To: Conservative Coulter Fan
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.You'd think that the commonsense solution would be the transfer of land ownership. However, the sale was ruled "unconstitutional...". Can any of our expert FReepers tell us why that sale would have been unconstitutional?
22 posted on
05/03/2006 4:30:14 PM PDT by
Chena
(I'm not young enough to know everything.)
To: Chena
Considering that the ruling came from the ninth circuit, it more than likely is constitutional.
The SCOTUS overturns the 9th so often, they should be sending them a bill.
27 posted on
05/03/2006 4:38:11 PM PDT by
HEY4QDEMS
(Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
To: Chena
why that sale would have been unconstitutional Essentially... the court found it wasn't an arms-length sale, but was rigged to keep the atheist from buying the cross.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson