Skip to comments.Roadside crosses for fallen Utah police unconstitutional, court rules
Posted on 08/19/2010 12:37:23 AM PDT by American Dream 246
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that roadside crosses erected to memorialize fallen Utah Highway Patrol officers violate the First Amendments prohibition of government endorsement of religion.
The Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the 12-foot-high crosses bearing the name and badge number of deceased officers sent an unconstitutional religious message to motorists on the states highways.
We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion. They therefore violate the establishment clause of the federal constitution, the appeals court said in a 35-page decision.
Full story: Roadside crosses for fallen Utah police unconstitutional, court rules CSMonitor.com
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/roadside-crosses-for-fallen-utah-police-unconstitutional-court-rules/#ixzz0x2DKEewL
Oh well...let’s build them a mosque. I am sure that will not create any problem Crosses..? What an insult to islam. They should have thought about that, indeed.
Religion is bad, unless it’s islam.
I wonder if the symbol put on the roadside was based on the religion of the deceased officer?
I wonder if the symbol put on the roadside was based on the religion of the deceased officer?
I’ll be waiting to hear obama call the court out on this. Like I said, I’ll be waiting....zzzzzzz.....waiting....zzzz.
....can I put a Muslim Crescent?
...but lying about your Military service is ok. Got it.
The liberal war against Christianity increases pace ...
Didn’t a Denver judge rule that it’s fine to lie about military medals earned?
And it’s not going to stop, so please remember that, and be prepared for it. It will ONLY get worse, they start beheading the faithful for not taking the mark.
“I wonder if the symbol put on the roadside was based on the religion of the deceased officer?”
Given the area, highly unlikely. However, crosses have been used as grave markers for a long, long time.
The Fed Gov will appease anyone who is not a Chrsitian (and Jews), because Christians (and to an extent Jews, when they’re not being murdered) are tolerant, whereas most other religions in this debate demand subjection to them. It’s like the playground bully, and people are getting really sick of it.
It’s not the federal government putting them up.
“Its not the federal government putting them up.”
Bingo, which brings up a bigger issue. The Federal Government should own NO land. All states should reclaim their Federally seized land. In addition, this should be determined by the states. The original judge (if I read correctly) threw the case out. The appeals court ruled against, in an attempt, I belive, to bring it back up to the Supremes who have already decided issed, like the Ten Commandments, etc.
It’s political warriors trying to start a religion war with the simultaneous race war their fomenting, to keep us divided. That’s the only strategy that keeps working. I pray it’ll stop, and soon, and we’ll get rid of the political class by being governed by the people, for the people, not just taking from the people, to advance the position of a few hundred/thousand people. Enough of this dictating to/ruling of the citizenry already.
The irresponsibility of the 14th amendment strikes again!
“The Federal Government should own NO land. All states should reclaim their Federally seized land. In addition, this should be determined by the states.”
Agreed Letting the Federal Government Own land is the source of a lot of our problems. The Feds should sell all the land in their ownership, and uses the money to help pay down the debt.
Might as well kill 2 birds with 1 stone even thou one of them birds is really really huge, and I’m not talking about the debt. The federal Government owning land has causes a lot of really huge problems for us.
Think you own your land? You're wrong. You are just a tenant (serf) of the fedgov oligarchy.
/fedgov results may vary, esp in Texas and Oklahoma
“The federal Government owning land has causes a lot of really huge problems for us.”
Yep, not to mention if the states started to produce their own energy resources (Utah has a TON), they could create possibly a surplus, or at least get us off of foreign produced energy, thereby hindering the enemies who take our money and use it to build weapons against us.
I sincerely doubt that paying down the debt will ever happen. I’m not one to think that it should either. (In some cases, yes). We give out more in non tangible foreign aid than we ever have incurred, debt wise. I realize that a debt default would probably not work out economically, but heck, it’s likely to happen anyway, everyone hurry and get prepped, become more self sufficient, and self reliant, then let’s get it over with! Enough of the slow death and decay. It’s going to be horrible no matter what, once we finally pay the piper, probably “world war” bad, but there is no fix, it’s just growing like a hurricane over warmer waters.
Understood, and agreed. But that state of affairs WILL NOT be the case forever. But individual property rights are divinely granted (it was omitted in the DOI because of the slavery issue). It’s not something man can take from you, it’s only something you can give away.
