Ron Paul is Breaking My Heart

[pepperpete1]

Please read the following:http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/Update/Update2008-07-27.htm

I called Ron Paul's Washington DC office today and spoke with Anna regarding Ron Paul's response to the petitions of redress to our congressmen.

I asked if she was aware of the petitions served on the individual congresspersons. She replied she was. I asked if she knew whether Ron Paul was going to respond to the petitions and she answered that he WAS NOT GOING TO RESPOND.I then asked "And the reason for him not responding is?" She said she was not given a reason.

If Dr. Paul cannot respond to these petitions, then I feel totally betrayed by his message of Constitutional government. I would have thought that he would pick up the efforts of We The People Congress and enfold it within his Campaign For Liberty.

One would think that he could at least have given a reason for acting like most other congresspersons.

I was planning on going to the rally but since finding this out I have changed my mind.

I feel as though I caught my husband with another woman. But this is even bigger than a marital infidelity. This is our country that needs us and needs all of us if we are to keep our civil liberties.

I believed in Ron Paul as an ethical man, an honest politician. How can he not respond?

He has until Friday to respond, but when his congessional office says he will not be responding, I have to believe he will not.
:(

[RoamZero]

Interesting. Somehow we should try to get a public statement from Paul, maybe ask Alex Jones to question him the next time he has him on, or have someone in the DC area visit his office and ask for a statement.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

I've just read the whole wethepeoplefondation.org website, and i must say, i'm confused. What exactly do you expect to happen? You've aired your grievences, now expect a redress, but of what kind? And how do individual congressman redress your greivence? DO you expect a floor vote of somekind?

I need to hear more, in plain english.

[Shii]

I too thought signing petitions on the Internet would save the world... :(

[bucfish]

Oh come'on Paul has a lot going on and why you would even serve him with this I cannot fathom. Paul is the one man in congress that should never have been served.

[MRoCkEd]

Absent such a response Ron Paul’s credibility as an adherent of the Constitution could quickly be called into question.
Yeah - because he won't respond to an online petition.
That is a true measure of his adherence to the constitution, not his flawless voting record.
:rolleyes:

who cares

[yongrel]

Oh lawdy lawdy, Ron Paul hasn't prioritized responding to an internet petition. *sigh* His lackadaisical approach to an invisible petition really makes me question his credibility as a champion of the Constitution. I mean, yeah he ran for President against all odds and inspired our movement, but what has he done for me lately?

[Paulitical Correctness]

"I feel as though I caught my husband with another woman."

But it's actually more like you "caught" your husband watching women's volleyball and decided to get [irrationally] jealous.

Not going to the rally anymore because of this? That's pretty stupid.

[rich34]

I too thought signing petitions on the Internet would save the world... :(

That's some funny snit right there:D

[Akus]

I am looking forward for the "it's not about Ron Paul, it's about "the movement""crowd to start making apologies.....

On the other hand Pepperpete1, are you in his district? And even if so, must he answer to every single call people make? I for some reason think that it's like when an exhausted rock star refuses to sign autographs because he/she just wants to catch his/her breath and be left the fuck alone, but everyone thinks (s)he is an asshole/bitch with a God complex.....

[pepperpete1]

These petitions were served in person to each congressperson

[newbitech]

i am surprised that he will not respond to this.

for those yucks above who are trying to marginalize this as an "online petition", think again. These were served locally by precinct as well as mailed to the DC offices. It is more than a piece of paper to sign.

[MRoCkEd]

http://super-genius.org/images/wambulance.jpg

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

I don't really understand what it is you're trying to do either, as one of the above posters stated. What's the goal here? In what way is the government going to redress us? What do you want from Ron Paul? A statement of support for your efforts? A guarantee that he'll introduce some legislation you wrote onto the floor of Congress? I don't get it.

[newbitech]

I don't really understand what it is you're trying to do either, as one of the above posters stated. What's the goal here? In what way is the government going to redress us? What do you want from Ron Paul? A statement of support for your efforts? A guarantee that he'll introduce some legislation you wrote onto the floor of Congress? I don't get it.

wow. you really don't understand? we are in such a sorry state if the so called patriots of the modern revolution don't understand the point of the constitution.

I will give us all the benefit of the doubt since the supreme court has never ruled on the last 10 words of the first amendment.

We the people have the duty as citizens to petition our government for a redress grievances. This means we have a list of things that we think is wrong with our government and we are asking our government to make them right.

If the government fails to "respond" to this petition, then the individuals must then take it upon themselves to make right what is wrong. By failing to respond, the government officially declares itself to not be the government of those individuals who signed the petition under their first amendment protections.

This means those individuals are no longer bound to the laws that make those items listed in the redress official government doctrine.

Maybe that's why Dr. Paul won't respond. It takes us one step closer to liberty if these clowns in DC continue to ignore their constitutional duties.

[pepperpete1]

The petitions were served as a redress to congress to remedy the unconstitutional acts as stated in the seven petitions. Acts they made unconstitutionally. The redress of Congress is our constitutional right per the first amendment. If the president, vice-president, and our congresspersons will not adhere to the constitution, we have the right to call them on it and hold them accountable.

I just would like to know why Ron Paul feels it is not necessary for him to respond to the people's petitions as stated in the constitution.

[torchbearer]

wow. you really don't understand? we are in such a sorry state if the so called patriots of the modern revolution don't understand the point of the constitution.

I will give us all the benefit of the doubt since the supreme court has never ruled on the last 10 words of the first amendment.

We the people have the duty as citizens to petition our government for a redress grievances. This means we have a list of things that we think is wrong with our government and we are asking our government to make them right.

If the government fails to "respond" to this petition, then the individuals must then take it upon themselves to make right what is wrong. By failing to respond, the government officially declares itself to not be the government of those individuals who signed the petition under their first amendment protections.

This means those individuals are no longer bound to the laws that make those items listed in the redress official government doctrine.

Maybe that's why Dr. Paul won't respond. It takes us one step closer to liberty if these clowns in DC continue to ignore their constitutional duties.

How can one congressman, by himself, accomplish any of the above?
It takes the support of the majority of a committee to get anything to the floor.

Ron Paul has been trying to give us relief via legislation he has been pushing, he is already trying to get rid of the fed, he is already trying to legalize marijuana, he is already trying to get our budgets under control, he is already trying to stop these needless wars.
Where else is he lacking in his responsibility to the people?

[MRoCkEd]

I just would like to know why Ron Paul feels it is not necessary for him to respond to the people's petitions as stated in the constitution.
Does the constitution say you must respond to petitions?

I can see going after other congressmen to make a point - but why bother with Ron Paul who is not part of the crowd voting on unconstitutional bills?

[newbitech]

Hoy can one congressman, by himself, accomplish any of the above?
It takes the support of the majority of a committee to get anything to the floor.

Ron Paul has been trying to give us relief via legislation he has been pushing, he is already trying to get rid of the fed, he is already trying to legalize marijuana, he is already trying to get our budgets under control, he is already trying to stop these needless wars.
Where else is he lacking in his responsibility to the people?

No one is saying he has to do all that by himself. But regarding the petition, he just has to respond. That is all. It doesn't take a majority to respond. I find it rather interesting that he would refuse. We will see what he says if he doesn't, but I think he will. This is probably just mis-communication. He still has time to respond and fulfill his oath.

If we can't get Dr. Paul to respond to a legal 1st amendment petition for redress, then there is no hope that there ever will be a majority.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

wow. you really don't understand? we are in such a sorry state if the so called patriots of the modern revolution don't understand the point of the constitution.

I will give us all the benefit of the doubt since the supreme court has never ruled on the last 10 words of the first amendment.

We the people have the duty as citizens to petition our government for a redress grievances. This means we have a list of things that we think is wrong with our government and we are asking our government to make them right.

If the government fails to "respond" to this petition, then the individuals must then take it upon themselves to make right what is wrong. By failing to respond, the government officially declares itself to not be the government of those individuals who signed the petition under their first amendment protections.

This means those individuals are no longer bound to the laws that make those items listed in the redress official government doctrine.

