DOCSLIB.ORG

Newdow V. Congress February 2013 Original Complaint Page Iii CLAIM 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Newdow V. Congress February 2013 Original Complaint Page Iii CLAIM 6 Michael Newdow Pro hac vice (pending) USDC-SDNY Bar PO Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 (916) 273-3798 [email protected] Edwin M. Reiskind, Jr. Friend & Reiskind PLLC 100 William Street, #1220 New York, NY 10038 (212) 587-1960 (212) 587-1957 (Fax) [email protected] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Civil Action No. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ROSALYN NEWDOW; KENNETH BRONSTEIN; BENJAMIN DREIDEL; NEIL GRAHAM; JULIE WOODWARD; JAN AND PAT DOE; DOE-CHILD1 AND DOE-CHILD2; ALEX AND DREW ROE; ROE-CHILD1, ROE-CHILD2, AND ROE-CHILD3; VAL AND JADE COE; COE-CHILD1 AND COE-CHILD2; NEW YORK CITY ATHEISTS; FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION; Plaintiffs, v. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY; RICHARD A. PETERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MINT; LARRY R. FELIX, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING; Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Newdow v. The Congress of the United States Original Complaint TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ v JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................... 1 PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 2 A. PLAINTIFFS ......................................................................................................................... 2 B. DEFENDANTS ...................................................................................................................... 9 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 10 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 11 A. HISTORY OF AMERICAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ................................................. 11 B. HISTORY OF “IN GOD WE TRUST” ON THE NATION’S COINS .......................... 16 (1) THE ORIGINAL COINAGE ACTS .......................................................................... 16 (2) THE ORIGIN OF “IN GOD WE TRUST” ON THE COINAGE ........................... 18 (3) THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE “IN GOD WE TRUST” FROM THE COINAGE ..................................................................................................................... 23 (4) THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE FOR “IN GOD WE TRUST” ON ALL COINS AND ON THE CURRENCY ................................................................ 30 C. THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE FOR “IN GOD WE TRUST” ON ALL COINS AND CURRENCY REFLECTED THE (CHRISTIAN) RELIGIOUS FERVOR AND ANTI-ATHEISM OF THE 1950s ........................................................... 36 Newdow v. U.S. Congress February 2013 Original Complaint Page ii D. CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE LITTLE CHANGED FROM THE 1950s ..................................................................................................................................... 46 (1) “IN GOD WE TRUST” ON THE MONEY CONTINUES TO REPRESENT (CHRISTIAN) MONOTHEISM AND TO BE UTILIZED IN RELIGIOUSLY DISCRIMMINATORYY WAYS ............................... 46 (a) Presidents Continue to Use the Motto to Advocate for (Christian) Monotheism ............................................................................................................. 46 (b) Congrress Continues to Use the Motto to Advocate for (Christian) Monotheism ............................................................................................................. 49 i. Congress’s Motto “Reaffirmations” Reveal That Our Lege islators Continue to Believe the MMotto Stands for (Christian) Monotheism. .................................................................................. 49 ii. “In God We Trust” Clearly Has a (Christian) Monotheistic Meaning to Congress’s Chaplains .................................................................. 53 iii. The Sequence of Events Regarding EEdge-Incusion Demonstrates that the Motto has Preeminently Religious Meaning to Our Legislators ............................................................................ 54 (c) Societyt Continues to Use the Motto for (Christian) Monotheistic Advocacy ................................................................................................................. 55 (2) IN EXTOLLING (CHRISTIAN) MONOTHEISM, “IN GOD WE TRUST” CONTRIBUTES TO A CULTURE THAT DENIGRATES ATHEISM AND ATHEISTS ...................................................................................... 57 (3) PURSUANT TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, PLAINTIFFS ARE BURDENED BY “IN GOD WE TRUST” ON THE MONEY ................................. 58 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................................. 65 CLAIM 1. DEFENDANTS HAVE PLACED RELIGIOUS VERBIAGE ON THE NATION’S MONEY WITHOUT ANY ENUMERATED POWER AUTHORIZING THAT ACTIVITY .......................................... 