Court Rules Display of Ten Commandements Poster Unconstitutional

A federal appeals court has ordered a judge in Ohio to remove a
poster used in an exhibit about legal philosophy because it includes the
Ten Commandments—ruling that it is unconstitutional.

The American
Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) which focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C., filed a petition on Tuesday with the
Supreme Court of the United States, urging the high court to overturn
that decision.

“We believe it’s critical for the Supreme Court
to take this case and overturn a flawed decision that conflicts with
Supreme Court precedent and other appeals courts,” says Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing Judge DeWeese.

“This
display is not only appropriate, but constitutional as well. It merely
reflects a legal philosophy embraced by our founders: a society’s legal
system must rest on moral absolutes as opposed to moral relativism, and
that abandonment of moral absolutes leads to societal breakdown and
chaos.”

In a Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
the ACLJ urges the high court to hear the case and overturn a February
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The
judges determined that the display in the courtroom of Ohio Common Pleas
Court Judge James DeWeese violated the First Amendment and had to be
removed.

At issue is a poster designed to illustrate Judge
DeWeese’s legal philosophy. The “Philosophies of Law in Conflict” poster
features two columns of principles or precepts intended to show the
contrast between legal philosophies based on moral absolutes and moral
relativism. The judge used a version of the Ten Commandments as symbolic
of moral absolutes, and a set of statements from sources such as the
Humanist Manifesto as symbolic of moral relativism.

In the
petition urging the Supreme Court to take the case, the ACLJ argues that
the appeals court made a mistake when it concluded that an American
Civil Liberties Union attorney, who objected to the poster, had legal
standing to bring the suit. The attorney claimed he suffered what
the court determined to be “injury” by simply viewing the poster. The
petition is posted here.

The
ACLJ contends that the appeals court got it wrong—arguing that simply
being offended does not give a plaintiff legal standing to file suit.
The ACLJ also argues the 6th Circuit opinion conflicts with Supreme
Court and other appeals courts decisions recognizing with approval the
role of religion in the country’s history and heritage.

In the
filing, the ACLJ notes that Judge DeWeese’s opinions regarding law and
morality can best be summed up by Justice William O. Douglas, who wrote:
“The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there
is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a
moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual
possesses rights, conferred by the Creator, which government must
respect” of the McGowan v. Maryland case.