connectthe Video-‘Peace cross” case heads to Supreme Court
Critics say that the Form of the monument is religious and not on public land; and Kelly Shackelford, President of the First Liberty Institute, and Kevin Bartlett, national judge advocate The American Legion, say veteran memorials should deserve protection, no matter in what Form.
A majority of the judges of the Supreme court, offered tepid support on Wednesday for a Maryland war-remain a monument in the Form of the Christian cross on government land, in a landmark First Amendment case with implications for religious symbols on public land throughout the country.
In a spirited 70 minutes of oral arguments, to accept the majority of the judges appeared, the narrow, limited view that the monument was historically significant, and its Latin cross design reflects the nationwide trend to the time when it was built to memorials in honor of the war dead with the community.
‘PEACE CROSS’ MEMORIAL IN THE CENTER OF THE LANDMARK SUPREME COURT BATTLE OVER RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS
“What a message to send, if the people see that on TV, you see crosses in the whole country to its knees?” Justice Samuel Alito asked.
The judges seemed to, by default, your previous approach to the solution of such Establishment clause acts on a case-to-case basis, it signals you perhaps avoid, a comprehensive scheme, which would provide unique markers for similar disputes in the future.
The case is one of the most closely watched in this term. Latest justice Brett Kavanaugh, asked tough questions of both sides, but there was no indication of how he would vote.
The Bladensburg Peace Cross, as it is known, sits in a traffic circle in the Washington suburbs, where there are 49 local world war II soldiers who died in battle overseas has stood for almost a century to honor.
His supporters, including the Trump administration, saying the 40-foot monument was created solely to honor these heroes and the worldly in nature. Opponents call it an illegal overlap of Church and state, because it is controlled and maintained by the Maryland parks commission.
SUPREME COURT THE VOICE OF THE DEAD ‘PROGRESSIVE SAYS’ JUDGE NOT COUNT
“For the members of other religions, the [cross] – icon is not a way to remember the dead and not that important,” said justice Elena Kagan. “For many people, this is a very natural way to do exactly what you want to do. For others, not.”
Fundraising for peace-the cross began soon after the “war to end all wars” finished. Led by Gold Star mothers of Prince George’s County, Md., who lost their sons in the fight, it honors 49 men, including four African-American soldiers and a Medal of Honor recipient. It was completed in 1925, manufactured by the members of the local American Legion posts, with private donations. It was later consecrated again, as a memorial to honor all American veterans.
At the base of the monument are the four words: courage, endurance, courage, and dedication are enrolled. There are no written references to God, Christianity, or religion.
A Maryland parks Commission in 1961, gained custody of the cross and land around the busy intersection. The government pays for the maintenance and the maintenance, if veterans groups hold regular memorial is to celebrate. The structure contains the embedded icon of the American Legion.
Similar cross on Federal land to honor the war dead in the vicinity of Arlington National Cemetery.
In Bladensburg, three area residents and the American Humanist Association lawsuit in the year 2014, said in court papers the memorial sends a “valid message to non-Christians.”
A Federal appeals court agreed, and the memorial ordered to be torn down, moved, or changed.
The Constitution says, “Congress shall no law an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.”
The Supreme court has a mixed record on disputes about religious freedom and the separation of Church and state, with the judges often with a case-by-case determination.
In the arguments, a majority of the judges asked me on Wednesday whether a new war would be monuments with religious images is permissible, in view of the diversity of faiths, and the views of atheists or agnostics.
“On the historical context here. History counts,” justice Stephen Breyer said. “But no more. We are a different country, and there are 50 different religions.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rejected proposals for such memorials may have multiple purposes.
“Does the cross really have a double meaning?”, she asked. “It is the preeminent symbol of Christianity. People wear crosses to show their devotion to the Christian faith.”
“It’s sectarian,” justice Sonia Sotomayor said the peace cross, and also the question of whether its long history is enough to stay there.
“What is tradition?”, she asked. “Is that in the world war I, was a cross, or is the tradition that the government can put sectarian symbols such as crosses or a picture of Jesus Christ in the honour, who, because it is within the nation’s the tradition?”
On the other hand, justice Neil from gorsuch she pushed back on proposals of the memorial in large size in itself was a problem, or “too loud.”
“Is it too loud? The star of David. It’s too offensive?”, he said. “We accept that people sometimes live in a world, in other people’s speech to offend. We have to tolerate each other. This is the only area I can think of, like, where we allow people to complain about an offense, because for them it is too loud. And we get as a result of that shows that dictate taste with regard to.”
“I think that the Constitution tilts in the direction of freedom, in its structure,” added Kavanaugh, what will remain on this particular cross monument.
The judges have a wide discretion to issue a sweeping judgment, but that seems unlikely.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in part, the fault of the lawyers before him and provides a workable standard for the guidance of lower courts.
“I was once a magistrate, and when I come, the type of the [case-to-case-analysis], I’ll just throw up my hands,” he said at one point, to a lawyer. “Do you have something more precise about the test that you would apply beyond that and looked at the contextual factors and the history and all that?”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The high court in 1971, established its three-prong “lemon” test, named after one of the parties to the case. The embedded legal norms in the relationship between Church and state. But from gorsuch said, that precedent was not applied in recent years by the judge.
“It is a jumble of confusion, I think, by anyone’s admission,” said from gorsuch. “Is it thank time for this dish, the ‘lemon’ for his achievements and send it on the way?”
A judgment is expected by the end of June.