Skip to comments.A constitutional offense Court orders removal of veterans’ memorial cross
Posted on 09/12/2007 3:36:39 AM PDT by don-o
Last week's decision by the 9th Circuit Court to remove a solitary Roman cross from a World War I veterans memorial in California's Mojave Desert has drawn an angry response from the American Legion, a major association of U.S. veterans.
"Today's lawyers and judges are outlawing the values and religious symbols that the Founding Fathers revered and proclaimed as the very foundation of the American republic," Conatser, head of the 2.7 million-member American Legion, said in a recent press release. "Today it's a memorial. Tomorrow, these same judges can order the removal of crosses on veterans gravestones, the dismissal of military chaplains and the closure of base chapels."
The presence of a cross on public land as part of a veterans memorial has been disputed for a number of years by the ACLU. In 2004, an Act of Congress authorized transferring one acre of land, upon which the cross sits, to private ownership, in exchange for five acres of land elsewhere which would be given to the federal government, thereby effectively removing the cross from federal jurisdiction.
(Excerpt) Read more at calcatholic.com ...
Ping to Mrs Don-o article. Freepmail me to be added or removed.
It seems I have heard that the 9th circuit is the most reversed on appeal. Doesn’t stop them from making @sses of themselves; it rather seems to embolden them. It sure makes for brisk business for the trial lawyers—the win even when they lose—evetone gets paid and the litigants throw good money after bad.
We need serious reform.
What twisted, warped logic can be used to claim having a memorial cross is against the law? Allowing people with disordered minds to control our country, insult our God, and advance Marxism is a grave mistake. It is humiliating and embarrassing to me to have a Republican Administration ignore the actions of these vermin, and continue to permit our country to slip away! Our country is being taken away by seditious, traitorous pond scum, supported by corrupt Marxist Democrats who are treated with dignity and respect by our Congress while they take away our culture, language, and borders! Disgusting! Surprising what you can buy with a lot of money when you have empty suits and skirts in power.
Here’s a solution, incorporate a foot basin as part of the memorial and say it’s for Muslims to wash their feet before praying, then apply for a government grant to pay for it. The ACLU will back this plan, like they have in Michigan.
Presidential candidates need to talk about this. We need to make the appointment of judges the major issue in this election.
Abortion, homosexuality, prayer in schools etc, crosses at memorials!
But even more than that....even average democrats where upset about the pledge of allegiance ruling and taking private property away from people (the name of this slips my mind at the moment)
If you like these types of rulings then by all means vote for Hillary..
DON`T FORGET TO VOTE FOR FRED.....SEE MY TAG LINE
I cannot understand how the 9th circus court has any jurisdiction in this matter.
Any of you legal types out there who can shed any light on this? Also I assume this can be appealed...right?
They are gods. The legislature passes a law, and the judge tells the executive branch not to follow it. Who is supreme in our system? Supposedly the people, and their representatives. But as this case shows it’s the tyrants in black robes. They are our own Amrerican Ayatollahs.
The cross is not only a religious symbol. It is a symbol of sacrifice and/or death. The is the arguement that should be used in the courts.
The 9th is the most overturned court in the country. However, SCOTUS has to be appealed to, then accept, then rule against the 9th.
Pinging: Moral Absolutes, Catholic, Veterans, Military, B4DH lists.
Another Veteran Memorial in trouble.
Court orders removal of veterans memorial cross
WND LAW OF THE LAND
Mt. Soledad cross supporters win again
Symbol at San Diego memorial has been under attack for 18 years
Posted: February 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Mt. Soledad cross near San Diego
Another court decision has endorsed the existence of a cross at the Mt. Soledad Memorial in San Diego, but the 18-year-old fight over whether it must be removed to satisfy a now-deceased lawsuit plaintiff still isn’t over.
The newest decision came from the California state Supreme Court, and let stand an appellate court ruling that the decision by city voters to turn over to the federal government land on which the cross is located was proper.
