The Patriot Post® · Is It or Is It Not Establishment?

As usual, the Ninth Circuit Court has rendered a proactive decision in Jewish War Veterans v City of San Diego flies in the face of existing law, common sense and the very plain text of the Establishment Clause. It says:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In consideration of the exact reading of the first amendment, two words leap out at you. The first is congress. In the case under consideration, congress was not a party to the action. The second word for consideration is establishment. One cannot establish a religion simply by erecting a symbol ot that religion.

Within the context of the notion of erecting a cross. That issue was previously decided in the case of the Salazar v Buono in the Mojave Desert case and must stand as precedent.

As too the mater of common sense; the ACLU would appear to be the ambulance chaser making a mountain out of a molehill. The Jewish War Veterans likely were induce or seduced into filing against the City of San Diego. The stood not a chance of enhancing their personal or professional standing by such an ignominious pursuit

To virtually anyone with a modicum of intelligence, this was and is meaningless and time-consuming litigation, profiting none but the legal beagles.

Contact: [email protected]