Posted on 10/08/2005 10:03:30 AM PDT by Jay777
SAN DIEGO -- A Superior Court judge has ruled that a proposed transfer of the Mount Soledad Cross to the federal government is unconstitutional.
Judge Patricia Cowett found Friday that maintenance of the cross is an "unconstitutional preference of religion."
Cowett also said transferring ownership of the 43-foot cross and surrounding property to the federal government is an "unconstitutional aid to religion."
"The court hereby finds the ordinance placing Proposition A on the ballot and Proposition A unconstitutional, and therefore invalid and unenforceable. Maintenance of this Latin Cross as it is on the property in question, is found to be an unconstitutional preference of religion in violation of Artical I, Section 4, of the California Constitution, and the transfer of the memorial with the cross as its centerpiece to the federal government to save the cross as it is, where it is, is an unconstitutional aid to religion in violation of Artical XVI, Section 5, of the California Constitution."
(Excerpt) Read more at 10news.com ...
What about that big beehive of a mosque up on the hill? Is that OK?
What's with the name "Soledad" anyway? ... first it's the name of a reporterette and now it 's the name of a mount... what next, Soledad car wax?
I am waiting for some judge to find the constitution un-constitutional.
Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) - http://www.alliancedefensefund.org
Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) - http://www.thomasmore.org
American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) - http://www.aclj.org
The Rutherford Institute - http://www.rutherford.org/
Stop the ACLU Coalition - http://www.stoptheaclu.org
Here are a few examples of how two of those organizations are fighting back:
ADF Contacts Over 3,600 School Districts Over Attempts To Censor Christmas
ADF: 700 lawyers ready to fight ACLU lawsuits
ADF: Pentagons' Warning About Boyscouts Is Absurd
Thomas More Law Center: Town of Palm Beach Pays $50,000 In Attorney Fees Apologizes To Women In Nativity Lawsuit
Additional information:
The ACLU must be destroyed: Joseph Farah supports Boy Scouts, urges Americans to fight back
Citizens mobilized to stop ACLU (seeks to consign group to 'ash heap of history')
ACLU fulfilling communist agenda
Revealing FACTS on the ACLU from its own writings
See how YOUR Senator or Representative ranks with the ACLU
This group just started on December 3, 2004 and are looking for new members to their yahoo group
My Personal Anti-ACLU Blog (Check it out and leave a comment!)
This ruling is a slap in the face to both veterans and voters-seventy-five percent of whom voted to keep Mount Soledad as it is, where it is. This smacks of the worst kind of judicial activism. Judge Cowett already attempted to undermine the preservation of this sacred symbol by forcing a minimum 2/3 supermajority for passage just a few days before the July 26 election
As we predicted, the people rose to the occasion and overwhelmingly approved Proposition A. Now, Judge Cowett wants to change the rules after the game has already been played.
There is some mention of problems occurring because of the "Last Word" status of the Supreme Court. I'd say this might reflect that dissertation.
Named after a saint?! OMG! Quick, let's rename it Clintonville. Can't have a city named after a saint.
ROTFLMAO!
I thought that was what the SCOTUS did every time they hand down a ruling... Regards,
It appears she's letting her imagination get out of control.
Judge Cowett "went so far as to [say that] calling the monument a war memorial is a sham designed to achieve the predominantly sectarian purpose of promoting Christianity as opposed to honoring our fallen veterans."
Charles LiMandri, West Coast regional director of the Thomas More Law Center states, "We believe she telegraphed her hostility towards the cross when she required a two-thirds vote on Prop. A to prevail, and then would not relinquish jurisdiction over the constitutionality issue to the federal court that first retained jurisdiction of that issue."
Myke Shelby, a former mayoral candidate who submitted the petition to force the vote on Proposition A, reacted with shock yesterday. He said he is likely to ask an attorney to explore his options about participating in the Oct. 3 hearing. "We tried to do everything according to the rules, but they keep on changing the rules," he said. "This is like moving the goal post."
Her bias is apparent.
Judge Cowett appears to be anti-American.
They don't need to. Liberals made up a "Living" Constitution that's so much nicer than that pro-gun, pro-state-rights old one.
When and how do the people get to force these activist judges to step down? Why are they ever given a pass, no matter how far from the Constitution they stray? When do they have to answer to the people and a higher authority?
It is time Governors and POTUS started saying "try to enforce it" and the legislatures and congress back them up. If the congress and the legislatures back them up, who will carryout their dictatorial rulings?
The Judg enotes that a Cross has stood on that ground ,in relation to the War Memorial , since 1913. And when the
godless Reprobate criminals have destroyed it it has been
replaced. th eLatest replacement coming in 1954 (permisison granted by the City in 1952.It would be unreasonable to believe there were no lawyers involved in any of the many
transactions to discover that such a cross would be a violation of Article 1 Sect.4 and Article XVI Sect.5 .So clearly we are told we must believe California had no legal
authority that understood the constitution from 1913 til
present day- or the current crop of Judges and such are flaming godless /lawless idiots.(I prefer to believe the latter as true. Perhaps someone from California can explain ifthe California Constitution itself has been expunged of any religious significance -or the does the State Constitution as read by Judge Patricia Yim Cowett declare
itself to be unconstitutional. It is my understanding that every State Constitution in some manner does acknowledge God
according to Yim Cowett an unconstitutional act?Also I wonder (having read her strained logic) How she can apply
a current and errant understanding of the Constitution to
a Cross that has stood in direct relation to the War Memorial since 1913? Seems a structure deemed acceptable in 1913,and 1923,and 1952, and 1954 and apparantly accepted every year until the last few ought not be declared "unconstitutional" today.Were I living under her
jurisdiction I would expect fire to fall from the sky as
we are told happened when Sodom and Gomorrah defied God.
Perhaps He might find "fault" with California and I don't think a rowboat would help if God wearies of the godless
defiance in the California Courts.
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.