65 CLAIM 2. DEFENDANTS HAVE VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS’ EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS .............................................................................. 65 CLAIM 3. DEFENDANTS HAVE ESTABLISHED MONOTHEISM ...................... 66 CLAIM 4. DEFENDANTS HAVE ACTED WITH A RELIGIOUS PURPOSE ...................................................................................................... 67 CLAIM 5. CONSISTENT WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE, DEFENDANTS’ ACTS HAVE RELIGIOUS EFFECTS .......................... 68 Newdow v. Congress February 2013 Original Complaint Page iii CLAIM 6. DEFENDANTS HAVE VIOLATED THE NEUTRALITY REQUIRED BETWEEN “RELIGION” AND “NONRELIGION” ......... 69 CLAIM 7. DEFENDANTS HAVE ENDORSED THE RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT THERE EXISTS A GOD .................................................................. 69 CLAIM 8. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS TURN PLAINTIFFS INTO POLITICAL OUTSIDERS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ........................................................................................................ 70 CLAIM 9. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS PLACE THE POWER, PRESTIGE AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT BEHIND THE PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT THERE EXISTS A GOD ................................................................................................................ 72 CLAIM 10. DEFENDANTS HAVE DETERMINED THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THE RELIGIOUS CLAIM THAT “GOD” EXISTS ................................. 72 CLAIM 11. DEFENDANTS HAVE LENT THEIR POWER TO ONE SIDE IN WHAT IS ARGUABLE THE GREATEST CONTROVERSY OVER RELIGIOUS DOGMA ..................................................................... 73 CLAIM 12. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS PLACE GOVERNMMENT’S IMPRIMATUR ON THE RELIGIOUS IDEA THAT THERE EXISTS A GOD ............................................................................................. 73 CLAIM 13. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS APPLY COERCION TO PLAINTIFFS IN REGARD TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS .................................... 74 CLAIM 14. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ FREE EXERCISE RIGHTS .................................................................................... 75 CLAIM 15. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS SUBSTANTIALLY BURDEN PLAINTIFFS’ EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN VIOLATION OF RFRA .............................................................................................................. 75 CLAIM 16. ANY AND ALL SECULAR JUSTIFICATIOONS FOR DEFENDANTS’ ACTS ARE SHAMS AND/OR PRETEXTS ................. 76 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 78 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (CIRCA 1955) ................................................... APPENDIX A SURVEY: AMERICAN VIEWS ON “IN GOD WE TRUST” ........................... APPENDIX B Newdow v. Congress February 2013 Original Complaint Page iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) .................................................... 74 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103 (2001) ................................................... 65 Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) .................................... 71 Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. 130 (1873) ...................................................................................... 59 Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1986) ............................................. 67 Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) .......................................................... 10, 72, 73 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ........................................................................................ 72 Galloway v. Town of Greece, 681 F.3d 20 (2012) ................................................................... 68 Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985) .............................................. 70, 74 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) ...................................................................................... 74 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ...................................................................................... 59 Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) .................................................................................. 72 McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) .......................................................... 74 McCreary County
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020
