Thanehand
06-25-2008, 12:34 PM
"There is a significant development unfolding that could very well become a "show stopper" for the Republicans expecting the nomination of John McCain to proceed smoothly in St. Paul at the GOP's upcoming national convention.
...
On June 30, 2008, the People will claim and exercise their Rights under the accountability clause of the First Amendment - they will Petition the Government for Redress of constitutional torts.
Both Ron Paul and John McCain, President Bush, the Attorney General and every other member of the U.S. Congress will be served with seven comprehensive Petitions for Redress, one for each of seven violations of the Constitution by the federal Government.
Based on the recorded responses of these Presidential candidates, the delegates to the convention will learn what the candidates personally believe about the roles and constitutionally guaranteed relationship between the People and their servant Government, including what each candidate truly believes regarding the essential principles of popular sovereignty and limited government.
Per the fundamental legal principle articulated in Section 61 of the Magna Carta in 1215, and subsequently articulated in 1774 in an official Act of the first Congress and in 1789 as the Accountability clause of the First Amendment, each Petition will state a Grievance and request a formal, specific Response, within forty days - i.e., by August 8th. Each Petition for Redress contains a short series of pointed "Admit or Deny" type questions regarding U.S. law or policy. The questions are specifically designed to expose the Government's contempt for the Constitution.
By exposing the open disdain that most of our elected leaders hold for the Constitution, the People can thus begin to resolve the conflict between the behavior of the Government and the requirements of the Constitution.
We know Ron Paul will respond. He has previously declared his position publicly that the Government is inherently obligated by the First Amendment to Respond to Petitions for Redress. Click here (http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ronpaul7-17-01.htm) to read Ron Paul's statement which was read on July 17, 2001 at a Capitol Hill press conference with Bob Schulz during Bob's hunger fast to secure Redress for the first of the seven constitutional torts currently being addressed by the Petitions for Redress, i.e., the un-constitutional enforcement of direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor.
We know it will be difficult for John McCain to respond given his largely unconstitutional voting record."
There are 5 days left to sign the petition:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/revolution/
Video Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qPkZWDsf3U
Video Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNwXSuL2CnY
Spread the word!
pauletteNV
06-25-2008, 12:55 PM
I hope this does some good. Unfortunately, the government seems to have an exceptional ability to ignore, delay and avoid and then the ability to get some judge somewhere to override anything. But, I truly hope this time with strength in numbers this can be made to stick. At least we know that Ron Paul has nothing to worry about. Why is it so difficult for people to want an honest and Constituional man at the helm....beyond me.
spacehabitats
06-25-2008, 02:13 PM
Impressed by the work and thought that went into creating these petitions, I asked my father-in-law, Don Fotheringham (http://www.freedomfirstsociety.org/articles/authors/4/Don-Fotheringham), who is something of a constitutional scholar, to comment on these petitions and their viability as weapons in our arsenal.
This was his response:
First, my opinion regarding the constitutional basis of each of the 7 petitions.
Petition 1: RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN HOSTILITIES IN IRAQ WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR.
1. Yes, there must be a declaration of war. This is not merely a required formality, but a process by which the House and Senate study the cause and consider the justification for taking such drastic measures. In the case of Iraq, had this process been undertaken and responsibility for the war remained with Congress where it belongs, Congress would very likely have insisted on positive proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Suddam had the capacity to deliver them, and that such a threat was imminent. In other words, theconstitutionally required declaration process alone may well have averted the war in Iraq.
2. I Agree with all of the WHEREAS proclamations except those that accuse the Supreme Court of "treason" for refusing to respond to a prior petition. Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Failure to act is not treasonous, therefore the government’s inaction may have been irresponsible, but certainly not treasonous.
3. In paragraph 2 on page 3 the author tends to place the war power of Congress on a par with the President’s military role. It would be more clear, and correct, had the author stated that once Congress declares war, then the president serves as the supreme military commander of the war. (I have written an article entitled "War Powers" which clarifies and documents the President’s proper but limited role as Commander in Chief. This is posted on freedomfirstsociety.org (http://freedomfirstsociety.org/). Click: "Constitution Corner.")
4. I do not think any of the War Powers resolutions of Congress (mentioned on pages 4 and 5) support a constitutional basis for this petition. These are statutory, not constitutional. They had no constitutional force when written and have none today – they are only acts of legislation. It is an important principle that a sitting Congress cannot be bound by a past Congress. What Congress did in respect to Nixon’s war power in 1973, was in itself the abrogation of a power belonging to Congress alone. All War Powers legislation should be disregarded, for powers delegated by the Constitution to a certain branch of government are not transferable to another. Such bills have no legitimate force, not then, now or ever.
5. Allusion to pre-constitutional policies, adopted by the Continental Congress, may indicate the prevailing philosophy of 1774, but lack constitutional basis and tend, in my opinion, to weaken the author’s appeal.
Petition 2: RELATING TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX
One of the most important reasons for the Convention of 1878 was to obtain the power to tax on a national scale, a power sorely needed but absent under the Articles of Confederation. Thus the founders created a federal government with power to tax the people indirectly through tariffs and excise taxes. The Founders abhorred the idea of a graduated income tax (Article I, Section 9), but this was overturned in 1913 by the 16th Amendment. Filing a grievance against the government on the basis of the 16th Amendment makes no sense at all. And it makes less sense to petition the President and Congress in opposition to a constitutional provision, ratified by three-fourths of the states, over which they have no control. The author’s conclusion on page 3, "regarding the unconstitutional origin, operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system," is not correct. Amendments, whether we like them or not, when ratified by the people, are as much a part of the Constitution as its original 1787 draft.
This in no way implies that I sustain the corruption and waste supported by income taxes, or the dictatorial powers by which the tax laws are enforced. And I certainly do not I agree with the concept of taxing income. I have a brief section on this in a booklet I have written called "Tangents." There is an answer to the out-of-control tax and spend policy of our government and IRS problems, but I think this petition misses it entirely.
By dismissing the federal income tax as unconstitutional, the author weakens the value of his voluminous research. He presents 15 more pages of excellent resource material, including Supreme Court cases heard on the principles of taxation, but which have no bearing on the constitutional basis purported in his petition. An opinion of the High Court does not amend the Constitution – it becomes the law of the case, not the law of the land. He pleads for adherence to the Constitution, yet ironically attempts to build his case on extra-constitutional wisdom. He seems to base much of his cause for relief on revived debates and after-the-fact opinions.
Petition 3: FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES RELATING TO THE "WAR ON TERRORISM"
1. The author’s WHEREAS proclamations hold up until he complains about the negligence of the various federal courts, or their reluctance to hear prior petitions. Most everyone, including this author, seems to credit the courts with powers never granted them by the Constitution. The Constitution merely grants jurisdiction over certain types of cases, but grants the judiciary only the power to judge cases under the Constitution according to law and equity. Most of the powers exercised by the federal courts today were never dreamed of by the Founders and are powers gradually assumed over many years. Ironically, the federal judiciary was at its creation intended to be the weakest department of federal power. (See The Federalist no. 78)
2. Otherwise, I think his WHEREAS proclamations are consistent with the principles of a free republic, even though not necessarily based on specific constitutional restrictions of federal power.
3. WE THE PEOPLE declarations:
The author’s 43 points calling for formal acknowledgment of the dictatorial nature of the Patriot Act are well done and constitute the most thorough evaluation of this legislation I have seen.
4. Again, his allusion to pre-constitutional policies, adopted by the Continental Congress, may support the fundamental premise of our free government, but lack constitutional basis, and in my opinion add nothing to his already strong case.
Petition 4: INFRINGEMENT UPON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
1. I think there are constitutional bases for all of the WHEREAS proclamations, except the reference to treason, as noted earlier.
2. Under WE THE PEOPLE, I see historic reference as having no constitutional force, not under the Continental Congress and not by a review of liberties obtained under the Magna Carta. Neither of these resources (although well-presented) support the constitutionality of the petition.
3. Here we have a respectable collection of case histories in support of the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment. And these cases throw light on the government’s abuse of the right to keep and bear arms. But there is a higher principle: Prior Supreme Court cases, even when resolved by a strict construction of the Constitution, do not establish constitutionality. Such cases may serve as good examples of a Court doing its job, but its power comes from upholding the purpose and intent of the Constitution, not from the day-to-day wisdom of the judges. There would be no reason for a written Constitution if nine appointed individuals had power to say what the Constitution means. For if such power is admitted, it may in one instance prove beneficial, and in the next detrimental. That is precisely the problem we face today, now that strict construction is passe, and "wisdom" reigns supreme.
4. The author goes far afield by drifting into case histories that have no relevance to the Second Amendment.
5. The repressive measures of foreign countries prove nothing with respect to the constitutionality of this petition.
6. Again, his allusion to pre-constitutional policies, adopted by the Continental Congress, may support the fundamental premise of our free government, but lack constitutional basis, and in my opinion add nothing to his already over-stated case.
