Public Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

MARK AHLQUIST, as next friend, parent

and guardian of JESSICA AHLQUIST, a minor,

Plaintiff,

 

v.                        C.A. No. 11-138L

CITY OF CRANSTON, by and through

Robert F. Strom, in his capacity as

Director of Finance, and by and through

the School Committee of the City of

Cranston, and SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE

CITY OF CRANSTON, by and through Andrea

Iannazzi, in her capacity as Chair of the

School Committee of the City of Cranston,

Defendants.

 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO INTERVENE

MOTION TO STAY DECISION AND

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

Now comes the intervening petitioners and moves this Honorable court to allow the parties to intervene, with these pleadings to, Stay its decision until such time as all the issues are resolved, and consider the petitioners issues, and reconsider its decision based on the potential violation of the rights of all citizen of the State of Rhode Island.

MOTION TO INTERVENE

 

Petitioners claim they can meet the requirements to intervene and that: “Application of framework for intervention as of right to divers factual circumstances on individual cases requires holistic, rather than reductionist, approach.” PSC of New Hampshire v. Patch, 136 F.3d 197 1st Cir. (1998) The four preconditions for intervention as a right are, (1) timely application, (2) demonstrated interest relating to property or transactions that form the basis of the ongoing action, (3) satisfactory showing that deposition of action threatens to create practical impairment or impediment to its ability to protect that interest, and (4) satisfactory showing that existing parties inadequately represent its interest.

1. Timely Application

As the issue of timely application and satisfactory representation are inseparable in this instant matter, petitioner will address them together. Elected government officials have failed to protect the Constitutional rights of the students and citizens of Rhode Island. Petitioners have not attempted to join sooner as some of these issues were addressed by students and citizens alike at the hearings, hence prudence dictated that the School board would raise these issues as a Petition of about 4,000 signatures was presented and believed their tax dollars would be used to protect their rights.  In fact the video provided to the school board on our country’s history, a copy of the New England Primer, and references to the Aitken Act and numerous quotes from our founders and the Rhode Island Constitution’s Preamble were the reason members of the school committee voted to leave the banner intact. As this Honorable court made no mention of these issues of fact and law, nor those hereinafter, one can only assume they were not raised, or escaped the court’s attention.  Moreover as the School committee has chosen to abandon the appeal process the citizens of the state and students right to appeal or request reconsideration on the issues not raised adequately, are absent or are severely prejudiced to the citizens of the State.  Cranston citizens’ outcry still can be heard across the state to appeal.

2.PETITIONERS HAVE INTEREST IN THIS ACTION

Three of the petitioners Christian Frangos, a Sophomore, Olivia Frangos a freshman, and Jared McMullen a Senior, are students at Cranston West. Jared McMullen is 18 years old hence needs no parental consent.  Carolyn Masagno, is the mother of Christian and Olivia and also a 1981 Cranston West graduate. Lori McClain is the sister of Carolyn and also a graduate of the Class of 1979.  All parties are deeply offended and some outraged that the banner may be coming down and that Ahlquist never went to the administration in an attempt to rectify the problem. In fact the ACLU sought her out, costing their school One hundred and seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000) to further support the Atheist agenda of the ACLU and original parties. Petitioner Michael Motaranni was one of the class of 1963 who made, raised funds for, and or donated the very Banner to Cranston West as the first graduating class. The remaining petitioner, Ronald L’Heureux, is a resident of the State of Rhode Island and presented material to the Cranston board which compelled them to leave it up as a matter of law. Because of the financial burden the Board reluctantly decided to abandon the appeal or reconsideration. It would be a travesty of justice to put form over substance and the letter of the law over the spirit not allowing full redress if the Atheist, Jessica and Mark Ahlquist’s standing is allowed to prevail the same reasoning must apply equally to all students of Cranston West past and present. Standing is stronger in light of the fact they are losing a historical pledge gift to the school with the moral foundation of our country.

