One Dollar For John Doe and 150,000 for the ACLU
I guess the rest of the headline should read negative $414,748.54 for the Barrow County, Georgia.
We’ve met the type before here in our comment section. Anonymouses, scared that the big bad neocon “nazis” might track them back home and pry into their privacy rights, the first amendment of the lefty version of the Consitution called the “living document.” This particular coward was obviously hurt by those highly offensive and controversial ten commandments.
Now after costing the tax payers over $93,747.00, John Doe is finally collecting his check for the damages in the whopping amount of $1.00. Was he just adding insult to injury or was the actual stone tablets dropped on his head?
Nearly two years after an anonymous resident sued the county to remove a framed copy of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse breezeway, Barrow County commissioners authorized a payment of $150,001 to the American Civil Liberties Union and the resident to be paid today with taxpayer dollars.
Commission Chairman Doug Garrison said the county will write two checks, one for $1 to John Doe and the other to the ACLU. The identity of the person who sued the county has remained a secret.
“I hope he signs it and endorses it so when it comes back, we’ll know who he is,” Garrison said of the check to John Doe. “I don’t expect it ever to be cashed.”Source
Of course the little lefty coward won’t cash it, he’ll probably frame it and put it on the wall next to his favorite Jane Fonda poster.
So this is how the left think. One little framed copy of some good moral philosphy is seen as the coming of a dreaded theocracy. The paranoia was so thick in this guys skull that he called the ACLU to protect him. Now he is one dollar richer and the ACLU is laughing all the way to the bank, while the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. But I’m sure it was all worth it to not have to look at those dreaded ten commandments. I guess that shows you what a difference one person can make. The only person in the community offended, and the only one who didn’t stuck with a bill, but actually made a buck off the from it. No wonder he is hiding, he’s got every taxpayer in the County spitting mad over a framed piece of paper that if he doesn’t believe in shouldn’t mean anything to him at all. And all this for the reward of one dollar he probably won’t even cash.
Excuse this rare occasion that I use French, but where I come from, this is the kind of crap that will get your ass kicked. This is what I call a real idiot, and a true coward. Enjoy your dollar John Doe!
Thanks, and Congrats to The Jawa Report
Thank you Mudville Gazette
Email This
Posted by Jay on August 12, 2005 12:05 am
» Filed Under Church And State
Trackback URL:
- Louisiana Libertarian: Perhaps I was wrong...
Comments
36 Responses to “One Dollar For John Doe and 150,000 for the ACLU”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Another good one Jay. If you will excuse my French. Historically, Liberals have proven that they are spinless pusseys.
Very possibly there never was a John Doe. In the case of the ACLU’s attempt to get the Koran permitted into the courtroom, they are no “John Doe’s”, they didn’t even get anyone to confirm that they wanted to be represented in the case – the ACLU just filed on behalf of all the Jews and Muslims in the state. Talk about identity theft…
“Of course the little lefty coward won’t cash it, he’ll probably frame it and put it on the wall next to his favorite Jane Fonda poster.”
I wonder why they paid him in a way that would break his anonymity. I’d sue over that.
If you want to stop giving money to the ACLU via the courts, might I suggest not having your city, state, and federal officials wasting your time and money fighting things that are clearly unconstitional. How is the ACLU to blame when the Ten Commandments aren’t supposed to be in a courthouse? It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
The only reason why the taxpayer is stuck with the bill is because someone in the Barrow County Courthouse decided that this was a worthwhile case (when legal precedent shows that it’s a loser, through and through). The only people to blame here are the administrators of Barrow County. They broke the law.
Representatives representing the will of the majority of its citizens’ values is not breaking the law.
The case of ten commandments being in the Court House is not breaking the law either, and case by case each one has been different according to the judge and circumstances. Its not so cut and dry of an issue as you like to believe.
What is at stake is more than just freedom of expression, but also American history and tradition. The ACLU would love to erase every notion of Christianity being a part of our history.
The ten commandments are a philosphy that has impacted and helped shape American law…to do away with the history of their influence is to try and rewrite history.
