Mt. Soledad

[Soldier4Christ]

Kennedy delays cross removal


Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Friday afternoon postponed a federal judge's order that would have required the city of San Diego to remove a Christian cross from city-owned land on a prominent hill, Mt. Soledad. Kennedy said that "the equities here support preserving the status quo" while the city pursues an appeal in federal court and a separate appeal in Califiornia state court. U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson has ordered the cross removed from city property by Aug. 1, and has imposed fines of $5,000 a day if that is not done.

Justice Kennedy blocked that order in a four-page in-chambers opinion.

The Justice issued a stay in response to a request from the city (application 05-A-1234). He denied as unnecessary a separate request for a stay from a war memorial group (application 05-A-1233).

In postponing the judge's removal order, Kennedy said there would be "irreparable harm of altering the memorial and removing the cross" while there would be only "slight harm" in a brief delay while the Ninth Circuit considers the city's appeal.

The Justice also found two other factors making the case "sufficiently unusual" -- first, that Congress has passed a resolution treating the monument as "a national memorial honoring veterans" and has authorized federal officials to take title to the memorial if the city donates it, and, second, the city's voters have approved a ballot measure authorizing the donation to the federal government. (The ballot measure has been struck down by a state court in California, but that is on appeal in the 4th District Califiornia Court of Appeal for expedited review.)

The Kennedy opinion did not mention it, but some city officials have said publicly that, if the transfer to the federal government is made with the aim of protecting the Christian cross, that would amount to a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause. Any such transfer, if it is allowed by state courts, almost certainly will be challenged -- and probably by the same San Diegan, Philip K. Paulson, an atheist who has been challenging the cross on city property since 1989.

Twice before, Kennedy noted, the Supreme Court had denied review of the Mt. Soledad cross controversy. But, on Friday, he said Congress' passage of a measure to take over the memorial came after prior lower court rulings in the case, and "its effect on the litigation has yet to be considered." And, despite the earlier Suipreme Court refusals to get involved, he added, "Congress' evident desire to preserve the memorial makes it substantially more likely that four Justices will agree to review the case in the event the Court of Appeals affirms the District Court's order."

The pending litigation in state court, according to Kennedy, may deal with state-law issues bearing upon the federal judge's removal order, providing guidance on the effect, if any, of Congress' action toward the memorial.

"The respect due both to Congress and to the parallel state-court proceedings persuades me that the District Court's order in this case should be stayed pending final disposition of the appeal" by the Ninth Circuit "or until further order of this Court. If circumstances change significantly, the parties may apply to this Court for reconsideration." (The Circuit Court had denied a stay.)

On July 3, Kennedy had issued a temporary stay pending further review of the delay requests.

[Soldier4Christ]

House votes to acquire contested San Diego cross

The House voted 349-74 Wednesday to acquire a monumental cross and the park around it from the city of San Diego.

The 29-foot cross has been the target of a 17-year court battle between an atheist and the city, which owns the hilltop property where the monument stands.

A federal judge ruled in May that the cross cannot stand in the municipal park because it violates a state constitutional prohibition on the governmental endorsement of any one religion. That ruling is being appealed by the city.

San Diego-area congressman Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, said in floor debate that federal ownership would make the existing lawsuit moot and might also insulate the cross from further legal challenges under the U.S. Constitution.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court said it might be willing to consider the case once appeals have been exhausted.

City officials have argued that the cross, a symbol of Christianity, is part of a secular memorial commemorating veterans of the Korean War.

Under federal law, which is more flexible than California law, religious displays may stand on public property if they have a secular meaning.

In May, Hunter asked President Bush to exercise his powers of eminent domain to federalize the park property. The president declined to act on that request, but the administration endorsed Hunter's bill in a policy statement Wednesday.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions has introduced an identical bill in the Senate.

[Soldier4Christ]

Battle Over Mt. Soledad Memorial Cross Heats Up


I reported earlier about the House voting for a bill that seeks to acquire the land where Mt. Soledad Cross stands and keep the war memorial in place. Now the Thomas More Law Center has put out their press release with a lot more details including some of the ACLU’s deceptive actions. Here is part of the release…

Via Thomas More Law Center

    President Bush, on the day of the vote, issued a “Statement of Administration Policy” that “strongly” supported H.R. 5683. The Statement read, in part, “In the face of legal action threatening the continued existence of the current Memorial, the people of San Diego have clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in its present form. Judicial activism should not stand in the way of the people, and the Administration commends Rep. Hunter for his efforts in introducing this bill.”

    Over the past two years, the Law Center has provided thousands of attorney hours without charge to preserve the memorial cross from destruction by the ACLU-backed atheist Paulson. Charles LiMandri, the west coast director of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This case is one that should concern all Americans. It is a direct attack on our national heritage, and it is an attack that is occurring on our own soil. The ACLU and its minions, with the help of activist judges, seek to destroy what our Founding Fathers created—One Nation Under God.”

    U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) on Tuesday, introduced legislation in the Senate identical to H. R. 5683.

    The ACLU officially opposed H.R. 5683 in a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the ACLU misstated important facts and misrepresented the law. For example, the ACLU claimed that “service members are unable to choose their symbols when, as in Mt. Soledad, the government erects a 43-foot Latin cross upon public property.” In fact, the memorial cross was erected by a private organization and many family members, friends, and comrades of our fallen veterans have chosen to honor their fallen heroes by placing nearly 2,000 memorial plaques at the foot of the cross. Many of the plaques contain the Star of David, honoring fallen Jewish veterans.

