"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?
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.