“Representatives representing the will of the majority of its citizens’ values is not breaking the law.”
represent the unconstitutional? ya.
“The ten commandments are a philosphy that has impacted and helped shape American law”
I’d say a good compromise would be to only post the 4 or so that actually are illegal, like perjury and murder.
“What is at stake is more than just freedom of expression, but also American history and tradition. The ACLU would love to erase every notion of Christianity being a part of our history.”
I hear you on the case-by-case basis. That’s definitely the law as written. However, the state has no freedom of expression — only the duty to uphold the citizen’s right to freedom of expression. When courts advocate a particularly religious tradition, it can imply an allegance from the state to that religious tradition.
In my opinion (and in some cases, the courts opinion as well), that allegance is untennable in a free society.
As for History — I don’t think the ACLU cares for erasing history. I can see how these changes might make someone feel like that, but they’re not asking to change the law or anything? They’re just suing the state to abide by the laws that were created. If they lose, they were wrong and the state was right. If they win, the state was wrong. I don’t think it’s really about a dislike for religion, so much as it’s an understanding that the state should have no business with religion: because it doesn’t lead to much good for the two to be entangled.
I think the argument is about whether or not the state can continue to singularly honor and sanction a particular religion and religious tradition. You definitely don’t want the state telling you to put their laws in your churches, temples, or what-have you. Why should the state put the ten commandments in it’s courts?
“If you want to stop giving money to the ACLU via the courts, might I suggest not having your city, state, and federal officials wasting your time and money fighting things that are clearly unconstitional. How is the ACLU to blame when the TEN Commandments aren’t supposed to be in a courthouse? It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.”
Do you really want to debate this one?
“I’d say a good compromise would be to only post the 4 or so that actually are illegal, like perjury and murder.”
If you are going to recognize any and post them…Post them ALL!… God didn’t say to comprimise OR to pick and choose!
“I think”…(again, no you don’t!) the argument is about whether or not the state can continue to singularly honor and sanction a particular religion and religious tradition.”
We have explained how Christianity is the basis for American Law! We can present it on a 5th grade level, 3rd grade level and 1st grade level and you STILL don’t get it!
If I could reduce it to ‘moron level’…I would, but I still doubt you would comprehend.
Morality ‘ADDS’ to the ‘State’ the ‘State’ CAN NOT ‘ADD’ to ‘morality’
If I were an artist…I would resort to pictures!
“If you are going to recognize any and post them…Post them ALL!… God didn’t say to comprimise OR to pick and choose!”
unfortunately, the constitution says otherwise, and some of them clearly cannot be made into laws.
Fortunately, the Constitution says otherwise, and ALL of them clearly have become laws.
there…thats better! And accurate!
“We have explained how Christianity is the basis for American Law!”
It’s still against the law. It doesn’t matter if it hurts your feelings, it’s still against the law for the reasons outlined above. That’s why the state loses so many of these cases.
“Morality ‘ADDS’ to the ‘State’ the ‘State’ CAN NOT ‘ADD’ to ‘morality’”
The state doesn’t deal in morality, period. It deals in legality, order, and justice. The sooner you let go the idea that the state deals in morality at all, the happier you’ll be. Why are you so interested in having the state legislate religious morality for you?
Don’t you believe in the self-determination of the citizen?
“Fortunately, the Constitution says otherwise, and ALL of them clearly have become laws”
There’s no way to make a law against having other gods, or craven images, taking the lords name in vain, or requiring that the sabbath be holy, or requiring that one honor their father and mother, nor is it illegal to covet. It might be ok to criminalize adultery.
Perhaps some of these can not be made into law, but that is irrelevant. They have influenced the shaping of American law, and deserve their honor of being a part of that.
The structure of modern American law is derived from the Ten Commandments. Historically speaking, the Ten Commandments provided the basis for the division of law into branches of constitutional, criminal, family, property, contract, and tort law. Official recognition of this historical fact does not establish a religion.
