Blog Against Roy

Collin and Slade have set up a new blog "dedicated to keeping Roy Moore out of the Governor's Mansion in 2006." Both guys have political ambitions themselves - Colin wants to be President and Slade wants to be Governor - so I'm sure they'll have some interesting views to share.

I'm not a big fan of Judge Moore myself. In many ways, he seems to be a classic demagogue, preying on popular emotions in order to enhance his own political prospects.

Nonetheless, much of what Moore has to say is right on the money. For example, his arguments defending the right of government to acknowledge God are quite compelling. In a 2003 interview with Time Magazine, he said:

A lot of people have been deceived by false representation of separation of church and state saying it forbids an acknowledgment of God. Indeed, the very words "separation of church and state" do not say "separation of God and government." The very separation of church and state exists because God ordained both the state and the church and gave them different roles and functions...

...judges have departed from constitutional interpretation and have gone to their own feelings. One justice, by the name of Curtis, said "When a strict interpretation of the constitution according to the fixed rules which govern an interpretation of laws is abandoned and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution, we are under a government of individuals who for the time being have the power to declare what the constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean." What Justice Curtis said in 1858 is true today. We are no longer under a constitution, we are under a government of individuals who for the time being have the power to declare what the constitution is according to their own views of what they think it ought to mean. That's what this judge did in this case [the Roy's Rock case], he did it in violation of the Tenth Amendment, he did it in violation of the First Amendment and he issued an unlawful order when he commanded that we could not recognize God under the Alabama constitution.

None of that should cause mainstream conservatives too many headaches. Moore's quote from Justice Curtis's dissent in the infamous Dred Scott case is as applicable today as it was 148 years ago. Indeed, the very same issue is at the center of today's battles over the future of the federal courts.

That doesn't mean that Roy Moore should be elected Governor or even that he should have been elected to the state Supreme Court. There are plenty of reasons to question whether he has the proper demeanor to hold public office. However, his views shouldn't be dismissed out of hand simply because they are mocked by cultural liberals or because his methods may seem objectionable. Let's not forget - both Governor Riley and former Attorney General Bill Pryor defended Judge Moore's Ten Commandments display; it was only when he chose to defy a federal court order that they withdrew their support.

If Moore decides to challenge Governor Riley in the Republican primary, I doubt that I'd seriously consider voting for him, but I'd still like to hear what he has to say. To date, he is known for his Ten Commandments stance and little else. It could be that Moore's vision for Alabama would entail a series of unwinnable constutional crises pitting the state against the federal government, and doing more harm than good. We've been there and done that, and it ain't pretty. Obviously, that's a notion that Moore has to dispel if he is to gain support from the mainstream of his party. On the other hand, Moore could also turn out to be the type of free-market, small-government cultural conservative that I could live with. Who knows? In any event, his candidacy will annoy liberals here in Alabama and across the country, so I'm all for it...Run Roy Run!