Religions > Atheism > Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2007 03:26:21 AM |
| Object: |
Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules |
Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/13/news/sandiego/18_09_131_12_07.tx=
t
By: North County Times wire services -
SAN DIEGO - The city of San Diego's appeal of a court decision
ordering it to move the Mount Soledad cross or pay a fine of $5,000
per day should be dismissed, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.
The federal appeals court said issues in the appeal had become
irrelevant because Congress passed a law last summer transferring
ownership of the cross and the land it sits on to the federal government.
"It was a logical decision by the Ninth Circuit and represents yet
another litigation victory surrounding the Mount Soledad Veterans War
Memorial," said City Attorney Michael Aguirre.
Lawsuits challenging the transfer of the property are still pending in
federal court.
Last November, a state appellate panel reversed a lower court ruling
that the city's proposed transfer of the cross to the federal
government was unconstitutional.
A Superior Court judge had ruled that a ballot proposition which
allowed the city to transfer the cross and surrounding walls and
plaques to the National Park Service so it could be designated a
national war memorial was invalid and unenforceable.
Vietnam veteran Phillip Paulson -- who has since died -- sued the city
in 1989 to try to force the removal of the cross, contending that
having the Christian symbol on city-owned land represented
unconstitutional preference for religion under state law.
CNS-01-12-2007 16:08
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Shroud Of Urine" |
|
| Title: Re: Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules |
18 Jan 2007 12:05:05 PM |
|
|
On Jan 16, 2007, "bucktooth-beverleaver@nospam.net".
Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules
Somebody simply will have to sue the Feds if, that is, IF the cross is
allowed transferred to Federal land-ownership and IF it does in that case. I
would be more than happy to file the lawsuit myself on behalf of the American
taxpayer ; )
--
I'm a compASSionate CUNTservative neoCONdescender with
a twist of blASSphemy thrown in for truth :)))
BTW...***** the jesus myth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules |
18 Jan 2007 10:30:08 PM |
|
|
"Shroud Of Urine" <j.wuest@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kFOrh.382450$V12.49864@fe07.news.easynews.com...
On Jan 16, 2007, "bucktooth-beverleaver@nospam.net".
Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules
Somebody simply will have to sue the Feds if, that is, IF the cross is
allowed transferred to Federal land-ownership and IF it does in that case.
I
would be more than happy to file the lawsuit myself on behalf of the
American
taxpayer ; )
And I would have no problem if someone beat you silly as an expression of
their first Amendment rights.
Your side lost, get over it, the cross stays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules |
18 Jan 2007 10:56:25 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12r0i459ejbf982@corp.supernews.com...
"Shroud Of Urine" <j.wuest@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kFOrh.382450$V12.49864@fe07.news.easynews.com...
On Jan 16, 2007, "bucktooth-beverleaver@nospam.net".
Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules
Somebody simply will have to sue the Feds if, that is, IF the cross is
allowed transferred to Federal land-ownership and IF it does in that
case.
I
would be more than happy to file the lawsuit myself on behalf of the
American
taxpayer ; )
And I would have no problem if someone beat you silly as an expression of
their first Amendment rights.
You sure you wouldn't be happier in Hitler's Germany, Dana?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew F. Heil" |
|
| Title: Re: Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules |
19 Jan 2007 12:23:28 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Shroud Of Urine" <j.wuest@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kFOrh.382450$V12.49864@fe07.news.easynews.com...
On Jan 16, 2007, "bucktooth-beverleaver@nospam.net".
Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules
Somebody simply will have to sue the Feds if, that is, IF the cross is
allowed transferred to Federal land-ownership and IF it does in that case.
I
would be more than happy to file the lawsuit myself on behalf of the
American
taxpayer ; )
And I would have no problem if someone beat you silly as an expression of
their first Amendment rights.
Your understanding of Constitutional law is sadly lacking. Perhaps you
could sue your civics teacher(s) for malpractice. It appears that you
might have grounds for a case. Thankfully, no one actually sitting on
the bench is sufficiently delusional so as to entertain violence as
protected under the First Amendment.
Your side lost, get over it, the cross stays.
Actually, the case simply moves to the federal courts, who can decide
whether the "Easter Cross" is secular.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "toor" |
|
| Title: Re: Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, courtrules |
25 Jan 2007 10:45:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:30:08 -0900, Dana wrote:
"Shroud Of Urine" <j.wuest@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kFOrh.382450$V12.49864@fe07.news.easynews.com...
On Jan 16, 2007, "bucktooth-beverleaver@nospam.net".
Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules
Somebody simply will have to sue the Feds if, that is, IF the cross is
allowed transferred to Federal land-ownership and IF it does in that case.
I
would be more than happy to file the lawsuit myself on behalf of the
American
taxpayer ; )
And I would have no problem if someone beat you silly as an expression of
their first Amendment rights.
Your side lost, get over it, the cross stays.
'Your side?' As in, the side of freedom of speech and separation of
church and state? That would leave your side to be the side of theocratic
oppression? You are proud of that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules |
18 Jan 2007 10:46:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:30:08 -0600, Dana wrote:
"Shroud Of Urine" <j.wuest@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kFOrh.382450$V12.49864@fe07.news.easynews.com...
On Jan 16, 2007, "bucktooth-beverleaver@nospam.net".
Soledad Cross appeal irrelevant, should be dismissed, court rules
Somebody simply will have to sue the Feds if, that is, IF the cross is
allowed transferred to Federal land-ownership and IF it does in that case.
I
would be more than happy to file the lawsuit myself on behalf of the
American
taxpayer ; )
And I would have no problem if someone beat you silly as an expression of
their first Amendment rights.
Your side lost, get over it, the cross stays.
How North Korean of you.
You make all dictators happy.
A gutless little slimeball & failure.
You have nothing to justify your life and that life is a total
failure. You're not much of a human and, not at all, a man.
You might want to consider suicide as your life is meaningless and
your beliefs are nothing more than the "Wit & Wisdom of George Walker
Bush".
You're not as intelligent as the incumbent nor has his sweeping
wisdom so why not just kill yourself?
You're getting confused with GWB just because the two of you have the
same military background.
Gray Shockley
---------------------
Ashamed of Dana
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
