Category Archives: Uncategorized


Montgomery, AL — The Foundation for Moral Law (“Foundation”) together with the Institute for Creation Research has filed an amicus brief with the Texas Supreme Court in Case No. 15-0688, Pidgeon v. Turner. The Court will hear oral argument on March 1 on the question of whether Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court’s 2015 gay marriage decision, requires that Texas municipalities provide spousal benefits to same-sex couples. The legal issue is whether Obergefell should be applied narrowly—limited to the issuing of marriage licenses—or broadly, affecting spousal benefits and other incidents of marriage.

The Foundation’s amicus brief provides a unique perspective. Arguing that Obergefell is a wholly illegitimate decision with no basis in the Constitution, a pure act of judicial will that usurps the legislative power, the Foundation encourages the justices of the Texas Supreme Court, in fulfillment of their oath to the Constitution, to give it no effect.

Foundation President Kayla Moore said concerning the brief: “Justices on state supreme courts need to send a message to the current liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court that their immoral imaginings, Proverbs 6:18, are not a substitute for the constitutional text to which they have sworn an oath of loyalty. Otherwise, we have become a government, not of laws, but of men.”

The Foundation for Moral Law is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the strict construction of the Constitution according to the intent of the Framers and to the right to acknowledge God in the public arena.


Montgomery, AL — The Foundation for Moral Law, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the strict construction of the

Constitution according to the intent of the Framers and to the right to acknowledge God in the public arena, has come

to the defense of U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Monifa J. Sterling, who was court-martialed in part for refusing to remove

Bible verses from her office desk.

In its amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court, the Foundation argued that the First Amendment, the Religious

Freedom Restoration Act, and Department of Defense regulations require the armed forces to accommodate soldiers’

religious practices unless the military has a compelling interest that cannot be achieved by less restrictive means. The

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied LCpl Sterling’s appeal, and the case is now before the U.S. Supreme

Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Foundation President Kayla Moore said concerning the brief: “As the wife of a West Point graduate who served

in Vietnam, I am shocked that the armed forces would deny this Marine the religious liberty that is guaranteed

by the Constitution she has taken an oath to defend. Such cases are widespread, and the Foundation stands

ready to defend our service men and women whenever their rights are under attack.”

Foundation Senior Counsel John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, added: “The courts have long

rejected the notion that soldiers surrender their constitutional rights when they enter military service. As our brief

demonstrates, LCpl Sterling arranged these Bible verses on her desk in a way that only she could see them. Other

military personnel are allowed to place messages on their desks. The Marines have no compelling interest that is in

any way threatened by this message. We ask the Supreme Court to use this case to make a landmark ruling that

protects the religious liberty of all military personnel.”

Opposing Obama’s Bathroom Policy

Foundation for Moral Law Files Supreme Court Brief
Opposing Obama’s Bathroom Policy

Currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is the case G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board. Gloucester High School is near Chesapeake Bay in eastern Virginia. A girl student, thinking she is a boy, sought a federal court order to use the boys’ bathroom at the high school. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Richmond, reversed the trial court’s denial of the request on the ground that the courts should “defer” to the Obama administration’s interpretation of discrimination law.

According to the Obama administration, forbidding a girl who thinks she is a boy from using the boys’ bathroom at school is unlawful sex discrimination.

Foundation President Kayla Moore stated: “If President-Elect Trump reverses the Obama bathroom policy, this case may become moot. Meanwhile, however, school districts all across the country are being threatened with a loss of federal funds if they do not allow certain confused youth to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. The sexual radicals with whom Obama has populated the Department of Education have lost all sense of decency in their crusade to undermine not only basic morality but also the natural created order.”

The Foundation today filed an amicus brief in support of the School Board.