Maybe that's why Dr. Paul won't respond. It takes us one step closer to liberty if these clowns in DC continue to ignore their constitutional duties.

Ok, here's what i don't understand. For example, Dick Heller had a problem with the law, he petitioned the government with his greivance; that he thought the DC ban on guns was unconstitutional. The government "responded" to his greivence, allowed him redress and heard his case in court; many courts federal, appellate, Supreme Court. After a short time (14 years), he wins (kinda) and gets the DC law changed (kinda), and he registers a revolver.

What is it you all want? Just a response? So if they say, "ok, we're working on it", is that a response that will satisfy you? Or do they say"duly noted".

A good friend of mine for 20 years is big into WETHEPEOPLEFOUNDATION, and I still can't understand the strategy/tactic that this will accomplish. ( i have to admit, my eyes glazed over when he explains it). Oh, btw, I signed the RV at the Revolution March.

[torchbearer]

No one is saying he has to do all that by himself. But regarding the petition, he just has to respond. That is all. It doesn't take a majority to respond. I find it rather interesting that he would refuse. We will see what he says if he doesn't, but I think he will. This is probably just mis-communication. He still has time to respond and fulfill his oath.

If we can't get Dr. Paul to respond to a legal 1st amendment petition for redress, then there is no hope that there ever will be a majority.

If you sent me a petition regarding something i'm already doing... would it make sense to repeat myself?
Have you seen the petitions? I have.
Have you signed the petitions? I have.
Have you delivered the petitions? I have.

And all those petitions are concerning things Ron has already been working on...
Makes it kind of redundant to respond to things he is already doing... It could almost be seen as an insult, like "don't these people know i'm already working on this stuff?"

[newbitech]

Does the constitution say you must respond to petitions?

I can see going after other congressmen to make a point - but why bother with Ron Paul who is not part of the crowd voting on unconstitutional bills?

no I don't believe the law says that they MUST respond. However, the supreme court has never ruled on this law. It is an untested concept in our liberty crusade.

If the government fails to respond now, then the government is effectively removing itself from the constitutional process. Any action the government takes to thwart the next steps in the process of the petition for redress would have to be considered and abridgement of first amendment protections.

If Dr. Paul doesn't respond, I feel like he is setting a poor example for other congressmen to follow. Dr. Paul set a high bar for himself. He is the leader of a movement. The movement wants a response to the petition. He should oblige as a public servant or at least tell us why he won't.

[MRoCkEd]

just don't lose sleep over this

[newbitech]

If you sent me a petition regarding something i'm already doing... would it make sense to repeat myself?
Have you seen the petitions? I have.
Have you signed the petitions? I have.
Have you delivered the petitions? I have.

And all those petitions are concerning things Ron has already been working on...
Makes it kind of redundant to respond to things he is already doing... It could almost be seen as an insult, like "don't these people know i'm already working on this stuff?"

yes yes no

its a formal process. its like saying, I already went to church, said my vows, kissed the bride, but why do I need to sign the marriage license?

How many times have you heard Dr. Paul give the same speech? He has been saying the same stuff for 30 years. Now he has people who are listening to him and want him to put his signature on an official 1st amendment document and he is going to be a no show? Something is wrong with that.

[sunshine05]

Wow, I'm surprised so many people think it's no big deal if he doesn't respond. I agree with the OP. I will be very disappointed if he ignores this.

[pepperpete1]

no I don't believe the law says that they MUST respond. However, the supreme court has never ruled on this law. It is an untested concept in our liberty crusade.

If the government fails to respond now, then the government is effectively removing itself from the constitutional process. Any action the government takes to thwart the next steps in the process of the petition for redress would have to be considered and abridgement of first amendment protections.

If Dr. Paul doesn't respond, I feel like he is setting a poor example for other congressmen to follow. Dr. Paul set a high bar for himself. He is the leader of a movement. The movement wants a response to the petition. He should oblige as a public servant or at least tell us why he won't.

Thanks Newbitech, I couldn't have said it more succinctly.

I too thought it was just a miscommunication. That is why I called his DC congressional office for clarification. I was crushed when she (Anna) told me he was not going to respond and they did not give her a reason.

I am totally puzzled by this as I thought RP would have taken this baton and run with it.

People can still sign the petitions even though they have been served. They are looking for a million patriot's signatures. Go ahead and read the petitions and sign them if you agree with them.

I signed all seven at the April 15th gathering in DC.

[torchbearer]

yes yes no

its a formal process. its like saying, I already went to church, said my vows, kissed the bride, but why do I need to sign the marriage license?

How many times have you heard Dr. Paul give the same speech? He has been saying the same stuff for 30 years. Now he has people who are listening to him and want him to put his signature on an official 1st amendment document and he is going to be a no show? Something is wrong with that.

:rolleyes: ok. Dr. Paul is really just another piece of shit. :rolleyes: i forgot.

[Paulitical Correctness]

It's the grandest scheme ever!

He spent decades masking his true identity as an "honest politician" so he could one day capitalize off our distaste of government.

Go Ron, show them true colors!

[newbitech]

:rolleyes: ok. Dr. Paul is really just another piece of shit. :rolleyes: i forgot.

i don't know how you came to that conclusion from what I said. Does it make sense to you to fight for something for 30 years begging to be heard and then when that moment comes where the people are getting behind you, you go awol?

Something isn't right here. Maybe the petition is unconstitutional, or maybe Dr. Paul will respond by saying "please see campaignforliberty.com".

I can accept either and would expect the latter. But a non-response to a first amendment petition? That doesn't sound like the Dr. Paul that I voted and sent money to.

Why do you think he won't respond?

[RideTheDirt]

I have just one question. What are your grievances directed at Ron Paul specifically? I would really love to know.

[newbitech]

I have just one question. What are your grievances directed at Ron Paul specifically? I would really love to know.

this was sent to everyone in the house and senate both to local and DC offices. According to the OP, Dr. Paul's staff has stated that Dr. Paul will not respond.

We don't hold all of our government officials to the same high standard that we hold Dr. Paul. This is unfortunate, however many of us have sold out on the campaign for liberty and see a non response from Dr. Paul as a mistake by the congressman. Of course there may be valid reasons for the non-response. And then again he may yet respond.

Its just seems remarkable that he would not respond to this untested founding principle. I hope he responds despite his staff having allegedly confirmed he won't.

[pepperpete1]

I would like the petitions answered . Each petition is a point of Ron Paul's campaign and is the message that got RP 1.3 million votes and 34 million dollars. So an answer should be forth coming from the man with the message.

[RideTheDirt]

I would like the petitions answered . Each petition is a point of Ron Paul's campaign and is the message that got RP 1.3 million votes and 34 million dollars. So an answer should be forth coming from the man with the message.
So what the fuck is the problem?

[newbitech]

So what the fuck is the problem?

if Ron Paul doesn't respond, why should any of the other congressmen and senators?

does that answering your stupid fucking question?

[yongrel]

https://webspace.utexas.edu/warnerwt/picard-facepalm.jpg

[RideTheDirt]

if Ron Paul doesn't respond, why should any of the other congressmen and senators?
Because he's been responding for THIRTY YEARS? Do you have some type of mental deficiency where you cannot comprehend this fact? What more do you want from the man?

Edit:does that answering your stupid fucking question?

[newbitech]

Because he's been responding for THIRTY YEARS? Do you have some type of mental deficiency where you cannot comprehend this fact? What more do you want from the man?

Edit:does that answering your stupid fucking question?

I have enough mental capacity to understand that this is the first petition for redress that specifically hits on the 7 major planks in Dr. Paul's 30 year platform.

This is an action by the people that Dr. Paul has been waiting for 30 years to see come to life. You say he has been responding for 30 years, yet the petition just happened THIS year. I think you lack insight and knowledge of constitution process.

When you have finished kneeling at the altar of Dr. Paul, why don't you stand up and ask him why he is seemingly leaving this constitutional process out in the cold. Better yet, why don't you grace us with your big brain and explain why the congressman would rather ignore a petition that he inspired and has his core beliefs written all over it?

And your choice of words stands out as an inferiority complex. You might want to check WebMD for some help with that.