    Moreover, the ACLU also made the specious claim that “Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice White joined Justice Kennedy in noting that Latin crosses on government property violate the Constitution.” In support of this prevarication, the ACLU cited dicta from a dissent written by Justice Kennedy in which he hypothetically claimed that the Establishment Clause would forbid “a city to permit the permanent erection of a large Latin cross on the roof of city hall.” The ACLU failed to mention that Justice Kennedy was dissenting from a decision in which liberal members of the Court held that it was unconstitutional for the government to display a Nativity scene at a county courthouse. In his dissent, Justice Kennedy stated that the ACLU-backed decision to remove the Nativity “reflects an unjustified hostility toward religion, a hostility inconsistent with our history and our precedents.” Furthermore, it was Justice Kennedy who recently issued the stay to prevent the removal of the memorial cross until all of the legal appeals had been exhausted.

    Robert Muise, a trial attorney for the Law Center working on this case, commented, “Any first-year law student knows that dicta is not the law, particularly dicta from a dissenting opinion that does not directly address the legal issue at stake. The ACLU’s misrepresentations may work on activist judges, but they are not fooling the American public or Congress. This case is plainly exposing the ACLU’s anti-Christian agenda.”

[Soldier4Christ]

President Bush Supports Cross: House Passes Bill To Preserve It; Senate Bill Introduced-ACLU Continues Its Campaign to Stop It

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Bill to protect the Mt. Soledad memorial cross, H. R. 5863, overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 349-74. The Bill transfers possession of the veterans memorial in San Diego, California to the federal government. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, worked closely with Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the main sponsor of the Bill, on the language of the legislation.

Over the last two years, the Law Center has been working tirelessly to preserve the veterans memorial from the attack of ACLU-backed atheist Philip Paulson, who filed a lawsuit in 1989 to remove the memorial cross. In addition to supporting this bill, the Law Center is directly involved in both state court and federal court appeals on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, the organization that played a major role in the hugely successful petition drive to transfer the land on which the memorial sits to the federal government.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commended a number of organizations that have joined the fight to keep the memorial cross, including the American Legion Department of California, represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of several Congressmen, and the American Family Association.

Commented Thompson, “The overwhelming support for this bill demonstrates that the ACLU and the liberal judges who support the ACLU’s anti-Christian agenda are out of touch with America. No doubt, the ACLU will return to its liberal judges to try to undo, once again, the democratic process and the will of the people. However, an effective coalition of veterans groups, political leaders, and public interest organizations is developing to stop them.”

President Bush, on the day of the vote, issued a “Statement of Administration Policy” that “strongly” supported H.R. 5683. The Statement read, in part, “In the face of legal action threatening the continued existence of the current Memorial, the people of San Diego have clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in its present form. Judicial activism should not stand in the way of the people, and the Administration commends Rep. Hunter for his efforts in introducing this bill.”

Over the past two years, the Law Center has provided thousands of attorney hours without charge to preserve the memorial cross from destruction by the ACLU-backed atheist Paulson. Charles LiMandri, the west coast director of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This case is one that should concern all Americans. It is a direct attack on our national heritage, and it is an attack that is occurring on our own soil. The ACLU and its minions, with the help of activist judges, seek to destroy what our Founding Fathers created—One Nation Under God.”

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) on Tuesday, introduced legislation in the Senate identical to H. R. 5683.

The ACLU officially opposed H.R. 5683 in a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the ACLU misstated important facts and misrepresented the law. For example, the ACLU claimed that “service members are unable to choose their symbols when, as in Mt. Soledad, the government erects a 43-foot Latin cross upon public property.” In fact, the memorial cross was erected by a private organization and many family members, friends, and comrades of our fallen veterans have chosen to honor their fallen heroes by placing nearly 2,000 memorial plaques at the foot of the cross. Many of the plaques contain the Star of David, honoring fallen Jewish veterans.

Moreover, the ACLU also made the specious claim that “Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice White joined Justice Kennedy in noting that Latin crosses on government property violate the Constitution.” In support of this prevarication, the ACLU cited dicta from a dissent written by Justice Kennedy in which he hypothetically claimed that the Establishment Clause would forbid “a city to permit the permanent erection of a large Latin cross on the roof of city hall.” The ACLU failed to mention that Justice Kennedy was dissenting from a decision in which liberal members of the Court held that it was unconstitutional for the government to display a Nativity scene at a county courthouse. In his dissent, Justice Kennedy stated that the ACLU-backed decision to remove the Nativity “reflects an unjustified hostility toward religion, a hostility inconsistent with our history and our precedents.” Furthermore, it was Justice Kennedy who recently issued the stay to prevent the removal of the memorial cross until all of the legal appeals had been exhausted.

Robert Muise, a trial attorney for the Law Center working on this case, commented, “Any first-year law student knows that dicta is not the law, particularly dicta from a dissenting opinion that does not directly address the legal issue at stake. The ACLU’s misrepresentations may work on activist judges, but they are not fooling the American public or Congress. This case is plainly exposing the ACLU’s anti-Christian agenda.”

[Soldier4Christ]

House passes Mount Hood bill
Blumenauer and Walden prod Senate to adopt the measure


The U.S. House of Representatives voted Monday to pass the Mount Hood Stewardship Legacy Act, and its Oregon sponsors urged the Senate to do the same immediately.

U.S. Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Portland, and Greg Walden, R-Hood River, gave a summary of their bill – which would designate more than 77,000 acres of land around Mount Hood as wilderness and institute a number of stewardship measures – and received a quick approval from the House membership.

