Court rules cross on federal land is unconstitutional - Polidicks

[quote]A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a cross displayed on public property for nearly a century is unconstitutional. Three versions of the Christian symbol have been erected atop 822-foot Mount Soledad in the posh La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California, since 1913. The current 43-foot cross was erected in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans and has been the subject of near constant judicial back and forth since 1989, when two Vietnam War veterans filed suit against the city, saying it violated the California Constitution's "No Preference" clause. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that the cross -- since the late 1990s surrounded by plaques and paving stones honoring veterans and war dead -- was solely a memorial. "The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion," the court said in its ruling. "It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion's symbolism as its own, as universal. To many non-Christian veterans, this claim of universality is alienating." The court also noted that the site had, for most of history, been used for Easter services -- marked on maps until the late 1980s as the "Mount Soledad Easter Cross" -- and was designated a war memorial with a plaque "only after the legal controversy began in the late 1980s." "It was not until the late 1990s that veterans' organizations began holding regular memorial services at the site," the court said. And the court rejected arguments that the cross at a war memorial was no different than any other memorial that includes a cross. "This war memorial -- with its imposing Cross -- stands as an outlier among war memorials, even those incorporating crosses," the ruling says. "Contrary to any popular notion, war memorials in the United States have not traditionally included or centered on the cross and, according to the parties' evidence, there is no comparable memorial on public land in which the cross holds such a pivotal and imposing stature, dwarfing by every measure the secular plaques and other symbols commemorating veterans." The ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since the first lawsuit in 1989, the city of San Diego twice tried selling the property beneath the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, only to be stopped by the courts: once for failing to solicit bids and once for violating California's "No Preference" clause for giving "substantial financial advantage to bidders" who intended to leave the cross in place. By the late 1990s, with the association maintaining the property, the cross became a more extensive war memorial, with stone plaques and paving stones honoring veterans and other accoutrements of a memorial. In 2004, the city, the plaintiffs and the association reached an agreement that would move the cross to a nearby church, but two Republican congressmen intervened and inserted a rider into the 2005 omnibus budget bill that designated the property as a national veterans memorial and authorized the federal government to accept the donation of the property. But the San Diego City Council refused to donate the property after the city attorney wrote that the transfer likely would violate both the federal and state constitutions. Facing pressure from a new association formed to "save the Mount Soledad cross," the city reversed its decision and instead put the matter to a vote, which passed handily. More court filings followed, and in June 2006, three Republican congressmen pushed through a bill calling for the government to seize the property by eminent domain -- calling it "a historically significant war memorial." The federal government took possession in August. Two lawsuits were filed challenging the transfer almost immediately: one by Steve Trunk and Philip Paulson and the other by Jewish War Veterans of the United States. The district court consolidated the cases and eventually ruled in favor of the government. Trunk, Paulson and the Jewish War Veterans appealed, leading to Friday's ruling.[/quote] [img]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/US/01/04/california.cross/story.mount.soledad.cross.gi.jpg[/img] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/04/california.cross/index.html?hpt=T1[/url]

God bless America

Yes I too find the lower case T offensive.

:smith: IMO if the veterans want it then who cares? Nobody's forcing religion on anybody and it's not causing anyone harm. You can go ahead and put up a giant Star of David or Muslim Moon and Star for all I care, if the vets want it then go and give it to them! They've earned it!

wow that's just crossing the line

It's ok it's not like you can't find one just as large on every street corner in the midwest.

