Letter From Alabamarnby Michael HillrnJudge Roy Moore vs. the ACLUrnThe American Civil Liberties Union isrnsuing Roy S. Moore, the Etowah Countyrn(Alabama) Circuit Judge, for having thernTen Commandments on the wall of hisrncourtroom and for beginning each sessionrnwith a prayer, on the usual groundsrnthat a “wall of separation” stands betweenrngovernment and religion. JudgernMoore agrees—up to a point. Whilernrecognizing that he is indeed part of therngovernment, Moore points out that hernrepresents Alabama and not the federalrnLeviathan. Therefore, he is upholdingrnstate law as well as the fundamentalrnpremise on which the Republic wasrnfounded: that the unalienable rights ofrnAmericans come from Cod and notrnfrom government. In the opinion ofrnJudge Moore and the great majority ofrnAlabamians, the cart is now before thernhorse because the government in Washingtonrnhas assumed the role of the Creator,rnand as a result the rights of all are inrndanger.rnThe original legal action againstrnMoore stemmed from a suit brought byrnthe chief litigator of the Alabama ACLU,rnJoel Sogol, on the part of three EtowahrnCounty residents and something calledrnthe Alabama Ereethought Association.rnAn Alabama state court ruled that prayerrnand the plaque containing the Ten Commandmentsrnhad no bearing on the convictionrnof an arsonist who claimed he didrnnot receive a fair trial in Moore’s decidedlyrnpro-Judeo-Christian courtroom.rnThereafter, the ACLU brought suit inrnfederal court (where they always seem tornsucceed), but U.S. District Court JudgernRobert Propst ruled that the plaintiffsrnhad no standing to file the lawsuit. Atrnpresent, the ACLU appears to be beatingrnthe bushes of Etowah County for newplaintiffs.rnShould Sogol fail to find them,rnhe hopes to get the original suit againstrnMoore brought before the 11th CircuitrnCourt of Appeals in Atlanta.rnJudge Moore is the sort of fellow thernACLU loves to hate. He is an avowedrnstates’ rights man and views with alarmrnthe federal government’s destruction ofrnthe 10th Amendment. Moreover, Moorernis a Southern conservative Middle American,rnwhich is to say he is a Jeffersonianrnwho fears the power of “consolidated”rngovernment. But what enrages thernACLU is the fact that the good judge is arndevout Christian, fie has traveled thernstate, speaking to thongs of Alabamiansrnin a language they can understand; “If werndon’t make a stand, our children andrngrandchildren will lose their country. . . .rnWe must not let government becomernCod.” Like Patrick Henry, whom he isrnfond of quoting at length, Moore says hernis willing to risk everything for liberty. Atrnthe Christian Coalition’s national meetingrnin Washington, D.C., this past August,rn”Judge Roy” delivered a rousingrnspeech in which he blamed our currentrndescent into barbarism on an immoralrnruling class that has subverted the Constitution.rnMoore, a populist, proved tornbe among the most well-recei’cd speakersrnat the gathering, particulady amongrnSouthern attendees, which is not surprisingrnconsidering the organization’s penchantrnfor praising such statists as Lincolnrnand for serenading its faithful with suchrnbloody-minded anthems like “The BattlernHymn of the Republic.”rnThe case of Judge Moore is one of thernlatest skirmishes in the war that, as JohnrnC. Calhoun understood, will determinernwhether the people or the federal courtsrnrule. If the ACLU has its way with JudgernMoore and others like him, then thernpeople and their Constitution will bernthe losers. But Moore, a learned. Godfearingrnman, is not alone in this fight.rnHis courageous and principled stand hasrnwon him the warm support of most ofrnthe citizens of Alabama and their governor,rnForrest Hood (Fob) James, Jr., whornremarked when a United Nations commissionrnon human rights threatened torntake action against the state’s reinstitutionrnof chain gangs earlier this year;rn”What jurisdiction does the U.N. havernin Alabama?” Still unwilling to brookrnoutside interference in Alabama’s affairs,rnCovernor James has promised to call outrnthe Alabama National Guard (one of thernnation’s strongest units) should Moorernlose his case and find himself facing punishmentrnfrom federal authorities.rnWhat began as just another attemptrnby the ACLII to harass a conservativernChristian may lead to a showdown betweenrnthe sovereign State of Alabamarnand federal authorities. A determinedrnfaeeoff over nullification indeed wouldrndo wonders to relieve the tedium of presidentialrnpolitics, not to mention what itrnmight do for the return of constitutionalrngovernment. Should Governor Jamesrncall out the Guard, and should it remainrnloyal to Alabama, the ACLU litigatorsrnmay wish they had never heard RoyrnMoore’s name. Picture, if you will, CovernorrnJames activating the Guard andrnthe President immediately “federalizing”rnit. At that point, the Guardsmen wouldrnhave to decide to whom thc)’ owe allegiance.rnConsidering that the AlabamarnNational Guard is comprised mainly ofrn”good old bovs” (and as one of them, Irndo not use the term pejoratively) whoserndistrust of Beltway globalists and meddlingrndo-gooders mirrors their governor’s,rnresults could be interesting. Thernworst nightmare of statists is of a genuinernpopulist counterrevolution based on thernbelief that all government is ordained ofrnGod and that men have thc right tornthrow off an ungodly government. Therncase of Judge Roy Moore, if all parties involvedrnstick to their guns, has all thernmakings of a constitutional crisis of thernfirst order.rnJudge Moore labors under a decidedrnfinancial disadvantage vis-a-vk the deeprnpockets of the ACLU. Should Chroniclesrnreaders wish to support him, write to thernJudge Roy Moore Defense Fund, P.O.rnBox 8222,’Gadsden, Alabama, 35901.rnMichael Hill is a historian and presidentrnof the Southern League.rnLetter FromrnParisrnby Curtis CafernBulldozing into TroublernDubious parallels, like old prejudices, diernhard. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt unleashedrnhis legislative whirlwind in thernwinter and spring of 1933, and more particularlyrnin France since 1986, it has becomerna standard cliche to judge a newrngovernment’s performance on the basisrnof its achievements during its first 100rndays in office. If this yardstick was notrnemployed in 1981, after Frangois Mitterrand’srntwo electoral victories (presidentialrnand legislative), it was simply becausernthe Programme Commun, on which hisrnDECEMBER 1995/39rnrnrn