Every commandment has played a key role in American legal history. Whether revisionists want to admit it or not, the entire Ten Commandments were incorporated into the civil and criminal laws of the colonies and shaped the common law of the colonies.
American courts repeatedly have acknowledged the foundational role of the Commandments. Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly have recognized the foundational role the Ten Commandments played in the development of our legal system. And state Supreme Court decisions contain well over 100 references to the Commandments.
Have no other gods.
This first commandment of the Decalogue is incorporated into the very first written code of laws enacted in America, those of the Virginia Colony. In 1610, in a law enacted by the Colony leaders, it was declared:
Since we owe our highest and supreme duty, our greatest and all our allegiance to Him from whom all power and authority is derived, and flows as from the first and only fountain, and being especially soldiers impressed in this sacred cause, we must alone expect our success from Him who is only the blesser of all good attempts, the King of kings, the Commander of commanders, and Lord of hosts, I do strictly command and charge all Captains and Officers of what quality or nature soever, whether commanders in the field, or in town or towns, forts or fortresses, to have a care that the Almighty God be duly and daily served, and that they call upon their people to hear sermons, as that also they diligently frequent morning and evening prayer themselves by their own example and daily life and duties herein, encouraging others thereunto.
A subsequent 1641 Massachusetts legal code also incorporated the thrust of this command of the Decalogue into its statutes. Significantly, the very first law in that State code was based on the very first command of the Decalogue, declaring:
If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Deut. 13.6, 10, Deut. 17.2, 6, Ex. 22.20.
The 1642 Connecticut law code also made this command of the Decalogue its first civil law, declaring:
If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death (Duet. 13.6 and 17.2, Ex. 22.20).
There are numerous other examples affirming that the first commandment of the Decalogue indeed formed an historical part of American civil law.
Have no idols.
Typical of the civil laws prohibiting idolatry was a 1680 New Hampshire idolatry law that declared:
Idolatry. It is enacted by ye Assembly and ye authority thereof, yet if any person having had the knowledge of the true God openly and manifestly have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Ex. 22.20, Deut. 13.6 and 10.
Additional examples from colonial codes demonstrate that the second commandment also was historically a part of American civil law.
Honor the Sabbath day.
First is the inclusion in the U. S. Constitution of the recognition of the Sabbath in Art. I, Sec. 7, ¶ 2, stipulating that the President has 10 days to sign a law, “Sundays excepted.” The “Sundays excepted” clause had previously appeared in the individual State constitutions of that day, and therefore, when incorporated into the U. S. Constitution, carried the same meaning that had been established by traditional usage in the States. That meaning was then imparted into the constitutions of the various States admitted into the Union subsequent to the adoption of the federal Constitution. The historical understanding of this clause was summarized in 1912 by the Supreme Court of Missouri which, expounding on the meaning of this provision in its own State constitution and in the U. S. Constitution, declared:
It is provided that if the Governor does not return a bill within 10 days (Sundays excepted), it shall become a law without his signature. Although it may be said that this provision leaves it optional with the Governor whether he will consider bills or not on Sunday, yet, regard being had to the circumstances under which it was inserted, can any impartial mind deny that it contains a recognition of the Lord’s Day as a day exempted by law from all worldly pursuits? The framers of the Constitution, then, recognized Sunday as a day to be observed, acting themselves under a law which exacted a compulsive observance of it. If a compulsive observance of the Lord’s Day as a day of rest had been deemed inconsistent with the principles contained in the Constitution, can anything be clearer than, as the matter was so plainly and palpably before the Convention, a specific condemnation of the Sunday law would have been engrafted upon it? So far from it, Sunday was recognized as a day of rest.
The second point establishing the impact of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue on American law is seen in the civil process clauses of the early State legal codes which forbade legal action on the Sabbath. For example, an 1830 New York law declared:
Civil process cannot, by statute, be executed on Sunday, and a service of such process on Sunday is utterly void and subjects the officer to damages.