[pepperpete1]

So what the fuck is the problem?

As has already been stated here, Ron Paul is only one congressman. He alone cannot bring about the corrections to the problems.

The PEOPLE are asking Congess to address the petitions to resolve the points addressed in the petitions. So why, when RP has been telling Congress on his own they have been enacting unconstitutional laws, won't he at least answer the petitions? Or get behind the people?

Have you read the petitions? Have you signed them? If all of us here and who support RP and his message were to sign them, we would have a larger voice.

I was hoping the Campaign For Liberty would be an organization that would coallesce all of the organizations who singing the same song.

Heck, at least Ron Paul could at least tell us we are doing it wrong, if that is the case.

[Rhys]

i still don't get it.

you had the right to petition the government and you did..

you're done, right? good work?

[Alawn]

You have a right to petition your government and you did. What is the big deal? You do not have a right to receive an answer from them. If every person in the country sent them one of these would you really expect them to respond to each one? File a lawsuit about an unconstitutional law or continue to write to congress. This whole idea is stupid.

[RickyJ]

All Ron Paul has to do is respond to say what he is doing about these issues, it is just that simple. It's not a hard thing for him to do. So why not just do it and please the 80,000 people who signed the petition?

[Rhys]

All Ron Paul has to do is respond to say what he is doing about these issues, it is just that simple. It's not a hard thing for him to do. So why not just do it and please the 80,000 people who signed the petition?

wtf you doing besides signing petitions? im now irritated cause he's written volumes on the topic and he's Ron "The Constitution" Paul!

[newbitech]

You have a right to petition your government and you did. What is the big deal? You do not have a right to receive an answer from them. If every person in the country sent them one of these would you really expect them to respond to each one? File a lawsuit about an unconstitutional law or continue to write to congress. This whole idea is stupid.

The big deal is that if Dr. Paul doesn't answer this official 1st amendment petition that 80k+ people signed, then either the petition is invalid for some reason that at this point only Dr. Paul knows about OR Dr. Paul is willing ignoring the will of the people, most of whom donated and voted for him.

If you don't see anything wrong with our expression of the the first amendment being invalid OR Dr. Paul ignoring his national support, then I guess I am on the wrong forum.

[newbitech]

wtf you doing besides signing petitions? im now irritated cause he's written volumes on the topic and he's Ron "The Constitution" Paul!

so why not answer the petition by saying "See my volumes on the topic"?

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[lasenorita]

So basically in order for the petition to be considered successful, it needs validation from Congressman Paul? :confused:

[newyearsrevolution08]

I too wish Ron Paul could participate in EVERY grassroots effort that we have setup but that is impossible to say the least.....

[SnappleLlama]

*mega facepalm*

[acptulsa]

Look.

You people who are "bustin' chops" because people who are upset need to stop or come up with the right answer. It would not bode well if Dr. Paul, Represenative in the House to the Fourteenth District of Texas, could prevent a Constitutional wrong and didn't do it.

You people who are raising the hue and cry must remember that the Constitution requires the Congress to answer petitions of redress--and as 434 or so members of the House and 100 or so members of the Senate will gladly tell you, Dr. Paul does not speak for the entire United States Congress. He could answer you as he would answer a constituent email, but he may not speak for the government of the nation.

So, one can see why, with passions on one side and a lack of understanding all 'round, he'd be cautious in dealing with this.

[newbitech]

So basically in order for the petition to be considered successful, it needs validation from Congressman Paul? :confused:

no, just a reply.

[Rhys]

founder's thoughts and case law: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_assembly.html



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The way I read it, congress can't make a law or an establishment to redress your grievances. I bet they meant it had to go to court. or it's their job to do it?

[driller80545]

I wouldn't abandon RP on the info from a secretary.

[torchbearer]

founder's thoughts and case law: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_assembly.html



The way I read it, congress can't make a law or an establishment to redress your grievances. I bet they meant it had to go to court.

any updates on the ron paul rocket?
I see one of SpaceX guys had some engine problems on Falcon 1.
They should have used the rapid carbonic engine instead.

[Rhys]

any updates on the ron paul rocket?
I see one of SpaceX guys had some engine problems on Falcon 1.
They should have used the rapid carbonic engine instead.

lol someone's linked to it because a bunch of people are signing up lately. who knows.

[newbitech]

here is some commentary from the people who started this petition.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/PostFD/SchulzSpeech.htm

Something I find interesting in the speech.


Some would now have us believe that our First Amendment right of petition is nothing more than a guarantee of free speech; that this vital constitutional protection - the very basis of our liberty - is simply a right to voice our grievances to the government. Some would try to convince us that We The People do not have the absolute right to an honest and complete response to our petitions -- or the authority to demand that our government correct the abuses and violations of our liberties that result in our petitions. Some would even go so far as to say it is merely a Right to complain, with no expectation of response.

This is nonsense! This is dangerous talk to a free people. We will not listen to those who would denigrate our Constitution, and undermine the principles of liberty and justice that gave birth to our nation. At best they are imbeciles, and at worst they are tyrants -- or "sharing bedrooms" with tyrants.

We must guard against this nonsense. We must harden our hearts to these false notions that government is God. We must recognize that even in the long run government can never be rational, without a principled Constitution firmly rooted in Liberty. Government has but one legitimate purpose -- to serve and protect all of the people equally. Government is not God. It is our servant. It is accountable to the People.

The right to Petition for Redress of Grievances is the final protection -- the final, peaceful check and balance in our system of Constitutional government in which the government derives its limited powers from the consent of the sovereign people. This is the right which publicly reveals and reiterates for all, who is Master and who is Servant.

The way the system is now working is in sharp contrast to the way it was designed to work. The servant is taking over the House: the government has brought us to the brink; the Constitution is hanging by a thread.

Not only is the government neglecting its duties, it is operating outside the boundaries the People have drawn around its powers.

[LibertyEagle]

It's only my opinion, but I can understand why the folks involved in this are a bit upset for Ron to refuse to sign their petitions and not even say why.

Makes perfect sense to me.

How about asking Bob Schultz to contact him and try to get to the bottom of it?

[JS4Pat]

i am surprised that he will not respond to this.

for those yucks above who are trying to marginalize this as an "online petition", think again. These were served locally by precinct as well as mailed to the DC offices. It is more than a piece of paper to sign.

I agree.

This is surprising.

I too would like to know why Ron Paul would not address this.

This is not some frivolous online petition.

[pepperpete1]

It's only my opinion, but I can understand why the folks involved in this are a bit upset for Ron to refuse to sign their petitions and not even say why.

Makes perfect sense to me.

How about asking Bob Schultz to contact him and try to get to the bottom of it?

We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Telephone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724
info@GiveMeLiberty.org GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution


June 26, 2008

Rep. Ron Paul
203 Cannon Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Dr.. Paul:

June 30, may be remembered in history as the day Americans began, in earnest, the moral and solemn process of holding their (servant) Government accountable to the Constitution -- under threat of withdrawal of allegiance, support and tax money.

The People have begun to claim and exercise the little-known, but unalienable, individual "Right of Redress," rather than depending entirely upon the will of the majority as defined by precinct voters, those who cast votes on Capitol Hill, and those that vote from the inner sanctums of our Courthouses.
On June 30, 2008, approximately 1200 American citizens will exercise the Right by formally serving a Legal Notice and Demand for Redress upon the President, the Attorney General and every member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate at their local, district offices.
Demanding an official response within forty (40) days, the Notice includes seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations the Constitution:
1. The Iraq invasion in violation of the war powers clauses.
2. The Federal Reserve System’s violation of the money clauses.
3. The USA Patriot Act’s violation of the privacy clauses.
4. The direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor in violation of the tax clauses.
5. The federal gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment.
6. The failure to enforce immigration laws in violation of the “faithfully execute clause.”
7. The construction, by stealth, of a "North American Union" without constitutional authority.

