The Ninth Circuit yesterday held unconstitutional a cross displayed in a federal park.)(Buono v. Norton,03-55032) The cross was originally erected privately as a memorial to World War I vets. A federal statute enacted when the case was pending prohibits the use of federal funds to remove the cross (It also allows for a land swap to allow the cross to remain standing) Leaving aside the land swap question, is the ban on the use of federal funds to comply with a feral court order requiring its removal, constitutional. Marc Stern
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of marc stern Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Religion Clauses question Members of this list might be interested in J. Pelikan, Interpreting the Bible and the Constitution (Yale 2004).I found it fascinating. Marc Stern _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