The First Circuit in Freedom from Religion v. Hannover, 626 F. 3^rd 1 (1^st Cir. 2010) allowed similarly situated students and the Nights of Columbus to intervene. It is clear therefore that standing cannot be denied without dismissing the whole case in total for lack of standing of Ahlquist, which petitioners reserve the right to argue on appeal. It is a great travesty that justice has come down to money. The sole reason for not appealing the case was the costs to the schools. The ACLU is privy of this hence is trying to extract exorbitant fees to intimidate and further promote Atheism.

3. INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION TO PROTECT INTERESTS

   As stated above and seen hereinafter, the defendants failed to raise dispositive issues that if raised would have changed the outcome of the case seen hereinafter. In fact, this motion was presented to counsel and Mayor Fung prior to its filing asking them to file for reconsideration specifically on the Rhode Island Constitution and Hanover, supra that states: “This is in part because the Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’ Lynch, 465 U.S. at 673,104 S. Ct. 1355. They have declined to defend, which lends itself to inadequate representation.

It seems prior courts using court-created tests transgressed their authority, the text of the Constitution, or were not privy to the Aitken act of 1872 authorizing the use of bibles in all schools in America to maintain our moral foundation, raising numerous issues not raised like Article I section III of The R.I Constitution.

1. “Heavenly Father”, “Amen”, or “Under God” is not an establishment of religion under the establishment clause and Hanover.

2. That the courts lacked jurisdiction in light of the Aitken Act, and that the Supreme Court in Everson and all other decisions after 1947 with a court-created test may have transgressed the separation of powers and that the courts lacked jurisdiction to abrogate the Rhode Island Constitution as it would require a three judge panel.

3. That repealing a section of the Rhode Island Constitution, the courts may transgress the 10th Amendment and the sovereign right of the people of the State of Rhode Island and all 50 States.

4. That in numerous cases cited in its decision the law of statutory construction was abandoned, and the intent of the framers was transgressed by improperly applying the 14th amendment as it relates to the 1st Amendment to reach an erroneous decision using court-created tests.

5. That the federal court’s sixty six years of systematically removing Christianity from all public places in contravention of the Aitken Act of Congress and the true meaning of the First Amendment, to protect our Godly Foundation clearly found in the writings of the founders and even court decisions defining religion hereinafter, establishes Atheism and/or “non religion” as the religion of choice, may constitute judicial legislation, and violating separation of powers, the establishment and free exercise clause of the First Amendment inter alia.

 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PLEDGE POLICIES “HEAVENLY

FATHER” AND “AMEN” SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE TEXT OF THE FIRST

AMENDMENT, NOT JUDICIALLY-FABRICATED TESTS.

 

     A court correctly ruled in that the recitation of the Pledge in the New Hampshire public schools as provided by New Hampshire statutes does not constitute an establishment of religion. Freedom From Religion Foundation vs. Hanover, No1:07-cv-356.  However, in reaching that correct result, instead of using the words of the Establishment Clause, the district court incorrectly based its ruling on various court-created tests rather than on the plain meaning of the First Amendment. The First Circuit in Hanover, supra made it clear the mention of a “ceremonial deism”  “under God” or in this case, “Heavenly Father” and “Amen” do not run afoul of the establishment clause. Both are Moral pledges, which it seems this court did not consider.

A. The Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land.”

The Constitution itself and all federal laws pursuant thereto are the “supreme Law of the Land.” U.S. Const. art. VI. All judges take their oaths of office to support the Constitution itself — not a person, office, government body, or judicial opinion. Petitioner, respectfully submits that this Constitution and the solemn oath thereto should control, above all other competing powers and influences, including the decisions of federal courts.

As Chief Justice John Marshall observed, the very purpose of a written constitution is to ensure that government officials, including judges, do not depart from the document’s fundamental principles.

 

“[I]t is apparent that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule of government of courts . . .. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 179-80 (1803).

 

James Madison insisted that “[a]s a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution . . . . the legitimate meanings of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself.” James Madison, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, September 15, 1821, in 3 Letters and Other Writings of James Madison 228 (Philip R. Fendall, ed., 1865). Chief Justice Marshall confirmed that this was the proper method of interpretation:

 

As men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ

the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.

 

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 188 (1824).

 

Thus, “[i]n expounding the Constitution . . . , every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added.” Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540, 570-71 (1840).

By adhering to court-created tests rather than the legal text in cases involving the Establishment Clause, federal judges turn constitutional decision making on its head, abandon their duty to decide cases “agreeably to the constitution,” and instead mechanically decide cases agreeably to judicial precedent. Marbury, 5 U.S. at 180; see also, U.S. Const. art. VI. Reliance upon precedents such as Lemon v. Kurtzman and Lee v. Weisman is a poor and improper substitute for the concise language of the Establishment Clause, because attempting to draw a clear legal line without the “straight-edge” of the Constitution is simply impossible.

James Madison observed in Federalist No. 62 that:

[i]t will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by   men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.

 

THE PLEDGE STATUTES, AND POLICIES “HEAVENLY FATHER”

  OR “AMEN” ARE NOT LAWS “RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.”

The First Amendment provides, in relevant part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. Amend I. The words “heavenly father”, “Amen”  “under God” do not violate the Establishment Clause because they do not “respect,” i.e.,concern or relate to, “an establishment of religion.” The acknowledgment of God is not an establishment of religion. President George Washington, who chaired the Constitutional Convention and served as President while the Bill of Rights was being considered, declared in his October 3, 1789 National Day of Thanksgiving Proclamation, “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor….”

[emphasis added]. President Abraham Lincoln’s March 30, 1863 Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day explained the basis for the Proclamation:

…[T]the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation:…[I]t is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord:

“The recognition of religion in these early public pronouncements is important, unless we are to presume the ‘founders of the United States [were] unable to understand their own handiwork.’” Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools, 418 F.3d 395, 404 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sherman v. Cmty Consol. Sch. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)).

A. The Definition of “Religion”

It seems axiomatic that the courts cannot determine what is or is not an establishment of religion, without defining the term “religion” itself. And yet, in the courts’ myriad establishment clause rulings, the courts have conspicuously skirted their obligation to define religion. Without that definition, determining whether an action constitutes an establishment of religion is impossible. The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment require that religions be treated fairly, but our United States was never intended to be “neutral” toward religion as seen herein, or as this court asserts. The idea that religion and law are entirely separate spheres is unworkable and utterly foreign to the thinking of the Framers of the Constitution, who intended an institutional separation of church from state but not a separation of law and government from religious morals and values. Arlin M. Adams and Charles J. Emmerich, A Nation Dedicated to Religious Liberty: The Constitutional Heritage of the Religion Clauses ( University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999) 51-58ff. From its inception in 1789[1] to the present, Congress has opened its sessions with prayer, a plainly religious exercise; yet those who drafted the First Amendment never considered such prayers to be a “religion” because the prayers do not mandate the duties that members of Congress owe to God or dictate how those duties should be carried out. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 788-789 (1983).

The primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, observed that, “No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be.” Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Ethan Allen, quoted in James Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic 96 (1998). The Declaration of Independence itself rests America’s right to independence squarely on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and states that “all Men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” Declaration of Independence para. 2 (1776) (emphasis added). Like Jefferson, George Washington declared that, “While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.” The Writings of George Washington 432, vol. XXX (1932). These facts are irrefutable in light of the quotes from our founders found hereinafter and an act of congress to ensure “its surest support” by the citizens of America.  The Senate Judiciary committee in 1853, address the issue of “an establishment of Religion.”[2]