    Maryland State Archives Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Report of the State Archivist to the Governor and General Assembly (State Government Article, § 9-1007(d)) Timothy D. Baker State Archivist and Commissioner of Land Patents August 2020 Maryland State Archives 350 Rowe Boulevard · Annapolis, MD 21401 410-260-6400 · http://msa.maryland.gov ​ ​ MSA Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020 This Page Left Blank MSA Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020 This Page Left Blank MSA Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020 Table of Contents Agency Organization & Overview of Activities . 3 Hall of Records Commission Meeting of November 14, 2019 Agenda . 27 Minutes . .47 Chronology of Staff Events. .55 Records Retention Schedules . .65 Disposal Certificate Approvals . .. .70 Records Received . .78 Special Collections Received . 92 Hall of Records Commission Meeting of May 08, 2020 Agenda . .93 Minutes . .115 Chronology of Staff Activities . .121 Records Retention Schedules . .129 Disposal Certificate Approvals . 132 Records Received . 141 Special Collections Received . .. 158 Maryland Commission on Artistic Property Meeting of Agenda . 159 Minutes . 163 MSA Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020 This Page Left Blank 2 MSA Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020 STATE ARCHIVES ANNUAL REPORT FY 2020 OVERVIEW · Hall of Records Commission Agenda, Fall 2019 ​ · Hall of Records Commission Agenda, Spring 2020 ​ · Commission on Artistic Property Agenda, Fall 2019 ​ The State Archives was created in 1935 as the Hall of Records and reorganized under its present name in 1984 (Chapter 286, Acts of 1984). Upon that reorganization the Commission on Artistic Property was made part of the State Archives. As Maryland's historical agency, the State Archives is the central depository for government records of permanent value.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Specialty License Plate Rankings
    2020 Specialty License Plate Rankings 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Rank Plate Total Rank Total Rank Total Rank Total Rank Total Rank Total 1 ENDLESS SUMMER 93,986 3 84,009 3 73,289 4 62,577 4 49,806 8 42,463 2 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 93,716 1 92,868 1 93,051 1 94,685 1 88,906 1 96,643 3 HELPING SEA TURTLES SURVIVE 91,423 2 87,102 2 82,001 2 77,861 3 66,242 3 69,148 4 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY 70,909 4 70,953 4 71,485 3 71,549 2 66,335 2 69,995 5 PROTECT WILD DOLPHINS 52,247 5 52,073 5 52,459 5 53,166 5 48,406 4 53,409 6 MIAMI HEAT 51,572 8 42,877 10 36,728 10 36,529 9 39,055 9 40,971 7 MARINE CORPS 48,036 7 46,806 7 45,966 8 45,040 8 40,778 7 42,480 8 SAVE THE MANATEE 47,673 6 47,183 6 47,024 6 47,117 7 41,225 6 45,967 9 PROTECT THE PANTHER 41,080 9 42,137 8 43,617 7 45,432 6 42,276 5 47,746 10 TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 41,004 13 36,030 13 33,772 13 30,926 13 26,572 16 24,178 11 SAVE OUR SEAS 39,706 11 37,455 11 35,058 11 33,421 11 30,321 11 31,820 12 PROTECT OUR REEFS 38,276 10 38,204 9 37,982 9 37,601 10 33,093 10 36,116 13 ARMY 37,563 12 36,122 12 34,775 12 33,229 12 29,219 12 29,884 14 PROTECT OUR OCEANS 30,473 16 26,783 22 22,654 25 18,540 28 14,669 49 10,350 15 UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA 30,017 17 26,715 21 22,734 26 18,445 30 14,430 36 14,352 16 ANIMAL FRIEND 28,500 15 26,965 18 24,802 20 22,465 23 18,009 25 18,662 17 GOLF CAPITAL OF THE WORLD 27,698 14 27,500 14 27,400 14 27,343 15 23,719 13 25,852 18 AIR FORCE 27,092 19 26,420 16 25,563 16 24,693 20 20,763 18 22,075 19 NAVY 26,830 20 26,169 17 25,329 17 24,219 18 20,794 20 21,854
    [Show full text]
  • In God We Trust
    IN THIS ISSUE • Money’s Motto “In God We Trust” is Constitutional • Court Voids Law on Animal Cruelty • Spousal Support Contract Enforceable Against Husband • Defective Sperm Could Not Be May 2010 Basis for Suit Money’s Motto “In God We Trust” is Constitutional SUMMARY: The statutes requiring that “In God We Trust” be Looking only at the motto Newdow opposes, and printed on U.S. paper money and stamped into U.S. coins do the wording of the Establishment Clause, his argument looks not violate the First Amendment because that motto is strong. Yet in 1970, the Ninth Circuit decided a case called ceremonial or patriotic and not an affirmative effort by the Aronow v. United States making the same essential argument government to advocate religious belief. The United States Newdow made here—that “In God We Trust” violates the First Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided Newdow v. Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In that case, the Ninth LeFevre on March 11, 2010. Circuit disagreed. Rather than a sincere statement or command of unified religious belief, the motto, ruled the court, was a BACKGROUND: Michael Newdow is an ordained minister in more generalized and symbolic slogan with a ceremonial or and founder of the First Amendmist Church of True Science, a patriotic purpose. Its function was rooted in tradition rather religion whose members believe that there is no god. Newdow than religion and the motto’s appearance on money did not has brought various lawsuits intended to end government impede people’s ability to believe or disbelieve according to practices that he and his church argue advance belief in a their own ideas and feelings.
    [Show full text]
  • Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation James A
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation James A. Campbell Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Campbell, James A. (2006) "Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation," Akron Law Review: Vol. 39 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol39/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Campbell: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow CAMPBELL1.DOC 4/14/2006 1:14:41 PM NEWDOW CALLS FOR A NEW DAY IN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE: JUSTICE THOMAS’S “ACTUAL LEGAL COERCION” STANDARD PROVIDES THE NECESSARY RENOVATION I. INTRODUCTION Most Supreme Court cases fly under the radar of the national media. Occasionally, however, the media finds a case worthy of being thrust into the spotlight.1 In 2004, the Supreme Court faced such a case in Elk Grove Unified School District v.
    [Show full text]
  • In God We Trust” Originated from a Columbia County President Judge
    “IN GOD WE TRUST” ORIGINATED FROM A COLUMBIA COUNTY PRESIDENT JUDGE By André Dominguez The following excerpt from a 1937 WPA booklet in the Society’s Depression-era Works Progress Administration collection makes some interesting claims: Fifteen judges have filled the office of President Judge in Columbia County since the formation of the county from a part of Northumberland, by Act of Assembly of March 22, 1813. Two of the judges later became state Supreme Court Justices and one became governor of Pennsylvania. One of the judges of the county courts, Judge Ellis Lewis, appointed in 1833, later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Judge Warren J. Woodward, who served as judge from 1856 to 1861 became a Justice of the Supreme Court and Judge James Pollock, who was appointed in 1851 later became Governor of Pennsylvania. Judge Pollock served in many public offices and was director of the mint at Philadelphia. He was the originator of the motto ‘In God We Trust’ that continues to appear on United States coins. At first glance it would appear that a local Columbia Countian, James Pollock, had become very well accomplished, but I could not recall that the county had produced a governor or that the famous motto had its origins in Columbia County. WPA booklets have a wealth of information, but although usually correct, they rarely include any citations to indicate their sources. The claim that someone associated with Columbia County originated a motto that appears on U.S. currency used by millions of people around the world seemed pretty bold.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Regular Public Meeting Monday, January 5, 2015 @ 5:00 P.M
    REVISED 12/29/14 Board of County Commissioners Wakulla County, Florida Agenda Regular Public Meeting Monday, January 5, 2015 @ 5:00 P.M. _____ Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda: (The Chairman and members of the Board will approve and/or modify the official agenda at this time). Citizens to be Heard (There is a Three (3) minute time limit; non-discussion by Commission; there shall be no debate and no action by the Commission. Citizens will have the opportunity to speak once under the Citizens to be Heard portion of the agenda which will be at the start or end of each meeting). (To ensure fairness and encourage participation, citizens who would like to speak on any item will need to fill out a speaker’s card and turn in to Ms. Osborne prior to the beginning of discussion on that particular item. Citizens are allowed a maximum of 3 minutes to speak.) Awards and Presentations (Members of the Board will have the opportunity to acknowledge members of the community or commendable efforts at this time. Presentations will be made from individuals concerning issue of importance). Announcement Honoring Mrs. Evelyn Evans – Brent Thurmond, Clerk of Court Consent (All items contained herein may be voted on with one motion. Consent items are considered to be routine in nature, are typically non-controversial and do not deviate from past Board direction or policy. However, any Commissioner, the County Administrator, or the County Attorney may withdraw an item from the consent agenda, either in writing prior to the meeting, or at the beginning of the meeting and it shall then be voted on individually.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Florida's State Flag the History of Florida's State Flag Robert M