The bill was passed using a congressional provision known as Suspension of the Rules, which allows a maximum 40-minute debate on a piece of legislation, prohibits amendments and requires a 2/3 majority for passage.

Madeleine Bordallo – the Democratic delegate from Guam – threw her support to the bill.

“This is one of the most important days in the modern history of Mount Hood,” Blumenauer said before the vote. He urged his colleagues in the Senate to act quickly.

“I hope our friends in the other body will seize the day,” Blumenauer said. “If they choose to act this week, the President can sign it before Labor Day.”

With as little as six weeks left in the current Congress, the wilderness bill faces the possibility of dying at the end of the year. If the Senate doesn’t put forward and approve a similar or reconciled bill before the end of the year, both legislative bodies would have to reintroduce the Act to the new Congress at the beginning of the year.

U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, and Gordon Smith, a Republican, have indicated that they will not adopt the Blumenauer-Walden bill for the Senate, but instead are working on their own bill. The senators have repeatedly said they will not set a timeline for presenting their legislative package.

Despite the potential delay, Blumenauer staffer Kathie Eastman says the congressmen are confident that if they had to reintroduce the bill in January, it would easily pass again. But right now, “the House side is ready to go,” she said.

[Soldier4Christ]

ADF: American Legion Files Amicus Brief In 9th Cir. Mt. Soledad Case


    In a joint press release today, California Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer issued support for the San Diego Mt. Soledad Cross and urged the Senate to pass an upcoming vote which would transfer the land the cross sits on to the federal government, protecting it from further threats of removal by the ACLU.

From ADF Press Release:

    Seeking to prevent the removal of the 52-year-old Mount Soledad cross from atop a war memorial, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing The American Legion Department of California, and Liberty Legal Institute, representing the national American Legion, have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

    “The cross is universally recognized as a way to honor those who have fallen, both military and civilian members of society,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Not only did the cross stand unchallenged for 35 years, the citizens of San Diego chose to reaffirm their support for it in a landslide vote last year. It should not to be torn down after more than a half century to satisfy one person’s agenda.”

    In 2005, 75 percent of San Diegans voted to preserve the Mount Soledad cross by transferring it from city property to the ownership of the National Park Service.

    Earlier this month, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a stay in favor of Mount Soledad supporters, allowing the cross to remain until a final outcome is determined in the ongoing litigation surrounding the cross (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3790). On May 3, a federal district judge had ordered the cross to be removed within 90 days, saying that the city would be subjected to a $5,000 per day fine for every day it continued to stand beyond the deadline.

    A copy of the brief filed in Paulson v. City of San Diego can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/Paulson.pdf.

    “Clearly, the overwhelming majority of San Diegans both support and welcome the cross,” Theriot said. “Just as thousands of crosses in Arlington Cemetery, including the Argonne Cross, stand on public ground to honor our war dead, so does the cross at Mount Soledad. Despite the best efforts of a lone atheist, nothing is wrong or unconstitutional about allowing the cross to stand for this purpose. Historically, crosses have been used in this country and through out the world to memorialize those who made the ultimate sacrifice for something greater than themselves.”

I mentioned earlier about a bill that passed the House and is still up for vote in the Senate that is seeking for the government to aquire the land under eminent domain in order to preserve the cross and what it stands for. Most sources I have spoke to are optimistic that this will pass. Contact your Congress critter and tell them to save Mt. Soledad. Until then the work goes on tirelessly from great organizations like Thomas More Law Center and the ADF.

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate Passes Legislation To Protect Mt. Soledad Cross


    With a speed and decisiveness that surprised some, the Senate on Tuesday approved a plan to transfer the land beneath the Mount Soledad war memorial to federal control in an effort to avoid a court-ordered removal of the cross that stands there.

    The Senate’s unanimous vote sent the cross-transfer plan to President Bush for his expected signature. It creates what some consider an entirely new dynamic in the 17-year effort to save the cross, but which others say is a hopeless attempt to preserve a symbol on city land that courts have said unconstitutionally favors one religion over others.

    “Obviously we’re delighted,” said Charles LiMandri, an attorney advising a group of Soledad cross supporters. “I think even the more liberal side of the Democratic party has to recognize that there is widespread, grassroots support for preserving veterans memorials in general, and the Soledad cross in particular.”

Once this is signed by the President, which will no doubt happen, it will moot all current court battles by making it a Federal issue instead of a State one. Do not doubt the ACLU will challenge this legislation as unconstitutional. They don’t know when to stop. They will find a way to waste more tax dollars to push their agenda of destroying this veteran’s memorial despite the fact that 76% of San Diego voters want to keep the cross. It is a very significant victory for the First Amendment. Got to let out a good celebration on this news! Woo hoo!

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate votes to put Mount Soledad cross in federal hands

WASHINGTON – With a speed and decisiveness that surprised some, the Senate on Tuesday approved a plan to transfer the land beneath the Mount Soledad war memorial to federal control in an effort to avoid a court-ordered removal of the cross that stands there.

The Senate's unanimous vote sent the cross-transfer plan to President Bush for his expected signature. It creates what some consider an entirely new dynamic in the 17-year effort to save the cross, but which others say is a hopeless attempt to preserve a symbol on city land that courts have said unconstitutionally favors one religion over others.

“Obviously we're delighted,” said Charles LiMandri, an attorney advising a group of Soledad cross supporters. “I think even the more liberal side of the Democratic party has to recognize that there is widespread, grassroots support for preserving veterans memorials in general, and the Soledad cross in particular.”