THE AITKEN ACT OF 1782

          It is a well-established law that there are three branches of government and their powers or lack thereof are expressly delineated in the United State Constitution in Articles I-III.  Article III. Section 2 states: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution and the laws of the United States.” Nowhere in Article III is found the authority to circumvent or repeal an Act of Congress no matter how long it has remained. In fact courts have upheld other statues supporting faith based words. The Ninth Circuit in Newdow v.Rio Linda set forth the purposes of the 1954 act of Congress adding the words “under God” to the Pledge, and then set forth the 2002 Act, Publ. L. No. 107-291, 116 Stat. 2057 at 260 (codified as amended in 4 U.S.C. § 4, 36 U.S.C. § 302) (effective November 13, 2002) which clarified the congressional intent in 1954.

LAW OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

     In interpreting the Constitution and laws the courts must follow not only their oath (see p.5 infra.) but the laws of statutory construction as best set forth by one of our Founding Fathers Justice James Wilson.[3]

“The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who make it.” Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden; N.E. 2nd 266(Sup. Ct. Mass. 1971, cert. denied 404 U.S. 849.) Wilson was one of only 6 signers of the Declaration and Constitution and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Looking to Everson or Lemon’s court-created test 213 Years after the fact does violence to the law of statutory Construction the oath office and our founder’s intent.

The Aitken Act was passed on September 12, 1782 after congress formed a committee like they still do today when the bill or petition was presented.[4]  The Actual Constitution was ratified by all thirteen

  original states by 1788, (except R.I. (1790)) only six years later. [5] It is therefore unreasonable to conclude that this was not the original intent of the founders yet again this Honorable courts was not asked to weigh in on the issue of statutory construction and original intent or rewriting history.[6]

COURT LACKED JURISDICTION IN LIGHT OF THE AITKEN ACT,

     This issue needs little discussion at this juncture as the petitioners believe this Honorable court would have come to a different conclusion, if the defendants argued these issues to support their other arguments. And if the court did not agree all issues would be ripe for appeal. Because the School committee has bailed out despite overwhelming public support for an appeal, the will of “We The People” will not prevail unless your Honor grants intervention.

COURT’S DECISIONS TRANSGRESS LAW OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

     The defendants, though given all the history, never raised the issue that all the federal courts decisions after 1947 seem to violate the laws of statutory construction hence, violate the 5th Amendment’s right to due process, and equal protection of law and Equity.

Aside from Wilson quoted above, our congressional records, and history bear out the fact that our history has been grossly neglected ignored or rewritted in the past Sixty six years circumventing the original intent of our founders and doing violence to the First Amendment. Our original Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is in a much better position to know our founders intent than a Supreme Court two hundred and eleven years (211) later. Note only two years (2) after the Aitken act was passed John Jay wrote:

“The bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its percepts.”  John Jay Original Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court, The Winning of the Peace (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1908), Vol.  II. P. 709 4/8/1784.

“[O]nly one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation.” Correspondences and public papers of John Jay Henry P. Johnson, editor (New York: G. P. Putman’s Sons, 1893) Vol. IV, p. 52 To Murry 8/22/1794. See also writings of Fisher Ames 1755-1801 drafter of 1^st Amendment concern over other books pushing out serious study of the Aitken bible in public schools.

Samuel Adams stated Twenty (20) years after Aitken Act:

“Let… statemen and patriots unite their endeavor to renovate the age by… educating their little boys and girls..[and] leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system. Samuel Adams. On the Important Subject of Government (Boston: Adams and Rhoades, 1802), pp.9-10.

Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress point out ten (10) years BEFORE Aitken Act on its moral importance:

“[T]he Bible…. [is] a book containing the history of all men and of all notions and …[is] a necessary part of a polite education.”  Henry Laurens, President of Continental Congress. Papers of Henry Laurens, Vol. VIII, pp. 426-427, 8/19/1772.