    Nova Law Review Volume 18, Issue 2 1994 Article 11 The History of Florida’s State Flag Robert M. Jarvis∗ ∗ Copyright c 1994 by the authors. Nova Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/nlr Jarvis: The History of Florida's State Flag The History of Florida's State Flag Robert M. Jarvis* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........ .................. 1037 II. EUROPEAN DISCOVERY AND CONQUEST ........... 1038 III. AMERICAN ACQUISITION AND STATEHOOD ......... 1045 IV. THE CIVIL WAR .......................... 1051 V. RECONSTRUCTION AND THE END OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ..................... 1056 VI. THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ................... 1059 VII. CONCLUSION ............................ 1063 I. INTRODUCTION The Florida Constitution requires the state to have an official flag, and places responsibility for its design on the State Legislature.' Prior to 1900, a number of different flags served as the state's banner. Since 1900, however, the flag has consisted of a white field,2 a red saltire,3 and the * Professor of Law, Nova University. B.A., Northwestern University; J.D., University of Pennsylvania; LL.M., New York University. 1. "The design of the great seal and flag of the state shall be prescribed by law." FLA. CONST. art. If, § 4. Although the constitution mentions only a seal and a flag, the Florida Legislature has designated many other state symbols, including: a state flower (the orange blossom - adopted in 1909); bird (mockingbird - 1927); song ("Old Folks Home" - 1935); tree (sabal palm - 1.953); beverage (orange juice - 1967); shell (horse conch - 1969); gem (moonstone - 1970); marine mammal (manatee - 1975); saltwater mammal (dolphin - 1975); freshwater fish (largemouth bass - 1975); saltwater fish (Atlantic sailfish - 1975); stone (agatized coral - 1979); reptile (alligator - 1987); animal (panther - 1982); soil (Mayakka Fine Sand - 1989); and wildflower (coreopsis - 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Davis S Dissertation 2010.Pdf
    The Trend Towards The Debasement Of American Currency A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at George Mason University By Steven Davis Master of Science Stanford University, 2003 Master of Science University of Durham, 2002 Bachelor of Science University of Pennsylvania, 2001 Director: Dr. Richard Wagner, Professor Department of Economics Fall Semester 2010 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Copyright: 2010 by Steven Davis All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professors Richard Wagner, Robin Hanson, and John Crockett for their insight, feedback, and flexibility in their positions on my dissertation committee. Additional thanks to Professor Wagner for his guidance in helping me customize my academic program here at George Mason. I would also like to thank Mary Jackson for her amazing responsiveness to all of my questions and her constant supply of Krackel candy bars. Thanks to Professor “Doc” Bennett for being a great “RA-employer” and helping me optimize my Scantron-grading technique. Thanks to the Economics Department for greatly assisting my studies by awarding me the Dunn Fellowship, as well as providing a great environment for economic study. Thanks to my Mom and Dad for both their support and their implicit contribution to the Allen Davis game. Finally, thanks to the unknown chef of the great brownies available in the small Enterprise Hall cafeteria. Hopefully, they will one day become a topping at Mr. Yogato or at its successor, Little Yohai. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ vi ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. viii Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • One Nation Under God? a Constitutional Question Elk Grove Unified School District V
    One Nation Under God? A Constitutional Question Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (No. 02–1624). The case involves a challenge by Michael Newdow, an avowed atheist, to state-sponsored recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public school system that his daughter attends. Mr. Newdow asserts that the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge renders it a religious exercise and that government sponsorship of recitals of the Pledge by children in public schools thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled against Mr. Newdow, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that judgment. In its initial opinion, issued on June 26, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held uncon- stitutional the 1954 Act of Congress that added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. The court also held unconstitutional the practice of state-sponsored recitation of the Pledge in public schools. Sandra Banning, the mother of Mr. Newdow’s daugh- ter, then challenged his standing to bring the suit. Ms. Banning has no objection to the Pledge or to her daughter’s recitation of it in public school. On December 4, 2002, the Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Newdow had standing to sue in his own name but not to sue on his daughter’s behalf. On February 28, 2003, the panel amended its opinion and withdrew its earlier ruling that the 1954 Act of Congress violates the Establishment Clause.