Most People do not know that this profound natural Right, first articulated 800 years ago in Magna Carta, is embodied and protected by the Petition clause of the First Amendment. Most elected officials do not know that the Government is inherently obligated by the First Amendment to respond to Petitions for Redress.
You are a rare exception for as you declared in your statement presented on the House triangle during a press conference arranged by Rep. Bartlett on July 17, 2001, “[T]he right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.”
To be sure, the widespread exercise of this Right holds significant implications for our nation. Here is what the Founders had to say in an Act passed unanimously by the First Congress, sitting in Philadelphia in 1774:
“If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People,
they may retain it until their grievances are redressed,
and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions
or disturbing the public tranquility.”
Journals of the Continental Congress,1:105-113

We the People cannot elect our way out of tyranny. Any assertion that by electing either Senator McCain or Senator Obama we can cure the ills that now plague America is simply naive or based on a lack of information regarding the forces that have been corrupting our profound system of governance. As you have often said, in effect, the way the system is working is truly at odds with the way the system was designed to work.
Thank you for the respect you have shown for the Republic and for honoring the Constitution in the performance of your duties as a member of the House of Representatives.
We look forward to your response to the Petitions.
Stay well.
Sincerely,
______________________
Bob Schulz
Chairman


Please note the date of this missive.

[kigol]

:(

[RideTheDirt]

I understand where you are coming from, and that Paul should respond, but I would love to know why we are attacking Paul first. Maybe if someone actually talked to Paul (not his secretary) then he could help us in pointing out that they must respond to a grievance. If anyone could post more proof on the merit that this has( I do not doubt it but I am not one to jump on a bandwagon).


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Now if Congress shall make no law respecting these things, it is my understanding that this has no merit. Maybe you are ignoring the fact that the founders thought we as Americans would uphold this document in whole. We must elect the right officials to uphold these unalienable rights, not complain to people who do.

[newbitech]

I understand where you are coming from, and that Paul should respond, but I would love to know why we are attacking Paul first. Maybe if someone actually talked to Paul (not his secretary) then he could help us in pointing out that they must respond to a grievance. If anyone could post more proof on the merit that this has( I do not doubt it but I am not one to jump on a bandwagon).

Now if Congress shall make no law respecting these things, it is my understanding that this has no merit. Maybe you are ignoring the fact that the founders thought we as Americans would uphold this document in whole. We must elect the right officials to uphold these unalienable rights, not complain to people who do.

a sensible response. Do you know anyone with a direct line to Dr. Paul? I believe the OP. I too remain skeptical that he will not respond. I don't think anyone is attacking Dr. Paul. I am more shocked and a tad bit confused as to why his staff would acknowledge that he is aware of the petition and then state that there will be no response.

This conversation is something that came to light only hours ago, but there is evidence of misfeasance in Dr. Paul's staff that has been raised the last few days.

[Zack]

6. The failure to enforce immigration laws in violation of the “faithfully execute clause.”

That section might be dumb enough to put the whole petition in the "do not dignify with response" pile.

[rancher89]

Recently, in Boone, NC, a member of the petition group asked Ron Paul if he had heard about the petition. Dr. Paul said he had not and that he would look into it. (I was standing right there.) That was July 25th.

I don't understand his lack of response. Unless there is something in the petition that he doesn't agree with, then why not just say so? There have been responses, I forget where I saw them. Pepperpete, do you have them? Some were noncommittal, others were an outright refusal to comment.

He must have some problem with the wording or some part of the petition for him to not comment at all.

I won't lose sleep over this, but it is a bit odd. It's not like it's a 1500 page bill that's going to be voted on in 15 minutes.

[klamath]

I'm sorry but what the H*ll is RP susposed to do with this other than what he has been trying to do for the last 30 years? If all you want is an answer telling you "Yes I hear you and will keep fighting the other 434 member of congress to understand your and my grievences" then I say gathering 80,000 signatures was a stupid waste of time.

[Deborah K]

I think it is very strange that Dr. Paul wouldn't respond to a petition for redress. Something is amiss here. And some of you people scare the hell out of me.....you sound like Ron Paul koolaide drinkers. He's just a man, not a God for Pete's sake, we're allowed to question his actions/inactions. He would be the first to expect that from us. :rolleyes:

[RickyJ]

And some of you people scare the hell out of me.....you sound like Ron Paul koolaide drinkers. He's just a man, not a God for Pete's sake, we're allowed to question his actions/inactions.



I question him on 9/11, but I still support him. I will still support him even if he doesn't respond to this petition. I am sure he has good reasons.

[westmich4paul]

I understand where you are coming from, and that Paul should respond, but I would love to know why we are attacking Paul first. Maybe if someone actually talked to Paul (not his secretary) then he could help us in pointing out that they must respond to a grievance. If anyone could post more proof on the merit that this has( I do not doubt it but I am not one to jump on a bandwagon).

Now if Congress shall make no law respecting these things, it is my understanding that this has no merit. Maybe you are ignoring the fact that the founders thought we as Americans would uphold this document in whole. We must elect the right officials to uphold these unalienable rights, not complain to people who do.
I have not seen Pepper attack Ron, I have seen her a bit confused as to she was told by his secretary that he would not respond. I think he should at least address the issue. We may not all agree with how he feels about it but with 80,000 signatures he should at least address it to the people.

Now on attacking people it seems your posts have a much more attacking nature with your vulgar language than Pepper's did. Why is it that to some of Ron's people Ron cannot be questioned about why he does some of the things he or his campaign does. When he had 30 something million I sure as hell was questioning where this money was going because I saw alot of other candidates with far far less money getting t.v. spots and making public appearances and passing Ron in the polls and in primary votes. I was bashed for questioning too just like you did Pepper in this thread and to me thats just B.S. and it goes against everything we have been trying to achieve here.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Well, i think the only option here is to burn Ron Paul in effigy at the Rally for the Republic. A tar and feathering would be a bit over the line, i think, but a good burning would do.

[tonesforjonesbones]

There are many gate keepers. Perhaps it got stopped before it ever got to Ron Paul. He may not even know about it. We can't get to these congresspeople. I heard his phone number is listed in the book in his town and he will answer the calls. Call him! LOL.. Tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...I just called information and i guess it is not true...Ron Paul's phone number is unpublished. More propaganda out there I guess. Tones

[Knightskye]

I just would like to know why Ron Paul feels it is not necessary for him to respond to the people's petitions as stated in the constitution.

How about you go around and get a real petition, with handwritten signatures?

Online petitions don't mean shit.

[pepperpete1]

How about you go around and get a real petition, with handwritten signatures?

Online petitions don't mean shit.

Even though one can sign on line these signatures were also collected in person and served the same way.

[driller80545]

I think it would be worthwhile to ask RP about this. But I won't abandon him over something his receptionist told me.

[szczebrzeszyn]

Something is amiss here. And some of you people scare the hell out of me.....you sound like Ron Paul koolaide drinkers. He's just a man, not a God for Pete's sake, we're allowed to question his actions/inactions.

Ron Paul Cult in many cases ;)

[acroso]

You mean Ron Paul and his two secretaries can't micromanage all 300 million people and all their agenda's?

[RickyJ]

You mean Ron Paul and his two secretaries can't micromanage all 300 million people and all their agenda's?

Sucks doesn't it. ;)

But this petition does have 80,000 signatures which is nothing to blow off as insignificant.

[speciallyblend]

well if it makes you fell better, he hasn't signed www.lettertogop.com ,but im still going to the rally for the republic;)

[DeadtoSin]

I could almost care just a tiny little bit if you weren't wasting your trip to the Rally like a spoiled brat because he wouldn't sign your petition. I didn't have the money because I had some extra college expenses surprise me. You actually have the money and you set it aside to go to the Rally, and now you are just going to throw that aside because he wouldn't put his name on a petition? :mad:

[flower]

Plan to Restore Constitutional Order : Will Rep. Ron Paul Provide Redress?
Posted July 28th, 2008 by Faron Collins
UPDATE: Plan to Restore Constitutional Order

Will Rep. Ron Paul Provide Redress?

This nation is rushing headlong into debt, dependency and decay. Unconstitutional acts have become the precedent for more of the same, which become precedent for still further acts of despotism.

Can the People elect their way out of such tyranny?

