police. We were eventually taken to the Second District Headquarters station of the Metro Police. We were required to remove our belts, shoelaces, watches, rings, necklaces, and everything from our pockets. The five men were placed in a large holding cell and Mrs. Carden was placed in a small female holding cell. After approximately one hour, a marshal dressed in business attire came to speak to us. He stated that he had been called out of his church service to come process us. He collected our names and other information. A few minutes later, the same marshal came back to verify some additional information. This time, two other marshals who were in uniform accompanied him.
After we furnished the information to the marshals, we continued to wait in the cell. After several hours, the first marshal returned. He told us that we could each pay $300 each and we would be released. We would have to return the next morning for a hearing to set a trial date. Based on previous experience, the Rev. Mahoney and Mr. Newman stated that this was not appropriate. They insisted that the Washington, D.C. “post and forfeit” arrangement should apply in this incident. The marshal left us. He returned a few minutes later and stated that we could each pay $100 as a post and forfeit and we would be free to leave. The Rev. Mahoney insisted that this was not the usual fine. He also requested that he be released on his own recognizance and have his day in court. The marshal again left and returned a few minutes later. This time, the marshal stated that we were being charged with crossing a police line and that we could each pay $25 post and forfeit and we would be released. We agreed to this, with the exception of the Rev. Mahoney. The Rev. Mahoney and Mr. Newman informed the rest of us that the usual post and forfeit amount is $50.
We were each photographed and fingerprinted. The Rev. Mahoney was allowed to speak to someone over the telephone in order to provide the information necessary for his release. The rest of us were then required to pay our $25 fine. Then, each of us was required to give our thumbprints on paperwork. Shortly thereafter, we were each let out of the cell, given our belongings, and released. We walked around the building and entered the front of the police station, where we called for someone to pick us up.
It is important to note that, although we were charged with crossing a police line, some of us did not cross the line. It is also important to note that hundreds of other people were indiscriminately allowed to come inside the police line. Only those who were holding Ten Commandments signs were forbidden to enter. It is again important to note that I was not arrested until I refused to put down the Ten Commandments sign; at no point was I ever told not to enter the police line, nor was I told to go outside of the police line. Regardless of the actual charges by the police, the arrests resulted from the fact that four of us held Ten Commandments signs–and two of us didn’t do anything more than stand on the sidewalk.
It is also important to note that the executive branch of our federal government has the power to enforce laws; in other words, these federal marshals who arrested us are under the direct jurisdiction of the president. On Monday, October 6, I spoke in person about this abuse of power with Mr. H. Goodloe Sutton, Jr., a staff member of U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), and Ms. Jenny Bottegal DiJames, a staff member of U.S. Representative Bud Cramer (D-Alabama). Both seemed concerned about this issue, but gave no indication as to how the congressmen might respond.
The above information is a true and correct representation of the events described.
Sincerely,
The Rev. Daniel J. Sparks