James McElroy, the attorney representing atheist Philip Paulson – who first sued to remove the cross on the grounds it amounts to an unconstitutional preference of the Christian religion over others – said the bill is “still unconstitutional.”

“I guess the Senate has a short memory,” he said. “You've got a local issue here. What business does the federal government have getting involved?”

The legislation would preserve the 29-foot-tall cross on Mount Soledad by vesting title to the memorial in the federal government and having the Secretary of Defense administer it. The Department of Defense would manage the monument. The Mount Soledad Memorial Association, a private group that built the current cross in 1954 to honor Korean War veterans, would continue to maintain the site.

“Today's vote represents a significant step forward,” said El Cajon Rep. Duncan Hunter, the Republican who joined his two GOP colleagues from San Diego to write the cross-transfer legislation, which passed the House late last month. “The action taken by both the House and Senate reaffirm the overwhelming desire of the San Diego community to keep the memorial exactly where it has proudly stood for over 50 years.”

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who has fought to keep the cross atop 800-foot-high Mount Soledad, said through spokesman Fred Sainz that he was grateful for “the resonance” with which the Senate spoke on the issue.

“I think that the Senate was able to put political correctness aside for a moment and understand this truly is a war memorial,” Sainz said. “The fact there that a cross is part of it is an issue that senators of all religious faiths were able to come to terms with and accept.”

In July the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court order forcing the city to remove the cross by yesterday (Aug.1) on grounds it violated the state constitution's ban on government support of religion.

The deadline was set by U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr., who first ordered the cross removed in 1991. It would have imposed a $5,000-a-day fine for failing to comply.

Senate approval came less than two weeks after the House voted 349-74 on July 19 to seize the land and give it to the Defense Department. After some brief wrangling among senators over who would carry the Hunter legislation through the upper chamber, the bill was placed on a so-called “consent calendar,” which indicated it had little opposition. “It's a hot potato, and I suspect the Senate would just as soon pass it and get it to the president and let the courts deal with it,” said Charlie Berwanger, attorney for the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which has fought to keep the cross where it is.

McElroy said he didn't expect California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, to embrace the measure as they did.

“I didn't expect them to go with this fad,” McElroy said. “But this has become good fodder for politicians in an election year.”

Feinstein and Boxer tend to be staunch church-state separation advocates. But both also support a plan to spend federal money to preserve California missions that hold church services because, the senators argue, the missions have historical significance.

“The Mount Soledad cross has been a great source of hope and inspiration for decades, and it has important historical significance to veterans and San Diegans alike,” Feinstein said.

Boxer said, “I believe this monument to be a memorial to our veterans, and therefore should be allowed to stay. The Hunter bill was drafted in a way that is consistent with the latest court action.”

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also supported the Senate action, saying that “allowing this landmark to be destroyed would send the wrong message to our nation's veterans.” Should the Mount Soledad cross end up in federal hands, its future likely will rest on interpretations of the federal Constitution, not California's. Cross supporters say the courts have been more willing to allow religious symbols on public land on federal constitutional grounds, particularly if the symbol has historic or cultural significance.

Last year, a pair of 5-4 rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court in separate cases involving the Ten Commandments established fuzzy guidelines: The court found that a display inside a Kentucky courthouse was unconstitutional, but that a 6-foot granite monument outside the Texas Capitol was all right.

“The time may be ripe for the court to revisit the issue,” said LiMandri. “They'll take this case because the law needs clarity.”

Cross foes note that the courts have ordered the removal of other crosses based on federal constitutional grounds. Five years ago, the American Civil Liberties Union successfully sued to remove a 5-foot-tall cross of metal tubing in the Mojave National Preserve, although the removal is on appeal.

“I don't think the Supreme Court is going to rewrite the Constitution or the last 50 years of precedent,” McElroy said. “This is not like the Ten Commandments cases. The Latin cross is a powerful symbol of religion.”

For now, congressional action does not interfere with various lawsuits being pursued in state and federal courts.

In state court, cross supporters are appealing a decision by a Superior Court judge that invalidated Proposition A, a measure approved last fall by 76 percent of San Diego voters that would have donated the cross to the federal government, but which the judge said violated the state Constitution.

In federal court, the city is appealing Thompson's order to remove the cross or be fined. That case is to be heard in October.

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate gives Bush bill to save cross
Passes proposal enabling feds to acquire Mt. Soledad land

It's been called a "red flag waved in front of a bull" to those who want to strip America of its Christian heritage, but a memorial that honors United States' war veterans with a cross is another step closer to protection.

The U.S. Senate unanimously passed legislation yesterday that would provide for the federal government to acquire the site of the Mt.Soledad Veterans Memorial and preserve it.

It was a "great victory" for veterans, Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, said today.

But he warned the fight, which already has lasted 17 years, isn't over.

"The presence of the cross atop Mt. Soledad enrages the ACLU much like a red flag waved in front of a bull," he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court just last month intervened in the disagreement to stay a lower court's order that the city either remove the cross by Tuesday, or face fines of $5,000 per day.

The legislation is "strongly" supported by President Bush.

"In the face of legal action threatening the continued existence of the current memorial, the people of San Diego have clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in its present form," said a recent administration policy statement obtained by WorldNetDaily.

"The administration supports the important goal of preserving the integrity of war memorials," the statement said.

The legislative plan would protect the 29-foot concrete cross atop Mt. Soledad that was targeted in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union after an atheist alleged it violated his belief that historic religious emblems couldn't be displayed on public property.

