Mt Soledad Cross

10News reported A Superior Court judge has ruled that a proposed transfer of the Mount Soledad Cross to the federal government is unconstitutional. Judge Patricia Cowett found Friday that maintenance of the cross is an "unconstitutional preference of religion." Cowett also said transferring ownership of the 43-foot cross and surrounding property to the federal government is an "unconstitutional aid to religion."

Cowett must really hate Christians and Christian symbols. It is one thing to say that the city should not maintain a monument containing a religious symbol, but if 76% of the people want to transfer the property to the U.S. Interior Department as a national veterans memorial how is it an "aid to religion" to allow them to do it.

"The court hereby finds the ordinance placing Proposition A on the ballot and Proposition A unconstitutional, and therefore invalid and unenforceable. Maintenance of this Latin Cross as it is on the property in question, is found to be an unconstitutional preference of religion in violation of Artical I, Section 4, of the California Constitution, and the transfer of the memorial with the cross as its centerpiece to the federal government to save the cross as it is, where it is, is an unconstitutional aid to religion in violation of Artical XVI, Section 5, of the California Constitution."....

I don't know what an "Aritcal" is, but Article XVI, Section 5 says

Neither the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, or
grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the State, or any city, city and county, town, or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever; provided, that nothing in this section shall prevent the Legislature granting aid pursuant to Section 3 of Article XVI.

They can't give it to a church, but it does not say they can't give it to the Federal Government, or sell it to a private individual.

The city has attempted twice to sell the property to the Mount Soledad Association, but federal courts have overturned the sales because they said the transactions favored a buyer who would preserve the cross.

So it is not that they dont want the city or state to pay for maintenance, they want the cross destroyed.

Tom blogged In a direct slap in the face of an overwhelming majority of voters, Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett has found Proposition "A", the save the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Cross measure, unconstitutional. Prop "A" was the initiative on San Diego's July 2005 special election to save the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Cross by transferring it to the U.S. Interior Department as a national veterans memorial which was approved by an astounding 76% of voters. The day after the election, attorney James McElroy, whose client, atheist Philip Paulson, filed a lawsuit challenging the presence of the cross on city land in 1989, called the vote meaningless. "It still doesn't mean a damn thing," he said. "Voters should have never voted on it. It's a waste of taxpayers' money.".... After 16 years of litigation and much judge shopping, Paulson and McElroy continue to rely on finding "the right judge" to try advance their agenda. This is just the latest in a series of costly and divisive maneuvers that pair has foisted on the people of San Diego.

CaliforniaConservative blogged More examples abound. From Prop. F to Prop. K to Prop. A, the history of Mt. Soledad illustrates the influence of atheists and judicial activists to railroad with majority will of the people.

The above site quoted atheist Philip Paulson, who filed a lawsuit challenging the presence of the cross on city land in 1989. "We need to attack Jesus…" That is exactly what this is, an attack on Jesus.

StopTheACLU blogged When did our nation come under the power of judges? Isn’t it supposed to be of the people and for the people? When will the perverting of Constitution come to a stop? The people spoke, and the people were overruled. Is that really a democracy? Is this what our founding fathers intended. Is this truly the land of the free?

Bill Faith blogged Just one more example of why we need judges who rule based on what the law and The Constitution really say, not what they think they should say. In this case, a dingmoonbat (mustn't be sexist, Bill) judge apparently found some excuse in the California constitution to override the wishes of a clear majority of the people; there may or may not be recourse in the federal court system. How about Constitutional guarantees of Equal Protection? 75% of the voters in San Diego have just been disenfranchised. Doesn't the Federal government have an obligation to keep that from happening?