Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AlturaCt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Roanoke, VA
    Posts
    1,890

    Mount Soledad monument for fallen soldiers unconstitutional

    Appeals court agrees: Tear down that cross

    Mount Soledad monument for fallen soldiers unconstitutional, according to 9th Circuit judges

    A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to stay a federal judge's order to remove the Mount Soledad Cross, which for decades has commemorated fallen American soldiers buried there.

    As WorldNetDaily reported, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered the city of San Diego to remove the 43-foot structure by Aug. 1 or face a fine of $5,000 a day. Thompson ruled the cross unconstitutional in 1991, but the case has remained in courts and become an issue of public policy.

    The dispute was started by an atheist charging the cross – the centerpiece of a national war-veterans memorial – violates the so-called "separation of church and state."

    In its decision, however, the 9th Circuit scheduled oral arguments on the matter for the week of Oct. 16, weeks after the Cross is to be removed, noted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public-interest law firm that has battled to save the cross since 2004.

    Richard Thompson, the Law Center's president and chief counsel, commented on the recent order: "It is an outrage and insult not only to Christians, but people of all faiths, that this memorial site to our veterans and fallen war heroes would be desecrated by removal of a universally recognized symbol of sacrifice just because one atheist was upset about it."

    Thompson says a quick solution would be for the federal government to step in and take the land under its power of eminent domain, but "so far they have remained silent."

    Rob Muise, a Law Center trial counsel who has authored many of the pleadings in the case, said further action will be taken to preserve the cross.

    "Friends, comrades, and family members of thousands of our fallen veterans have chosen the Mt. Soledad memorial as a place to honor and remember their fallen heroes," he said. "As a former Marine officer and veteran of the first Persian Gulf War, I am sickened by the thought of the pain that these court decisions must be causing for these grieving families. Our veterans deserve better than this."

    In 2004, Congress paved the way for the cross to be preserved by designating the structure and the land on which it stands a national veterans memorial. The congressional action authorized the Department of the Interior to accept the property as a donation, to be administered under the National Park System.

    Despite widespread support, however, the San Diego City Council declined to make the donation, prompting formation of a grass roots organization, "San Diegans for the Mt Soledad War Memorial," headed by Jewish businessman Philip Thalheimer.

    The group led a petition drive, obtaining more than 100,000 signatures calling on the council to reverse its decision. The council put the question to voters in a special election in which 76 percent chose to preserve the cross. State Court Judge Patricia Cowett, however, ruled proposition violated the California constitution. Her order is under appeal.

    The American Family Association has launched a campaign asking citizens to send an e-mail to President Bush to effectively take "the case out of Judge Thompson's hands" by signing an executive order transferring the land to the National Park Service.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=50761
    [b]Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.
    - Arnold J. Toynbee

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,569
    This is a disgrace and every citizen should feel ashamed.

    Should we go remove all the crosses on every headstone at Arlington National Cemetery now too?

  3. #3
    Senior Member CountFloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Occupied Territories, Alta Mexico
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by dlm1968
    Should we go remove all the crosses on every headstone at Arlington National Cemetery now too?
    It's just a matter of time.
    It's like hell vomited and the Bush administration appeared.

  4. #4
    Senior Member crazybird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Joliet, Il
    Posts
    10,175
    This is disgusting. It's a monument and I bet there's somebody out there for every damn symbol ever invented that would be "offended". Hey...there's LOTS of things that offend me. I hate seeing neon lights of naked girls advertising strip joints. I am offended that someone named a restaurant "Hooters". I am offended by signs that aren't in English. So what? I don't have to go to "Hooters" and I can drive by real quickly by the neon signs and I don't go places that aren't in English.

    It's part of America and it's a memorial and a burial ground for those people!!! Don't like it? Build a memorial and a burial ground for athiests and then I'll be OFFENDED.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member PintoBean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Peekskill, New York
    Posts
    964
    Being pragmatic here....I believe I am correct in stating that said cross could stay right where it is if said cross were on private land. Why not simply sell the small area that is the foot print of the cross to a private citizen for a buck, and then turn around and have said citizen lease back HIS/HER cross for say a buck a year with a 200 year lease between the parties?
    Keep the spirit of a child alive in your heart, and you can still spy the shadow of a unicorn when walking through the woods.

  6. #6
    blindman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    15
    I think that the ACLU are the "robbers of our freedoms"

  7. #7
    Senior Member Brian503a's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California or ground zero of the invasion
    Posts
    16,029
    http://www.10news.com

    U.S. Supreme Court Intervenes In Battle Over Soledad Cross
    Lower Judge Had Ordered City To Remove Cross


    POSTED: 12:04 pm PDT July 3, 2006
    UPDATED: 4:17 pm PDT July 3, 2006

    WASHINTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court intervened Monday in the 17-year battle over the Mount Soledad cross, with Justice Anthony Kennedy ordering a stay until he can fashion a further order.

    "We're delighted. This is what we've been hoping for," said Phil Thalheimer, chairman of San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial.

    The fact that the Supreme Court is considering hearing the case represents a "huge change," Thalheimer said. "We're pretty excited about the ruling," he added.

    Kennedy notified the parties in the case that the stay would remain in effect until they heard from him again, probably within a week or 10 days, said James McElroy, attorney for atheist Phillip Paulson, whose 1989 lawsuit launched the legal battle.

    Mayor Jerry Sanders described Kennedy's decision as a "positive development," but cautioned that the Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear the issue.

    "It is important that San Diegans understand and acknowledge that the Supreme Court has not yet decided to hear the case," Sanders said, "nor have they opined in our favor.

    "Today, by no stretch of the imagination, is a victory in this case," he added. "It is merely an opportunity to retain the integrity of our memorial. Hopefully, the high court will allow us to make our case."

    On May 3, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. in San Diego -- enforcing an injunction he first issued in 1991 -- ordered the city to remove the cross by Aug. 1 or face fines of $5,000 a day.

    Last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the city's bid to stay Thompson's order.

    Republican congressmen Duncan Hunter, Brian Bilbray and Darrell Issa subsequently introduced a bill that would preserve the cross by having ownership transferred to the Department of Defense.

    In a statement, Hunter said Kennedy's order was "promising."

    "Today's ruling is promising news in the effort to preserve the memorial and provides greater opportunity to pursue the administrative and legislative options for protecting this historic landmark," the lawmaker said. "Removing the impeding deadline is the right decision."

    Bilbray called it a "step in the right direction."

    "I am hopeful that the court will eventually rule to permanently protect the memorial for those who have served and protected us," Bilbray said.

    The cross was built in 1954 as a memorial to veterans of the Korean War.

    Judges twice ruled that the sale of the land surrounding the memorial to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which maintains the site, was unconstitutional.

    Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett ruled that Proposition A -- which allowed the city to transfer the 20-ton cross and surrounding walls and plaques to the National Park Service so it could be designated a national war memorial -- was invalid and unenforceable.

    In a special election on July 26, 2005, 75 percent of San Diegans who cast ballots voted for Prop A.

    Cowett ruled, however, that the proposed transfer would violate the state and federal constitution by giving preferential treatment to one religion over another.

    In November 2004, a ballot measure failed that would have authorized a new sale of the cross and the land around it.

    At that time, two veterans groups supported moving the cross to another site to end the litigation.

    Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the dispute.

    City Attorney Michael Aguirre said Kennedy's decision to grant the stay was a "significant development" toward having the case heard.

    "It doesn't mean that the Supreme Court will hear the case," he said. "But it is unusual in a case this far advanced for the Supreme Court to issue a stay order."
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •