In a ruling about a Latin cross on Federal land the United States Supreme Court has opened the door a little wider for People v US in its upcoming court challenge to Obama Care by ruling:
“Respect for a coordinate branch of Government forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality… The same respect requires that a congressional command be given effect unless no legal alternative exists.”
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides and alternative to Obama Care if you believe that Obama Care is the establishment of the Religion of Marxism/Socialism. [See also Marxism American's Established Religion]
Here is the short version as found on Westlaw that describes the CROSS case:
“A government religious practice or symbol will survive an Establishment Clause challenge when it (1) has a secular purpose, (2) has a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) does not foster excessive state entanglement with religion.†Buono I, supra, at 1214-1215 (citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971))….
Its [the district court] ruling was based instead on the conclusion that a reasonable observer would perceive a cross on federal land as governmental endorsement of religion.
Obama Care allows for a reasonable observer to perceive the federal government is establishing a civic religion of Marxism. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment. People v US will be including the First Amendment violation claims along with obvious violations of the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
By the USSC:
Background: Retired employee of National Park Service (NPS) filed suit, alleging that display of Latin cross atop Sunrise Rock in Mojave National Preserve violated Establishment Clause. After the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Robert J. Timlin, Senior District Judge, 212 F.Supp.2d 1202, entered permanent injunction against display of cross, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Kozinski, Circuit Judge, 371 F.3d 543, affirmed, plaintiff moved to enforce injunction by challenging federal statute authorizing transfer of land displaying cross. The District Court, 364 F.Supp.2d 1175, granted motion. Government appealed. The Court of Appeals, McKeown, Circuit Judge, 502 F.3d 1069 and 527 F.3d 758, affirmed. Certiorari was granted.
Syllabus FN*
FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
*1 In 1934, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) placed a Latin cross on federal land in the Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) to honor American soldiers who died in World War I. Claiming to be offended by a religious symbol’s presence on federal land, respondent Buono, a regular visitor to the Preserve, filed this suit alleging a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and seeking an injunction requiring the Government to remove the cross. In the litigation’s first stage (Buono I), the District Court found that Buono had standing to sue and, concluding that the presence of the cross on federal land conveyed an impression of governmental endorsement of religion, see Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, it granted Buono’s requested injunctive relief (2002 injunction). The District Court did not consider whether the Government’s actions regarding the cross had a secular purpose or caused entanglement with religion. While the Government’s appeal was pending, Congress passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004, § 8121(a) of which directed the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the cross and the land on which it stands to the VFW in exchange for privately owned land elsewhere in the Preserve (land-transfer statute). Affirming the District Court’s judgment both as to standing and on the merits, the Ninth Circuit declined to address the statute’s effect on Buono’s suit or the statute’s constitutionality (Buono II). Because the Government did not seek review by this Court, the Court of Appeals’ judgment became final. Buono then returned to the District Court seeking injunctive relief against the land transfer, either through enforcement or modification of the 2002 injunction. In 2005, that court rejected the Government’s claim that the transfer was a bona fide attempt to comply with the injunction, concluding, instead, that it was actually an invalid attempt to keep the cross on display. The court granted Buono’s motion to enforce the 2002 injunction; denied as moot his motion to amend it; and permanently enjoined the Government from implementing the land-transfer statute (Buono III). The Ninth Circuit again affirmed, largely following the District Court’s reasoning .
Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.