Here is President John Quincy Adams, opinion of not having knowledge of moral history of the bible Sixty eight (68) years after the Aitken Act:

“To a man of liberal education, the study of history is not only useful, and important, but altogether indispensable, and with regard to the history contained in the Bible… ‘it is not so much praiseworthy to be acquainted with as it is shameful to be ignorant of it’” John Quincy Adams,  Letters of Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings(Aurn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 34.

 John Witherspoon makes it clear what the founder chose as a moral foundation Sixty eight (68) years after the Aitken Act:

“[T]he Christian religion is superior to every other…. But there is one only an excellence in the Christian morals, but a manifest superior in them to those which are derived from any other source.  John Witherspoon, Signer of Declaration. Works (1815) Vol. VIII. Pp. 33, 38 “On the truth of the Christian Religion,” Lecture IV.

Charles Carroll supports all the above founders’ sentiments on our moral foundation eighteen (18) years after the Aitken Act:

”[W]ithout morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, who’s morality is so sublime and pure… are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” Charles Carroll, Signer of Declaration. Letter to James McHenry Nov. 4, 1800.

Daniel Webster another founder and great statesman concurs on the morals of Christianity sixty two (62) years after the Aitken Act:

“[T]he Christian religion its general principles must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.” Daniel Webster:  Webster’s Speech in Defense of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States. Feb. 10, 1844.

Supreme Court Justice Story likewise consents with the above founders Seventy two (72) years after the Aitken Act:

”The Bible itself [is] the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world.” Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Father of American Jurisprudence. A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1854) p.269

Story went on to explain what the original intent of the first amendment Eighty nine years (89) after the Aitken Act:

“The real objective of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity[athisem], by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” (Story, Commentaries, Vol. III, p. 728, 1871)

And if you still have any doubt about our founder Original intent, George Washington states three (3) years before the Aitken Act:

“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ….Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”  Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.

Listen, in the words of one our least religious founding Fathers Ben Franklin forty three years (43) years before the Aitken Act. To say this was not the intent of the founders to instill these morals in light of this, is to turn a blind eye to the truth:

“History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion… and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient and modern. Benjamin Franklin. Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvaina (Philadelphia, 1739), p.22

The house Judiciary Committee succinctly opines our founder’s intent eighty two (82) years after the Aitken Act yet this court has thus far declined to uphold statutory construction law:

Christianity…. Was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”  House Judiciary Committee B.F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p.323

Another Founding Father of our country and the medical profession understood what this systematic sanitizing of Christian morals out of society would lead to hence said seventy two (72) years after the Aitken Act:

I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism…. It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions in the world.  Benjamin Rush, Signer of Declaration. Rush, Letters, Vol. II pp. 820-821, to Thomas Jefferson on August 22, 1800.

I find it strange indeed that an organization that claims to stand for civil liberties, justice, and fair play, is the primary cause of the systematic undermining of our Founders intent using court-created tests pushing their religion of atheism.[7] This is willful and deliberate act done by rewriting history.[8] The ACLU was made privy of all this as far back as January 1, 2012. Maybe that explains why they want the banner down quickly.  To equate all that may be deemed “religious” with “religion” would eradicate every vestige of the sacred from the public square. Thish is the ACLU’s intent, but the Supreme Court as recently as last year stated that such conflation is erroneous:

“Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.” Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. at 678 (emphasis added).

 

Note Noah Webster:

”[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles… and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. Noah Webster, History, p.300.

John Adams further supports Noah Webster thirty one years (31) after the Aitken Act.

John Adams concludes the reason we enjoy our independence. “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…. The general principles of Christianity…”  John Adams, Words, Vol. X pp.45-46 to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813.