Similar laws may be found in Pennsylvania in 1682 and 1705, Vermont in 1787, Connecticut in 1796, New Jersey in 1798, etc.
The third point establishing the long-standing effect of the fourth commandment on American law and jurisprudence is demonstrated by the fact that Sabbath laws remain constitutional today, and many communities still practice and enforce those laws.
Examples of the early implementation of this fourth commandment into civil law are seen in the Virginia laws of 1610, the New Haven laws of 1653, the New Hampshire laws of 1680, the Pennsylvania laws of 1682 and 1705, the South Carolina laws of 1712, the North Carolina laws of 1741, the Connecticut laws of 1751, etc.
In 1775, and throughout the American Revolution, Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued military orders directing that the Sabbath be observed. His order of May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge was typical:
The Commander in Chief directs that divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o’clock in those brigades to which there are chaplains; those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will by their attendance set an example to their men.
Washington issued numerous similar orders throughout the Revolution.
In the Federal Era and well beyond, states continued to enact and reenact Sabbath laws. In fact, the States went to impressive lengths to uphold the Sabbath. For example, in 1787, Vermont enacted a ten-part law to preserve the Sabbath; in 1791, Massachusetts enacted an eleven-part law; in 1792, Virginia enacted an extensive eight-part law -a law written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison; in 1798, New Jersey enacted a twenty-one-part law; in 1799, New Hampshire enacted a fourteen-part law; in 1821, Maine enacted a thirteen-part law; etc.
These Sabbath laws-and scores of others like them – were nothing less than the enactment of the fourth commandment in the Decalogue. In fact, in 1967, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania provided a thorough historical exegesis of those laws and concluded:
“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work.” This divine pronouncement became part of the Common Law inherited by the thirteen American colonies and by the sovereign States of the American union.
In 1950, the Supreme Court of Mississippi had similarly declared:
The Sunday laws have a divine origin. Blackstone (Cooley’s) Par. 42, page 36. After the six days of creation, the Creator Himself rested on the Seventh. Genesis, Chapter 2, verses 2 and 3. Thus, the Sabbath was instituted, as a day of rest. The original example was later confirmed as a commandment when the law was handed down from Mt. Sinai: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
Similar declarations may be found in the courts of numerous other States, including New York, Alabama, Florida, Oregon, and Kentucky, Georgia, Minnesota, etc.
However, before any of these contemporary courts had acknowledged that the Sabbath laws were derived from the Decalogue, John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, had confirmed that the source of civil Sabbath laws were the divine commands. As he explained:
There were several divine, positive ordinances . . . of universal obligation, as the Sabbath.
There are numerous other examples demonstrating that the fourth commandment of the Decalogue played an important historical role in American civil law.
While contemporary critics argue that the first four commands of the Decalogue were inconsequential in our history or that they should not be publicly displayed today, the facts prove that they exerted a substantial influence on American law and jurisprudence. In fact, the 1922 Iowa Supreme Court rejected the assertion that only one side of the Decalogue was important to American law, declaring:
The observance of Sunday is one of our established customs. It has come down to us from the same Decalogue that prohibited murder, adultery, perjury, and theft. It is more ancient than our common law or our form of government. It is recognized by Constitutions and legislative enactments, both State and federal. On this day Legislatures adjourn, courts cease to function, business is suspended, and nation-wide our citizens cease from labor.
Whether individuals today agree with those early laws based on the first four commandments in the Decalogue in no manner lessens their historical impact.
Honor your parents.
This fifth command begins the so – called second “tablet” of the Decalogue – the section addressing “civil” behavior that even critics acknowledge to be appropriate for public display. This portion of the Decalogue formed the basis of many of our current criminal laws and modern courts are not reticent to acknowledge and enforce these commandments. As the Supreme Court of Indiana declared in 1974:
Virtually all criminal laws are in one way or another the progeny of Judeo-Christian ethics. We have no intention to overrule the Ten Commandments.
