UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
MARK AHLQUIST, as next friend, parent
and guardian of JESSICA AHLQUIST, a minor,
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,
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. 3rd 1 (1st 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 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.”
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.
“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. The Actual Constitution was ratified by all thirteen
original states by 1788, (except R.I. (1790)) only six years later.  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.
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 1st 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. This is willful and deliberate act done by rewriting history. 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, 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” . 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. 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 10th 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.
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 1st 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, the attacks to take God out of the pledge of allegiance in Massachusetts, 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 10th 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. 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. 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, 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.
Carolyn Masagno herself and for Christian Frangos and Olivia Frangos
2330 Cranston St.
Cranston, RI 02920
213 Waterman Ave.
North Providence RI 02911
35 Kimberly Lane North
202 Randall St
23 Nicholas Ave
Groton Ct. 06340
 Passing the Aitken act seven years prior.
 The clause speaks of “an establishment of religion.” What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother country, its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religious observances. … They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit “an establishment of religion” such as the English church presented, or anything like it. But … they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to send our armies and navies forth to do battle for their country without any national recognition of that God on whom success or failure depends; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of “atheistical apathy.” Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought, and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress conducted. On the contrary, all had been done with a continual appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the world, and an habitual reliance upon His protection of the righteous cause which they commended to His care.
 James Wilson (1742-1798) was distinguished Founder; he was not only six who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution he was the second most active member of the Conditional Convention, Speaking 168 times on the floor on the Convention; he was a law professor; he was nominated by President George Washington as an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme court; and in 1792 he was co-author of America’s first legal commentaries on the Constitution. Wilson was very aware of the passing of the Aitken act.
 The petition reads: That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the Spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings. Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matter into serious consideration….
By the UNITED STATES in CONGRESS assembled:
September 12th, 1782.
THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion,[Christianity] as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
 On February 21, 1787, congress adopted a resolution in favor of a convention to devise provisions to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union. Subsequently all of the original sates except RI appointed delegates to the convention. The convention convened on May 25, 1787, congress ordered the Constitution submitted to conventions of the people of the various states.
 The court noted the dissent’s argument that Congress cannot rewrite legislative history by subsequent legislation. But the court said at Newdow 2004, 542 U.S. 39 12-13, This principle applies when Congress is trying to rewrite history, not when Congress is trying to clarify our misunderstanding of its own purpose in enacting a statute. …[V]irtually all of the members of Congress agreed we had misinterpreted the purpose of the words “under God.” The courts are equally bound not to rewrite judicial history or original intent.
 Roger Baldwin, the ACLU’s Founder, notoriously said of himself, “I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”(Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union: A Portrait [Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1976] p. 192 Hence, they are in fact pushing their religious belief to subvert a nation founded on biblical principles. The courts can no longer fall prey to this ruse without violating their fiduciary responsibility under Article III.
 The court noted the dissent’s argument that Congress cannot rewrite legislative history by subsequent legislation. But the court said in Rio Linda at 3912-13, This principle applies when Congress is trying to rewrite history, not when Congress is trying to clarify our misunderstanding of its own purpose in enacting a statute. …[V]irtually all of the members of Congress agreed we had misinterpreted the purpose of the words “under God.” The saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander must be applied EQUALLY the both branches of government.
 This Honorable court may very well have not been privy to it and it is not the courts responsibility to correctly plead a case. It is their role to see justice done, and pertinent questions of law and fact answered and allow the people to Appeal if they so choose.
 . His first major work, A Key into the Language of America (London 1643), a text on the various Indian languages that Williams hoped would enable Christian missionaries to convert the Indians to Christ, appealed to the European fascination with American Indians and was quite successful. But his best known work was The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience (London 1644) in which he used Biblical reasoning to argue for a “wall of separation” between the garden of the church and the thorns of the world and insisted that the state must tolerate all Christian denominations, and beliefs.
We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.
 Alabama 1901, Preamble
We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
Alaska 1956, Preamble
We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…
Arkansas 1874, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…
California 1879, Preamble
We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…
Colorado 1876, Preamble
We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe…
Connecticut 1818, Preamble.
The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble
Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…
Georgia 1777, Preamble
We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…
Hawaii 1959, Preamble
We, the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance … Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble
We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble
We, the People of the State of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble
We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble
We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
Louisiana 1921, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble
We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity … And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble
We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble
We…the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Minnesota , grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble
We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness – Establish this Constitution…
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution..
Nebraska 1875, Preamble
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble
We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution…
New Hampshire 1792, Part I.. Art. I. Sec. V
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble
We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble
We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble
We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those…
North Dakota 1889, Preamble
We, the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…
Ohio 1852, Preamble
We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble
We, the people of Pennsylvania , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance…
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble.
We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing….
South Carolina , 1778, Preamble
We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble
We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties.
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…
Texas 1845, Preamble
We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble
Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man.
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI
Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble
We the People of the State of Washington , grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ….
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble
We, the people of Wisconsin , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility….
Wyoming 1890, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution…
 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 435; Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 588
 Freedom From Region v. Hanover School District, 2008WL 3287225 (D.N.H.)
 29 of the founding fathers that signed the declaration held seminary degrees or were pastors and the British rightfully blamed the pastors for that Declaration of Independence.
-  [T]he Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…
- [A]ll Men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights…
- [A]ppealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions…
- [W]ith a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence…
 “Original Intent, and irrefutable history from as far back as 1876 where the U.S. Supreme court twice stated the Federal Courts lack of Jurisdiction: “The Rule adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the [Fourteenth Amendment]… makes it inapplicable to the religious liberty or any other right of the citizen as determined by the state of which he is resident. The Court in the case of Paul vs. Virgina (8 Wallace, p. 168), and of the New Orleans Slaughter-house (16 Wallace, p36), laid down the principle…. There is nothing in the last three amendments to the Constitution that reaches the question of religion, and nothing anywhere else in this instrument that places the state under the slightest restraint with reference to this subject; and hence it is true, as remarked by Justice Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution (section 1879), that ‘the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state government, to be acted upon according to their sense of justice and the state constitutions. (Emphasis added) Samuel T. Spear, Religion and the State (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1876), p.224. Four Years after the Aitken act passed Congress.