Beating Back the Censors

The day before Thanksgiving, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of 47 members of Congress asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a decision from last June in which a federal district court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Michael Newdow challenging the constitutionality of our national motto, In God We Trust.

 

In our brief, we urged the federal appeals court to uphold the dismissal of the lawsuit, citing a 1970 decision by the Ninth Circuit that concluded the national motto does not violate the Establishment Clause.  In its decision 36 years ago, the Ninth Circuit concluded:   It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency In God We Trust has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. . . . While ceremonial and patriotic may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact.

 

The use of the national motto is fully consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the words of the motto echo the conviction held by our Founding Founders that our freedoms come from God.  In 1956, Congress codified In God We Trust as our national motto to reaffirm Americas unique history and understanding of this truth, as well as to distinguish America from atheistic nations who recognized no higher authority than the State.  Our brief contends:  While the First Amendment affords atheists complete freedom to disbelieve, it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in every area of public life in order to suit atheistic sensibilities.

 

The lower court was right on the mark in dismissing this lawsuit.  Every court that has considered this issue has concluded that the national motto has nothing to do with the establishment of religion.  This frivolous lawsuit was designed to re-write history by removing a legitimate expression of our religious history.  The decision to dismiss this lawsuit at the federal district court level was sound and proper, and were confident the federal appeals court will uphold that decision and put to rest this latest legal challenge against our national motto.

 

Earlier this month, we had an important opportunity to bring an end to one of the legal challenges aimed at removing the Mount Soledad Memorial.  We filed an amicus brief on behalf of 22 members of Congress, asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss a case against the City of San Diego challenging the Mt. Soledad cross because the federal government now owns the land on which the memorial sits.

 

California Congressman Duncan Hunter sponsored legislation that transferred control of the Mt. Soledad Memorial to the federal government, and President Bush signed that legislation into law in August.  Thus, there is simply no reason for this case to proceed since the federal government lawfully took ownership of the land on which the memorial sits.  We also filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States earlier this year, successfully arguing that a federal district courts order calling for the removal of the cross should be stayed because important constitutional issues have been raised and the federal and state appeals have not been exhausted.

 

The Mount Soledad case has generated national interest with more than 170,000 Americansincluding more than 27,000 Californianssigning on to our Petition to Preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial.  We are hopeful the federal appeals court will dismiss this litigation against the City of San Diego.  At the end of the day, were confident all legal challenges to the Mt. Soledad Memorial will fail and a cross thats been in place for more than half a century will remain in place for years to come.

 

We will keep you posted as we continue to diligently fight back the censors in both these cases.