The legislation is a second front to the effort to preserve the honor to this nation's fallen heroes. The court battle continues, with oral arguments on the issue scheduled for the week of Oct. 16. Earlier, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned appellate court in the federal judiciary, refused to stay a lower court order.

That order from District Judge Gordon Thompson concluded the cross is unconstitutional, and he had imposed the Tuesday deadline.

The U.S. House earlier had approved the same legislation, allowing the Senate approval to send the issue to the president.

"The congressional action underscores what most Americans understand – that the Mt. Soledad cross poses no constitutional crisis in honoring our war heroes," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice.

The ACLJ represents a number of members of Congress, including Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who sponsored the House measure protecting the cross.

The More Center, like the ACLJ a public interest law firm, has been involved in the defense of the memorial for several years already and expects there will be more work.

"The plaintiff and ACLU have already demonstrated their persistence and zeal to take down the cross and this political defeat will most likely intensify their legal efforts as they sense what they thought was sure victory slipping through their fingers," Thompson said.

The issue had been resolved at one point in 2004, with Congress providing for a way for the land to be donated to the Department of the Interior and administered under the National Park System.

However, the San Diego City Council refused to make the donation, triggering the organization of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, whose members concluded the cross is a "national treasure." They collected more than 100,000 signatures calling on the council to reverse its decision.

A subsequent special election on the issue resulted in 76 percent of the voters deciding to preserve the cross, which is surrounded by six walls holding 3,200 black granite plaques honoring veterans from all military branches.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mt. Soledad Cross's Victory in Congress Won't End Court Battles, Supporters Say


(AgapePress) - Conservative political leaders and pro-family advocates are applauding the U.S. Senate's swift, unanimous passage last night of the Bill to Preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial. Strongly opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the legislation provides for the federal government's immediate acquisition of the embattled San Diego veterans memorial, which features a 29-foot-tall cross.

The concrete cross, which stands 43 feet tall if one includes the height of its base, is the centerpiece of a commemorative monument that includes more than 1,700 granite plaques honoring fallen U.S. military veterans from the Civil War to the Korean War, to the current war in Iraq. But the cross is also at the center of a 17-year legal battle between an atheist, supported by the ACLU, and San Diego, supported by numerous veterans and people of faith, over the so-called separation of church and state.

The bill to transfer the cross to federal land was first introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter of California. The House overwhelmingly passed it in a 349-74 vote on July 19 and sent it to the Senate on July 20, where it was introduced by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Senate's unanimous approval moves the legislation to the desk of President Bush, who is expected to sign it.

During his announcement of the bill's passage, Senator Sessions said he was glad to see the Senate join the House in approving a bill "that will put an end to the litigation under the California Constitution by transferring the memorial to the federal government." However, he lamented the fact that this embattled monument has "sadly come under attack by the ACLU because it contains a cross commemorating fallen soldiers."

Sessions went on to point out that America "has a long history and tradition of memorializing members of the armed forces who die in battle with a cross or other religious emblems of faith." The Alabama lawmaker said he is glad Congress has "stepped up" to help ensure that the Mount Soledad memorial remains "as a tribute to those who sacrificed their lives in defense of their country."

Congressman Duncan Hunter, who joined two GOP colleagues from San Diego County in writing the House version of the cross-transfer bill, called its bicameral passage "a significant step forward," Copley News Service reports. Hunter said the August 2 vote "reaffirms the overwhelming desire" of San Diego citizens to keep the memorial "exactly where it has proudly stood for over 50 years."

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also expressed support for the cross-transfer legislation. After the bill's passage, he remarked that allowing the Mount Soledad memorial to be destroyed would "send the wrong message to our nation's veterans."

The Cross in Court: A Long Battle That Isn't Over
A federal judge ruled last May that since the controversial Mount Soledad cross is on city land, the memorial violates the California Constitution's ban on government endorsement of any one religion. The City of San Diego has been ordered to remove the religious symbol or be fined $5,000 a day. However, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has issued an indefinite stay to put off any fines against the city until the matter has gone through the entire judicial process.

Supporters of the cross believe the legislation allowing for transfer of the memorial to the federal government will help their case and will protect the cross from further court challenges, as religious displays can legally occupy federal land if they have a secular meaning. Once the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial is officially on federal land, their hope is that it will no longer be susceptible to continued litigation under California's Constitution.

Richard Thompson is President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, one of a number of organizations that have joined in the fight to save the cross. He is calling the passage of the Bill to Preserve the Mount Soledad Cross a "great victory for our veterans and our fallen war heroes" and says he applauds Senator Sessions for keeping the pressure on to move it through Senate.

However, Thompson says it would be a "serious mistake" to think the fight is over." He observes that the plaintiff and the ACLU have already shown "persistence and zeal" in their efforts against the cross, and "this political defeat will most likely intensify their legal efforts," not unlike "a red flag waved in front of a bull."

Thomas More Law Center's West Coast Director, San Diego attorney Charles LiMandri, has spearheaded the legal defense of the cross. He was quoted as saying he and other supporters are obviously "delighted" with the passage of the bill. However, he agrees with Thompson that this legislative win will not mean the end of the judicial struggle over the monument.
Coalition of Cross Supporters Continues the Fight
"Legal attacks on the Mount Soledad cross will continue in both the federal and California courts," LiMandri asserts. Still, he adds, "Clearly, Senate passage of this legislation will greatly assist us in these court battles." Fortunately, he notes, many other supporters, including veterans groups, legal and pro-family organizations, and individuals, have been engaged in the fight to preserve the Mount Soledad cross.

