Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Desert’

A World War I memorial will be allowed to stay in the Mojave Desert, and though covered since 2002 because it offended some people as a religious symbol is now unveiled again. It was the United States Supreme Court that allowed the Cross, on private land owned by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to stay after a protracted controversy. The Cross has stood for about 75 years in the desert. The question came to, Is the Cross religious symbol for Christians solely, or War Memorial for American dead?

In California and even San Francisco’s Bay Area the subject of a cross in a remote desert spot in the Mojave was a highly controversial matter. What about the cross on public land? Does this not violate separation of Church and State? was hotly asked.
 
A religious symbol cannot be on public land, said Frank Buono who is now retired from the Park Service. He brought the case to The Supreme Court over a ten year period with the help of The American Civil Liberties Union. According to The New York Times, “The white wooden cross, roughly 5 feet tall, stands atop Sunrise Rock in California’s San Bernardino County.” It is actually made of pipe today. The Supreme Court did not say whether this was a simple, dignified, and even popular War Memorial of little note but some popularity among the private individuals who visited it, and those who built it. The Court took on this almost humble case that to some appeared overblown.
 
A PDF of the Supreme Court decision is here.
 
The announcement of the Court’s result was made and reported in major newspapers April 28, 2010. Writing for the Supreme Court in Salazar v. Buono, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said:
“The District Court concentrated solely on the religious aspects of the cross, divorced from its background and context. But a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”
 
The Veterans of Foreign Wars agreed. One could easily surmise that’s the real issue, the real case from their vantage point. Many veterans agreed.
 
Gabriel Nelson, writing in his blog in The New York Times, said, “The Supreme Court ruled today that Congress and the Interior Department acted properly when they used a land transfer to solve a dispute over a cross on display in the federal Mojave National Preserve.”
 
There was no big hullaballoo, but a minimal statement with dissent by the Supreme Court. Gabriel Nelson put it well in his low key remark on how the Interior Department had acted properly. This writer has taken some snippets from other newspaper reports that demonstrate all are in accord in their reporting of the facts, and as the Supreme Court noted it was the facts that led them to their conclusions on the decision.
 
In its brief on behalf of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Solicitor General Elena Kagan said the cross did not imply government sponsorship. The transfer of land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that required the installation of a plaque dissociating the statue from the federal government, she wrote, satisfied the problem of Church/State religion (Christian).
 
The Christian Post said in its report, “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. “This cross,” he wrote, “evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles.”
 
As a taste of the real argument in differences on the United States Supreme Court, it appears to this writer that Justice Anthony Kennedy caught the essence of the issue separating Justices. The Wall Street Journal noted in their report, Justice Stevens’s dissent argued that Congress wasn’t taking action to memorialize veterans, but rather using their memory to justify maintenance of a religious symbol. He noted that the Mojave cross little resembles the prominent and nonsectarian markers erected for those who served in World War II, Korea or Vietnam.
 
JESS BRAVIN Wall Street Journal writer pointed out in his article, The cross—estimated at five to seven feet tall—stands on Sunrise Rock in a remote patch of desert. Veterans, some of whom had moved to the region for health reasons, first erected a cross at the site in 1934 and it was often used for Easter services. The current version was assembled from painted metal pipes in 1998 by Henry Sandoz of Yucca Valley, Calif.
 
Though The Wall Street Journal called the decision one whereby the Cross was determined more war memorial than religious symbol, the grass roots battle in California called for many statements that: Yes, it was significantly and first a war memorial, but it was a religious statement for the war dead. There the Supreme Court did not necessarily agree, but it did not make sweeping decisions. Justice Kennedy wrote, Because of the “highly fact-specific nature” of the case, it is “unsuited for announcing categorical rules.”
 
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Stevens’s dissent. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented separately.
 
Images:  (1) Mojave Desert Cross, by Associated Press; (2) Mojave Desert Cross, by unknown.

If you are an inventor, a writer, a musician or a designer, it doesn’t matter if you live in Murrieta, California, San Diego, CA, Mission Viejo, Carlsbad, La Jolla, Westminster, Orange County, Anaheim, Orange, Irvine, Escondido, San Luis Obispo, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Huntington Beach, Temecula or Palm Springs, Palm Desert, or Indian Wells, CA, the law is the same with regard to intellectual property in California. But why are patents, trademarks and copyrights are considered “Intellectual Property?” A good patent lawyer, trademark attorney, copyright lawyer or intellectual property law firm can tell you.

Actually it is the inventions that are patented, the symbols or words that are trademarked and the works of literature, music, film and the like that are copyrighted that are considered to be the intellectual property, but the question is really what makes them either intellectual or property?

Some, if not many of the works that are copyrighted are anything but intellectual, but their copyrights are extremely valuable nonetheless.

A funny looking symbol that becomes a trademark is perhaps more artistic than intellectual, but that symbol can be worth millions.I

nventions are really more inventive than intellectual, but if they work, they can be a benefit to mankind.

So, is it right that any of these things should be considered the property of one and not all of us?

What gives one person the right to protect a set of words or an invention as their own property?

Well, what the law does is reward people for their intellectual efforts. Whether that effort is to paint a beautiful painting, to write a wonderful piece of music or to create a device that makes it easier or more energy-saving to do something, that person deserves to be rewarded. And what the law does is give that composer or inventor a number of years to make a monetary reward from his or her efforts.

Some people question why a composer or inventor still has to go to great cost or effort to then market their works before they get any reward. Why aren’t they simply paid for the creation? Why do they still have to become marketing and advertising geniuses? Why must they even pay filing fees or an attorney to have their works and inventions protected.

The answer is simply a question. Who would pay these writers and inventors? The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office doesn’t have money to pay these people. Nor does the Library of Congress.

The system that is worldwide for protecting the works of our most artistic and intelligent people is not without fault, but it is the best system devised to date, despite the many efforts by pirates and infringers to steal the rewards that should go to these writers and inventors.

Patents, trademarks and copyrights can be extremely valuable. The copyright infringement of a book not long ago resulted in a seven figure settlement. Trademark infringement and patent infringement cases routinely result in settlement in the millions. And patents can be licensed or sold outright for tens of millions of dollars and sometimes more.

If you would like more information on intellectual property, need defense in a lawsuit, or wish to patent an invention or design, trademark a slogan, symbol or phrase, or copyright a literary work, photograph or a musical composition as an example, we invite you to call us.

If you have an intellectual property matter in Orange County, San Diego, in the Inland Empire, Palm Springs or anywhere in Southern California, we have the knowledge and resources to be your San Diego Intellectual Property Lawyers, and Orange County and Anaheim Intellectual Property Attorneys. For this reason, be sure to hire a California law firm with copyright lawyers who are ready to serve you in many areas such as Costa Mesa, Anaheim and Pacific Beach so you are properly represented when you need to be.

If you have an intellectual property matter and need to know your rights, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com and learn about your rights and options. You can also call us to speak directly to Sebastian Gibson on the phone about your legal matter.

Incoming search terms:

Unless you are in a coma, it doesn’t matter where you live in California, in Corona del Mar, San Diego, Orange County, CA, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Riverside, Chula Vista, Irvine, San Bernardino, Huntington Beach, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Garden Grove, Palmdale, Corona, Escondido, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Victorville, Carlsbad, Temecula, Murrieta, Mission Viejo, El Cajon, Vista, Westminster, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, Hesperia, Newport Beach, Buena Park, Indio, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells or Coachella, you will have somehow heard there is an economic crisis going on, and that Congress passed a whopping $700 billion bailout plan.

What you may not know, is that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s draft proposal for the bailout of financial service firms on Wall Street as it was presented to Congress was an unconstitutional power grab of monumental proportions.

Under Paulson’s plan, no oversight, no review and no challenges would have been allowed by the courts, by Congress or by individuals. Henry Paulson had proposed that he effectively be appointed economic czar.

Under Section 8 of his initial proposal, which for years to come, will undoubtedly form the basis for questions on bar exams for law students, “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act, are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

Under Section 8 of this Act, the Treasury Secretary would arguably have become a more powerful figure than our largely missing-in-action President, more powerful than the head of the Federal Reserve, the SEC and Congress combined, and as such in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The draft proposal was in conflict with the Constitution for the simple reason that our nation’s most important document provides that every member of the executive branch, including the Treasury Secretary, is subject to legislative and executive review. Neither Congress nor the executive may delegate its authority to a cabinet member. It would have been like Congress delegating all its power to Sarah Palin, or to a single congressman, or to Superdog for that matter.

As hard as it is to violate the nondelegation clause in the Constitution, if there has ever been a proposal to come out of the executive branch which does a good job of it, it has been argued that this is probably the one.

The question is, did the President tell Paulson to get a blank check from Congress and to heck with the Constitution or did Paulson come up with this on his own? Did the President and Paulson really believe that if they told Congress they needed this power in 24 hours like the TV show, that Congress, even the Republicans in Congress, would give it to him?

In bad times even more so than in good times, we expect the leaders of this country to protect the Constitution of the United States, not to usurp the powers it conveys on other branches of government. Let us hope that in the coming days and months as this country tries to mend itself from this economic crisis, that Congress remembers what the executive branch seems to have forgotten – the Constitution.  

If you have a constitutional, or first amendment law issue in San Diego, Newport Beach, Irvine, Orange County, La Jolla, in the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Palm Springs or anywhere in Southern California, we have the knowledge and resources to be your California Constitutional Lawyer and your Palm Springs and San Diego Business Attorney. Be sure to hire a California law firm with business and constitutional law experience who can serve areas such as Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Anaheim, Irvine, Newport Beach, Carlsbad, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Fullerton, Del Mar, San Diego, Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Buena Park, La Jolla, Oxnard, Ventura, La Quinta, and Santa Barbara so you are properly represented.

If you have a constitutional, first amendment or business law issue of any kind, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn how we can assist you.