Mt. Soledad

[Soldier4Christ]

“The real message is equal treatment under the law, and religious neutrality."

The truth of the matter, freedom from religion is the motivation behind it all.

[airIam2worship]

Well he sure is separated from God now. It's too bad that people who can't even depend on their own heart taking the next beat deny the very God that allows them to live.

[Pizza_Mahal]

The reason I did it is because it's not fair to the other religions.

what!? lol what about your religion, you religion got tax support and others! 
Fools make me laugh all time, but sad thus....

[Brother Jerry]

I am ashamed to be in the class of veteran with that man as well as his friend. 

And sadly enough although America was founded on the principles of Christ, we do allow for other religions to grow and prosper here.  Even those religions the claim a lack of religion.

[Soldier4Christ]

As our founding fathers stated in a well known document, we are all created equal. I agree that all should be treated accordingly. This nation was founded on Christian principles with individuals regardless of stature to be able to express there faith.

Unfortunately this action is just one of the many that is intended to silence Christians and to remove any semblance of the Christian faith from public sight. Atheism and islam is florishing in public, in government and  in our schools. Indoctrination of our children in atheistic beliefs or beliefs of other religions while excluding those of Christians has become a major objective.

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawyers urge court to finish 17-year-old Mt. Soledad case 
Argue that claim is moot because San Diego no longer owns land

There is no decision left to make in a 17-year-long claim against San Diego over the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in California, two law firms have told a federal appeals court, because the city cannot do anything now anyway because the federal government owns the property.

Firms representing dozens of members of Congress and hundreds of thousands of other Americans have filed briefs with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the dispute that has gone on so long the original plaintiff cited by the American Civil Liberties Union as an injured party has died.

Oral arguments were held by the court several weeks ago, and it followed with an order for the law firms to file briefs regarding the mootness of the case. Answering that call were lawyers for the Thomas More Law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice.

Earlier this year, Congress approved and President Bush signed legislation giving ownership and control of the memorial to the federal government. It had been under the jurisdiction of the city of San Diego earlier. That's why the city was named as a defendant when people alleged their rights were violated by the existence of the cross.

The lawsuit against the city over the memorial's cross had reached the 9th Circuit before the congressional action, and the lawyers now are arguing that the case, essentially, is over.

The ACLJ's amicus brief on behalf of 22 members of Congress said there's nothing left to decide.

"This is an important opportunity to bring to end to one of the legal challenges aimed at removing the Mount Soledad Memorial," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the ACLJ. "There is simply no reason for this case to proceed since the federal government lawfully took ownership of the land on which the memorial sits.

"While there are other legal challenges that continue to move forward, we are hopeful the federal appeals court will dismiss this litigation against the city of San Diego. At the end of the day, we're confident all legal challenges to the Mt. Soledad Memorial will fail and a cross that's been in place for more than half a century will remain in place for years to come," Sekulow said.

There still are two pending claims, one in state courts and the other in federal courts against the federal government, over the memorial, the ACLJ noted.

The August law transferred all control to the federal government, so any claims against the city are moot, the legal team argued on behalf of California Congressman Duncan Hunter and other members of Congress including Todd Akin, Gresham Barrett, Eric Cantor, Michael Conaway, Barbara Cubin, John Culberson, Phil Gingery, Gil Gutknecht, Jack Kingston, John Kline, Kenny Marchant, Patrick McHenry, Mike McIntyre, Gary Miller, Marilyn Musgrave, Randy Neugebauer, Joseph Pitts, Jim Ryun, Todd Tiahrt, Dave Weldon and Lynn Westmoreland.

More than 170,000 people also have signed the ACLJ's petition to preserve the memorial.

In response to the order from the 9th Circuit Court, the Thomas More Law Center filed a brief detailing the reasons the case should be dismissed.

"The Court's recent order requesting additional briefing of mootness is good news – it shows that the court is focusing on the proper issue. As we demonstrated during oral argument and in our most recent filing, the Constitution requires the Court to dismiss this case because it lacks jurisdiction to enforce the 1991 injunction ordering the City to remove the memorial cross on state constitutional grounds – the City is no longer responsible for the cross, which now rests of federal land, and the California Constitution is inapplicable as a result," the law center said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court rules against ACLU, atheist on San Diego cross
Judges say voter measure transferring land to federal government constitutional

In a major victory for backers of San Diego's Mt. Soledad cross, an appeals court ruled today in favor of a voter measure that authorized transfer of the land beneath the memorial to the federal government.

A panel of justices from the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled 3-0 that Proposition A was constitutional, overturning a decision by Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett that invalidated the measure. The court also reversed a $275,000 attorney fee award received by an ACLU-backed lawyer for plaintiff Phillip Paulsen, an atheist who died last month.

"We are quite pleased with the court's decision," said Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Thomas More Law Center, which argued the case. "It protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical, veterans memorial for future generations."

The battle began in 1989 when Paulsen filed suit, and a court ordered the city to remove the cross. In 1998, the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

Proposition A, passed by 75 percent in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial.

