this judge is an arse
This “judge” must be a fag. The powah has gone to his empty head. I’d like the fag to show us where in the Constitution he finds his freedom from religion nonsense.
I thought the issue over the cross was resolved on July 31, 2008 by U.S. Federal Judge Larry Alan Burns. I guess the Left will never accept defeat and will keep beating the same old drum.
Thankfully, an Episcopal church, located within a few hundred feet from the present location of the cross, has agreed to place it on its property.
http://proliberty.com/observer/20010802.htm
This is one of the lies that, having been told often enough, is now believed to be true. We want to believe in the sanctity of our national parks, wilderness areas and forest lands. They are a wonderful public resource. However, the truth is, the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from owning this type of property within a state.
The constitutional facts of life
The founders of America drafted the United States Constitution to form a limited federal government. It was designed to take care of only those things which were truly our national business. The state governments or the people were to keep all other powers. Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Federal Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C. as the seat of the federal government and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “...the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
This is the only kind of property that the federal government is empowered to own in a state. The federal government cannot own forest lands. Why? Because no such power has ever been delegated to it and the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from assuming any power which has not been delegated to it by the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is the first constitutional fact of life preventing federal public land ownership within a state
*******************************************************
Public lands are for the public and this needs to be litigated over and over by each state. A federal judge does not have the authority to make or enforce such a ruling based on a false premise.
Saying that no religion trumps religion is just as much establishing a religious position, just as unconstitutional.
Why can’t the numbskull Marxists understand this?
MARYlandWhen a Federal Judge does not support the Constitution and worse when his opinion does NOT support the Establishment Clause of Our first amendment—Which should we the People support— the unjust -unconstitutional judge—or the Constitution. I say IMPEACH these judges and install Judges who do support the Constitution. I say keep the Mt.Soledad Cross and remove the anti-Constitutional judge.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
We need to have Global Warming and Liberalism classified as religions. Then start working on the Church/State arguments.
Just what the Founders intended: black robed tyrants.
This is why we have to control Congress for a generation, so that we can clear out vermin like this judge.
Somehow, in all these years, nobody in the town has alerted the proper liberal police. Yet.
Brand a cross into the judge’s face and if he wants it removed, he’s free to cut off his head.
Hee hee hee hee
and the beat goes one....I thought the Cross was going to stay up and the case was over and done
Burns immediately stayed his order pending an expected appeal.
...not quite up to his neck.
5.56mm
What constitution is he reading? It certainly isn't the US Constitution.
How long have the leftist douches been fighting this?
Too bad the right doesn’t have the fight mentality and tenacity to use against these godless tools.
Compromisers R us.
Apologies if there are errors in the following, but this is my understanding...
Note that it was the Republican Congress and George W. Bush who converted this property to federal land. A ballot initiative to sell to the highest bidder had failed, and one to donate it to the federal government passed overwhelmingly (but was ruled unconstitutional). So Congress and GWB stepped in and took it at the request of the City of San Diego, “to save the cross” by making it federal.
Judge Larry Alan Burns earlier (2008) ruled in favor of the cross, but in January 2011, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit of Appeals reversed his decision unanimously.
Judge Burns noted that the Ninth Circuit’s reversal wording pretty much tied his hands, making it clear that nothing but removal would be acceptable.* I believe that he felt that all he could do was issue this ruling that would pave the way for the SCOTUS to take up the case (that they’d previously declined). See his order here
I’m not so sure the SCOTUS will allow the cross to stand—even Justice Alito seemed against it from what I remember. Only time will tell, but my guess is that they’ll order it taken down.
*From http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Dec/12/mount-solidad-cross-constitution-removal/2/?#article-copy:
Physically altering the cross was found not to be viable. In the end, Burns said he felt his hands were tied and there was little room to maneuver around the 9th Circuit’s ruling of unconstitutionality.
“Deliberate language in the opinion makes it clear that removal of the large, historic cross is the only remedy that the Ninth Circuit conceives will cure the constitutional violation,” Burns wrote in his ruling.