Petition 5: RELATING TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
1. I think there is a natural right as well as a constitutional basis for all of the WHEREAS declarations of this petition, with the exception of reference to treason. As with his other measures, the author has done an excellent and detailed research on the Federal Reserve scam.
2. Again, his allusion to pre-constitutional policies, adopted by the Continental Congress, may indicate the Founder’s support for a sound, free economy. But this reference obviously lacks a constitutional basis, and in my opinion adds nothing to the author’s case against the Federal Reserve System, or his appeal for relief.
3. Under WE THE PEOPLE, his pleas appear to be consistent with the unconstitutional policies and practices of the FED, but I am not qualified to give an opinion respecting the dollar amounts, or percentages given.
4. Again, his allusion to pre-constitutional policies, adopted by the Continental Congress, may support the fundamental case against the appointment of a non-government entity to control the supply of money and credit in the US, but lacks constitutional basis, and in my opinion adds nothing to his petition.
Petition 6: REGARDING THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION
1. I agree that all WHEREAS proclamations in this petition have a constitutional basis, except the charge of treason against the Supreme Court.
2. Under WE THE PEOPLE, paragraph 7: I disagree both fundamentally and strategically with his view of the Declaration of Independence. First, the DI is not superior to the Constitution. The DI paved the way for constitutional government, but it is not a law, is not enforceable, conveys no power, and grants no authority. Its effect on the British came on the field of battle, not in the legality of the document. The DI has great philosophical value by recognizing the source of man’s rights and the purpose of government as a force in securing man’s rights. But the DI is not a product of We The People. It is a product of the Continental Congress. The DI is not constitutional, has never been ratified by the states, establishes no appointment of officers, and places no limitations on those appointed to govern.
3. I agree that all alliances, mergers or concession of US sovereignty pose grave danger to the independence of the US and the freedom of her citizens. The author’s opposition to NAU, NAFTA, and SPP are sound, essential positions supported by the spirit and purpose of the Constitution.
4. Again, his allusion to pre-constitutional policies, adopted by the Continental Congress, may support the fundamental case in favor of US sovereignty, but lacks constitutional basis, and in my opinion adds nothing to this petition, as well as to the others.
Petition 7: REGARDING THE FAILURE OF THE PRESIDENT TO ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS
1. Again, here are beautifully written WHEREAS declarations, all of which are backed by sound constitutional language or intent.
2. Again, under the WE THE PEOPLE pleas there is no value in referring to positions of the Continental Congress.
3. The 88 numbered questions addressed to the President and Congress represent an exceptional, comprehensive analysis of the immigration crisis and its ramifications. To the best of my knowledge, all of these aspects and consequences of illegal immigration constitute gross neglect, or worse, of the President, a betrayal of his country, his constitutional duty, and portray the seriousness and extent of this disastrous development.
COMMENTS, VIABILITY, ETC.
In the mid 1970s the staff leaders of all 435 members of Congress were asked: What influences your boss (the congressman) most? They were given a list of 20 sources of influence and were asked to number them on a scale of 1 to 20 starting with most influential, and ending with the least. The survey result: No.1 was personal visits of citizens from their congressional district. No. 2 was personal hand-written letters (with smudges and misspelled words). No. 3 personal typewritten letters. No. 4 letters to the editor of their home town paper. The list went on to show the lesser of means for influencing Congress. Significantly, signed petitions were No.19, almost the last thing anyone paid attention to! (The last on the list by the way, No.20, was paid lobbyists.)
Most petitions, even the short single paragraph ones are ignored. In 1980, the JBS coordinator in the DC area personally delivered one million signatures to members of Congress urging the US to get out of the UN. He reported that they laughed at him and threw the huge bundles in the trash.
In the 7 petitions by Bob Schulz he cites other petitions previously ignored. Why would the present series of petitions receive any more respect than the first? In these documents he eloquently expresses the constitutional defiance of the President, Congress and the federal courts, so on what constitutional basis does he expect them to be less defiant now?
I know nothing about Bob Schulz, but he has done a masterful and thorough job of research. I have the feeling these petitions are the work of a staff, for the expertise and language seem to vary slightly from one petition to another. They are definitely written by lawyers or law staffers, for lawyers tend to place too much credence in the courts. Even though essentially fundamental, the petition principles tend to convolute here and there. Overall, however, it’s a job well done.
Too bad the same energy and expertise are not directed at the enemy where a real impact is possible. At best these petitions are oblique routes over difficult terrain. The road to freedom is long enough when laid out in a straight line.
Carole
06-25-2008, 08:46 PM
Unfortunately, when I tried to register, there was a message that Yahoo is censoring We The People. In other words I cannot receive email from WTP.
Isn't this illegal?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.