Posted on 11/10/2005 3:23:59 PM PST by JustAnotherOkie
Judge nullified citizens' 75% vote to maintain landmark
The city of San Diego will appeal a court ruling that nullified an overwhelming vote by its citizens to save a historic cross that sits on public land.
Attorney Charles LiMandri, who represented the city in the case, told WorldNetDaily yesterday that newly elected Mayor Jerry Sanders informed him of the decision to appeal the Oct. 7 ruling by San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett.
Cowett's decision effectively overturned Proposition A, passed by 75 percent of voters in July, which would donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of a veterans memorial.
But Cowett ruled this would be an unconstitutional aid to religion.
The conflict arises from an ACLU lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 29-foot concrete structure, which has been the center of a war memorial on city land since 1954.
Deputy City Attorney David Karlin confirmed to WND that Sanders intends to appeal the decision. Karlin explained that the city cannot file its appeal until the court signs an entry of judgment, which must be requested by the plaintiff. When that occurs, likely some time this month, the city will then have 60 days in which to file an appeal.
LiMandri, who works with the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest group, believes the case ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He has offered his services again to San Diego pro-bono, but the city has not decided yet who will represent it in the new legal round of appeal.
The Law Center provided legal analysis that formed the basis for a federal law that declared the cross and memorial as a National War Memorial and authorized the federal government to receive a donation of the land.
A bill authorizing the federal government to take over the memorial was authored by Republican U.S. Reps. Duncan Hunter and Randy Cunningham. President Bush signed the bill into law in December.
The ballot initiative came about after the city refused to donate the cross and memorial to the federal government. A group called San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial took just 23 days to gather 105,000 signatures.
The battle began in 1989 when Phillip Paulsen, an atheist, filed suit, and a court ordered the city to remove the cross. San Diego responded by placing the property up for sale, with the approval of 76 percent of voters. But the subsequent sale was ruled unconstitutional after Paulsen objected, arguing the sale had the effect of preserving the cross.
Paulsen argues that the cross is a violation of the First Amendment's ban on government establishment of a religion
In 1998, the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.
During its brief period of ownership, the Memorial Association made significant improvements, including extensive landscaping and the addition of more than 3,000 plaques honoring military veterans.
Sounds like this guy Phillip Paulson needs a foot up his butt. He should be encouraged to find a new place to live. Somewhere that a cross wonbt bother him.
Phillip Paulsen, a Christian bigot
As far as I know, the US constitution says nothing about indirect government assistance to religon but only says that congress shall making no law concerning the establishment of religon. Because maintaining a cross on government land does not involve any law concerning the establishment of religon, then this voter-approved proposition is not unconstitutional. The judge errored by using an excessively broad and distorted definition of the establishment clause in our constitution. But who knows if this ruling will be overturned on appeal.
Re post #4: judge errored = judge erred
Just for the record, the 9th Circus made the same error that Judge Cowett just made.
The courts have violated the first ammendment time after time by installing atheism as the state religion.
Roger Hedgecock, one of the local talk show hosts, describes this long-term litigant the "annoyed atheist" or "annoyed atheist Phillip Paulson."
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.