Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: SMGFan

Court says that cross “has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions. And contrary to respondents’ intimations, there is no evidence of discriminatory intent in the selection of the design of the memorial or the decision of a Maryland commission to maintain it. The Religion Clause of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim.”

by Amy Howe 10:16 AM


8 posted on 06/20/2019 7:18:00 AM PDT by SMGFan ("God love ya! What am I talking about")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: SMGFan
The outcome turns heavily on the fact that the cross has been around for a long time and seems to establish a general presumption of constitutionality for old monuments of this sort: "The passage of time gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality." by Kevin Russell 10:19 AM↑0
10 posted on 06/20/2019 7:20:18 AM PDT by SMGFan ("God love ya! What am I talking about")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson