Posted on 08/28/2006 10:59:24 PM PDT by jdm
An individual from San Diego who is "discomfited" over a veterans' memorial has prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to renew its attack on the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial.
The Thomas More Law Center said yesterday it is preparing to defend the cross memorial from a new attack by the ACLU, this time in U.S. District Court in California.
A 17-year-long battle apparently reached a conclusion earlier this month when Congress approved and President Bush signed legislation giving ownership and control of the memorial to the federal government. That essentially should have ended a state case over the monument that had been pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because the federal government is not subject to the state statutes at issue.
However, Law Center President Richard Thompson said the attack has been renewed in the federal courts, with the ACLU's recent filing, which seeks the removal of the memorial's cross.
"The very freedoms that these veterans died to protect are being perverted by the ACLU and used to deprive them and their grieving friends, families and comrades the honor and solace they deserve," said Thompson.
The earlier state claim identified the city of San Diego as defendant, Thompson said. The new lawsuit names Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and was filed on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, a Jewish doctor who served two years in the Navy, his Muslim wife who came to this country four years ago, and an individual resident of San Diego.
That person, the lawsuit said, bears the burden of being "discomfited" by the memorial.
The legal situation is being reviewed, Thompson said.
"We won't let the ACLU destroy this country and dishonor our war veterans," he said.
The case has been pending for years. Then in 2004, Congress passed and the president signed into law federal legislation designating the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial "a national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces."
A subsequent special election in July 2005 saw the citizens of San Diego vote overwhelmingly – 76 percent – in favor of donating the memorial property to the federal government for use as a national veterans memorial.
But a California superior court judge stopped the transfer, saying it violated the state constitution.
Then this month, President Bush signed new federal legislation, which immediately "vested in the United States all right, title, and interest in and to, and the right to immediate possession of, the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial."
The Law Center said the purpose of this legislation was to preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, including its centerpiece memorial cross, which has been in its present location since 1954, for future generations of Americans.
"While our brave servicemen and women are fighting on foreign soil to protect our freedoms, the ACLU is destroying our Constitution and the freedoms it represents in the courts of this country," said Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Law Center.
No, not sick. They are just plain evil.
76% of the voters approve, 1 judge nullifies. Something is not right here.
I think if that 76% showed up outside that Judges house with tar and a rail, he'd change his tune right after he soiled his black robes.
If he thought 76% would show, the verdict would have been quite different.
ROFLMAO!!!
The suit, filed in San Diego federal court on behalf of a national Jewish war veterans organization and three San Diego residents, is the newest development in an increasingly high-profile, 17-year legal battle over the cross.
Absolutely agree.
Begs the question, where is all this "tolerance" we hear the leftist ninnies always bragging about that they have and we don't?
Can a simple cross enjoyed by thousands really disturb an individual all that much?
If so, maybe that individual needs to practice the "tolerance" they demand of us!
Absolutely agree.
I think you guys are being a bit narrow here. Why does it have just be one or the other? I certainly think they could be both.
I'm sure that poor guy would be much more "discomfited" wearing my Nike in his ass.
You left out "... his Muslim wife who came to this country four years ago ..."
Welcome to the wonderful world of "Judicial Dictatorship".
Thank you for your kind words. What mechanism do you believe ...
ACLU go to HELL!!!
sick and wicked and evil and dirty and rotten and...
You'd think if they were trying to be "broadminded" they would call for putting up an equal sized symbol of all religions represented by the dearly departed at the cemetery, but nooooooo!!!
Well, except that identification of it being a sickness would suggest that they might get well or a for a cure to be found. I don't see being evil as having any sort of cure, do you?
Unless brain worms have eaten away the areas of their brain that control moral judgement. In that case, they would be sick, and evil, and could not be cured. Just a thought. :-)
You are right a person could be both sick and evil, but in this case I think it is clear there is only one source that is doing all it can to get rid of this inspiring and uplifting cross and that source is pure evil.
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.