SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 2
Baixar para ler offline
Judge says giant cross must be removed from San Diego
mountain
Story highlights
The judge orders the giant cross must be removed in 90 days
But judge also orders cross can stay if case is appealed
The fight over giant cross in San Diego has been going on for decades
A giant cross that has stood on a Southern California mountain for decades must be removed
because it violates the constitutional separation of church and state, a judge ordered this week.
The order Thursday by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns continues a long legal battle about the 43-
foot cross atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego.
Burns ordered that the cross would have to be removed within 90 days. But the cross may be able to
stay if the case is appealed, the judge ordered.
"Of course we are disappointed in what the ruling is -- that is to take the cross down," Bruce Bailey,
president of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association told CNN affiliate KGTV.
Bailey said his organization plans to appeal, which would mean the cross would stay as the decades-
long legal battle continued.
Long legal battle
The cross was erected in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans and has been the subject of near
constant judicial back and forth since 1989, when two Vietnam War veterans filed suit saying it
violated the California Constitution's "No Preference" clause.
Since the first lawsuit in 1989, the city of San Diego twice tried selling the property beneath the
cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, only to be stopped by the courts.
In 2004, the parties involved reached an agreement that would have moved the cross to a nearby
church, but two congressmen intervened and inserted a rider into the 2005 omnibus budget bill that
designated the property a national veterans memorial and authorized the federal government to
accept the donation of the property.
This led to more fights and more court filings.
In 2006, three congressmen pushed through a bill calling for the government to seize the property
by eminent domain -- calling it "a historically significant war memorial." The federal government
took possession in August of that year.
A lawsuit was filed challenging that transfer almost immediately and that has led to Thursday's
ruling.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/13/justice/california-cross-battle/

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Instrucciones para la exposición
Instrucciones para la exposiciónInstrucciones para la exposición
Instrucciones para la exposiciónNurypcz
 
Do not let them die-Conductas criminales en niños y jóvenes
Do not let them die-Conductas criminales  en niños y jóvenesDo not let them die-Conductas criminales  en niños y jóvenes
Do not let them die-Conductas criminales en niños y jóvenesJosué Carreño Santiago
 
7 b fotoperiodismo
7 b fotoperiodismo7 b fotoperiodismo
7 b fotoperiodismoejemplo12
 
Crucigrama Lectura 8
Crucigrama Lectura 8 Crucigrama Lectura 8
Crucigrama Lectura 8 Quimica Leali
 
ArtMattersVol2Iss2
ArtMattersVol2Iss2ArtMattersVol2Iss2
ArtMattersVol2Iss2Zak Pence
 
Indie Series 04: The Making of SyncSeven
Indie Series 04: The Making of SyncSevenIndie Series 04: The Making of SyncSeven
Indie Series 04: The Making of SyncSevenMohammad Shaker
 
Gerencia Publica y Privada en Venezuela
Gerencia Publica y Privada en VenezuelaGerencia Publica y Privada en Venezuela
Gerencia Publica y Privada en VenezuelaNo Name
 
Jeopardy present continuous and will with future meaning
Jeopardy present continuous and will with future meaningJeopardy present continuous and will with future meaning
Jeopardy present continuous and will with future meaningjasmina ivanova
 
El planeta tierra
El planeta tierraEl planeta tierra
El planeta tierraEiarcoiris
 
Indie Series 02: AI and Recent Advances in Games
Indie Series 02: AI and Recent Advances in GamesIndie Series 02: AI and Recent Advances in Games
Indie Series 02: AI and Recent Advances in GamesMohammad Shaker
 
001 pliego de condiciones gtb.ez
001 pliego de condiciones gtb.ez001 pliego de condiciones gtb.ez
001 pliego de condiciones gtb.ezsergiogpo
 

Destaque (15)

Instrucciones para la exposición
Instrucciones para la exposiciónInstrucciones para la exposición
Instrucciones para la exposición
 
Do not let them die-Conductas criminales en niños y jóvenes
Do not let them die-Conductas criminales  en niños y jóvenesDo not let them die-Conductas criminales  en niños y jóvenes
Do not let them die-Conductas criminales en niños y jóvenes
 
Cuento manuel
Cuento manuelCuento manuel
Cuento manuel
 
7 b fotoperiodismo
7 b fotoperiodismo7 b fotoperiodismo
7 b fotoperiodismo
 
Abdul Muqeet CV Latest
Abdul Muqeet CV LatestAbdul Muqeet CV Latest
Abdul Muqeet CV Latest
 
Crucigrama Lectura 8
Crucigrama Lectura 8 Crucigrama Lectura 8
Crucigrama Lectura 8
 
ArtMattersVol2Iss2
ArtMattersVol2Iss2ArtMattersVol2Iss2
ArtMattersVol2Iss2
 
Indie Series 04: The Making of SyncSeven
Indie Series 04: The Making of SyncSevenIndie Series 04: The Making of SyncSeven
Indie Series 04: The Making of SyncSeven
 
Gerencia Publica y Privada en Venezuela
Gerencia Publica y Privada en VenezuelaGerencia Publica y Privada en Venezuela
Gerencia Publica y Privada en Venezuela
 
Jeopardy present continuous and will with future meaning
Jeopardy present continuous and will with future meaningJeopardy present continuous and will with future meaning
Jeopardy present continuous and will with future meaning
 
Orgánico Funcional 2014
Orgánico Funcional 2014Orgánico Funcional 2014
Orgánico Funcional 2014
 
El planeta tierra
El planeta tierraEl planeta tierra
El planeta tierra
 
Indie Series 02: AI and Recent Advances in Games
Indie Series 02: AI and Recent Advances in GamesIndie Series 02: AI and Recent Advances in Games
Indie Series 02: AI and Recent Advances in Games
 
Linea del tiempo (windows)
Linea del tiempo (windows)Linea del tiempo (windows)
Linea del tiempo (windows)
 
001 pliego de condiciones gtb.ez
001 pliego de condiciones gtb.ez001 pliego de condiciones gtb.ez
001 pliego de condiciones gtb.ez
 

Judge says giant cross must be removed from San Diego mountain

  • 1. Judge says giant cross must be removed from San Diego mountain Story highlights The judge orders the giant cross must be removed in 90 days But judge also orders cross can stay if case is appealed The fight over giant cross in San Diego has been going on for decades A giant cross that has stood on a Southern California mountain for decades must be removed because it violates the constitutional separation of church and state, a judge ordered this week. The order Thursday by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns continues a long legal battle about the 43- foot cross atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego. Burns ordered that the cross would have to be removed within 90 days. But the cross may be able to stay if the case is appealed, the judge ordered. "Of course we are disappointed in what the ruling is -- that is to take the cross down," Bruce Bailey, president of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association told CNN affiliate KGTV. Bailey said his organization plans to appeal, which would mean the cross would stay as the decades- long legal battle continued. Long legal battle The cross was erected in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans and has been the subject of near constant judicial back and forth since 1989, when two Vietnam War veterans filed suit saying it violated the California Constitution's "No Preference" clause. Since the first lawsuit in 1989, the city of San Diego twice tried selling the property beneath the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, only to be stopped by the courts. In 2004, the parties involved reached an agreement that would have moved the cross to a nearby church, but two congressmen intervened and inserted a rider into the 2005 omnibus budget bill that designated the property a national veterans memorial and authorized the federal government to accept the donation of the property. This led to more fights and more court filings. In 2006, three congressmen pushed through a bill calling for the government to seize the property by eminent domain -- calling it "a historically significant war memorial." The federal government took possession in August of that year. A lawsuit was filed challenging that transfer almost immediately and that has led to Thursday's ruling.