[QUOTE=Explosions;27206911]:smith: IMO if the veterans want it then who cares? Nobody's forcing religion on anybody and it's not causing anyone harm. You can go ahead and put up a giant Star of David or Muslim Moon and Star for all I care, if the vets want it then go and give it to them! They've earned it![/QUOTE] Being a veteran doesn't give them the right to do something unconstitutional. It shouldn't be a religious symbol at all, just a monument. e: [quote]"This war memorial -- with its imposing Cross -- stands as an outlier among war memorials, even those incorporating crosses," the ruling says. "Contrary to any popular notion, war memorials in the United States have not traditionally included or centered on the cross and, according to the parties' evidence, there is no comparable memorial on public land in which the cross holds such a pivotal and imposing stature, dwarfing by every measure the secular plaques and other symbols commemorating veterans."[/quote] Pretty much this. It's totally centered on the cross, a christian symbol. If you saw it from far away and didn't know it was a war monument, you would likely think it was put there by a church or other christian organization ee: [QUOTE=Explosions;27207013]Who says it's religious? The t stands for American tenacity during the Korean War.[/QUOTE] :colbert: Shut up.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27206975]Being a veteran doesn't give them the right to do something unconstitutional. It shouldn't be a religious symbol at all, just a monument.[/QUOTE] Who says it's religious? The t stands for American tenacity during the Korean War. :downs:

How could they possibly tear it down when even nuclear bombs can't destroy it? [img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101023081325/fallout/images/thumb/2/27/FNV_YangtzeMemorial.png/548px-FNV_YangtzeMemorial.png[/img]

just tear down the arms off so its a big shaft and not a cross.

[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;27207291]How could they possibly tear it down when even nuclear bombs can't destroy it? [img_thumb]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101023081325/fallout/images/thumb/2/27/FNV_YangtzeMemorial.png/548px-FNV_YangtzeMemorial.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] The area in and around New Vegas wasn't in the blast region of any nukes

Just because it was there for a long time doesn't make it any less unconstitutional. :colbert:

We had a big hoohah over this cross in class last year. A good week-long debate. I personally have no problem with it, but it's obviously in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, and unfortunately needs to go. Or, as I would prefer, the land should be sold to private owners and problem solved.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27207380]The area in and around New Vegas wasn't in the blast region of any nukes[/QUOTE] No, just the city was spared. There's massive craters to the south at the Nuclear test range, Cottonwood Crater, Mesquite Mountain Crater, Devils Throat, etc.

The system works.

[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;27207291]How could they possibly tear it down when even nuclear bombs can't destroy it? [img_thumb]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101023081325/fallout/images/thumb/2/27/FNV_YangtzeMemorial.png/548px-FNV_YangtzeMemorial.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] So THAT'S why it looked so familiar...

I thought it said "Court cross-rules federal land is unconstitutional" A man can dream :saddowns:

[QUOTE=Explosions;27206911]:smith: IMO if the veterans want it then who cares? Nobody's forcing religion on anybody and it's not causing anyone harm. You can go ahead and put up a giant Star of David or Muslim Moon and Star for all I care, if the vets want it then go and give it to them! They've earned it![/QUOTE] RTFA, they only started saying it was a war memorial after they challenged it [quote]The court also noted that the site had, for most of history, been used for Easter services -- marked on maps until the late 1980s as the "Mount Soledad Easter Cross" -- and was designated a war memorial with a plaque "only after the legal controversy began in the late 1980s." [/quote]

How can this be unconstitutional when the constitution only said the FEDERAL CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES can't pass LAWS explicitly dealing with religion? this is a STRUCTURE erected by a CITY This is like the right to privacy and birthright citizenship, the first being a reinterpretation of the right to refuse quartering to soldiers, and the other which states those born to parents under the jurisdiction of the United States have automatic citizenship, yet is applied to those who are born to people actively bypassing the US immigration process and laws

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208051]How can this be unconstitutional when the constitution only said the FEDERAL CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES can't pass LAWS explicitly dealing with religion? this is a STRUCTURE erected by a CITY This is like the right to privacy and birthright citizenship, the first being a reinterpretation of the right to refuse quartering to soldiers, and the other which states those born to parents under the jurisdiction of the United States have automatic citizenship, yet is applied to those who are born to people actively bypassing the US immigration process and laws[/QUOTE] not this shit again