 

Finally the ruse the ACLU relies on as seen above relies upon the courts using court-created tests, abandoning the rules of statutory construction, rewriting history, transgressing the separation of powers, pretending the Aitken Acts does not exist[9], and distorting Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the church in Danbury that could never be supported by a cursory assessment of Jefferson’s position on our moral foundation.  After all, the man who started the first mega church in America, in the U.S. Capitol could hardly countenance the strained reading of his letter to the Danbury church or the removal of all moral matters from the public domain. This logic seems to put the 1St Amendment upside down.  Jefferson clearly stated thirty four (34) years after the Aitken Act was passed:

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” Thomas Jefferson, The writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thompson, January 9, 1816

Roger Williams also made a statement about separation and keeping the government out of the church. He wanted to protect the “flowers of the church from the thorns of the world” [10].  As seen in this instant matter the briers, brambles and thorns of the ACLU’s atheism are using the government as a tool to accomplish what our Founders feared. Our U.S. Constitution was meant to restrain the power and scope of the Federal Governments power, which now the ACLU wields, cutting out all morals from our society at every opportunity, and extracts tax payers’ dollars to do so.

THE COURT’S DECISION IN REMOVING A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT VIOLATES THE EXPRESSED INTENT OF THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION

Defendants failed to raise the issue that our RI Constitution is prohibitive of this court’s decision[11].  Our very Constitution acknowledges Almighty God as did all our founders quoted hereinbefore. If this decision is allowed to stand, simply stated we will not be allowed to “secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations”, the state’s sovereign rights under the 10^th Amendment have also been unknowingly removed from the people of the State of Rhode Island. If intervention is not allowed, the ACLU will have more arrows in its quiver to shoot down what is left of our morals and foundation of our country bringing us another step closer to their founders Roger Baldwin’s original intent,(n.7. infra) communism and atheism in America using our Court system to achieve their objective.  Moreover, this decision appears to transgress all the preambles of the 50 States.[12]

The petitioners are of the opinion that a decision of this magnitude must be made by a three judge panel as it is similar to repealing state statutory law and is effectively promoting the religion of atheism in transgression of the true intent of the 1^st Amendment set forth by the founders aforementioned. The book used in our Schools for over two hundred years ends in a prayer from “Reverend and Venerable Mr. NaTHANIEL CLAP, of Newport on Rhode Ifland; his Advice to children.” (Last page New England Primer 1777)(Five years before Aitken act) It is a moral lesson like the Banner “parents to obey them”. Though this book was presented to the defendants, they never raised it or the Rhode Island Constitutional right to “transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations.” Without reconsideration or this court allowing intervention to appeal the words of the supreme law of Rhode Island become meaningless.

THE COURTS SYSTEMATIC REMOVAL OF ALL HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY’S CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION AND MORALS AND SUPPORTING “NON RELIGION” IS REMOVING ONE RELIGION AND ESTABLISHING THE RELIGION OF THE ATHEISM OR “NON RELIGION.”

     The correct meaning of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment was consistent with restraining the federal government, not making a referee over free speech in public schools, and reducing “amen” to a derogatory four letter word that must be stricken off the walls of every school from sea to shining sea because an atheist is offended by the truth of our foundation? Can this be happening in America?

“The recognition of religion in these early public pronouncements is important, unless we are to presume the ‘founders of the United States [were] unable to understand their own handiwork.’” Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools, 418 F.3d 395, 404 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sherman v. Cmty Consol. Sch. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)). The Supreme Court has noted that “religion has been closely identified with our history and government.” School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp,  374 U.S. 203, 213 (1963). In fact, “[t]here is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674 (emphasis added); see, e.g., Van Orden, 545 U.S. 686-90 (2005) (listing numerous examples of the “rich American tradition” of the federal

government acknowledging God). See also, Newdow 2004, 542 U.S. 1, 26 (noting that “official acknowledgments of religion’s role in our Nation’s history abound,” and providing examples) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).

Understood with this background, the fact that “Heavenly Father”, ”Under God” or “Amen” contains two words acknowledging God’s vital role in the life of this nation is not the least bit surprising, nor does it contradict the Establishment Clause.

God forbid each State post their preambles on the walls of their schools. However, as seen in the Judge Roy Moore case, with the Ten Commandments, prayer in schools,[13]  the attacks to take God out of the pledge of allegiance in Massachusetts,[14] and removing the bible from schools in transgression of the Aitken act, the ACLU by brute force of the federal government has repealed their states’ rights under the 10^th Amendments, is systematically destroying our moral foundation. Note they refused to allow “Heavenly Father” and “Amen” to be removed by Cranston schools, as the moral message runs contrary to atheism. The ACLU and groups like Freedom from Religion Foundation have been tyrants, bringing the tyranny complained of by our Pastor forefathers in the Declaration of Independence.[15]  Note the Declaration proclaims everything aforesaid about our foundation being the word of God:

“Resolved, that we do hereby declared ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of a right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing Association, under control of no power other than that of our God and the general government…”

It is important to note the general governments as our framers intended and irrefutably seen above, were to be subservient to God’s moral principles set forth in the bible not to force a belief system upon anyone.  After all God is mentioned four times in the Declaration itself.[16] Shall the reading of that noble document in school be the next target of the ACLU? Note the complaints against Great Britain for its absolute tyranny in the Declaration of Independence:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

The point here is that the courts are no longer doing the will of the people, abiding by their oath, following well established procedural laws of statutory construction, or the Aitken Acts of Congress, respecting state’s rights and the State’s Constitutions using court-created tests to arrive where we are now.

With a total of one hundred and thirty two (132) years of the clear of concise intent of our founders, only scratching the surface herein, along with another ninety three (93) years of compliance to the Constitution as intended, it is difficult to fathom how we have got so far afield. Look at what our country is becoming without a firm moral footing our founders intended. This gradual few degrees off course has now become the mighty sword of the ACLU and small groups of Atheists in our country to deliberately chipping away at our moral foundation for sixty five years. Quietly they extinguish morality from our history and from the halls of our schools one small section at a time and rewrite our history in our text books.

John Adams made it clear the ACLU’s mission is to destroy America:

“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Emphasis added) (John Adams, Works, Vol. Ix, p.229, October 11, 1798)

 

The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that Atheism is a religion and was acknowledged by this court on Page 26 its decision and order in the ALQUIST case. McCreary County,Kentucy v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844,860 (2005)  Hence, the final questions become:

Did this court in following others court-created tests,  mis-apply the Fourteenth amendment inconsistent our founders intent[17], strip the State of their sovereign rights, repeal their State constitutions, rewrite our founding moral history from our schools, tell the people of America when they can, or cannot pray or display only support “non religion”, and now establish Atheism and /or “non religion” as the National Religion? No:

The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “non religion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and “non religion.” Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985). Since only “non religion’ is in the public schools the neutrality of government is being violated

Finally I leave you with what our Founding Father of Jurisprudence Supreme Court justice Story and George Washington have to say about the ACLU and it manipulation of the law:

“The real objective of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity [atheism], by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” (Story, Commentaries, Vol. III, p. 728, 1871)

. “In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars…[w]hatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that nation morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (Washington, Address, pp.22-23)

 

 

WHERERFORE, inasmuch as the defendants have abandoned these constitutional rights on the side of the road due to purely financial matters, to the detriment of all the good citizens of the State of Rhode Island that literally screamed APPEAL, your petitioners pray that this Honorable court will grant intervention, reconsider its decision and Stay any removal of the morals of the Banner until such time as all these issues can be resolved.

Respectfully submitted,

Carolyn Masagno herself and for Christian Frangos and Olivia Frangos
2330 Cranston St.
Cranston, RI 02920

 

Ronald L’Heureux
213 Waterman Ave.
North Providence RI 02911

 

 

Michael Notarianni,
202 Randall St
Cranston, RI

 

Lori McClain
23 Nicholas Ave
Groton Ct. 06340