ner of discharging it. It was to keep Federal Government out of the affairs of the State. Mr. SMITH. Judge Moore, to follow up on your football metaphor, I'm afraid I'm going to need to call a time out. And we will proceed with our questions. Thank you for your testimony. [The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROY S. MOORE Written Statement of the Honorable Roy S. Moore House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Hearing on the Constitution Restoration Act September 13, 2004 I am here today to discuss how the federal courts have strayed from the Constitution on an issue that I believe strikes at the core of who we are a nation: the acknowledgment of God. For over fifty years, the federal courts have steadily eroded our first freedom, the freedom of conscience, and have attempted to replace the Godly foundation upon which this country was built with a foundation that espouses the philosophy of secular humanism, demanding people's ultimate allegiance to the state rather than to God. Couched in the innocuous language of "neutrality toward religion," the federal courts deceive those unfamiliar with our history into believing that the First Amendment's prohibition against "establishment[s] of religion" requires the complete removal of God from the public square. Nothing could be further from the truth, yet our courts continue unchecked ordering the cessation of any act or mention by a public official acknowledging God, spurred on by a coterie of anti-religious zealots led by the ACLU. Indeed, just this past June the entire country took a collective breath while the fate of the phrase "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance depended upon the opinions of eight justices who seriously considered whether those words violate the First Amendment. This should not be! We dodged that bullet, but only on a technicality, and it is quite possible that the next time' we will not be so fortunate and the Court will do what its current precedent (as distinguished from the law) demands by declaring the Pledge unconstitutional. We are at a point where Alexander Hamilton's now infamous statement labeling the federal courts as "the least dangerous" branch of government3 is 1 Michael Newdow, the plaintiff in the case challenging the Pledge, has already indicated that the issue is "just going to go right back” to the Supreme Court because he has been in contact with numerous people who have expressed a willingness to be plaintiffs" in a future challenge. Television interview by Heidi Collins with Michael Newdow (June 14, 2004), available at http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/ 06/14/newdow!. 2 See Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v . Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 2301 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring) (explaining that an honest application of the Supreme Court's "coercion" test analysis dictated the result reached by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when it declared the Pledge to be unconstitutional). THE FEDERALIST No. 78, at 402 (Alexander Hamilton) (George W. Carey & James McClellan eds. 2001). Hamilton made this observation because, as he pointed out, “the judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." Id. viewed as laughable and naive in today's lawsuit-happy age in which a person who feels offended can erase over two hundred years of history simply by appealing to what is rapidly becoming "the despotic branch." But this is America, and we are not without recourse against the federal courts' efforts to ensure that this country turns from God. If Congress would exercise the power it has under Article III of the United States Constitution, the unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction by the federal courts would cease and no longer would they run roughshod over the will of the American people. I implore you to act! But in order to gain a proper perspective of how far we have strayed from the Constitution, let us examine a few legal and historical facts. I. The Acknowledgment of God A) God and Religion 4 In the case of Glassroth v. Moore, I refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments or stop the acknowledgment of God even though an unlawful order from a federal district judge commanded me to do so. Because of that refusal, the monument was removed to a locked closet and I was removed from office. The federal district court that ruled the monument to be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment concluded that I had "placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton granite monument-engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God-in the Alabama Judicial Build with the specific purpose and effect... of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws." Glassroth v. Moore. As if to leave no doubt as to why the district court felt the monument was unconstitutional, the court ended its opinion with an even more explicit explanation of the "wrong" I had committed: "If all Chief Justice Moore had done were to emphasize the Ten Id. at 1318 (emphasis added). Unfortunately, the Founders' grand design and the modern reality in the courts have become two vastly different things. Despite the district court's stern conclusion, the Establishment Clause says no such thing. In fact, with respect to this issue the First Amendment simply provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Putting aside for purposes of this hearing the obvious fact that the monument I put on public display in no way shape or form resembles a "law," and foregoing any discussion of the plain truth that the monument does not constitute an "establishment" under any generally understood definition of that term, the point that must be emphasized is that the monument does not represent "religion." As the term "religion" was understood at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, it did not constitute the general acknowledgment of God. A religion, as understood by the founding generation, dictates both the duties we owe to our Creator and the manner in which we discharge, or carry out, those duties. This definition of the word "religion" was used in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments of 1785, and the North Carolina (1788), Rhode Island (1790), and Virginia (1788) Ratifying Conventions' proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. Under this widely accepted definition, a "religion" dictates not only that a person is to worship God, but also how he or she is to do so. In contrast, an acknowledgment of God recognizes God's existence, place, and influence in our society." B) Historical Precedents 8 7 There have been acknowledgments of God throughout our history that, until the modern Supreme Court decided otherwise, were never considered to be government establishments of religion. In fact, our Nation was founded upon a document that explicitly acknowledges God: the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration intones that “all men” are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” that we were entitled to independence based on “the Laws of Nature and Nature's God,” and it invokes "a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence" for the act of declaring independence. Benjamin Franklin, during a particularly contentious debate in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, "beg[ged] leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service. While Franklin's request was voted down due to the pressing business in the Convention (the delegates believed they would have to find and pay a church pastor to perform the prayer), his proposal was a direct precursor to 8 U.S. Const., amend. I. Virginia Const, Art. I, § 16 (1776). J. Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, (June 20, 1785) in 5 The Founders Constitution 82 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987). り Remarks made by President Bush concerning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling regarding the Pledge of Allegiance indicate that he, like those of the founding generation, understands this distinction: "Declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate rights. As a matter of fact, it's a confirmation of the fact that we receive our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence." Jimmy Moore, Pledge Protection Act Blocked by House Judiciary Committee Chairman, TALON NEWS, Sept. 17, 2003, available at http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/ talonnews/0903/091703-pledge.htm. action taken by the First Congress, which nine days after it convened with a quorum, on April 9, 1789, appointed two chaplains of different denominations to serve in the House and Senate respectively, paying them a salary of $500 each for their services." Immediately following the approval of the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) by Congress on September 25, 1789, Congress passed a resolution requesting that the President of the United States "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.' President Washington heartily agreed with the Congressional recommendation and declared: 9:12 "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of 13 Most of the Presidents of the United States have followed Washington's example by calling upon the American people to pause for national thanksgiving and prayer in times of crisis. Starting with Abraham Lincoln in November 1863, Presidents for the next 75 years annually declared a day of national thanksgiving until Congress permanently established a national holiday of thanksgiving in 1941. Since the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal judicial officers have been required to take an oath of office swearing to support the United States Constitution that concludes with the phrase, "So help me God." That requirement remains unchanged to this day." 14 Due to an outpouring of pleas from people across the country during the Civil War, then Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase by letter instructed James Pollack, Director of the U.S. Mint at Philadelphia, on November 20, 1861, to prepare a motto incorporating God to be placed on U.S. coins. "Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. "You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition." 11 See David S. Barton, "Franklin's Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention," at http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=19. 13 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 949-50 (Joseph Gales ed., 1789). 4 The Papers of George WashINGTON, PRESIDENTIAL SERIES 131-32 (W. W. Abbot et al, eds., 1987) (emphasis added). 14 See 28 U.S.C. § 453. 15 Fact Sheets: Currency & Coins-History of “In God WE Trust," United States Department of the Treasury, at http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html (emphasis added). |