[QUOTE=Prismatex;27208088]not this shit again[/QUOTE] What the problem, you have no counter argument as to the constitutionality of this structure?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208051]How can this be unconstitutional when the constitution only said the FEDERAL CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES can't pass LAWS explicitly dealing with religion? this is a STRUCTURE erected by a CITY This is like the right to privacy and birthright citizenship, the first being a reinterpretation of the right to refuse quartering to soldiers, and the other which states those born to parents under the jurisdiction of the United States have automatic citizenship, yet is applied to those who are born to people actively bypassing the US immigration process and laws[/QUOTE] Non-preferential interpretation. Any sort of legal action concerning a religious symbol on land owned by the federal government, or by land owned by the state, constitutes a law 'respecting the establishment of religion'. And it's not just the federal congress. Though it says Congress, which is the primary lawmaking body, the, I think 14th? amendment applies the constitution to the states and their legislative bodies, restricting all legislative bodies on state, federal, and local to level to the same limitations.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208121]What the problem, you have no counter argument as to the constitutionality of this structure?[/QUOTE] [quote] Since the first lawsuit in 1989, the city of San Diego twice tried selling the property beneath the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, only to be stopped by the courts: once for failing to solicit bids and once for violating California's "No Preference" clause for giving "substantial financial advantage to bidders" who intended to leave the cross in place.[/quote] The no preference clause is in the [B]state constitution[/B], not the [B]federal constitution[/B].

[QUOTE=Detective P;27208126]Non-preferential interpretation. Any sort of legal action concerning a religious symbol on land owned by the federal government, or by land owned by the state, constitutes a law 'respecting the establishment of religion'.[/QUOTE] First off, I have no idea if it's even possible for me to attempt counter your first point, which I find amazing, secondly, this is land owned by a city, which is irrelevant, when the issue at hand is how this is applicable any government entity below the federal level, since the constitution only states it applies to the Congress

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208219]First off, I have no idea if it's even possible for me to attempt counter your first point, which I find amazing, secondly, this is land owned by a city, which is irrelevant, when the issue at hand is how this is applicable any government entity below the federal level, since the constitution only states it applies to the Congress[/QUOTE] [quote] [url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1]From the California [B]STATE [/B]Constitution, Article I[/url] SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.[/quote] [editline]-[/editline] More information. [quote]More court filings followed, and in June 2006, three Republican congressmen pushed through a bill calling for the government to seize the property by eminent domain -- calling it "a historically significant war memorial." The federal government took possession in August.[/quote] As of Aug 2006, it became federal land. Which means now the Constitution takes precedence.

[QUOTE=RichardCQ;27208161]The no preference clause is in the [B]state constitution[/B], not the [B]federal constitution[/B].[/QUOTE] What you quoted is irrelevant, what you quoted was the City of San Diego's [B][I]financial practices[/I][/B] violating the State Constitution in their attempt to sell the structure, and not dealing with the Structure's constitutionality under the State Constitution

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208121]What the problem, you have no counter argument as to the constitutionality of this structure?[/QUOTE] No, it's more like that your argument is based on a different and "incorrect" view of the constitution.

[QUOTE=RichardCQ;27208266][editline]-[/editline] More information. As of Aug 2006, it became federal land. Which means now the constitution takes precedence.[/QUOTE] This is still irrelevant, as their violation of the Constitution was clearly stated as being over financial practices, and not the structure's actual constitutionality [quote]violating California's "No Preference" clause for giving "substantial financial advantage to bidders" who intended to leave the cross in place.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;27207291]How could they possibly tear it down when even nuclear bombs can't destroy it? [img_thumb]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101023081325/fallout/images/thumb/2/27/FNV_YangtzeMemorial.png/548px-FNV_YangtzeMemorial.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? I gotta buy that game and see if my grandfather's plaque is there!

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208356]This is still irrelevant, as their violation of the Constitution was clearly stated as being over financial practices, and not the structure's actual constitutionality[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but are you sure you know how to read? [quote]violating California's "No Preference" clause [B]for[/B] giving "substantial financial advantage to bidders" who intended to leave the cross in place.[/quote] It says for, as in <THIS VIOLATES THE LAW, HERE'S YOUR SPECIFIC REASON AS TO WHY>, it doesn't say that the No Preference clause is intended solely for financial reasons. If you [B]actually read the text in the constitution[/B] it's obvious why the cross (which only represents Christianity and to a small extent Judaism) would be considered preferential. Where's the flying spaghetti monster symbolism, eh?