“This is a major victory for religious freedom, the democratic process, and for the people of San Diego who voted overwhelmingly to preserve the historic Mt. Soledad veterans memorial and cross for future generations,” said Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, whose leaders have battled for the cross.
The Law Center represented San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in the successful appeal.
“We’re extremely pleased that the California Supreme Court has decided to reject this case which effectively brings an end to state litigation to remove the Mt. Soledad cross memorial,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed arguments in support of the Thomas More case.
(Story continues below)
“This represents the latest in a series of legal victories to keep the cross in place and we’re confident that the final legal challenge now in federal court will ultimately fail as well,” Sekulow said. “The cross memorial is an important symbol honoring veterans of our military. We believe this memorial will survive the final round of legal challenges and remain in place.”
The state’s high court denied a request to review the appellate court decision. The lower court had endorsed the constitutionality of a San Diego ballot initiative in which voters overwhelmingly approved a plan donating the Mt. Soledad Memorial to the federal government, but the decision was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union.
“We are pleased that the California Supreme Court rejected [the] effort to disturb the well-reasoned, unanimous decision of the appellate court. This decision protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical, veterans memorial for future generations,” saida Charles LiMandri, the West Coast regional director for the law center.
The ACLJ’s brief suggested that the purpose of the vote was to preserve a historically significant war memorial, not to proselytize a particular religious viewpoint.
Thompson said in addition to winning the arguments over the validity of the San Diego vote, his organization also was successful in fending off a request by the ACLU on the issue.
The ACLU, which is spearheading attacks on the cross, had asked the state Supreme Court to “depublish” the lower court opinion. “The ACLU wanted the decision depublished so it could continue with its anti-Christian agenda free from opposing precedent,” said Thomson. “This appellate court decision will forever be a stumbling block for the ACLU and we are pleased about that.”
The only remaining litigation is a federal lawsuit that challenges the law signed by President Bush in 2006 that actually accepted the transfer of the property into the control of the federal government.
Just a month ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an earlier federal challenge that targeted the city of San Diego, noting that the claim was moot since the federal government, not the city, now controlled the land.
Several hundred thousand Americans, including 27,000 from California, have signed a petition assembled by the ACLJ to seek the preservation of the memorial.
The ACLJ’s filing represented itself and 20 members of the 110th Congress including U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who sponsored legislation that transferred control of the Mt. Soledad Memorial to the federal government.
The case to remove the cross originally was brought on behalf of an atheist, Phillip Paulsen, who died in 2006. The dispute began in 1989, and at one point the arguments included an order for San Diego to take the cross down. But in 1998 the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.
Then Proposition A, passed by 76 percent of the voters in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial.
“Presidential candidates need to talk about this.”
Maybe they will at the Values Voters debate on Sept. 17, and I think they are looking for suggested questions.
More info on afa.net
Clowns in the 9th circus need to be REMOVED!
All most of them do is 'talk'. Duncan Hunter is the man who got congress to act to preserve this. The courts are out of control.
The ACLJ's filing represented itself and 20 members of the 110th Congress including U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who sponsored legislation that transferred control of the Mt. Soledad Memorial to the federal government."
Duncan Hunter saved Mt. Soledad!
FAIR & EQUITABLE TRADE
ECONOMY & TAXES
SAFETY & SECURITY
FAITH & VALUES
ADDITIONAL AUDIO & VIDEOS
Excellent thought. I’m faxing this story to ensure it is known.
I’m making that my new background for my windows environment.
Anyone else think it isn’t coincidence that the 9th circus undid the Cross deal at the same time the Vietnam Memorials got destroyed?
No such thing as “coincidence” concerning a jacka$$ traitor LIEberal! Now they are trying to bury it as a “cleaning accident”...BULLchips!
Check out the videos I posted where you see that photo is the icon. You WILL NOT be dissappointed!
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.