Court rules Constitution unconstitutional.
“Yep, not to mention if the states started to produce their own energy resources (Utah has a TON), they could create possibly a surplus, or at least get us off of foreign produced energy, thereby hindering the enemies who take our money and use it to build weapons against us.”
Its more then just the resources and money.
the United States Federal government also assert power over our States and the people in them to apply environmental and otherwise laws on the sole basis that our behavior is somehow tangentially effecting land they own and have asserted jurisdiction over.
In other-word their mere ownership of the land in our state has given them(in the eyes of their own self-appointed courts) undue and unfair power over our states that goes far and beyond denying us access to most of our own State!
I don’t think most Eastern really understand the gravity of the Federal land ownership situation in the west simply because almost all of their states are not owned by the Federal Government and so they don’t live with theses huge problems like we do.
The United States Federal Government was never suppose to permanently own any kind of non-ceded land within any state of the United States.
Indeed when they bought the land the deal was they were suppose to sell this land off and that was mostly working slowly but steadily up until the 1970’s and the end of the Homestead act.
Now the Federal Government not only hordes 40 to 84.5%(such as in Nevada) of the land in our States, they are actually thou eminent domain taking more and more of it!
Here is a map of Federal land % by State in the U.S.:
Yes, this is a gigantic problem for western stater!
Bingo! I was born and raised in Nevada, and now live in Utah. Nevada has the Largest portion owned by the FedGov (84.5), and Utah the second largest amount (57.4), so I understand completely. No one back east seems to understand this, and it is an important issue.
You are absolutely correct, the EPA and other agencies further dictate to states what they will and will not do with the land, and they are claiming more and more territory. I suspect it will be given to foreign governments, ala “National Parks nor U.N.” baloney. In Utah, Newly Appointed Gov Herbert (Took Huntsman’s seat when he became an ambassador or whatever he is now) threatened eminent domain on some federally owned lands. I don’t like Herbert, but that move was gutsy. He’s not my favorite candidate, and there’s a special election for his seat this year. I haven’t heard much on who his competition is, but he claims to want to limit/cut government spending on the same fliers where he says that he’ll oppose any cuts to education spending (a hot topic here, to be sure).
For all his bravado, I hope he’ll be kept on track. Utah, in general, seems to be getting serious (not as much as Montana and Oklahoma), but there’s major issues that divide people here, so who knows how we’ll turn out. We need a strong Governor. Huntsman wwas horrible, and Herbert doesn’t seem all that great to me either. In days passed an (R) would get you elected here, but now it’s starting to get murky.
My understanding is that these crosses are paid for and cared for with private contributions then placed on lands paid for by the taxpayers. As long as a Jewish officers family would be allowed to place the Star of David, a Muslim officer allowed to put their Crescent moon, etc there should be NO restrictions.
Having read a good deal of the writings of our founding fathers, I can not believe a single one would agree with this court decision. Even Thomas Jefferson himself would be shocked to learn one sentence of his has been twisted outside its original intent and placed onto the Constitution as a de-facto Constitutional right.
Whoops, I mistakenly said that Utah was second in the amount of land owned by the fedgov. It’s 3rd, after Alaska, but Second in the lower 48. Sorry!
Correct. There is NO “Separation of Church and State,” in our law, Federal, let alone state. Only the misinterpretation of one letter to be applied to several hundren million people. But we, as a people have been too busy placating others (read, “Muslims” and “Atheists”) to speak up and say, “Enough is Enough,” but we’re getting to that point, closer every time something like this and the “Happy Holidays” not “Merry Christmas” garbage ensues.
I do believe we are reaching a tilting point in the US where the tolerances of the average American has reached the breaking point. We can only hope things have not gone so far we can not bring back common sense.
Can you imagine if somehow Madison, John Jay and Jefferson were brought back to life, circa US 2010?
They’d beg to be placed back into the grave, not wanting to see how in a few short centuries their greatest gift to future generations has been crapped on. I’d like to think they would advise of to shake off the bonds of a gargantuan out-of-control centralized government. Yet, I can’t help think, after looking at the state of our society, the conclusion would be we’re not worthy of freedom.
Exactly my reaction. We are truly living in bizarre, evil times when the President is thrilled at a mosque going up at the site of islamic terrorism, and the courts think a simply grave marker is government endorsement of religion.
