WorldNetDaily - Supremes to Consider 'Statue of Tyranny' - Ruling in Utah Case Could Impact U.S. Monuments

May 23, 2011

7 min read

ACLJ

A

A

September 17, 2008
By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

Could the Statue of Liberty be joined by a State of Tyranny?

Arguments over whether there ultimately is to be a Statue of Tyranny in New York Harbor or a tribute to Adolf Hitler among a collection of World War II memorials have been scheduled before the U.S. Supreme Court in just a few weeks, and a law firm arguing against those ideas has submitted its response brief.

"The basic question is whether a city gets to decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property," said the document filed by the American Center for Law & Justice. "The answer is 'Yes.'"

The case stems from a claim from a Utah organization called Summum that it has the First Amendment right to demand erection of a monument to its seven "aphorisms" in the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah.

A federal district court declined to order the city to erect Summum's monument, but a three-judge federal appeals court panel in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, opening the door wide for any organization to post virtually any type of monument on any public property for any reason.

The ACLJ then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to review the arguments and make a decision.

"Summum's assertion of a right to force its monument upon the city has no legitimate basis in Supreme Court case law," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. He'll present the oral arguments to the high court on Nov. 12.

"We're hopeful the high court will overturn the 10th Circuit's decision that ultimately would cause havoc for local governments," Sekulow said.

If the ruling is not reversed, the alternative to allowing any monument for any reason would be to remove all monuments, the brief argued.

The case began with the demand from Summum, which was begun in Salt Lake City in 1975 and calls itself a church. It sued Pleasant Grove in federal court, alleging because the city had a donated Ten Commandments monument in a city park, the First Amendment required the city to accept and display a monument to Summum's seven aphorisms.

Those, according to a church website, predate the 10 Commandments and include: The principle of psychokinesis, the principle of correspondence, the principle of vibration, the principles of opposition, the principle of rhythm, the principle of cause and effect and the principle of gender.

The "church" claims the aphorisms were written on the original stone tablets given by God to Moses, the tablets he broke when he saw the Israelites had manufactured a golden calf idol during his absence. The organization says they were broken because Moses realized people couldn't understand the aphorisms, so he came down a second time with the Ten Commandments.

But the dispute over erecting a local monument has national consequences, the ACLJ said.

"The court of appeals' approach would make the government's display of the Statue of Liberty the speech of France, not the United States, entitling others to erect counter-monuments," the ACLJ said. "Likewise, the Vietnam, Korean, World War II, and upcoming Martin Luther King, Jr., monuments in the nation's capital would likely be deemed private speech, not government speech, entitling Summum and everyone else with a monument to occupy their own corner of the National Mall."

"A comparison between Pleasant Grove's acceptance and placement of the Ten Commandments monument donated by the Eagles, and the 1877 Congressional Resolution accepting thet Statue of Liberty reveals striking similarities as to the manner of acceptance, placement, and purpose of these monuments," the ACLJ outlined in its newest filing.

  • "Just as the president of the United States was 'authorized and directed to accept' the Statue of Liberty, the monument donated by the Eagles was erected 'with the specific permission and approval of Pleasant Grove and its governing council,'" the brief said.

 

  • "Just as Congress directed the president 'to designate and set apart for the erection' of the Statue of Liberty 'a suitable site,' the mayor of Pleasant Grove directed 'that a letter be written the Fraternal Order of Eagles accepting the monolith of 'The Ten Commandments' and stating it would be placed in a prominent place in the Rose Garden Park,'" the brief continued.

 

  • "Just as the 'citizens of the French Republic' were to 'erect at their own cost a colossal bronze statue of 'Liberty enlightening the world,'' the Fraternal Order of Eagles 'paid for the creation and installation of [the Ten Commandments,]'" the brief compared.

 

  • "Just as the completion of the Statue of Liberty was 'to be inaugurated with such ceremonies as will serve to testify the gratitude of our people for this expressive and felicitous memorial of the sympathy of the citizens of our sister Republic,' the 'unveiling ceremony' of the Ten Commandments monument 'took place in connection with the Fraternal Order of Eagles sixty-first convention,' where 'Mayor Cook said he thought the monument 'would serve to remind the citizens of their pioneer heritage,'" the brief said.


"If Pleasant Grove did not go far enough in demonstrating 'government speech' in accepting and placing the Ten Commandments monument in 1971, neither did Congress in accepting the Statute of Liberty in 1877. And if the Statue of Liberty remains private speech, despite government acceptance, placement, and purpose the same government acceptance, placement, and purpose found in Pleasant Grove then Congress should be prepared to make room for a Statue of Tyranny," the brief said.

The ACLJ said 15 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed on behalf of the city, including those representing 14 states and New York City.

Even organizations that typically oppose the ACLJ, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and People for the American Way, supported the ACLJ's First Amendment free speech questions in the case.

The ACLJ has argued the First Amendment does not require that a government park be turned into a "cluttered junkyard of monuments contributed by all comers," but the 10th Circuit ruling made several crucial errors and failed to recognize that.

"First, the court below fundamentally misapprehended the distinction between government speech and private speech in this case," the arguments said. "Second, the court below misidentified the relevant 'forum.' Third, the court erroneously held that city parks are traditional public fora for private, unattended, permanent monuments. Fourth, the lower court erred by holding that a city's acceptance of donated monuments creates a designated public forum for private speech through such monuments."

The concept of allowing anything as a monument is "scary," Frank Manion, of the ACLJ, told WND earlier. "The Minutemen in Massachusetts? We need a Redcoat. A George Washington statue? Why not George the 3rd. A Holocaust memorial? How about a Hitler memorial?"

The ACLJ said the Ten Commandments monuments are the real targets of the legal actions, because in many circumstances, cities or other governments likely would order such monuments removed, rather than order acceptance of others.

The ACLJ, which has worked on the case with the Thomas More Law Center, contends that the Constitution "does not empower private parties to force permanent displays into a park, crowding out the available physical space and trumping the government's own vision" for the parks.