By Robert Barnes Robert Barnes Reporter covering the U.S. Supreme Court Email Bio Follow February 27 at 6:00 AM The Supreme Court will consider Wednesday whether a towering cross in a busy highway median just outside Washington is a historic and secular monument to World War I dead or an unconstitutional government embrace of Christianity. The Bladensburg Peace Cross, made of granite and cement, was built in 1925 and paid for by local families, businesses and the American Legion.
The commission’s brief tells the court: “Virtually every member of the court has agreed that, at minimum, the government may display symbols associated with religion where the display’s purpose and objective meaning are predominantly secular, or where the display fits within a long national tradition of similar practices.” But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit looked at the same facts and the same test and concluded otherwise.
Source: Law Daily Report (lawdailyreport.net)
It's great to honor our WW Vets. It's not fine to assume every vet belonged to the same religion, or that none of them were secular. As a secular person, going forward, I would hope future public monuments are not overtly religious.
It has a right to stand!!!!!!!
Could we leave the m ok moments alone? They are remembrance of history. 'Hi, Story'. Someones life was written in history and people wanted to celebrate their efforts. Taking them down isnt going to change History. Focus on real issues.
Stays.
That's what the Taliban does, tear down statues and monuments so there is nothing left but their narrative of hate
Ra🔺
It stays
do similar like Ram Mandir in Ayodhya (India)
Move it or sell to a private organization
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court Rules Against Excessive State FinesThe Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states may not impose excessive fines, extending a bedrock constitutional protection but potentially jeopardizing asset-forfeiture programs that help fund police operations. defund police operations Why's Ruth on the cover?! Is she even still alive? 🤨 That's seriously the headline you came up with?
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »
Limiting excessive fines, Supreme Court rules against seizing a drug seller’s luxury SUVUS Supreme Court rules unanimously that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to punishments imposed by the states as well as by the federal government. This should have never happened in the first place. Government should not be steeling money from people White privilege Just in time for trumps clan’s sentencing
Source: NBCNews - 🏆 10. / 86 Read more »
Supreme Court strikes blow against states that raise revenue by hefty fines, forfeituresThe decision, which united the court's conservatives and liberals, makes clear that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against 'excessive fines' applies to the states. SCOTUS It's not 'Serve & Protect'....its 'Arrest & Collect' This is actually bad. It furthers the 'incorporation doctrine', a concept popularized by Justice Hugo Black (a KKK member BTW) that incorrectly argues that the 14th amendment goes beyond equal protection under the law and expands the Bill of Right to state and local governments. Good. The so called speeding camera is next
Source: USATODAY - 🏆 100. / 63 Read more »
Supreme Court unanimously rules to limit states' ability to seize private property involved in a crimeThe Supreme Court moved to limit states’ ability to seize private property involved in a crime, saying the forfeitures are subject to protection against excessive fines. Sure she did. Wink. Nod. RBG is still recovering from a medical procedure. Her resilience and work ethic is incredible. That's all the proof I need a typed quote with her name on the bottom nothing to see her people
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »
Supreme Court Limits Civil Asset Forfeiture, Rules Excessive Fines Apply To StatesBREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, thus limiting their ability to use fines to raise revenue. You said it in the tweet, it’s not “revenue”, it’s THEFT I've lost a lot of faith in the Court in recent years, but I like this decision. Yes, Hooray!!!! Need to stop , Excessive Fines, can't drive our cars in peace.
Source: NPR - 🏆 96. / 63 Read more »
Supreme Court bolsters the right of owners to fight police seizures of propertyThe Supreme Court on Wednesday strengthened the rights of Americans to fight police seizures of vehicles and other property, ruling the 8th Amendment’s ban on “excessive fines” applies to states and localities, not just the federal government. Finally the government does something right Good
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »
The Supreme Court curtails states’ power to seize propertyThe unanimous decision is being cheered by advocates on the left and right *UNANIMOUSLY*!!
Source: TheEconomist - 🏆 6. / 92 Read more »
Opinion | It'll take more than a Supreme Court case to end police abuse of property rightsOpinion | Scott Lemieux: Police abused civil forfeiture laws for so long that the Supreme Court stepped in. But one ruling won't end it. - NBCNewsTHINK
Source: NBCNews - 🏆 10. / 86 Read more »
Opinion | The Supreme Court has a chance to clear up decades of confusionThe justices have the chance to undo past confusion over Bladensburg’s Peace Cross with their ruling. The injustice of PAYING PEOPLE TO SOW DIVISION IN OUR COUNTRY! Watch! Mmmmm Why did the chicken cross the road?
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »
Supreme Court to decide fate of cross-shaped WWI memorial in MarylandThe Supreme Court hears arguments on whether a 40-foot Bladensburg, Maryland, cross-shaped war memorial violates the First Amendment. Should it be taken down? Emotionally I would leave the cross, legally it should be moved. Were any of the 49 soldiers members of any other religion? If not, then the answer is it does not entangle itself in religion. who is offended by this one?
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »