Nothing. The sculptures only have roman numerals on them, as far as I can tell. According to the Supreme Court website, they signify the permanence of law (written in stone). Nothing. I wasn't aware of this. It would be awesome if it had been Washington's bible - it's his monument after all. According to Urban Legends, they also stuck these things in the cornerstone:

1. Constitution of the United States and Declaration of Independence; presented by Mr. Hickey
2. American Constitutions; by W. Patton.
3. Large design of the Washington National Monument, with the facsimile of the names of the Presidents of the United States and others.
4. Large design of the Washington National Monument. Lithographed.
5. Historical sketch of the Washington National Monument since its origin, in manuscript.
6. Portrait of Washington, from Stuart's painting, Fanueil Hall.
7. Plate engraved with the names of the officers and members of the Board of Managers.
8. The Statesman's Manual, containing Presidents' messages from Washington to Polk, from 1789 to 1846, vols. 1 and 2.
9. Copy of the grant for the site of the Monument under the joint resolution of Congress.
10. Constitutions of the Washington National Monument Society, addresses circulars, commissions, instructions, form of bond, from 1835 to 1848.
11. Small design of Monument and likeness of Washington, with blank certificates for contributors.
12. Watterston's New Guide to Washington; by G. Watterston.
13. Map of the City of Washington; by Joseph Ratcliffe.
14. Laws of the Corporation of Washington; by A. Rothwell.
15. and about 50 other items!

A pretty packed cornerstone, if you ask me!
Source: Urban Legends Reference Pages: Washington Monument

Let us get this topic back on track. This is not a church and state issue, this issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but rather the adminstration of justice.

This issue is about who should pay the legal fees.

Until 1976, when the current system was enacted, the manner in which a court case preceeded was that each party paid their own legal fees. After 1976, if you took the government to court, and you proved that the government had violated your rights, the government paid you legal fees. If you lost, you paid your own fees, and the government still paid theirs. For governments this is a lose-lose situation. The law approved by the House of Representatives eliminated this situation entirely and returned the system back to the pre-1976 method, requiring each party to pay their own fees.

Opponents of this law claim that this will discourage individuals from seeking redress through the justice system. However, as my original post in this topic shows, this is not the case. Many of the precedents that are used by the Courts today, especially concerning the Establishment Clause, were decided prior to 1976, under the older system. So it would seem that critics are crying afoul, when in truth they only wish to protect a system that enables blackmail to occur. Time and again under the current system, governments have surrendered without going to court, for fear of the possiblity of losing and having to pay extraordinant fees. Critics say that this makes the administration of justice unequal.

If we wish for justice to be equal, then the law should be equal. If both parties are not willing to pay for their own attorneys to gain justice, then the only remaining option is to enact loser pay regulations. It is unfair to require the government to pay all fees when it loses and still require it to pay its own fees when it wins. That is the complaint that the law passed by the House addresses.

This law seeks not to eliminate the use of the court system to redress wrongs, but it does seek to eliminate the use of the court system to blackmail government in to surrendering when it may be correct.

BTW the ACLU has time and again said that when it preceives an injustice it will still take the matter to court regardless of who pays. The administration of justice under this law will be equal and fair. It is that simple. The reversal of the current system has long been needed.

Truthfully, I believe that this law did not go far enough. I believe that the loser pay system should be enacted. Under this method, we would see alot of nuisance lawsuits disappear. Freeing our courts to adminster justice where it is truly needed.

dmk

Again while this may seem to be fair to you, what happens when the supposed victim goes to court and the court rules that his rights were not violated? The victim only pays their own legal fees. If you want the loser to pay, it should go both ways.

Again, history disproves your premise that it discourages victims from going to court.

dmk

I disagree that this is not a separation of church and state issue that has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The whole reason for someone going to court in the first place is to prove (or disprove) violation of said amendment.

That said, in my opinion, if the justice system is going to order one party to pay legal fees, it should have the authority to order either party to pay legal fees.

Your point about eliminating nuisance lawsuits is a good one. Perhaps we should suggest awarding legal fees to the losers to our judges. (Does anyone write to their elected judges?)