Buy a piece of property and put up a monument.
Put whatever you want on it.
I am not sure what is so difficult to understand.
New rule: banned monuments must be physically removed by plaintiffs and/or judges at their expense. They’re offended so they won’t mind doing the work or paying for help.
There is no constitutional right to not feel alienated.
They should do like the San Diego one and sell just the land it sits on, and not budge it one inch.
I don’t know an agreed-on definition of religious liberty, but I don’t see how this is a victory for it.
Damn them.
And God will say He feels alienated by them which means that ...
Why do we permit the tail to wag the dog? Two people over thousands...
Just remember, that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, it is a lawyer created concept. The Constitution says,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
This provision specifically does not constrain citizens’ practice of religion whether on or off ‘government’ property. Because citizens construct a religious display on Federal land doesn’t mean that the Government endorses it. Are we now to destroy all the tombstones with Christian crosses and Jewish Stars of David in Arlington Cemetery? Give me a break, please!
wow. if true, this is a catastrophe of pure wickedness by the SC. textualism my eye.
Constitution doesn’t protect anyone from being offended
Flip ‘em the finger and ignore it. The USSC building has a 10 commandments right over the front door. They said its ok in a historical context, which is exactly how the New Mexico display had it.
These rulings need to start being ignored, and any federal moves should meet the Bundy response. They count on fear based obedience.
The Ten Commandments are on the wall of their chamber.
It was the govt who ruled it should be removed. So the govt had everything to do with removing religious liberty.
You need four justices to grant writ. My guess is Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas want to wait for another Constitutionalist.
“Congress Shall Make No Law...”
Where exactly does that phrase include a”State”??
(1) The mayor and city council refuse to take it down, and ignores all subsequent court rulings, judgments and/or fines
(2) Gov. Susana Martinez orders the State Marshalls office to refuse to execute any court orders with regard to the monument, citing the 1st and 10th Amendments deny jurisdiction to Federal courts on matters of religion in the states.
The 10 Commandments is not humanistic definition of religion, it is the rule book for humans who believe they have certain obligations to a “Creator.” This is what James Madison and those who drafted the First Amendment understood was the purpose of religious liberty. Humanism takes the emphasis from God-centered to man-centered. It says that everyone has a religion and God is not relevant in defining religion under the First Amendment. Hence, nontheistic creeds are considered religious.