Yet the mandates of the Decalogue currently embodied in our criminal laws are no less religiously-based than were the first four commandments. For example, a 1642 Connecticut law addressing the fifth commandment specifically cited both the Decalogue and additional Bible verses as the basis for its civil laws related to honoring parents:
If any child or children above sixteen years old, and of sufficient understanding shall curse or smite their normal father or mother, he or they shall be put to death; unless it can be sufficiently testified that the parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the education of such children, or so provoke them by extreme and cruel correction that they have been forced thereunto to preserve themselves from death [or] maiming. Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20, Ex. 20:15
This law also appears in other State codes as well.
Even three centuries after these early legal codes, this commandment was still influencing civil laws-as confirmed in 1934 by a Louisiana appeals court that cited the fifth commandment of the Decalogue as the basis of civil policy between parents and children:
“ ‘Honor thy father and thy mother,’ is as much a command of the municipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue, regarded as holy by every Christian people. ‘A child,’ says the code, ‘whatever be his age, owes honor and respect to his father and mother.’ ”
Other courts have made similar declarations, all confirming that the fifth commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
Do not covet.
This tenth commandment in the Decalogue actually forms the basis for many of the prohibitions found in the other commandments. That is, a violation of this commandment frequently precedes a violation of the other commandments. As William Penn, the framer of the original laws of Pennsylvania, declared:
He that covets can no more be a moral man than he that steals since he does so in his mind. Nor can he be one that robs his neighbor of his credit, or that craftily undermines him of his trade or office.
John Adams, one of only two individuals who signed the Bill of Rights, also acknowledged the importance of this commandment, declaring:
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet” and “Thou shalt not steal” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
Many courts have also acknowledged the importance of this provision of the Decalogue. For example, in 1895, the California Supreme Court cited this prohibition as the basis of civil laws against defamation. In 1904, the Court of Appeals in West Virginia cited it as the basis of laws preventing election fraud. In 1958, a Florida appeals court cited it as the basis of laws targeting white-collar crime. And in 1951, the Oregon Supreme Court cited this Decalogue prohibition as the basis of civil laws against modern forms of cattle rustling. There are numerous other examples that all affirm that the tenth commandment of the Decalogue did indeed form an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
Good job Jay.
I didn’t realize how much history there was between The Bible and American law.
Makes you wonder why Barrow County didn’t do the research, like you did, and show that the Ten Commandments have a place in history and law, which should make it acceptable to be displayed at a courthouse where the law is upheld.
The God-haters of this country are trying to erase everything that has any moral connection to The Bible whatsoever, and that’s disturbing.
It’s no wonder the majority of Muslims worldwide have no sympathy for America anymore. Why would they sympathize with a country that is actively stomping out anything to do with God, when that’s what they base their beliefs around?
I bet if America stood comfortably side by side with the moral values of The Bible once more, the other religious leaders of the world would recognize that America IS out for the greater good of mankind and NOT trying to stomp out their religious beliefs by imposing democracy on them.
But they see it as; Democracy here in America is the reason for the moral decline of the population, so they reject it.
Thank you Jay! Excellent work on your part.
“Perhaps some of these can not be made into law, but that is irrelevant. They have influenced the shaping of American law, and deserve their honor of being a part of that.”
I know, and we can display the laws that have resulted, as well as teh ones that are still illegal, as a nice compromise.
I have concluded that fark did not read my entire comment, for he is still asking for a compromise of some sort. I have shown how each of the ten commandments that were claimed to have no impact on our laws did in fact influence them. You obviously have no basis in this debate. Move along.
“I have shown how each of the ten commandments that were claimed to have no impact on our laws did in fact influence them”
I’m not talking about influence, but the ones that are still illegal. No matter how many pre-bill of rights laws you cite against idolatry, a prohibition on such clearly violates the bill of rights.
Then we are talking about two different things. I am talking about how they INFLUENCED American law. On this basis is why I believe they are part of our history, and deserve a place of honor in our Courts.