    [Show full text]
  • Republic-Magazine # 4.Pdf
    Politics withanedge Politics rages US $3.95 / Can $5.95 REPUBLICMAGAZINE PO Box 10577 Newport Beach, CA 92658 tel: 714.436.1234 or 866.437.6570 Contents fax: 714.455.2091 www.republicmagazine.com PUBLISHER From the Editor 4 George Shepherd GARY S. FRANCHI JR. MANAGING EDITOR Gary Franchi Columns COPY EDITOR Constitutional Discipline Joan Walling 6 MICHAEL BADNARIK CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Jack Blood 60-Second Activism 15 Michael Badnarik 16 GARY S. FRANCHI JR. Lee Rogers Samuel Anthony Ettaro Edwin Vieira, Jr. Off the Grid 16 Jason Starck Life Without Banks Gary Franchi SAMUEL ANTHONY ETTARO Aaron Bolinger DESIGN & PRODUTION Activist Profile 20 Ed Rother Something Happened in Early November ––––––––––––––––––––– TREVOR LYMON Advertising Earle Belle 8 Toll Free: 866.437.6570 Features email: [email protected] The Pending Financial Subscriptions/Bulk Activist Orders 8 www.republicmagazine.com Collapse of America or call: 866.437.6570 LEE ROGERS Mail-In Orders PO Box 10577 Porque el Amero, Amigos 22 Newport Beach, CA 92658 EDWIN VIEIRA, JR. Cover Design By Ed Rother A Year in Review 24 Republic Magazine is Published Monthly JACK BLOOD ––––––––––––––––––––– 22 Republic VS. Democracy? Publisher’s Disclaimer: The Republic Magazine 26 staff and CDI Publications, Inc. have made JASON STARCK every effort to ensure the accuracy of the in- formation presented within these pages. Al- The REAL ID Battle in 28 though, from time to time an error may occur. the Keystone State We suggest, like true patriots, you thoroughly AARON BOLINGER research and/or seek legal or professional ad- vice on any topic exposed in Republic Maga- zine before taking action.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
    Michael Newdow, in pro per and as counsel CA SBN: 220444 PO Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 916-427-6669 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-00017-LKK-DAD THE REV. DR. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, IN PRO PER; JAN DOE AND PAT DOE, PARENTS; DOECHILD, A MINOR CHILD; JAN ROE; PARENT; ROECHILD-1 AND ROECHILD-2, MINOR CHILDREN; Plaintiffs, v. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PETER LEFEVRE, LAW REVISION COUNSEL; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA; RICHARD J. RIORDAN, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION, THE ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“EGUSD”); DR. STEVEN LADD, SUPERINTENDENT, EGUSD; THE SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“SCUSD”); DR. M. MAGDALENA CARRILLO MEJIA, SUPERINTENDENT, SCUSD; THE ELVERTA JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“EJESD”); DR. DIANNA MANGERICH, SUPERINTENDENT, EJESD; THE RIO LINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (“RLUSD”); FRANK S. PORTER, SUPERINTENDENT, RLUSD; Defendants. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs allege as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES...............................................................................................................ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................iv JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...................................................................................................1 PARTIES........................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:04-Cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 1 of 50
    Case 1:04-cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 1 of 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL NEWDOW, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 04-2208 (JDB) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case draws this Court into the murky waters of the law relating to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Plaintiff Michael Newdow, a well-known atheist litigant, challenges the inclusion of prayers by invited clergy -- in the form of an invocation and benediction -- at the upcoming Presidential Inauguration scheduled to occur on January 20, 2005. He seeks a declaratory judgment and preliminary injunction to prohibit a practice that has existed for almost seventy years through invited clergy, and that arguably can be traced back to the Inauguration of President George Washington in 1789.1 Newdow's present challenge poses complex First Amendment questions relating to one of this nation's most significant public events. But in addition to such weighty Establishment Clause questions, the case raises substantial issue preclusion and standing questions that require this 1 This Memorandum Opinion will address only Newdow's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court has considered, but will not rule on at this time, defendants' motions to dismiss. -1- Case 1:04-cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 2 of 50 Court to proceed cautiously, particularly given Newdow's prior litigation involving the very same subject matter and the present context of a request for expedited consideration of a motion seeking the extraordinary relief of enjoining the President.2 The Court is therefore mindful of the guidance expressed by the Supreme Court just last year in another case brought by Newdow challenging the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance: The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake.
    [Show full text]