The Thomas More Law Center is involved in both the California appellate court and the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial, a group that played a major role in the successful petition drive to transfer the memorial site land to the federal government. However, the Center notes, retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton -- a member of the Law Center's Citizens Advisory Board, a former Vietnam P.O.W. and a former U.S. Senator -- also proved instrumental in the effort by obtaining political support for the memorial in Washington.

Along with the Thomas More Law Center, a number of other pro-family groups and legal organizations are involved in the fight to save the cross as well. Among these are the California Department of the American Legion, represented by the Alliance Defense Fund; the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy; and the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of several members of Congress.

[Soldier4Christ]

Attorney Sees Tide Turning in Battle to Save Mt. Soledad Cross
But, as Bush Prepares to Sign Land Transfer Bill, Further ACLU Attacks Expected


(AgapePress) - Today President George W. Bush is scheduled to sign a bill intended to protect San Diego's Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial and its embattled cross. The legislation, unanimously approved by the Senate earlier this month and passed in a 349-74 House vote last month, now clears the way for the memorial's transfer of ownership to the federal government.

The 29-foot cross that is the centerpiece of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial has been the target of church-state separationists for years. Particularly, the religious symbol has been the central figure in a 17-year legal challenge which began with a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of an atheist who feels the veterans memorial should not be located on public property.

Charles LiMandri is with the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, that has been fighting to save the cross and memorial since 2004. He says President Bush's signing of the bill today will effectively nullify a recent court order directing the City of San Diego to remove the cross or else face hefty fines.

"The tide is definitely in our favor," LiMandri asserts. "The existing injunction that was issued should be rendered moot by this new legislation," he says, "and the federal law that is now applicable is definitely more favorable to us."

Also, the attorney points out, "The Justice Department has more resources than the City of San Diego." In other words, compared to the California city, the federal government has deeper coffers and is "in a better position to fight this on behalf of the United States," he explains. But despite the overwhelming support of Congress for the transfer legislation, he and other Thomas More Law Center attorneys fully expect the ACLU to continue its efforts, both in the federal courts and in the California courts, to have the cross removed.

Still, LiMandri says today's signing of the bill to save the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial is a milestone that will be an important legal factor in the continuing court battle over the monument's constitutionality. "And since it now is a case that's going to be decided under federal law, and since there's an act of Congress to back it up, we think there's a very good chance the Supreme Court will take this case," he observes.

"If and when the case gets to the United States Supreme Court, we're very confident we have the votes that we need there to ultimately prevail," the Thomas More Law Center spokesman notes. He says he and other supporters of the Mount Soledad cross are hoping the high court will take up the matter and finally "issue a decision that will be beneficial to all of us who do believe that it's appropriate to honor veterans by using religious symbols such as the cross."

President Bush has invited LiMandri, who spearheaded the legal fight to save the cross, to be present at the White House bill signing ceremony. Richard Thompson, Thomas More Law Center's president and chief counsel, called the invitation a credit to LiMandri's "hard work and dedication" to preserving the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial for future generations.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU files suit to force relocation of Mount Soledad cross

The local chapter of The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit Thursday to force the relocation of the Mount Soledad cross in the latest challenge over the constitutionality of the controversial La Jolla landmark.

The suit, filed in federal court on behalf of a national Jewish war veterans organization and three other San Diego residents, is the latest step in an increasingly high-profile 17-year legal battle over the cross.

On Aug. 14 President Bush signed a bill that transferred the ownership of the cross and war memorial site to the federal government, specifically the Department of Defense.

The bill halted the legal process that seemed destined to lead to the removal of the cross, which has sat on city-owned land for decades.

In May, San Diego federal Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. moved to enforce a decision he handed down in 1991 that the cross had to be removed.

He found it violated the state constitution's ban on government preference for religion. He gave the city 90 days to comply or face $5,000 per day in fines.

That set off a flurry of legal activity which culminated on July 7 when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy blocked Thompson's order – stopping the clock on the city, and allowing time for the congressional bill to move forward.

With the land now belonging to the federal government, the legal battle will be waged under how courts interpret the federal – not state – constitutional prohibition of government support for religion.

Cross supporters contend they have a better chance of winning under that federal analysis. But opponents, including the ACLU, contend that virtually nothing has changed with the handover of land ownership.

“The issue is still the same,” said David Blair-Loy, director for the ACLU in San Diego. “We believe it is equally unconstitutional under state law, or federal law, for the government to subsidize, promote or endorse the Latin cross.”

The ACLU lawsuit joins another challenging the recent land transfer filed Aug. 9 by Philip Paulson, the war veteran and atheist who originally sued in 1989 to get the cross removed.

That lawsuit will argue that the cross not only violates the U.S. Constitution, but also seeks to overturn this summer's congressional action which took control of the property, said James McElroy, Paulson's lawyer.

Both lawsuits will likely be consolidated, but will not be heard by Thompson, who has handled the cross litigation for 17 years. Instead the cases – assigned randomly by a computer – will be heard by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz.

The lawyer for a group trying to preserve the cross predicted that the new lawsuits will fail.

“We just believe whatever arguments they have will be properly dispatched, and we will prevail,” said Charles LiMandri of the San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial.

The group is not named in the ACLU suit but LiMandri said they will join with the government to defend it.

