Asking about 'seven aphorisms' called 'waste of time'

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

Asking the White House questions about a dispute now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court over a key First Amendment issue that ultimately could result in a "Statue of Tyranny" in New York Harbor is a "waste of time," according to the presidential secretary.

The questioning came from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House news briefing today. He asked: "Does the president believe or reject the contention that the First Amendment grants the 33-year-old Summum organization a right to erect a monument to its Seven Aphorisms in the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, because there's a Ten Commandments monument?"

"Les, I really don't understand why you ask me these questions at the briefing. It's kind of a waste of your time, and it's a waste of everybody else's time. And it's really a waste of my time," said spokeswoman Dana Perino.

WND has reported on the dispute.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, last week told the Supreme Court during oral arguments that it should preserve the sound precedent involving the "well-established distinction between government speech and private speech."

"We're hopeful that the Supreme Court will reject a twisted view of the First Amendment that could create havoc in America over how local, state and federal governments choose to memorialize significant events," he said.

"The basic question is whether a city gets to decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property. The answer is 'Yes,'" he said. "The fact is that government speech means the government can control its message. For example, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny."

In the case Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum, a lower court issued a ruling that could result in cities, counties and other governmental bodies being forced either to dismantle and remove myriad monuments, memorials and other displays, or else let anyone with an agenda install privately owned monuments and displays on public property.

If the precedent from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is not overturned, court documents argue, there could even end up being a tribute to Adolf Hitler among a collection of World War II memorials.

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.

In another question, Kinsolving asked, "The new Capitol Visitors Center was supposed to have cost $265 million – nd the final tab was $621 million for, among other things, a 530-seat restaurant, 26 public bathrooms, and two theaters. And my question: What is the White House's reaction to such profligate spending by Congress?"

"Well, obviously it wouldn't be – we would have preferred for all projects to come in on time and under budget. That's not always possible. And I think that the American people will benefit from having a visitors center. And we'll all get to take our guests not only to the American History Museum but to the Capitol, as well," Perino said.

Do you have a tough question you'd like to ask the White House? WND's MR. PRESIDENT! forum is your big
chance.