Feddie has a follow up on the story I referred to yesterday, where Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker had said that Clarence Thomas had told him that judges should be evaluated on their oath to God rather than their oath to the people or the Constitution. His follow up includes the actual transcript of what Parker attributed to Thomas:
PARKER: Just moments before I placed my hand on the Holy Scripture, Justice Thomas soberly addressed me and those in attendance. He admonished us to remember that the worth of a justice should be evaluated by one thing, and by one thing alone: whether or not he is faithful to uphold his oath - an oath which as Justice Thomas pointed out is not to the people; it's not to the state; it's not even to the Constitution, which is one to be supported, but is an oath which is to God Himself.
Feddie is right, this is a more reasonable statement than the one in the newspaper article. It is not referring to an oath to support "God's law" over the Constitution, but to an oath to support the Constitution that is sworn to God (almost all justices and politicial officials choose, upon entering public office, to swear the oath ending with "so help me God", but there is nothing in the Constitution which requires that to be added). Having read some of Parker's other statements on the subject, I have no doubt that he really does believe that "God's law" supercedes "man's law", nor do I doubt that he will make every possible attempt to enforce biblical law when he has the chance. But what Clarence Thomas said, apparently, does not support that ideology.
Parker, on the other hand, isn't off the hook so easily. He approvingly quotes Blackstone's statement that, "The doctrines thus delivered we call revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in Holy Scriptures. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human law should be suffered to contradict these." That's a very dangerous idea. If all human laws depend upon the biblical laws, and no human law can be taken to contradict those laws, then that means that the Constitution is superceded by biblical law. Which means, essentially, welcome to bronze age totalitarianism. Not a comforting thought.
- Log in to post comments
Well, fortunately, our laws do not come from God, they come from our Constitution and a representative legislature. Blackstone's comments might have some relevance in England, where for many years the law said it derived its authority from the stature of the King as God's representative on Earth, but they have no relevance here.
This is a point I think needs to be emphasized at every opportunity- the legitimacy of our government comes not from God, but from the consent of the governed. At no point does the Constitution justify any of the powers it awards itself by claiming to represent God's thinking. This is not an 'accident' or an 'oversight'. The people who wrote the Constitution knew exactly what they were doing, and it has outlived every government on earth that claimed to enact God's law.
I found information here and here indicating that Parker has associations with white supremacists. I don't know enough to judge the validity of these allegations.
Dave-
That information appears to be correct. Feddie said much the same thing in his initial post on the subject. Parker is a real wingnut, obviously. My concern was with what Clarence Thomas said or didn't say to him. Alabama appears to be careening headlong toward insanity, with people like Gerald Allen running around and with Roy Moore having a lead over their current governor in the polls should he decide to run for that office (I predict he'll end up in that position or in a Senate seat if one were to be available).
Yes, Alabama has long been insane. And Louisiana as well.
Amazing that that Kristian separatist movement didn't aim for Alabamastan. They'd have a better chance there (and could select Moore as their king, LOL) than they will have in the targeted state of SC.
Just as well; I-95 goes thru SC and its secession would cause me a lot of problems when I had to bypass it on the drive to visit friends and relatives in the DC area (driving from FL).
I have no reason to ever set foot in AL.
Guys and SharonB,
Alabama may be headed for a role as chief laughingstock of the union, but please remember not everyone here is nuts, just as Europeans and Iraqis sometimes need to be reminded that not all Americans support the Iraq occupation, etc. Also, Alabama has some real beauty, if not many touristy attractions (Don't miss "Full moon over Homewood: http://www.bhamonline.com/areasights/vulcan.htm)