Posted on 07/22/2005 9:03:25 AM PDT by radar101
The campaign to keep the Mount Soledad cross in La Jolla suffered a setback yesterday when a judge said a ballot measure aimed at preserving the cross requires two-thirds approval from San Diego voters Tuesday.
The higher threshold, coming five days before the special election, casts doubt on the prospects for a measure that previously seemed destined for approval.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Do tax increases require a 2/3 vote....?
Pretty soon the ACLU will be attacking cities like San Diego, Los Angeles, San Franscisco, St. Augustine, Port St. Lucie, St. Louis and San Antonio, becuse their names 'denote Christian roots'.
What a joke
Exactly what portion of the California or US constitution did this judge use to justify this new threshold? OR did he just pull it out of his butt because he is legislating from the bench......
the judge--a SHE.
"Exactly what portion of the California or US constitution did this judge use to justify this new threshold? OR did he just pull it out of his butt because he is legislating from the bench......"
It's in the San Diego city charter.
If the land is a public park, and it is being transferred to any other entity without an ironclad guarantee that it will remain a public park in perpetuity, then the transfer requires a 2/3rds vote to approve.
Congress can use or dispose of federal land as it wishes. So there is a possibility that the land could eventually end up being used for some other purpose.
I don't understand. Since the cross is already there and has been for fifty years, why doesn't it take a two-thirds majority vote to REMOVE it, or does that street only go one way?
"I don't understand. Since the cross is already there and has been for fifty years, why doesn't it take a two-thirds majority vote to REMOVE it, or does that street only go one way?"
The vote isn't to save the cross. It's to transfer the park land to the federal government.
Is the judge just making it up as he or she goes along?
See Post #6.
Wait till they figure out how Sacramento got its name (-:
"Wait till they figure out how Sacramento got its name (-:"
- LOL...good one. Sad thing is that I can see it happening.
Hey I missed post 6, sorry. Looks fair and square to me!
The problem here is that the land is now private property. there was a move to deed it to the city, but the Athiest attorney attacked that.
The BIG rub here for the Athiest is that once it is a Federal Court, he will have sue the Federal Government, through Federal Courts, and the U S Supreme Court has said it is O K to have a cross or 10 Commandments outside of a Court building.
"The problem here is that the land is now private property. there was a move to deed it to the city, but the Athiest attorney attacked that. "
Backwards, it is on city property, and there was an effort to deed it to a private entity, but that fell apart because of the 2/3rds vote requirement.
If the land was private property, the cross would not be in danger.
That may be true for now, but the ACLU is working on an approach to crosses on private property. Perhaps an eminent domain attack first and then a separation of church and state attack, or something like that....
The cross got 77% according to Roger Hedgecock on Rush's show today.
Way to put the rotten activist judge on notice, San Diego
The attorney for the athiest declared that this was his first step ( he anticipated that this intiative woulf fail)
Had the Cross measure not passed, he was going to move on to remove crosses on "Public Property" like cemetaries.
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.