These new developments come while two other legal actions in state and federal courts – both of which were in the works before the federal government took the land – are still pending.

But given the changed circumstances in the cross controversy, they may never be heard.

The city and LiMandri's group are appealing a ruling by a San Diego Superior Court judge which invalidated Proposition A. That measure, approved by voters last fall, would have allowed the city to transfer the property to the federal government.

The judge ruled the transfer showed an unconstitutional preference for religion under state law.

But now that the land is federal property by congressional, and not city, action, the issues in the case may be moot. LiMandri said his group will file papers dropping their role in the appeal next week.

McElroy said he has had informal discussions with city lawyers that they may also abandon that appeal.

“It really doesn't get them anywhere, and it is costing them money,” he said.

But Deputy City Attorney David Carlin said no decisions on what to do have been made. Any final decision would have to be made by the city council, which is on recess until Sept. 6.

A similar fate may befall the appeal in federal court. There, the city had tried to overturn Thompson's ruling in May to take the cross down within 90 days, contending it was an abuse of his judicial discretion.

With the cross no longer on city land, that appeal might also be irrelevant, said McElroy, and the city may also consider dropping it.

But Carlin said no decision on how to proceed on either case has been made. The city has another option aside from dropping the appeals. It could ask they be put on hold pending the outcome of the latest suits, said Carlin.

A decision would have to be made soon. Both cases are set for oral arguments in October.

[Soldier4Christ]

Target: Mt. Soledad Memorial — ACLU keeps the wrecking ball on call


The ACLU today filed a federal lawsuit in its latest attempt to drive all reference to faith from the public square. In what is a smart PR move on the ACLU’s part, they’ve brought a group called the Jewish War Veterans on as a plaintiff along with “local residents.” So what was once a case that pitted a lone rabid atheist gadfly against an entire city and the largest veterans organization in the country…and oh, yeah the fallen heroes that the memorial was erected to honor…the ACLU has done what it does best and turned it into inter-faith strife, as if only Christians support the Mt. Soledad memorial cross. They’ve also decided to ask that it be moved, instead of turned into rubble. The new strategy though is still the same old story cloaked in what the ACLU thinks a bit less rancid to the taste buds. A passive display that has stood for decades, that doesn’t to my knowledge possess super-secret conversion lasers that force people to worship and certainly doesn’t qualify as a law passed by Congress to establish a state religion…no matter, it needs to go and the ACLU will fight from the dawn of the first Bush Administration until Bush II is back on the ranch. This case is one of the more infuriating examples of the ACLU’s pathological hostility to anything that references Christianity.

From the ACLU: ACLU Represents Jewish War Veterans and San Diego Residents in Effort to Relocate Mt. Soledad Memorial

    SAN DIEGO – The American Civil Liberties Union, the Jewish War Veterans and local residents announced today that they are suing the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, charging that the continued display of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross on federally owned land unlawfully entangles government with religion.

    “The ACLU believes that religious symbols, even prominently displayed, are an important and constitutionally protected form of religious expression in the public sphere,” said David Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. “There is a huge difference between families and religious communities expressing their religious beliefs and the U.S. government—using all of its power, authority, financing, and property—to promote the beliefs of one faith over all others.”

The ACLU has sued to remove even completely privately-funded and maintained monuments all across the country (they just got smoked in Green v. Haskell last week). The ACLU has sued to remove privately placed crèches from public grounds where an open forum existed (Cranston, RI), appealing the case all the way to the 1st Circuit. The ACLU is currently threatening to sue a Louisiana Parish should a volunteer group go ahead and erect a privately-funded memorial to Katrina victims on private land because it will include a cross (Joe Cook says that because some people whose day job is public employment and that the memorial will be NEAR public land that it is “unconstitutional). The list goes on folks. It’s important to note that there have been several attempts to turn the land on which the memorial sits over to the private organization that already maintains it, but all have been blocked by the ACLU’s legal actions. More importantly, the city originally granted a private organization permission to erect this cross on behalf of families of troops killed in Korea. So the only “entanglement” is the fact that this cross stands on ground the ACLU has refused to allow to be transferred to private hands.

    “The federal acquisition of the Latin cross does nothing to cure the ongoing constitutional violation,” said Daniel Mach, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “When any government entity—federal, state, or local—uses taxpayer funds to acquire and prominently display a religious symbol that is sacred to some, but not all religious believers, it disregards the rich religious diversity in our society.”

The only taxpayer funds being drained presently are being used to fight this suit!

    “Veterans of all faiths have served and died, and continue to serve and die in the war against terrorism, to uphold the tenets of our Constitution and keep our communities of faith safe from government interference. It is an affront to non-Christian veterans for their service to be commemorated by a cross,” said Norman Rosenshein, National Commander of the JWV. “We condemn this property transfer as an election-year attempt to circumvent previous rulings and feel confident that future judicial rulings will deem the cross to be unconstitutional.”

Nice ACLU talking points. Not one family whose fallen family member is commemorated by this memorial has come forward to say that this is an “affront.” “Election-year attempt?” The judge in May ordered that the cross be torn down Aug. 1st! So the supporters of the memorial (probably 80% of the country) should have rolled over just because an election is coming in Nov.? Idiotic.

    The group’s members include individuals based in the San Diego area who regularly view the Latin cross on Mt. Soledad and who are offended by the government’s communication of favoritism and endorsement of the majority faith at the expense of citizens and veterans of other faiths who died in the service of their country.

