Posted on 06/20/2019 8:02:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a 40-foot tall cross erected on public property in Maryland does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
In a decision released Thursday morning, the high court ruled in American Legion v. American Humanist Association that a cross in Bladensburg meant to honor World War I soldiers did not have to removed, overturning a lower court decision.
Justice Samuel Alito authored most of the multi-part majority opinion, being joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Brett Kavanaugh joined. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Justice Alito wrote that while “the cross has long been a preeminent Christian symbol, its use in the Bladensburg memorial has a special significance.”
“For nearly a century, the Bladensburg Cross has expressed the community’s grief at the loss of the young men who perished, its thanks for their sacrifice, and its dedication to the ideals for which they fought. It has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of ‘a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions,’” said Alito.
“… there is no evidence of discriminatory intent in the selection of the design of the memorial or the decision of a Maryland commission to maintain it. The Religion Clauses of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim.”
In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg argued that the cross was unconstitutional, stating that “using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol.”
“Just as a Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation,” wrote Ginsburg.
“By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.”
In 2012, the American Humanist Association sent a letter to the Maryland National Park and Planning Commission demanding that the Bladensburg Cross be removed.
After the Commission refused to do so, the AHA sued them on behalf of two members who lived in the area as well as a third individual from Beltsville.
U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow ruled in November 2015 that the cross was constitutional, arguing that it fulfilled a secular purpose of honoring fallen American soldiers.
AHA appealed the decision and in October 2017, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2–1 in favor of removing the cross. In March 2018, the Fourth Circuit voted 8-6 to reject an appeal in the case.
Last November, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments over the Bladensburg Cross, consolidating the two cases of American Legion, et al. v. American Humanist Association and Maryland-National Capital Park v. American Humanist Association, et al.
But ladies....the Constitution wasn't about favoritism...it was about ESTABLISHING.
Nice precedent, we need some legal distinction between memorials and monuments.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Politically correct, anti-Christian interpretations of the Establishment Clause aside, technically speaking, Congress is the only entity that can violate that clause, by making a law respecting or prohibiting a particular establishment of religion.
But as we shall see, there are politically correct ways to effectively get around 1st Amendment (1A) prohibitions on Congress’s powers, but no less scandalous than Congress making such laws.
One reason for confusion about church and state separation is probably a consequence of corrupt, FDR era, anti-religious expression justices legislating anti-religious expression laws from the bench.
What happened is this imo. FDR’s anti-Catholic justices (eg., Anti-Catholic, Ku Klux Klan Justice Hugo Black) twisted Section 1 of 14A which expressly applies the Constitution's express privileges and immunities to the states. They twisted 14A by arguing that it applies 1A's express prohibition of certain powers to Congress to the states. This is evidenced by comparing Section 1 of the 14A with a disturbing excerpt from Cantwell v. Connecticut.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws [emphasis added]. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." —Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
The problem with the Court’s interpretation of 14A in context of religious expression is this. Cantwell justices seem to have “overlooked” that the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had stated on more than one occasion that 14A took away no state powers.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States." - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
"No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired . . ." —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. [emphasis added] I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existence." - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
The Court's decision in support of anti-Catholic Newton Cantwell was possibly intended to carry on the work of the failed anti-sectarian (read anti-Catholic) Blaine Amendment to the Constitution, the resolution to propose that amendment to the states for ratification killed in the Senate awhile after the Civil War.
In other words, 1A's express prohibition of certain powers to Congress, particularly making laws to prohibit free religious expression, ultimately didn't stop the FDR era, anti-Catholic Supreme Court from politically “amending” the failed Blaine Amendment to the Constitution to do what the previous century Congress couldn't do under 1A, and wouldn't do with proposed Blaine Amendment.
Again, politically correct interpretations of 14A aside, the states still have the 10th Amendment-protected power to cultivate religious expression, such power now reasonably limited by 14A.
In fact, in stark contrast to activist Supreme Court justices arguing politically correct interpretations of 14A to legislate likewise politically correct, anti-religious expression “laws” from the bench, Congress has the specific 14A power only to strengthen constitutionally enumerated protections, including religious protections.
The Supreme Court had put it this way about Congress's 14A powers.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
The big problem with 14A is that corrupt, post-17th Amendment, anti-religious expression Congress is stubbornly refusing to use that power to strengthen religious expression rights, particularly when Christians are harassed by state actors, career lawmakers letting corrupt justices and judges do their dirty, unconstitutional “legislative” work for them.
Corrections, insights welcome.
The remedy for institutionally indoctrinated activist justices confused about the establishment clause…
Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT's vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also promise to do its 14A duty to make penal laws that discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections, freedom of religious expression in this example.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
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.