{"id":233,"date":"2009-10-09T13:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-09T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html"},"modified":"2009-10-09T13:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-10-09T13:00:00","slug":"cross-should-survive-challenge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html","title":{"rendered":"Cross Should Survive Challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry, I believe the Supreme Court ultimately will conclude that the plaintiff did not have legal standing here – that this challenge was legally flawed from the very start.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

Merely being ‘offended’ does not give the plaintiff a legal green light to go to court to challenge this memorial. As you know, just because the ‘standing’ issue did not receive a lot of attention during oral argument does not mean the Justices are ignoring it.  <\/span>They won’t and in the end I believe our side will carry the day on this issue.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

Second issue: the Establishment Clause question.  <\/span>Does the placement of a cross on what was once public land – but now private land – constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause?  <\/span>I believe the answer is ‘no’ and I am hopeful that’s what a majority of the court will determine.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As you know, there were several spirited exchanges in court.  <\/span>One that caught my attention was this exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and ACLU attorney, Peter J. Eliasberg, about the text on the plaque – as reported by the New York Times<\/a>. <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

The chief justice asked for the text of the plaque.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

” ‘This cross’ — in big letters — ‘erected in honor of the dead of foreign wars,’ ” Mr. Eliasberg responded.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

A couple of minutes later, Chief Justice Roberts returned to the subject and corrected Mr. Eliasberg. The actual text on the plaque, the chief justice said, was more elaborate: “The cross, erected in memory of the dead of all wars, erected 1934 by members of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Death Valley Post 2884.”<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

“That’s a big difference,” the chief justice said, explaining that the longer version made clear that the cross was not a government memorial.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

I believe the court will reach the same conclusion about this war memorial as it did in a case that I argued last term.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font> <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font>In February<\/a>, the high court ruled on our behalf in a case where a Utah city accepted a monument of the Ten Commandments and displayed it in a city park.  <\/span>In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum<\/i>, the high court unanimously concluded that the city could constitutionally display the monument – and reject another – clearing the way for governments to accept permanent monuments of their choosing in public parks.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font> <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font>While it is difficult to predict the outcome of any First Amendment case of this nature, I believe the court will conclude that the war memorial cross can stay.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click <\/font>here<\/font><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Barry, I believe the Supreme Court ultimately will conclude that the plaintiff did not have legal standing here – that this challenge was legally flawed from the very start.    Merely being ‘offended’ does not give the plaintiff a legal green light to go to court to challenge this memorial. As you know, just because…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,75,139,146,69,254],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-establishment-clause","category-first-amendment","category-memorials","category-supreme-court","category-ten-commandments"],"yoast_head":"\nCross Should Survive Challenge - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cross Should Survive Challenge - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Barry, I believe the Supreme Court ultimately will conclude that the plaintiff did not have legal standing here – that this challenge was legally flawed from the very start.    Merely being ‘offended’ does not give the plaintiff a legal green light to go to court to challenge this memorial. As you know, just because…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-09T13:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Cross Should Survive Challenge - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cross Should Survive Challenge - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"Barry, I believe the Supreme Court ultimately will conclude that the plaintiff did not have legal standing here – that this challenge was legally flawed from the very start.    Merely being ‘offended’ does not give the plaintiff a legal green light to go to court to challenge this memorial. As you know, just because…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2009-10-09T13:00:00+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html","name":"Cross Should Survive Challenge - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-09T13:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2009-10-09T13:00:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/10\/cross-should-survive-challenge.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cross Should Survive Challenge"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}