Bill: Moore is in a deep pickle. I believe he believes he is ethically and morally obligated to accept that what is called revealed law illuminates civil law. This is a very deep philosophical, bedrock part of legal theory. I don't believe him to be a bubba, nor Machiavellian.

Fundamentally, law is the search for justice. The laying out of a Constitution is only one step in the machinery for seeking out and implementing justice. Theorists speak of natural law, i.e. an ethical truth of the matter that could be sought out with a perfect legal mechanism. It contemplates a truth that is outside the human mind. Most people reject the concept, and (rather cynically) replace it only with human whims, desires, self-interest and folly as explaining the legal system.

Moore believes in revealed law, as I said, and he supports his position that it has valid (indeed mandatory) application, by reference to ancient English law, which has been expressly adopted by many US state constitutions, including Alabama's. He further backs it up with citations to classic theorists, such as Blackstone.

You may have noticed that I have been delaying the description of revealed law. Yes, that is because I did not want to get too many of you all riled up at the outset. Revealed law refers to the illumination of natural law by, as McGraw terms it, Holy Writ. That is, by divine revelation. Yes, by Scripture.

Now, if some of you have not stroked out yet, let me continue by saying yes, he takes it over the top. He uses his personal predilections when interpreting scripture, as so many are wont to do. He can, as is the nature of law, support what he wants to accomplish by the way he shines his flashlight on the source, in this instance scripture. That's what lawyers do. So it can offend the hell out of anyone who doesn't want that source referenced. But his right to do so is, indeed, supported by authoritative writings in England and America.

"Separation of Church and State," as many point out, is an ambiguous and incorrect statement of the constitutional proscription against the state sponsored establishment of religion. Question whether a belief in revealed law by a judge is State sponsored establishment of religion. You can argue it both ways. But the essence of the argument reaches fundamental principals. No one is going to scream their way into winning that argument.