老澳门开奖结果

Yesterday鈥檚 Supreme Court in the case Salazar vs. Buono 鈥� concerning a cross in the Mojave National Preserve that has been designated as a national memorial 鈥� wasn鈥檛 quite what we were hoping for, but was also encouraging in some respects. The question of whether or not the government鈥檚 sale of the land on which the cross sits to a private veterans鈥� organization remedies a violation of the Establishment Clause has been sent back to district court. The Supreme Court found that the lower court used the wrong legal standard in deciding to invalidate a transfer of the land on which the cross stands to private ownership. But the opinion does leave the door open to reaching a favorable outcome in the case, and, more importantly, does not preclude private citizens from challenging the constitutionality of religious displays on government property in the future.

The case, Salazar v. Buono, stems from a complaint raised by veteran and former National Park Service employee Frank Buono, who claimed that the presence of an overtly religious symbol on federal land represented unconstitutional favoritism toward a specific religion.

In 2002, while the federal district court case was pending, Congress designated the cross as a national memorial. In an apparent attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause violation, Congress also transferred one acre of land on which the cross stands to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, with the provision that the VFW continue to maintain it as a war memorial.

The 老澳门开奖结果, which represented Buono in the case, will continue to argue that the transfer does not remedy the government鈥檚 unconstitutional endorsement of one particular religion. 鈥淭he cross is unquestionably a sectarian symbol,鈥� said the 老澳门开奖结果 of Southern California鈥檚 Peter Eliasberg, who argued the case before the Court, 鈥渁nd we respectfully but strongly disagree with the suggestion that the cross does not favor one religion.鈥