Unfortunately, no! It is not possible, as Ron Paul’s candidacy has proven. Every time he exposed the constitutional truth regarding an issue (e.g., the undeclared Iraq war and the Federal Reserve System) he lost a block of voters who possess a vested interest in the status quo.

What then is the solution?

A forceful defense of the Constitution! This nation’s major problems would all but disappear if 1/10 of one percent of the People (i.e., 300,000) decided to collectively force the leaders of the political branches of the federal Government to honor their oaths of office and abide by the federal Constitution.

Can the People, without violence, force the Government to follow the Constitution?

Yes, by claiming and exercising their individual, First Amendment Right of Redress: “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the Right of the People …to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.”

What was the Framers’ intent behind this clause?

The historical record is clear and totally uncontroverted: The purpose of the Petition clause was to be the "accountability" clause – the clause by which the People could peaceably hold the Government accountable to the rest of the Constitution. It was meant to be the “capstone Right,” that capped all the others, a critical element in the overall balance of power between the People and the government.

How was it intended to work?

If the People Petition the Government for Redress of violations of the Constitution and the Government refuses to respond, the People have the Right to withdraw their allegiance and support from the Government, without retaliation.

Why must 300,000 people act “collectively” if our Rights are individual, unalienable Rights endowed by one’s Creator?

Because individuals (and small groups) cannot prevail against either the brute power of the state or the tyranny of the majority. Governments simply will not relinquish power unless forced to do so. Majorities likewise are loath to surrender the many forms of beneficence made available by the state. Liberty has never been given; it has always been taken.

Are there 300,000 people in America who understand the Constitution is a set of principles to govern the Government, and that the Constitution is all that stands between them and total tyranny and despotism?

Yes. Despite his low probability of achieving the presidential nomination, 1.3 million people voted for Ron Paul and his call for constitutional Freedom. They not only went to the polls, they aggressively entered the mainstream political fray, generating significant displays of public support for Paul and his potent message, confronting the political opposition by creating high-profile signage (think "blimp"), high-visibility rallies and staking out a significant on-line presence across the Internet. His supporters rallied, marched and attended thousands of local grassroots meetings. Many even maxed out their credit cards to further his campaign.

What then IS the problem?

With over one million Americans apparently strongly embracing the vision of Liberty espoused by candidate Paul, why are we not experiencing a domestic "Freedom Surge" committed to restoring Constitutional Order? Why is there not a more widespread movement toward an active defense of the Constitution and her sacred principles, including acts and investments that, by definition, must fall outside the political process?

The answer: treasured shibboleths and hero worship. Above all else, People value and trust the familiar formula of all Democracies – political cycles, public elections and party privileged candidates to select from, even though all objective experience hath shown the formula, though indispensable, is nothing more than a myth in terms of its practical ability to preserve and protect our constitutional Republic and our individual Rights, Freedoms and Liberties.

The reason our nation suffers is that we, the people, have been tricked into believing that our constitutional salvation lies solely at the ballot box. We have been systemically misled and distracted from knowing the true power and protection provided by the Constitution -- in particular the profound Right of Redress. Our population's deficient and defective perspectives regarding the limited nature of the electoral process and inherent dangers of political influence and corruption have facilitated these abuses.

Can the People's treasured shibboleths be exposed for what they are and driven into disrepute and discredited as the principle means to hold government accountable to the Constitution and its essential principles, giving rise to a true surge of Freedom in America?

Yes, but like anything else worth having, it won’t come easily. A paradigm shift in the People’s behavior will be required. New exercises of law and tools of protest will be required. A strategic plan is necessary. Organizational development is essential.

In the absence of any other, WTP again offers its Plan to Restore Constitutional Order. Admittedly, much, much more needs to be done to develop the organization needed to achieve the Redress the People are entitled to and to institutionalize vigilance.

The rest of this article relates to the Plan and its progress. We will soon address organizational development.

The details and logic behind the Plan are reviewable at www.GiveMeLiberty.org/rev....

Plan Update:
The Petitions for Redress of Grievances

As of today, there are more than 80,000 signatures on the seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations of the Constitution:

1. The Iraq invasion in violation of the war powers clauses.

2. The Federal Reserve System’s violation of the money clauses.

3. The USA Patriot Act’s violation of the privacy clauses.

4. The direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor in violation of the tax clauses.

5. The federal gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment.

6. The failure to enforce immigration laws in violation of the “faithfully execute clause.”

7. The construction, by stealth, of a "North American Union" without constitutional authority.

These but scratch the surface. There are other current and popular abuses of government power that could and should become the subject of additional Petitions for Redress.

Plan Update:
Service of the Petitions on Congress

The number of Congressmen who have not yet been served with the seven Petitions for Redress has been reduced to 65. As of this week, 470 have been successfully served.

Click here for a list of the 65 members of Congress who still need to be served.

Click here to volunteer to serve these Congressmen.

Plan Update:
Testing the Attitude of the Judiciary

Early this year, our landmark Right-to-Petition case, We the People v United States reached the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”). It was an action for declaratory relief in which we sought a declaration of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government under the accountability clause of the First Amendment. No court has ever declared the meaning of the clause. SCOTUS decided not to hear the case. RIGHT-Click to download WTP's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court and its Appendix.

If we fail to receive responsive responses to the Petitions for Redress of constitutional violations that are now being served on every member of Congress, we plan to file a similar lawsuit in each of the eleven federal judicial circuits outside the DC Circuit. It will be much more difficult for SCOTUS to duck the issue by deciding not to hear the case if two circuit courts disagree on the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Quite unexpectedly, one such lawsuit was filed on Tuesday of last week in Missouri by Ray and Elaine Herron, the two people who served the Petitions for Redress on their representative in the U.S. House of Representatives (Rep. Ike Skelton). The case was filed in the federal district court in the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 08-0531-cv).

The case was filed because Rep. Skelton retaliated against the Herrons. The Herrons have asked the court to declare Skelton’s obligation to provide a formal Response with specific answers to the Petitions for Redress and to undo the harm done to the Herrons by Rep. Skelton. Click here to read the Herron’s Complaint against Skelton.

To date, there have been ten other responses to the Petitions for Redress:

Sen. Kyl (AZ) non-responsive Response
Sen. Reed (RI) non-responsive Response
Rep. Frelinghuysen (NJ) "Will respond to every extent possible and practical."
Rep. Shuler (NC) "Will reply by August 8th."
Rep. Doggett (TX) non-responsive Response
Rep. Hunter (CA) "Call and discuss."
Rep. Smith (WA) "Will be responding."
Rep. Price (GA) non-responsive Response
Rep. Rehberg (MT) "There will be no answer."
Rep. Hulsolf (MS) "Forthcoming."

Last week we also requested your feedback and ideas regarding our effort to evaluate and select plaintiffs for the upcoming series of Right-to-Petition "Circuit Court" lawsuits. We thank the many people who provided feedback. We are currently analyzing your comments and will provide additional information in the near future in a web update.

The Ron Paul Question:
Will He Respond?

An interesting and potentially serious situation is developing regarding Rep. Ron Paul. It appears as though Ron’s staff may not have informed the Congressman of the Petitions for Redress, notwithstanding: a) the fact that there exists proof that on June 30 the Petitions for Redress were properly served on Ron Paul at his district office in Texas by a constituent; b) the fact that on June 30, Bob Schulz dropped in to Ron Paul’s DC office to deliver a personal letter to Ron Paul, along with a copy of the Petitions for Redress: and c) Ron Paul’s public declaration in 2001 that the People’s First Amendment Right of Redress includes an inherent Right to a response to their Petitions for Redress.

Last week, Plan supporter Ray Mills had the opportunity to personally speak to Ron Paul in Boone, NC at a Ron Paul rally and book signing event. Ray was able to question Ron Paul regarding the Petitions and his intention to respond. Rep. Paul stated he knew nothing about the service of the Petitions for Redress and that he would look into the matter.