And this all before the radical leftist kagan got its hands on the case...
Even you have fallen for it. There is no Constitutional prohibition of government endorsement of religion.
I agree. I think the Founding Fathers would rather help us though. Each generation, for at least the last 5, has sold their posterity down the river for ever increasing laziness, and ever decreasing personal liberty. Jefferson, at least, recognized the need for a mortal combat between liberty and tyranny in his “Tree of Liberty” symbolism (I think it was pretty direct, though).
The FOunding Father’s knew how fleeting liberty is, but they also knew the importance of earning it for yourself. They knew that you can no more pass on Liberty than you can pass on faith. We can create the conditions for either, or encourage the growth of either, but it cannot be lent, given, nor imposed. When people stop caring about what’s going on, they stop battling against tyranny, for the sake of ease.
I think our Founding Fathers knew this, and probably prayed (and may yet pray) for us to do the right thing. I don’t think we’re alone in this battle of eternal principle, I just think we’re learning to realize it’s much bigger. They had to in their time, and we have to in our time. And that gives me hope. I hope it’s peaceful, but know it’s going to happen, one way or another. American’s may think they want security, just as the sinner may want their vice, but in the end, anyone who truly has a desire for some good, or some improvement in their heart, will realize that laying down the bad for the good is a must, and will do it straightway, it’s all just a matter of time, experience, and wisdom.
I don’t think that’s what (s)he meant. But you’re right, too many people feel like there is some form of prohibition on religion. We pray in public meetings and in the legislature for a reason. They may have forgotten why, but the reason is still there!
I don’t really care to see these roadside memorials but not for religious reasons. I just think they are in poor taste. I also hate to see these rolling epitaphs that people put on their cars; “In Loving Memory of John Doe, blah, blah, blah. Once again, it’s poor taste. But it’s their car and their choice.
I understand. That's why I said he had "fallen for it". The phrase slipped into an otherwise well-phrased post.
I often get a good laugh at television shows and books all discussing the great “seers” of the past. With 2012 coming up, Nostradamus and the Mayan’s are making some people VERY rich. Truth be told, if even a few of the predictions made ages ago come true, they have nothing on our founders and what they knew could happen and warned us against.
I don’t believe the founders sat in front of a mirror or dowsing rod looking into the future; they simply understood man’s psychology and human history. What they did give us that is so exceptional is a road-map to gain, keep and regain if needed, our liberty.
The Founders simply wanted to make sure there was no State religion although there is, atheism. They wanted Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion.
Pray for America
What about these crosses? Are they unconstitutional too?
Then why aren’t crosses on graves in graveyards unconstitutional?
The government can regulate what words that we are allowed to speak, and can jail you for “hate” crimes (thoughtcrime) so how can the extension over private graves be far behind?
Don’t they insult our muslim masters?
If so....simply move the crosses back until they are no longer on "gummint" owned right of way.
Of course, one would have to convince the owner of the private property to allow the crosses to be placed there.
What would one then do with a muslim land owner??
Interesting, in Europe and Asia the same leftists go gaga over roadside shrines as blahblah...cultural landmarks.
I put those crosses up. Me. A private citizen. The court just cr*pped on my Freedom of Speach! Oppression under the Color of Law! Put THAT it your crack pipe & huff it 10th Circus Court.
Yeah, I’m lying. PROTECTED speech!
Were I in Utah politics I’d go ahead with the eminent domain threat, it was not your former governor that made it but rather Your state Legislator which passed a law authorizing the governor to carry out such actions against Federal land.
An article on the matter. As a Utahan I’d focus on supporting and encouraging them efforts. Perhaps to start a controversy to make the case to the rest of the U.S. about the serous issues of Federal land Thief.
As for selling the land to foreign governments I don’t see that as being a problem as the minute the land is out of Federal control they lose the ability to uses the supremacy clause to assert unlimited authority over the land.
We shouldn’t care who has titled to the land as long as its not the Federal Government. Simply because anyone and everyone else would be unquestionably under the authority and jurisdiction of the state.
Technically the Federal Government’s land within the bounties of the State is suppose to be under the same Jurisdiction. But you know the same old corrupt truth about the Federal governments “judgment” about the extent of their own powers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.