The ballot initiative came about after the city refused to donate the cross and memorial to the federal government. A group called San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial took just 23 days to gather 105,000 signatures.

Paulson had argued against the validity of Proposition A, contending it violated the state constitutional ban on government aid or preference to religion.

But the justices today decided the voter initiative not an establishment of religion by San Diego voters.

"Given the language of Proposition A and the official ballot argument in favor of the proposition, we cannot conclude the individuals who voted for the proposition acted in order to establish the Christian religion or favor that religion," wrote Associate Justice Patricia Benke.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is defending the constitutionality of the cross, said the decision "clearly shows that the ballot proposition was proper."

"This decision represents another important legal victory in the ongoing battle to keep the Mt. Soledad Memorial in place," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

YEAH!


The court finds that 1) the appeals are not moot; 2) San Diegans for the Mount Soledad War Memorial and Mike Shelby are aggrieved parties for the purposes of the appeal; and 3) the transfer of the cross under Proposition A does not in itself violate the First Amendment establishment clause or the California Constitution…and the attorney’s fees award has been reversed!

Kiss all that money goodbye ACLU!

[nChrist]

Another YEAH!

It's about time. There's also supposed to be some legislation in the system now that should remove many funding sources from the ACLU, most specifically tax money from the people. I would like to see some equally strong legislation that would make the ACLU pay all kinds of court fees and expenses for bringing their garbage to court. SO, I would be interested in seeing the ACLU bankrupted, de-fanged, de-clawed, and de-horned.   

[Soldier4Christ]

I understand that the democrats want to shoot that bill down completely. It would figure if that is true. I also understand that it was suggested that the ACLU pay fines and certain court costs if they bring such erroneous law suits to the courts but that it got taken out of that bill before it was submitted. I would like to see it put back in.

[ibTina]

[Brother Jerry]

Since ACLU gets some funding from federal side we do not want them to start paying tons of fines and things like that...cause they will only get more money from fed.  So cut fed funding first then let their other wells dry up.

[Soldier4Christ]

The original bill was designed to cut their federal funding and impose fines on them for spurious lawsuits.

[Soldier4Christ]

9th Circuit decides order to tear down Mt. Soledad cross must be vacated

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled today that a 17-year lawsuit seeking the removal of the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial cross is now moot.  The court said a district court order requiring the removal of the cross must be vacated.  The Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Legal Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case Nov. 22 on behalf of The American Legion and The American Legion Department of California, asking the court to dismiss the suit.

“Memorials like the one at Mt. Soledad are a tribute to our nation’s veterans.  At long last, this part of the crusade against a memorial beloved by them and their families is finally over,” said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler.  “Now that the cross is clearly under federal control, the 9th Circuit agreed that, with regard to this lawsuit, it was time to end the ACLU’s protracted legal attack on this symbol dedicated to our nation’s fallen heroes.”

ADF and LLI attorneys filed their friend-of-the-court brief shortly after President Bush signed the law that officially transferred ownership of the memorial property to the federal government.

The cross has been in existence since 1952.  In 2005, 76 percent of San Diegans voted to preserve the Mount Soledad cross by transferring the memorial from city property to the ownership of the National Park Service, but that move was contested in court.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Opponents can't remove cross by suing San Diego' 
Ruling concludes monument's ownership change eliminates city as defendant

Lawyers for an atheist who wanted a cross removed from the Mt. Soledad Memorial in San Diego can't reach their goal by suing the city, since the federal government now owns the land, according to an appeals court ruling.

"We argued from the start that there was no reason for this case to proceed since the federal government lawfully took ownership of the land on which the memorial sits," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.

His comments came with the announcement that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had issue a new order dismissing a lawsuit against San Diego as moot.

"The appeals court dismissed the suit agreeing with the argument that the case is moot because the federal government now owns the land on which the memorial sits," the announcement said.

The ACLJ, which had filed an amicus brief on behalf of 22 members of Congress with the appeals court, said the court's opinion "brings to an end one legal chapter" in the fight over the cross, which has been in the courts since the late 1980s.

The ACLJ had argued that since Congress, in a proposal sponsored by California Congressman Duncan Hunter, transferred control of the property to the federal government, and that plan was signed into law by President Bush in August, the city as a defendant was now out of the case.

There are, however, other legal challenges that have been launched against the memorial's cross, including a federal lawsuit against the government challenging the constitutionality of the memorial. The ACLJ also has filed briefs in another challenge within the state court system in California, officials said.

Just weeks earlier, another appellate level state court panel concluded that a voter measure that authorized transfer of the land to the federal government was proper.

The decision from another panel of justices by a 3-0 ruling overturned a decision by Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett that invalidated the measure. The court also reversed a $275,000 attorney fee award received by an ACLU-backed lawyer for plaintiff Phillip Paulsen, an atheist who died in 2006.

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Thomas More Law Center, said the conclusion protected the will of the people "and their desire to preserve a historical, veterans memorial for future generations."

Paulsen filed the lawsuit in 1989 and a court told the city to take the cross down. But in 1998 the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

Then Proposition A, passed by 75 percent in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial.