Veterans to resurrect cross at Calif. desert site


#1

A war memorial cross that once stood on a rocky hilltop in a national park before being deemed unconstitutional and ordered removed will be resurrected on Veterans Day at the stunningly stark Mojave desert site, capping a landmark case for veterans fighting similar battles on public lands
[LEFT]

Read more Veterans to resurrect cross at Calif. desert site |

It is good to see those who have kept working to undo what wackjobs want undo[/LEFT]


#2

NO…it REMAINS Unconstitutional to erect a cross on government land. The WHACK JOBS who think otherwise lost in Court.
The new cross is going up because the GOVERNMENT swapped the land and the land is NOW private.

"Henry Sandoz, who cared for the original 1930s cross as part of a promise to a dying World War I veteran, rededicated a new, 7-foot steel cross on the same hilltop before more than 100 people.** The site is now in private hands as part of a land swap with the National Park Service that ended the longstanding legal dispute**, which had become entangled in the thorny issues of patriotism and religion.


#3

Anytime the Atheist’s get slapped down it is a win for humanity, now they will find another corrupt judge to say that because it can be viewed from public land and is surrounded by public land it gives the impression that it is public land and should therefore be destroyed.

Atheist’s are nothing but paranoid parasites who only recognize the Constitution when they can twist it to fit their agenda of hate, fear, greed and disease. It is no wonder that most are attorneys and judges, the legal profession is one of very few fields where totally corrupt, morally bankrupt vermin can thrive.


#4

Actually, that’s not correct, Cam. The USSC, in remanding the case to the US District Court for the Central District of California, ruled 5-4 against that courts injunction against the land transfer, which that lower court had contended violated the spirit of the Establishment Clause by Congress’ attempt to transfer the land to private hands. Notable in that ruling was Justice Kennedy’s comment; “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 5-4 majority opinion. “A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished, need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs.” Supreme Court Refuses to Ban Mojave Cross - ABC News

The “whack jobs who thought otherwise” not only prevailed substantively in court, but within the US Congress as well, which consistently sought to maintain the cross’ presence and initiated the land swap ensuring its continued presence.

The USSC ruling on the case didn’t just affirm the land swap. It also strongly criticized the lower court for ignoring the historical import of the cross, the purposes for it erection originally, as well as affirming not only the properness, but the desirability as well of the Congress mediating such matters, while along the way making specific note of the on-going religious observances that have been made at the site for over seven decades. In short, the USSC slapped down the 9th Circuit and the Central District, while affirming the co-equal status, and primacy in such matters, of the US Congress.

More here:
salazar v. buono - Google Scholar


#5

I wonder if the ACLU would complain if you were to erect a Muslim symbol?


#6

Wrong…the District and Appellate Courts originally ruled the cross was unconstitutional on PUBLIC land. That was NOT overturned by Scotus.
The SECOND case was after the government did a land swap to make the 1 acre the cross was on…PRIVATE.
The Appellate court said that was an attempt to get around the ruling and voided it. The Supremes CORRECTLY said…uh-uh…THAT was a legislative solution to a thorny problem that left no one harmed. Remanded back to the appellate court where the LAND SWAP was found legal and the plaintiff had no injury.

Separation of Church and State was preserved and the cross is now on private land which is the only appropriate place for religious memorials of any kind. A Solomon-esque solution.


#7

Lawmakers should allow the government to sale land in square foot partitions to allow for memorials.

This is such a good idea I think I weill tell my Congressman.


#8

Obviously, Justice Kennedy’s assertions carry no weight with you. The USSC did not have the District and Appelate Court rulings before it as to the legitimacy of the cross’ placement on public land, and therefore couldn’t rule on it. The Court did not affirm the District and Appelate rulings for the simple reason, it could not:

The procedural history of this litigation must be considered to identify the issues now subject to review. The District Court granted the 2002 injunction after concluding that a cross on federal land violated the Establishment Clause. The Government unsuccessfully challenged that conclusion on appeal, and the judgment became final upon completion of direct review. At that point, the judgment “became res judicata to the parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 2195, 2205, 174 L.Ed.2d 99 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Government therefore does not—and could not—ask this Court to reconsider the propriety of the 2002 injunction or the District Court’s reasons for granting it. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8870140163481666320&q=salazar+v.+buono&hl=en&as_sdt=2,23&as_vis=1

Beyond Justice Kennedy’s comments, quoted previously, the Court went to the trouble of citing prior decisions respecting long-standing religious symbols, in addition to religious symbols equated with sectarian purposes:

Time also has played its role. The cross had stood on Sunrise Rock for nearly seven decades before the statute was enacted. By then, the cross and the cause it commemorated had become entwined in the public consciousness. See ibid. Members of the public gathered regularly at Sunrise Rock to pay their respects. Rather than let the cross deteriorate, community members repeatedly took it upon themselves to replace it. Congress ultimately designated the cross as a national memorial, ranking it among those monuments honoring the noble sacrifices that constitute our national heritage. See note following 16 U.S.C. § 431 (listing officially designated national memorials, including the National D-Day Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial). Research discloses no other national memorial honoring American soldiers—more than 300,000 of them—who were killed or wounded in World War I. See generally A. Leland & M. Oboroceanu, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics 2 (2009). It is reasonable to interpret the congressional designation as giving recognition to the historical meaning that the cross had attained. Cf. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 702-703, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005) (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment) (“40 years” without legal challenge to a Ten Commandments display “suggest that the public visiting the [surrounding] grounds has considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage”). ibid

In short, the Court went as far as it could, in the specific case before it, to say that it wasn’t going to entertain any on-going efforts to sweep long-standing religious symbols on public property. And, it went so far as to cast doubt on the original plaintiff’s standing to file the original law suit as well.

That isn’t just a Solomonic decision (nice religious reference, on your part), but a thorough beat-down of the assertion that private land, “is the only appropriate place for religious memorials of any kind.”


#9

A wonderful idea. And one that might go a long way towards establishing that offended sensibilities are not prima facie evidence for governmental transgressions of the 1st Amendment.


#10

At first thought, sounds good. But why not allow the memorials on govt. property? It has always been allowed until the last few anti-Christian years.


#11

In principle I agree, practically its a headache to get a lawsuit from an anti-Christian organization every time you sneeze and say bless you on government property.


#12

“Endorsing” is not “Establishing”
“Recognizing” is not “Establishing”
“Observing” is not “Establishing”

If Congress has not passed a Law, no violation of the Constitution or anybody’s Constitutional Rights has occurred.

There is no Constitutional Right to not be offended by anybody’s expression of Faith on any public location. The “Separation of church and State” as defined by Atheist Leftist’s does NOT exist in the U.S. Constitution.


#13

Thank you.
What part of, freedom OF, not FROM, do these people not get?

Along with, telling people they CAN’T put up a cross on public land - which IS unConstitutional because it 'prohibits the free excercize thereof.'
You are free to say whatever prayer you like, wherever you like. The Constitution guarantees that!
And Joe Blow who doesn’t like it is just as free to ignore it. The Constitution guarantees that, too!

Dang nitwits who don’t understand English, (or prefer to pretend they don’t know they’re twisting it to meet their own ends) 'bout make me want to bang my head up against a wall.
They ought to be ashamed of themselves; if not for their denseness, their transparency.

God BLESS those men who stood up for what they believe in! They stood up for you and me, too!
:flag:


#14

Amen!
Of all the selfish, self serving things that the Left latch onto they rarely look more petty and despicable than when try to tell Veteran’s that one of their memorials is not appropriate for a public place.

The very public place that they fought and died to protect from tyranny.


#15

Exactly. What a crying disgrace that some people choose not to get that. Sometimes I wonder if they have the sense to see the egg on their faces.

And what’s this nonsense about government land? Excuse me? Government IS you, IS me, and IS a bazzillion of other God-fearing (or not) other people who are citizens of this country. That means it’s OURS; not some pointed-headed beaurocrat’s over in D.C. Sheesh.
Whatever happened to:
“This land is your land
this land is my land;
from California
to the New York Island…”
???

And talk about the law of unintended consequences… Aren’tcha just proud of Teddy Roosevelt now?


#16

When I was reading this thread earlier I thought that that famous grave yard of our fallen soldiers with roll after roll of graves with all those crosses would be destroyed if those who hate religion had their way.


#17

That’s because Liberals and Democrats hate our military and our veterans. When they are in power, they defund the military and still expect them to fight without the equipment they need. If that doen’t produce to preferred outcome of killing them, they hope that they come back permanently injured so that they can buy their votes with VA benefits for the remainder of their lives.


#18

Certainly not on 1st Amendment basis.


#19

Boy howdy, if you didn’t just hit a sore spot in my side.

Local radio talk show host. Yeah, the bright one who claims to be a conservative, and served on the MO Legislature. One thing I can say for him is the insurmountable time and effort he puts in supporting veterans, the local cemetary, etc.
However, he will vote for ANY Democrat who promises a piece of pie to Vets.
Willful ignorance of that height about makes me ill.
:angry26:


#20

Just to make sure, if this was allowed, then you don’t mind seeing the Star and crescent on public land, right? You may not like it, and you’ll ignore it.