The Foundation for Moral Law is a nonprofit organization dedicated to interpreting the Constitution according to its plain meaning and the intent of its Framers. Contact: Kayla Moore, 334-262-1245.
http://Transgender Bathroom Case Brief.pdf

Foundation Calls for Return to Constitution

Foundation Calls for Return to Constitution
Local Foundation “Educates” Congress

Contact: Kayla Moore, Foundation for Moral Law, 334-262-1245

MONTGOMERY, Ala., Aug. 5, 2016 /Christian Newswire/ — The Foundation for Moral Law, a Montgomery-based non-profit foundation dedicated to the strict interpretation of the Constitution as written and as intended by its Framers, has undertaken a massive project to educate the members of Congress about their duties as guardians of the Constitution.

Earlier this week, the Foundation sent a detailed letter to each of the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators explaining that the Constitution gives carefully enumerated powers to each of the three branches of the federal government. The President, according to the Foundation, has repeatedly exceeded his constitutional powers by issuing executive orders on subjects that are beyond his jurisdiction, and the Court has issued rulings that ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution and simply substitute their own subjective opinions in its place.

Foundation President Kayla Moore said, “Congress has the right and duty to protect the Constitution drafted by ‘We the People’ by overriding the President’s executive orders through legislation and by refusing to appropriate money for the President’s unconstitutional activities. Congress also has the right and duty to keep the Court within its constitutional limits by refusing to confirm judges and Justices who ignore the Framers’ intent and, according to Article III Section 2, limiting the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.”

Along with the letter, the Foundation sent to each member of Congress a 112-page booklet titled One Nation Under God which is a compendium of foundational documents include excerpts from Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and President Washington’s Farewell Address. The booklet is available through the Foundation.

Foundation Senior Counsel John Eidsmoe added, “Our hope is that the members of Congress and their staffs will study these founding documents and be reminded of the limited republic our Founders created. In this pocketbook form, the Constitution becomes like your American Express card: ‘Never leave home without it.'”

Statement of the Chief Justice after API ruling:

Statement of Chief Justice Roy Moore regarding today’s order of the Alabama Supreme Court in 1140460 Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute:

“The Court dismissed in its order ‘pending motions and petitions’ in the API case today but did not dismiss “lawsuits” or dismiss the case. In fact, the Court also issued the certificate of judgment (COJ) which explicitly recognized the 3 orders issued in this case last year. As I stated in my written concurrence, the Court did not disturb the existing orders in this case or the holding in API that Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act were constitutional.”

More direct link is here:

Attached is just the order and Chief’s opinion.
And all the opinions:

Alabama Supreme Court Rules in API:

More direct link is here:

Attached is just the order and Chief’s opinion.

And all the opinions:


MONTGOMERY: The Foundation for Moral Law, a Montgomery-based legal foundation dedicated to the defense of the United States Constitution and the right to religious liberty, hailed the Internal Revenue Service decision to withdraw a proposed regulation as a victory for nonprofits and religious freedom.

Late in 2015, the IRS proposed a regulation by which churches and other nonprofit organizations would collect and report the Social Security numbers of donors who give more than $250. But when the IRS proposal was placed on the website, over 34,000 persons and organizations posted comments, the overwhelming majority of them strongly against the proposal. Accordingly, last week the IRS announced that it was scrapping the proposal.

John Eidsmoe, Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law, posted comments opposing the proposed regulation. He noted that the regulation would impose an extra record-keeping burden on nonprofits, and that collecting, recording, and transferring this information could result in errors that would create confusion rather than clarity. He added that the proposal comes at a time when identity theft is a major concern and people are being cautioned not to give out their Social Security numbers except when absolutely necessary. He warned that the proposal could have a chilling effect on giving, and that donors might refuse to donate or keep their donations below $250 to avoid identity theft.

Foundation President Kayla Moore expressed her appreciation to all who spoke out against the proposed regulation, saying, “The IRS decision to withdraw this proposed regulation demonstrates that ‘we the people’ can get results when we speak out with a strong and united voice. The Foundation for Moral Law pledges to continue its mission as the guardian of religious liberty and constitutional freedom.”

Local Foundation Challenges Obamacare-Montgomery

MONTGOMERY: The Foundation for Moral Law, a Montgomery-based legal foundation established to defend the United States Constitution as written and intended by its Framers and to defend religious liberty, filed an amicus brief Monday on behalf of Dr. Steven Hotze, a Texas physician who is challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare.

In the 2012 case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional because Article I Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to “tax and spend” for the general welfare. But Dr. Hotze argues that if Obamacare is a tax for the Taxing and Spending Clause, it is also a tax for Article I Section 7 which requires that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House rather than the Senate.

“Obamacare was railroaded through Congress and forced on the American people by the Obama Administration,” said Foundation President Kayla Moore. “Nearly six years later the constitutional issues still aren’t settled, and Obamacare has been an administrative nightmare that has raised insurance premiums, forced employers to lay off employees, and lowered the quality of health care across the nation. Obamacare is one more proof that socialism doesn’t work.”

Foundation Senior Counsel John Eidsmoe added, “The Framers adopted the Origination Clause for a very important reason. ‘No taxation without representation’ was a rallying cry of the American War for Independence, so they wanted to make sure that tax bills originated in the House of Congress that represented the people who pay taxes. To the extent that Obamacare is authorized by the Taxing and Spending Clause of Article I Section 8, it is also constrained by the Origination Clause of Article I Section 7.”

John Eidsmoe: Officials Must Defy Supreme Court That’s ‘Disobedient Against God’

John Eidsmoe: Officials Must Defy Supreme Court That’s ‘Disobedient Against God’
SUBMITTED BY Miranda Blue on Friday, 10/30/2015 10:38 am
The defenders of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who attempted to block her office from issuing marriage licenses after the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, have retroactively been claiming that Davis was simply seeking a religious accommodation that would keep her name off such licenses. (This is despite the fact that Davis claimed that she was acting as an agent of God in keeping gay couples in her county from getting married.)

In an interview with Alaska conservative radio host Joe Miller this week, prominent Christian Reconstructionist John Eidsmoe, who now works for the foundation established by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, argued that if Davis were to resign from her position or seek a religious accommodation to avoid being involved in gay marriages, that wouldn’t be enough. Instead, Eidsmoe said, lower courts and elected officials like Davis must “interpose” to “nullify” the marriage equality decision, which was made by a Supreme Court that has “become disobedient against God.”

Miller, who was Alaska’s Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in 2010, agreed, adding that if officials like Davis resign, they are “basically clearing the field” for “additional persecutorial-type behavior by government.”

Tellingly, both Eidsmoe and Miller will be attending next week’s “National Religious Liberties Conference” in Iowa, whose organizer’s idea of religious liberty is the liberty of conservative Christians to execute gay people. (Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal are also scheduled to speak at the conference.)

Absolutely. In fact, there are many who say that what she should have done in those circumstances is simply resign her position in protest. I would say that if she had resigned, likewise, if Chief Justice Moore had resigned from the Supreme Court over the Ten Commandments issue, they would be betraying the people that elected them. Under the doctrine of lesser magistrates, or interposition, as you sometimes call it, when a higher magistrate, like the U.S. Supreme Court or a federal judge, begins to act in an extralegal and tyrannical manner, it is the duty of lesser magistrates like state courts and state judges, county clerks and the like to interpose, that is to stand between the people they represent against the tyranny of the higher magistrate.

You might say that if the higher magistrate has become disobedient against God, for the lower magistrate to simply follow what the higher magistrate says would make the lower magistrate complicit in this act of disobedience. I think she has a duty to stay on and a duty to resist. What they’re trying to do in that case right now, of course, is they’re trying to work out an accommodation where we could say that the law has a duty to accommodate those who have religious objections. That’s fine in so far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. Rather, they need to recognize that this whole decision is illegitimate and it needs to be nullified.

ORGANIZATIONS:Foundation for Moral Law
PEOPLE:Roy Moore, Joe Miller, John Eidsmoe, Kim Davis
TOPICS:Marriage Equality
– See more at:…/john-eidsmoe-officials-must…

John Eidsmoe: Officials Must Defy Supreme Court That’s ‘Disobedient Against God’

The defenders of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who attempted to block her office from issuing marriage licenses after the Supreme Court’s decision in…