More idiocy. This memorial was not erected with the intent to dishonor certain service members, but to honor them all. There’s been nothing done at anyone’s “expense.” The dishonorable part of this whole thing is that there are bigots trying to tear this symbol down for what? It “offends” them? Tiny, tiny violin.

    The Mount Soledad cross has long served as the site for Christian religious observances. When the current cross was formally installed on Easter Sunday, 1954, it was dedicated to “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” No plaques recognizing veterans were installed until decades later, in 1992, several years after a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the cross was filed. Subsequent granite walls with individual veterans’ plaques, and an American flag, were not added until the year 2000.

I don’t have a shovel big enough to clear this steaming pile. Photos of the dedication ceremony CLEARLY show that this cross was dedicated in honor of fallen troops. Families of those who were being honored were present, a Marine Color guard is present and one Marine is playing “Taps,” which is played why? Anyone? Yeah, to honor fallen brethren. So what if the cross was the only element of the monument at one time? The intent was always clear — not to establish Christianity as a national religion, but to honor the kind of sacrifice that the ACLU would never make, but certainly takes advantage of.

No matter what the ACLU says, the US Constitution doesn’t demand that all religious symbols, even if they are associated with a particular faith, be removed from public land.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court Arguments This Week Focus on Destiny of Mt. Soledad Cross


(AgapePress) - The battle for the fate of the Mt. Soledad cross veterans memorial continues this week with two key oral arguments in state and federal courts in California concerning the San Diego monument. The cases involve a challenge to the city's attempts to federalize the memorial, and a judge's previous order to take the cross down.

Thomas More Law Center attorney Charles LiMandri argued Tuesday in California's Fourth District Court of Appeals on behalf of San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial, a local group trying to save the cross through a ballot initiative that transferred it to the federal government. The legality of that action was in question in the case.

"Even with the transfer to the federal government under the new statute, there are issues that overlap with the prior statute that [the judge] ruled, the Proposition A, all constitutional -- which was basically a gift of the property, a donation from the City of San Diego to the federal government," the attorney explains. "[The judge] says you can't do that, but there's issues that are similar with the new federal statute which constituted an actual taking of the property."

LiMandri indicates that he feels good about how the court will respond. "We think this court's going to go ahead and issue a decision, and from the way the questioning went today, we're very encouraged by it," says LiMandri. "And we're optimistic that the court understood the issues -- and because they understood the issues, [that they] are likely to go our way in deciding the case."

LiMandri's colleague, Thomas Muise, is representing the same San Diego group today (Thursday, October 19) before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case in which a federal district judge's May 2006 order to remove the cross was stayed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Muise, who -- like LiMandri -- is optimistic about the ultimate outcome in the matter, says veterans and their families have a big stake in the fate of this 17-year battle for the life of the Mt. Soledad cross.

"The stay by Justice Kennedy and the recent Act of Congress are significant factors that have shifted the momentum of this case in favor of preserving the memorial cross," Muise states in a press release. "We are hopeful that this Ninth Circuit panel will preserve this historical war memorial for future generations of Americans. Our fallen heroes have earned it."

According to the press release, Muise will argue for the case to be dismissed based on "mootness grounds." President Bush's mid-August signing of a congressional act immediately transferred all title and interest in the cross and memorial to the federal government. As of that date, says the Law Center, the city of San Diego no longer owns the property where the memorial sits -- thereby making the lower court's injunction no longer enforceable.

[Soldier4Christ]

Atheist who fought Mount Soledad cross dies at 59
Philip Paulson conducted 17-year legal battle to remove symbol from public property

Philip Kevin Paulson, who fought a 17-year legal battle to remove the Mount Soledad cross from public property, died Wednesday of liver cancer. He was 59.

Paulson, a 6-foot-5 Vietnam veteran who lived in City Heights, became so passionate about the separation of church and state that he filed a civil lawsuit against the city of San Diego in 1989 without an attorney. He won the case, and as the appeals dragged on he became one of the county's most reviled and respected characters.

During interviews with The San Diego Union-Tribune in September and October, a few months after doctors told him he did not have long to live, Paulson said he was unconcerned about death and proud of the stand that defined his life.

“The real message is equal treatment under the law, and religious neutrality. That's the purpose of why I did it,” said Paulson, who turned away from religion early in life. “It has nothing to do with me being an atheist or whether I was a Bible-thumping fundamentalist Baptist preacher.”

Paulson, the grandson of a Lutheran preacher who shunned media attention to protect the case, agreed to exclusive interviews on the condition that his comments remain confidential until his death or the end of the case.

He said he wanted people to understand why he pursued the removal of the cross, and that he was never motivated by a hatred of Christians.

“I don't harbor those kind of feelings,” Paulson said. “My mother's a Christian. I was raised a devout Christian. I'm not anti-Christian. The reason I did it is because it's not fair to the other religions. America is not just the Christian religion.”

Paulson, who grew up in Clayton, Wis., a town of 300 people, taught computer and business classes at National University.

When it became clear last summer that Paulson's condition was terminal, he and his lawyer, James McElroy, made plans to add another plaintiff to the case so that it could continue. The city has agreed to the move, although the change awaits the judge's signature. The new plaintiff, Steve Trunk, is a Vietnam war veteran, an atheist and also the product of a religious upbringing.

The city has argued that while the cross has religious significance, it also has a secular purpose – to honor war veterans. Paulson contended the memorial portion of the hilltop site was built only after he filed suit. The cross is a religious symbol that should be moved from public land, Paulson contended.

President Bush signed a bill this year that transferred ownership of the cross and war memorial site to the Department of Defense.