Last Friday (July 25), Bob Schulz spoke by phone with Ron’s chief of staff, Tom Lizardo, about the Petitions for Redress. Tom said he was generally aware of the Petitions but would have to check with his Legislative staff to see what was being done about them. Tom did express a concern of his. He asked if Bob believed the Right to Petition required Ron Paul to respond to every communication received by him from any constituent. Bob told Tom he did not believe each and every communication would necessarily receive the protection of the First Amendment as a proper Petition for Redress requiring a response. Bob then sent Tom a definition of a proper Petition for Redress – one that would require a response.

Needless to say, a serious situation would ensue should Ron Paul fail to respond, responsively (i.e., with formal, specific answers to the questions in the Petitions for Redress). Absent such a response Ron Paul’s credibility as an adherent of the Constitution could quickly be called into question.

The Constitution is not a menu. Rep. Paul is an official of the U.S. Government, and as a true believer and outspoken defender of the Constitution he cannot be found defending only some of its provisions, such as the war powers, money, privacy and tax clauses, while disobeying another, such as the accountability clause of the First Amendment. Again, it is important to note he has publicly admitted such an obligation to Respond.

Ironically, should Ron Paul fail to Respond to the Petitions, he would in effect, not only be ignoring the affirmative duty expressly placed upon him by the last ten words of the First Amendment, he would (through his "Campaign for Liberty") be left promoting the notion of majority rule as the sole avenue of recourse by which the People can (peacefully) cure constitutional torts or secure their individual Rights.

In other words, Ron Paul's potential failure to Respond would place him in the awkward position of publicly embracing political principles endemic to a pure democracy, while simultaneously holding himself, as a duly elected official, beyond the legal construct protecting the actual exercise of Individual Rights and Popular Sovereignty as guaranteed by the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and numerous other expressions of Fundamental Law dating back to Magna Carta.

It is time to move the battle for Liberty beyond the limited paradigm of electoral politics and governance by the majority: It is time to exercise the individual Right to Petition our Government for Redress of Grievances and Restore Constitutional Order.

Plan Update:
Hungering For Redress

The Plan includes a hunger fast in August should no member of Congress honor their oath of office and obligation to respond to the Petitions for Redress of the seven violations of the Constitution.

More details about this will be released soon….

Go to www.GiveMeLiberty.org/rev... for all the details of this important Liberty project.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

taken from:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/56386

[Menthol Patch]

Ron Paul could at least have sent a short letter stating, "I support your efforts."

[speciallyblend]

well we can all call his offices asking why he hasn't answered it? maybe force the campaign and his offices to address the redress with Ron Paul!!!! i personally think it is in his best interest if he wants us to stay republican!!!!!!! this is no joke!!!!

[Mister Grieves]

How many congressman thus far have issued a response to this?

[CurtisLow]

I think it is very strange that Dr. Paul wouldn't respond to a petition for redress. Something is amiss here. :rolleyes:

+1

[durden0]

How many congressman thus far have issued a response to this?

Sen. Kyl (AZ) non-responsive Response
Sen. Reed (RI) non-responsive Response
Rep. Frelinghuysen (NJ) "Will respond to every extent possible and practical."
Rep. Shuler (NC) "Will reply by August 8th."
Rep. Doggett (TX) non-responsive Response
Rep. Hunter (CA) "Call and discuss."
Rep. Smith (WA) "Will be responding."
Rep. Price (GA) non-responsive Response
Rep. Rehberg (MT) "There will be no answer."
Rep. Hulsolf (MS) "Forthcoming."

[pepperpete1]

well we can all call his offices asking why he hasn't answered it? maybe force the campaign and his offices to address the redress with Ron Paul!!!! i personally think it is in his best interest if he wants us to stay republican!!!!!!! this is no joke!!!!

If you read the petitions you will see questions that the congresspersons and senators are asked to answer with either "deny" or "agree". They are not being asked to sign the petitions.

Ron Paul's D.C. office number is (202)225-2831

You can e-mail him off his congressional web page.

[BarryDonegan]

are you 100% sure that the congressmen are actually receiving these petitions and that they are being conducted correctly. you cannot take the activity of an aid to a congressperson as an official statement of a congressperson. often they feel the need to weed out certain type of contact that the congressperson him or herself might want.

[Joseph Hart]

Petition to respond to redress petition O.o? lol jk

[Knightskye]

He has an almost thirty-year voting record of votes that are aligned with the Constitution, yet him not responding to a couple pieces of paper somehow throws all that into question?

Why not send it to people whose voting records are actually dangerous?

[RPTXState]

He has an almost thirty-year voting record of votes that are aligned with the Constitution, yet him not responding to a couple pieces of paper somehow throws all that into question?

Why not send it to people whose voting records are actually dangerous?

+1

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I am not just drinking the kool-aid at the altar of Paul but maybe we should cut the guy some slack. Yes, the petition does deserve a reponse and yes Dr. Paul should be asked why he will not respond if he continues to ignore it for one reason or another. With all that said, this man was fighting for us when 99% of us had never even heard of him before. We all gave time and money and sweat and tears to his campaign and now we continue on for the campaign for liberty. We have placed our trust in him thus far and we have personally witnessed him telling the truth and blasting the liberals and the neo-cons on his television appearances and along the campaign trail. The official campaign is over. Ron Paul could have just said "I tried my best" but he is still here using his name and resources to change the course of our nation. While the petition is not a small matter, I urge all of you doubters to remember who we are talking about and to at least give the man the benefit of the doubt. I think after all he has done for us, he has at least earned our trust.

[The_Orlonater]

Ron Paul is a busy man, stop complaining. He doesn't have time to read what we have say all day.

[rancher89]

There are many gate keepers. Perhaps it got stopped before it ever got to Ron Paul. He may not even know about it. We can't get to these congresspeople. I heard his phone number is listed in the book in his town and he will answer the calls. Call him! LOL.. Tones

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=149113&page=7

He's been told in person, I was there, he said he'd look into it

[rancher89]

I think it would be worthwhile to ask RP about this. But I won't abandon him over something his receptionist told me.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=149113&page=7


He's been told in person, I was there.

[BagOfEyebrows]

These petitions were served in person to each congressperson

they can't be served as they were - they have to go up a chain of command, starting at the very, very local level (town/city) - Ron Paul, as someone stated in the start of this thread, can not be served at all on this.

Also cited: no instructions about what is to be the course of action for the infringements against the oath of office.

Also missing: exact state by state account of article(s) broken (and it varies state by state, via State Constitutions.) What has to be done is a state by state, constituent/citizen by constituent/citizen type action, town/city by town/city and it doesn't need thousands of signatures on a petition - it can be a 'party of one' when it comes to pointing out violations of the Constitution (state and federal, if need be) and instructions for exactly what the punishment is to be (re: immediate removal from office, and I'd toss in a choice between either 1 year of prison for each article broken OR no pension plan - instead of the old school hanging for crimes against ones own nation/treason.)

The thing that bothers me so much with this is it could have been done and been done right, but now Bob has gone on his hunger strike, even earlier than he stated he would, and now another patriot is going to needlessly die when his life and his capabilities will be so vital in the upcoming years.

I hope anyone on this forum that knows him will appeal to him to end his hunger strike and to use the Ron Paul supporters to get this great idea done RIGHT and to only have served those who broke oaths of office and to do it in the procedure outlined in each State Constitution by just ONE person (or more, if groups want to form) and to do it utilizing the chain of command it has to go through - starting locally.

[BagOfEyebrows]

I am not just drinking the kool-aid at the altar of Paul but maybe we should cut the guy some slack. Yes, the petition does deserve a reponse and yes Dr. Paul should be asked why he will not respond if he continues to ignore it for one reason or another. With all that said, this man was fighting for us when 99% of us had never even heard of him before. We all gave time and money and sweat and tears to his campaign and now we continue on for the campaign for liberty. We have placed our trust in him thus far and we have personally witnessed him telling the truth and blasting the liberals and the neo-cons on his television appearances and along the campaign trail. The official campaign is over. Ron Paul could have just said "I tried my best" but he is still here using his name and resources to change the course of our nation. While the petition is not a small matter, I urge all of you doubters to remember who we are talking about and to at least give the man the benefit of the doubt. I think after all he has done for us, he has at least earned our trust.

