Posted on 07/20/2006 7:01:09 AM PDT by Jay777
The House voted by an overwhelming majority for a bill that seeks to acquire the land where Mt. Soledad Cross stands and keep the war memorial in place. The final vote was 349 to 74. All 74 nay votes were from democrats. The bill will now go to the Senate and will be introduced by Rep. Jeff Sessions.
While the current court cases trying to bring the cross down will continue, from my understanding this legislation could make them moot. The current cases are being argued on the state constitution and if the federal government steps in and acquires the land it would override any verdict on the current argument. Of course we expect this isn't near the end of the road. I'm sure the ACLU will file a suit to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation if it passes.
(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...
Ping!
Sen. CAAB is my hero AGAIN!
Jay...when you and your gang have some spare time..how about starting a "Stop the United Nations" site???
That organization is dangerous like the ACLU is dangerous.
When is everybody going to wise up, especially our misrepresentatives in Washington, and tell the ACLU to get stuffed! They're not a government agency, or any kind of elected or appointed political enity. They're nothing more, than a private organization of "Commie-Scum-Bag lawyers". The Hell with the ACLU.
I have thought about doing exactly that many times, however...I have no spare time.
I totally understand...and if I had the time, the knowledge, I would do it myself.
Thanks for what YOU are doing.
Note Pelosi is leading the charge, once again.
So who is representing the 'mainstream' here?????
Thanks for the ping!
Unfortunately it has to pass the Senate as well... will it?
The person at Thomas More Law Center that I spoke to is optimistic that it will.
I just want to say... I so appreciate what you are doing. Much kuddos. You keep me informed so I am able to respond appropriately to this onslaught. I came from SD and Mt. Soledad has always been a beautiful sight. Thanks so much. I was recently there an am considering putting a memorial plaque for my father who served in WW2.
Also, (not being a lawyer) when this guy loses this suit does he have to pay all fees for bringing such litigation that is ultimately refuted? Probably not, eh? But it would be so sweet if this were the case.
The judge in California has blocked every effort by the city to sell or transfer the land (there have been several attempts). He is determined that his 1991 ruling not be thwarted and has ruled that such a transfer would be solely for the purpose of retaining the cross and has ruled (RULED I tell ya) that no one can buy or take title to the city's property, even with a referendum by the city voters showing their overwhelming support and consent.
This logic has stood up in the court of la la land.
So stand by.
Surely the time has come for somebody to say this:
It is your right to be Athiest. If you choose not to believe in God, fine. We can live with that.
It is your right also to be Agnostic. If you do not know whether there be a God or no, we can allow you to wallow in ignorance.
It is *not* your right to enforce your disbelief and ignorance upon the rest of us. We go *this* far, and no further.
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.