Friday, May 05, 2006

A Solution for San Diego's Cross Dilemma (Revised and Updated)

By now, many have heard about the latest outrage from a rabid atheist - this time in San Diego, California. The link below will take you to the story.

TEXT

As the story says, this cross memorial has been standing since shortly after the Korean War, but it apparently gives the obstreporous plaintiff nightmares. So, he's suing. I must confess, I am glad that I am a Christian with Christian values. Otherwise, I shudder when I think of what my "old nature" would like to do to this individual - with relish. Cases like these are more tiresome than words can express..and even more so when crackpot federal judges possessed by the demons of constitutional and historical revisionism rule in favor of the plaintiff. I had a simple idea to settle cases like this..but as you'll shortly see, my idea has already been tried and shot down.

I suggested that the city of San Diego should sell this monument and adjacent land to a private individual for one dollar (or lease the land if that would hold up legally). Once in private hands, the issue of "establishing a religion" would be moot and the atheist's lawsuit no longer would have merit. (I could say much on the meaning of "establishment" but will pass on that for now. However, after another perusal of the story, I see that the city did indeed try to sell this to a non profit, but the federal courts have refused to permit it. Now isn't THAT interesting????

Therefore, perhaps it's time for two other possible solutions to this ongoing and maddening problem. In American history, Andrew Jackson demonstrated that the judicial branch is one of THREE co-equal branches of government and not the supreme branch as it often thinks. He said in essence, "Fine..the court has ruled. Now let me see the court enforce it." It takes the executive branch to enforce the rulings of the court, of course. While the specific instance President Jackson used to do this might not have been the best choice of issues, I still like the idea. Perhaps we need some more municipalities willing to tell the court to go pound sand when judges abuse their position and so blatantly turn the Constitution on its head.

The second solution is for the Congress to remove such things from the jurisdiction of the courts. That is constitutionally permissible. Will Congress have the courage to do it? The voters will need to cashier a few Democrats and liberal Republicans first, but it is doable.

2 comments:

Joe B. Whitchurch said...

Joel, could you briefly remind us of what Jackson did to prevent enforcement by the judicial branch?

Did you read of the university prof and students who engaged in broad daylight, free speech vandalism against pro-lifers? I guess there were some consequences for a change. Check it out here consequences.

SolaMeanie said...

Basically, Jackson was responsible as the executive for enforcing the law. The courts cannot enforce and neither can the legislature. Jackson basically acknowledged the court's ruling and opinion, and then dared them.."let's see you enforce it." The court couldn't enforce it, of course, as the mechanism FOR enforcement was in the executive branch.