[slykens]

Why not sell the small plot of land where the cross is to a private not-for-profit set up for the sole purpose of holding possession of that land for "conservation" purposes? Since the cross would then be on private property it would be outside of the purview of the First Amendment's restrictions. I'm sure enough donations could be had to maintain it privately.

While it is an end run around the Court's rulings I don't see how it would be illegal unless California law would prohibit it.

[newzjunkey]

Why not sell the small plot of land where the cross is to a private not-for-profit set up for the sole purpose of holding possession of that land for "conservation" purposes?

It was tried. Multiple times. Each time a court found a reason it wasn't legal.

[The Cuban]

They tried selling it. Court said they could not.

[calex59]

The cross is out of the purview of the 1st amendment now. The problem is that some judges can't read and understand the statement: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ".

They think the second part says something about freedom FROM religion. Congress has made no law establishing a religion by the city having this cross on the hill. No judge worth the powder to blow them to hell would ever rule otherwise. We have had several rulings around the country that uphold the right of government entities to have religious symbols displayed but the ACLU and other commies continue to use this same tired old argument.

Hopefully SCOTUS will uphold their right to display this cross.