Nobody in Congress can answer it - an amendment was tossed into the federal constitution that made it impossible - which is why it has to start on a town/city level, up to state level, and then federal level - whacky thing is, Bob knows about the federal amendment that blocks citizens from doing it, he mentions it at his seminars -

If anyone knows Bob personally, please tell him to reconsider his hunger strike before he dies of complications - with so many great things coming up in September, it's important Bob stick around for a few more decades to help people navigate their state constitutions (something Bob was very successful with in New York.)

[Deborah K]

Nobody in Congress can answer it - an amendment was tossed into the federal constitution that made it impossible - which is why it has to start on a town/city level, up to state level, and then federal level - whacky thing is, Bob knows about the federal amendment that blocks citizens from doing it, he mentions it at his seminars -

If anyone knows Bob personally, please tell him to reconsider his hunger strike before he dies of complications - with so many great things coming up in September, it's important Bob stick around for a few more decades to help people navigate their state constitutions (something Bob was very successful with in New York.)


I know him. I'll call him.

[newbitech]

so many uninformed people. I am really becoming more shocked at the responses here than at the lack of response from the congressman.

Do all of you do research on issues before spouting off? Don't you think it is important to have all the facts before expressing your opinion?

No one wanted Dr. Paul to "sign off" on the petition. The petition is a First Amendment redress of grievances petition. Its not some half baked attempt to call our government into accountability.

It is the Law that specifically protects the natural right of people to hold their government to accountability.

Thomas Jefferson wrote,

"The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and establishment of rights, and how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator."
See Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.

Our Declaration of Independence provides additional clarification of the meaning and the importance of the capstone Right, stating,

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by with repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is thus unfit to be the ruler of a free people….”

The preamble to the Bill of Rights states:

"The Conventions of a Number of the States having at the Time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added: And as extending the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution….”

This is issue is too important for Ron Paul supporters to ignore. I am sick of lame excuses and just because Dr. Paul is the closest thing we have to a true representative of the people that the founders envisioned when our country was created, doesn't mean that he gets an automatic free pass when he acts like a scallywag.

I don't have an issue with Dr. Paul not responding as much as I have an issue with the blatant hero worship on full display in this thread. Get over it, he is a Congressman and he has bond himself to serve the people. We expect answers from all of our congress people, not just the ones we hate.

[BarryDonegan]

i still stand by my statement that you have not gotten ron pauls attention on this effectively.

meeting him somewhere, then having him say "i will look into it"

then having an aide say he is not taking part in it, does not in any way indicate that ron paul ever had the tought process you are accusing him of.

speak with him personally before you go drumming up controversy about him. If Ron Paul opposes this, he would gladly explain why, everyone knows that about him.

in reality, there is a great possibility that he just didn't get his full attention on your subject yet. seek an audience with dr paul himself, and be aggressive enough to get him to follow up with you and let you know personally one way or the other. until you can do that, keep the controversy down, its counterproductive.

its obvious that if a legitimate legal claim is being made and brought to his attention at a time when he has time to consider it, he would address it the correct way. but if you bring this up at a rally when he has a plane to catch in 15 minutes, then some new aide who doesn't know him that well gatekeeps you out because hes having a busy week, then you drum up controversy, what you have just done is completely backpeddling.

i dont mean this to diminish your project, its a cool project, but not every single legal framework available from every constitutional, statutorial can be enacted at the same time to create change.

some obscure ones are unknown to most people, thats how dense our legal history is.

such as "real estate" vs. "land deeds" in the U.S.... how many people know about the distinction there?

you know that ron paul would never argue that congress is above petition or dereliction of duty, he himself is the main proponent calling for return to the rule of law and oath of office, clearly you are in the middle of a misunderstanding.

[libertygrl]

I think it is very strange that Dr. Paul wouldn't respond to a petition for redress. Something is amiss here. And some of you people scare the hell out of me.....you sound like Ron Paul koolaide drinkers. He's just a man, not a God for Pete's sake, we're allowed to question his actions/inactions. He would be the first to expect that from us. :rolleyes:


THANK YOU! I've been reading these posts and I couldn't believe some of the responses. I love Ron Paul but I didn't think people were bashing him. Geeze get a clue. This is not some stupid little petition. This has been well thought out and to proceed with it is OUR RIGHT. They just want a response and deserve one.

I still think RP will respond one way or another, so just chill people. He always seems to have a good reason behind everything he does, so I have faith that we will eventually learn about it.

[pepperpete1]

i still stand by my statement that you have not gotten ron pauls attention on this effectively.

meeting him somewhere, then having him say "i will look into it"

then having an aide say he is not taking part in it, does not in any way indicate that ron paul ever had the tought process you are accusing him of.

speak with him personally before you go drumming up controversy about him. If Ron Paul opposes this, he would gladly explain why, everyone knows that about him.

in reality, there is a great possibility that he just didn't get his full attention on your subject yet. seek an audience with dr paul himself, and be aggressive enough to get him to follow up with you and let you know personally one way or the other. until you can do that, keep the controversy down, its counterproductive.

its obvious that if a legitimate legal claim is being made and brought to his attention at a time when he has time to consider it, he would address it the correct way. but if you bring this up at a rally when he has a plane to catch in 15 minutes, then some new aide who doesn't know him that well gatekeeps you out because hes having a busy week, then you drum up controversy, what you have just done is completely backpeddling.

i dont mean this to diminish your project, its a cool project, but not every single legal framework available from every constitutional, statutorial can be enacted at the same time to create change.

some obscure ones are unknown to most people, thats how dense our legal history is.

such as "real estate" vs. "land deeds" in the U.S.... how many people know about the distinction there?

you know that ron paul would never argue that congress is above petition or dereliction of duty, he himself is the main proponent calling for return to the rule of law and oath of office, clearly you are in the middle of a misunderstanding.

I am very happy to have my signature on those petitions, even though it is not my project.

I have held a real estate license for over 20 years and I do not know what you are referring to with "real estate" vs. "land deeds". This must be taken out of context.


so many uninformed people. I am really becoming more shocked at the responses here than at the lack of response from the congressman.

Do all of you do research on issues before spouting off? Don't you think it is important to have all the facts before expressing your opinion?

Part of the problem here is that I counted on the intelligent posters here to read the information in the link I included in my post. When I tried to inform in my own words it was misleading. The petitions were served by a constituent of each congressperson. (See the following from WTP site)

To begin with, we timely mailed 1219 sets of Petition packages to over 700 people who volunteered to serve 535 members of Congress in their district offices on June 30, 2008, and to return to us a notarized proof of service.

By July 3rd and again after the July 4th weekend we had received and were processing hundreds of returns from volunteers who had successfully completed service. However, by July 10th it was apparent that 129 of the 535 members of Congress had still not been served! We scrambled to close the “service gap,” contacting volunteers associated with the still un-served congressmen. Due to the urgency of the task and the work involved, Bob Schulz cancelled his scheduled appearance at the Revolution March in Washington, DC.

For whatever reason, many who had volunteered to serve their member(s) of Congress apparently received the Petition package(s) from us (at no cost) but decided not to serve it – i.e., they simply failed to do what they had committed to do as part of this historical project.

To be sure, we must be very careful about who we rely on for the successful execution of Phase 2 of the Plan to Restore Constitutional Order.

As is now generally known, Phase 2 is the filing of federal lawsuits for declaratory and injunctive relief in each of the eleven federal judicial circuits outside of the DC circuit.

Eleven federal district courts around the country will be asked to do something no court has ever done before -- declare the full contours of the meaning of the government accountability clause of the First Amendment, including the obligation of the Government to respond to proper Petitions for Redress of violations of the Constitution and the Right of the People to withdraw their allegiance and support from the Government if Government refuses to properly respond to the People’s Petitions.

Each of the eleven declaratory judgment actions requires that we carefully select the individuals who will initiate the actions as Plaintiffs against the congressmen who will be named as Defendants.

The Plaintiffs need to be people who have signed the Petitions for Redress, have served the Petitions for Redress on one or more of their members of Congress (preferably all three), who reside in the jurisdiction of the federal District Court where the action is to be filed, and who can be trusted to perform the task in good faith.