Mr. John Doe doesn’t know it but if he is (and I highlight IF) a taxpayer, then he got even less than the awarded $1.00. The ACLU actually got Mr. Doe’s $1.00 since it was his taxes that helped pay his share of the ACLU’s $150,000 winnings. He, along with the rest of WE taxpayers are $150,000 in the hole…that’s what happens when the ACLU is out to screw even wacko’s like Mr. Doe! For every dollar we pay in taxes, the ACLU takes how much by their lawsuits?
The ACLU truly is laughing all the way to the bank…building their little Communist against Christian warchest.
“On this basis is why I believe they are part of our history, and deserve a place of honor in our Courts.”
Unfortunately they also violate the establishment clause. And so I propose the compromise that we list the ones that are still illegal.
Certainly you don’t want to list the ones whose ‘influence’ is quite contrary to our laws, like the prohibition on idolatry.
In my belief, Moses was instructed to write ten commandments, not 9, not 5, not 3, but ten. I would not propose to remove any of them.
The entire concept of the ten commandments had its place in influence of our law. I will end my debate with this…they all deserve a place of honor. All of them. In our Courts, as a symbol of law, and in respect for their influence, and impact on American law and history.
“In my belief, Moses was instructed to write ten commandments, not 9, not 5, not 3, but ten. I would not propose to remove any of them”
I know. you’re not interested in compromise, only your uncompromising establishment of religion. too bad.
“It’s no wonder the majority of Muslims worldwide have no sympathy for America anymore. Why would they sympathize with a country that is actively stomping out anything to do with God, when that’s what they base their beliefs around?”
First of all, who cares if they have sympathy for us? Why do you want to have a load of radicals sympathizing with you? Any Muslim who isn’t a radical, already does sympathize with us. And is reverting to a theocratic system of government going to make anything better? I think that just makes it Christianity vs. Islam. That sounds like a really terrific idea!
Second of all, “stomping out God” isn’t at all what’s happening at all. The lines of law have been very clear: no state sanctioned religion. End of story. It doesn’t matter if it’s “where it all came from.”
As for the fact that the ten commandments “influenced” our laws and therefore should be place prominantly in our courts: couldn’t we then put up other religious law too? I mean, the Judeo-Christian tradition was heavily influenced by Roman laws — and often held up as a model for government, so it may be appropriate to put the progenitor of the commandments and democracy as well (since they have a precursor).
Why are you advocating turning America into a Christian theocracy?
We most certainly can put symbols of whatever other religion has actually INFLUENCED the development of American law in our Courts. I’m not sure what kind of impact Buddah actually had in American ideals and foundation, but if it can be shown he was of any significant influence, then a big fat statue I would have no problem with. Whatever religious symbol, and non-religious philophies that actually impacted American law should definitely have its place.
I beleive if you look at the Supreme Court’s example they include a myriad of symbols. However, the exclusion of one or more of these symbols in a particular Court does not imply endorsment or preference.
No one is advocating a theocracy.
“No one is advocating a theocracy.”
No. you just want to highilight past unconstitutional laws establishing religion.
“no state sanctioned religion.”
I would be interested in seeing your ‘factual’ proof, supporting that statement.
“Why are you advocating turning America into a Christian theocracy?”
Statements like that demonstrate, at the very least, an ignorance toward our Republican form of Government.
fark…
“No. you just want to highilight past unconstitutional laws establishing religion.”
We have had no ‘past unconstitutional laws ESTABLISHING religion’! Nor do we now.
“We have had no ‘past unconstitutional laws ESTABLISHING religion’! Nor do we now.”
my fault. they were free exercise problems, not establishment problems. I’m referring to the prohibitions on idolatry you posted.
I’d file my check away for remembrance of my ethical victory.
According to the religious, the 10 C’s are God’s law. Placing God’s law into a courtroom influences those who are religious. All men are created equal, but with a religious bias against one, look at what happens (Jesus).
Since the 10 C’s clearly state there is a God, and where do you find God, religion. By deduction, one concludes that the 10 C’s establish religion.
” By deduction, one concludes that the 10 C’s establish religion”
also by the fact that not all religions have them.