Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ACLU got a bloody lip

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ACLU got a bloody lip

    Thou shall not remove the Ten Commandments.

    That’s the declaration from a federal district court – dismissing a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against Dixie County, Fla. and ending a six-year legal battle.

    FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!

    The ACLU sued the county after they allowed a private citizen to erect a six-ton monument of the Ten Commandments atop the steps of the courthouse.Dixie County Ten Commandments monument

    A 75-year-old North Carolina man, who happens to be an ACLU member, objected to the monument – which led to the lawsuit.

    Liberty Counsel represented the county and challenged the ACLU’s standing to bring a suit on behalf of a member who lives hundreds of miles away from the monument.”

    Senior District Judge Maurice Paul dismissed the case after the ACLU admitted that their client did not plan to buy property in Dixie County and therefore lacks standing to sue.

    In addition to dismissing the case, the ACLU will be responsible for several thousand dollars in court costs.

    “This was a great victory,” Liberty Counsel Founder Mathew Staver told Fox News. “What it says about the bully tactics by the ACLU is that if you resist them, you can win.”

    “The usual way they win is my intimidation or default – when the government officials cave in under the threat of a lawsuit,” Staver said.

    The county had a policy that allowed private citizens to put up different kinds of displays – including the religious monuments.

    Harry Mihet, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, said the ACLU got caught with its hands in the “constitutional cookie jar.”

    “It’s prolonged campaign against the good citizens of Dixie County has come to a screeching halt,” he said. “In getting kicked out of court, the ACLU has learned that it cannot impose its San Francisco values upon a small town in Florida – using a phantom member from North Carolina.

    The ACLU did not return calls seeking comment.

    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    So all they've got to do is find someone that owns property in Dixie county and they won't be able to throw it out on those grounds, and the courts will be forced to rule on it's constitutionality.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have no problem with a moral code on display but 6 tons is a huge display especially if its only the commandments

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by John -- '02 HAWK View Post
        I have no problem with a moral code on display but 6 tons is a huge display especially if its only the commandments
        Moral code that mentions nothing of rape, but says not to use a name in vain. Seems legit.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by racrguy View Post
          Moral code that mentions nothing of rape, but says not to use a name in vain. Seems legit.
          asside from your hatred of anything religous, it's still free speach.
          "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford

          Comment


          • #6
            Regardless of what I think about the display - I just can't stand the ACLU. They pick the dumbest battles...
            Originally posted by MR EDD
            U defend him who use's racial slurs like hes drinking water.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Baron View Post
              aside from your hatred of anything religious, it's still free speech.
              C'mon man!

              Also, free speech is all well and good, until I have to subsidize it. It's been ruled time and time again, when challenged, that religious displays cannot be erected on public property. It just so happened that the courts were able to throw this case out. It was sloppy of the ACLU to try this one.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                C'mon man!

                Also, free speech is all well and good, until I have to subsidize it. It's been ruled time and time again, when challenged, that religious displays cannot be erected on public property. It just so happened that the courts were able to throw this case out. It was sloppy of the ACLU to try this one.
                It was donated which means no one but the person who put it there paid for it. How did you subsidize this again? What part of the constitution prevents a county, city or state from putting up a religious display?
                I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                  It was donated which means no one but the person who put it there paid for it. How did you subsidize this again? What part of the constitution prevents a county, city or state from putting up a religious display?
                  The land that it's placed on is not taxed, thereby increasing the tax burden on every other person that does pay taxes.

                  Don't get started about the constitution, I can show you in black and white where it says that it's the supreme law of the land, but you'll ignore it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                    The land that it's placed on is not taxed, thereby increasing the tax burden on every other person that does pay taxes.

                    Don't get started about the constitution, I can show you in black and white where it says that it's the supreme law of the land, but you'll ignore it.
                    Only if you buy into the belief that you cannot own land, you're just renting it.

                    Yes, show me in The Constitution. But first, be sure to slowly say the first 5 words of that amendment so you have a chance to let it sink in
                    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                      Only if you buy into the belief that you cannot own land, you're just renting it.
                      The only reason you don't pay taxes on your land is because you've been exempted. If you weren't, would you or would you not pay taxes on it?
                      Yes, show me in The Constitution. But first, be sure to slowly say the first 5 words of that amendment so you have a chance to let it sink in
                      Learn more history.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I know history quite well and can read the actual amendment that is written in English. No branch of the government has the authority to say the constitution expands beyond what it actually says unless an amendment is passed. If you're talking Supreme Court interpretation, they have no authority to interpret and this is also the same body that held up and still uphold internment.

                        You said you can show me in the constitution where states, counties and cities are prohibited from displaying anything of a religious nature. Please do. If you're talking about incorporation, then that means that no governmental agency of any level may ban any sort of firearm and any attempt to is unconstitutional. It also flies in the face of the actual wording of the document.
                        I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                          I know history quite well and can read the actual amendment that is written in English. No branch of the government has the authority to say the constitution expands beyond what it actually says unless an amendment is passed. If you're talking Supreme Court interpretation, they have no authority to interpret and this is also the same body that held up and still uphold internment.

                          You said you can show me in the constitution where states, counties and cities are prohibited from displaying anything of a religious nature. Please do. If you're talking about incorporation, then that means that no governmental agency of any level may ban any sort of firearm and any attempt to is unconstitutional. It also flies in the face of the actual wording of the document.
                          Learn more history, and how to read the constitution.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You said you could show me the wording in the constitution. Please do.
                            I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                              You said you could show me the wording in the constitution. Please do.
                              I've done it before, you just dismiss it because it doesn't agree with you.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X