Moore followed the Constitution as a judge
I am as troubled by a 70-year-old man becoming a U.S. Senator who allegedly attempted to seduce a 14 year-old-girl 38 years ago as I am with allegations of “me too” women alleging something similar. Thus far, proof of these accusations is not conclusive. And I question the timing — just before an election — which potentially disrupts the balance of power in the Senate.
Moreover, this seems like the same movie that I watched on others the left wanted to destroy, notably Clarence Thomas and Donald Trump, while John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, whom the left solidly supported, both had sexual relations with an intern in the White House. So I avoid rushing to judgment on Moore until conclusive evidence is available.
Unfortunately, no one is writing about Roy Moore as the judge who used the Constitution to defend the Ten Commandments and the Defense of Marriage Act, issues which made him indisputably the most hated judge in America by the left. That hatred began when Moore, a newly-elected circuit judge, placed a wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments on the wall of his courtroom. This and his practice of having pre-session prayer in his courtroom asking for divine guidance for jurors in their deliberations resulted in non-Christian hatred toward him.
His designing and placing a monument of the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court building amplified such. The ACLU successfully sued to have it removed. Moore refused on the basis that the Ten Commandments are the “moral foundation” of U.S. law, stating that in order to restore this foundation, “we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs … the sovereignty of God.” For this, he was removed from his judgeship.
His defense of the Defense of Marriage Act was the second unpardonable sin for the left. In state after state, the Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman was passed. Likewise, in state after state, after passage, nonelected federal appellate judges ruled same-sex marriage to be constitutional, reversing the will of the majority. Justice Moore gave the constitutional argument in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act when he wrote that the U.S. Constitution gives no jurisdiction whatsoever to any branch of the federal government to dictate marriage policy to the states and advised Alabama Governor Robert Bentley to disallow county clerks from issuing samesex marriage licenses.
In a hand-delivered letter to Governor Robert Bentley on Jan. 27, 2015, Justice Moore argued that “nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage” and that it decidedly trumps Alabama state law, more specifically the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment passed in 2006 by 81 percent of her voters. Moreover, “44 federal justices have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states.” This he called judicial tyranny, which he defined as “unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.” He referred to the misuse of more recent interpretations of equal protection, due process and full faith and credit concepts, as “specious pretexts” not part of the original document.
When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution they recognized two coexisting governments known as Federalism: one, the federal government, to function primarily externally, the other, the states, to manage internal functions. Like a normal marriage they functioned — neither being master nor slave. Of the two, only the federal government was restricted in its functions by a list of 17 specific powers found in Article I, Section 8. The Founders knew that all central governments like to grow. The states were left unrestricted and all power not identified was intentionally left to them and lesser governments.
To make doubly certain that this limitation on the federal government was permanent, the States insisted on a Bill of Rights as a condition of their acceptance of the Constitution. Amendment 10 of it reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Unfortunately for advocates of federalizing “loving relationships,” the word marriage, or anything like unto it, is not in Section 8, nor has it been added to the Constitution by way of amendment through Article V, which is the process for change, and thus this issue is devoid of federal constitutional authority. If we are to follow the Constitution as intended, and not make a mockery of it, marriagerelated questions are state functions alone and cannot be moved to a federal jurisdiction without a three-quarters affirmative vote of the states as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Alabama has every constitutional right not to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
Judge Moore knows and honors the Constitution as understood by its Founders, resulting in his having many enemies. Is that hatred enough to fabricate child sexual assault stories never before mentioned? Quite possibly! Many of us still believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty. So until then, we should support Mr. Moore. The left has a long history of giving a pass regarding the personal conduct of its favorites but will bring quick attention to anyone else alleged doing something similar, more especially if it changes the Senate to its favor and disrupts the Trump agenda.
Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. To read more of his weekly articles, visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.