calfoxwc Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 <H1 id=yn-title>[/size] So, the lower courts IGNORED the fact that the memorial was on private land. And four Supreme Court justices tried to ignore that fact too? It isn't about "separation of church and state"... it's about taking down the Americans' belief in God. They...don't....like....us. ********************* High court says Mojave cross in Calif. can stay</H1> AP – This undated photo taken by Henry and Wanda Sandoz and made available Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2009, by the … U.By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – 39 mins ago WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Wednesday that a federal court went too far in ordering the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home in California. In ruling the cross could stay, the justices said federal judges in California did not take sufficient notice of the government's decision to transfer the land in a remote area of California to private ownership. The move was designed to eliminate any constitutional concern about a religious symbol on public land. The ruling was 5-4, with the court's conservatives in the majority. The Veterans of Foreign Wars erected the cross more than 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. It has been covered with plywood for the past several years following the court rulings. Court papers describe the cross as 5 feet to 8 feet tall. "Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that soldiers who died in battle deserve a memorial to their service. But the government "cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message," Stevens said. Six justices wrote separate opinions and none spoke for a majority of the court. The holding itself was narrow, ordering lower courts to look again at the transfer of land from the government to private control. Lower federal courts previously ruled that the cross' location on public land violated the Constitution and that the land transfer was, in effect, an end run around the constitutional problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.