Why would Bob Schultz start a hunger strike when the congresspeople have until Friday before Phase 2 will start to begin?

[Peace&Freedom]

Paul doesn't have to respond, but it would be horribly inconsistent with his reputation as a constitutional champion. Paul has appeared at WTP events in recent years where the petition was specifically discussed, so this is not new to him. Paul or his office not only were repeatedly informed about the petition, but according to the article his office DIALOGUED with Schulz and asked for WTP to supply them with a definition of what was a proper petition for redress as per the Constitution---which WTP supplied. If Paul didn't show up at the July march that 5,000 or so attended, you know there would have been an uproar. But here he is not showing up to address a properly drafted petition that over 80,000, or SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE SIGNED. This is at least 16x bigger a mistake than not appearing at a movement march.

BTW, the DECLARATION is also a petition, that established (by the Crown's nonresponse and disregard of it) the basis for the colonists casting off the British state as having no authority over them. That is, after all, the legal basis for starting this country in the first place. The Declaration was a petition against King George’s abuses. By not acknowledging the abuses or correcting them at all, Britain gave no recourse for the colonies to preserve popular sovereignty EXCEPT to start a new goverment, where their common law rights would be preserved.

The answer to the current petition, by implication, is the same. Either this government (via its individual officials, or corporately) must AT LEAST formally acknowledge the 7 abuses and swiftly correct them, or else we need a revolution to install a new government to restore our sovereignty and rights as per the established 800 year old common law tradition. A new law, or a Supreme Court ruling or other token reform, WILL NOT SUFFICE as an answer. The protection of our rights depend on a state that WE are master over, and jumps whenever we ask her to. A state that does not has declared it is the master, and our rights and liberties are off the table. Paul should answer the petition, if he still wants to save this Constitution.

[pepperpete1]

Paul doesn't have to respond, but it would be horribly inconsistent with his reputation as a constitutional champion. Paul has appeared at WTP events in recent years where the petition was specifically discussed, so this is not new to him
+1

[tonesforjonesbones]

Lets try this again...maybe the information did not get past the gatekeepers. There are many. tones

[BagOfEyebrows]

The petitions were served by a constituent of each congressperson. (See the following from WTP site)


Why would Bob Schultz start a hunger strike when the congresspeople have until Friday before Phase 2 will start to begin?


That's the thing - they can't be served to any member of congress by a constiuent - it has to go up the chain of command, elected official to elected official, so all the constituent had to do was first bring it to their local elected official that begins that chain of command - and it can't be served to congress as a whole, it has to be done on an individual basis - and it has to outline the articles/amendments broken by state constitution and/or federal constitution, and then it has to give instructions as to what is to be the penalty (re: immediate removal from office.)

Bob Schultz was supposed to speak at the Washington DC March/Rally, but instead the crowd was told he was not there because he'd begun his hunger strike - I'm not sure exactly why he did that, but it breaks my heart - please, reach out to him, tell him to end the hunger strike and to guide us through our state constitutional procedures - it's going to vary state by state, so Bob will need a lot of supporters to do the work that has to be done. He has the right idea, it just needs to be done in the right steps is all. He's a brilliant, brilliant man - but he's been trying to save this Republic for decades and I think he's just so tired now, exhausted and frustrated - we need to somehow re-inspire him, to get him to want to live for this cause, not to die for it.

The word petition meant something much different back when the constitutions were written than it does today - all a petition was back then was a written (and possibly even just verbal) recognizing and set of instructions/penalties for infringements on the constitution - this process was supposed to be a lot more easier and simplistic than our federal government has made it. But until those amendments are taken out of the federal constitution, they remain the current procedure.

Something can be null and void, but there's still a process to go through in order to get it completely removed - same goes for our elected political officials - there's a procedure that must be followed in order to hold them accountable.

[BagOfEyebrows]

. Paul should answer the petition, if he still wants to save this Constitution.

He can't do that, simply because he abides by the Constitution and the procedures within it - he'd be breaking his oath of office, basically, if he even attempted to respond to it. It didn't follow procedure as it currently stands.

But if it followed Constitutional procedure.... Congressman Paul has probably been waiting, patiently, for the day it would come to him in a way he actually could address it.

After all - he is the champion of the Constitution.

[RickyJ]

...he'd be breaking his oath of office, basically, if he even attempted to respond to it.

In what way would he be breaking his oath of office to respond to the petition?

[GunnyFreedom]

He can't do that, simply because he abides by the Constitution and the procedures within it - he'd be breaking his oath of office, basically, if he even attempted to respond to it. It didn't follow procedure as it currently stands.

But if it followed Constitutional procedure.... Congressman Paul has probably been waiting, patiently, for the day it would come to him in a way he actually could address it.

After all - he is the champion of the Constitution.

Please describe the proper procedure

[LibertyInJeopardy]

Did congress make a law infringing upon the right to petition for redress of grievances?

I don't get it. What makes you think just because there is a petition that there must be a response, rather than that you should just not have your right to petition infringed upon by a law?

[BagOfEyebrows]

Please describe the proper procedure

it varies state by state - State Constitutions must be read to find out exacly how to do it for each state, and I've only personally read 4 state constitutions so far and don't know the exact procedure for each state, but one thing is for sure, there's a LOT of work to do, state constitutions are mangled but until we all learn the principles, and the procedures, the fixing can't even begin -

Also, the petitions can't be done to a body politic as a whole - it has to be done on an individual basis.

[BagOfEyebrows]

Did congress make a law infringing upon the right to petition for redress of grievances?

?

YES! And Bob even talked about it at his seminar he did in Massachusetts earlier this year!

It is a federal block that has to be navigated STATE by STATE, town by town, city by city! I've talked with him about this in person, via email, on the phone - he tried to make some of the changes, but I think he's just tired of the rollercoaster ride that politics have become - it isn't supposed to be this complicated. Bob's frustrated - how can we help him to let us help him? We easily would have a few people in each state willing to do the head work needed to get his idea accomplished -

The principles are so easy to understand - our founding fathers never would have made it 'hard' and 'confusing' for us to hold elected officials accountable. But federal government HAD TO as it became an entity out to protect itself and not you - not we, the people.

I'm working on a diagram that my mentor taught me about all of this - once we all grasp the concepts of the principles, it gets much easier to navigate, nutty as that sounds - the principles of liberty and freedom are what unite us, and they are vital in every single aspect of what we set out to do via action.

We've got to abide by the principles in order to achieve this - and, oddly enough, in order to even understand what it is we're to do.

State Constitutions have a set procedure, but the article it is in is different for each state - but it's very concise, as long as you know the definition for each word in the article as it was written in the time it was written ( definitions of words today had different meanings back then - )


As our elected officials are somewhat clueless on constitutions and constitutional procedure, it's important to give instruction to them, as most in office will have no idea what they are supposed to do -

know how we've been talking about education being key? Our elected officials are the ones who need to be educated most on the state constitution they swore an oath to uphold - if they refuse to learn and abide by the rule of law, the law of the land, the principles that make liberty and freedom 'live', we have no choice but to remove them from office (peacefully, through constitutional procedure.)

[BagOfEyebrows]

as I have inlaws up this week, instead of waiting to get the diagram done in a very concise manner, I'll try to do it up in text here - but this is the most important part of things, because once you understand what it means, you'll be more than half way there to getting to the work that needs to be done. This is the the level of power, with the supreme law at the top.

YOUR CREATOR/GOD AND/OR THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY/FREEDOM AND YOUR RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY AND THE SEEKING AND OBTAINING OF HAPPINESS <--- hold up all to this


YOU, THE INVIDUAL, THE CITIZEN BORN/CREATED WITH THOSE RIGHTS/PRINCIPLES

TOWN/CITY GOVERNMENT and/or CHARTERS (semi mini constitutions for each town city, not all towns/cities have one)

STATE GOVERNMENT (state constitution)

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (federal constitution, very limited in power/role.)



See... we've been led to believe the most powerful is federal government... it isn't. It is the least powerful of all - your creator/God and/or the principles of freedom and liberty are FAR MORE powerful, as they are the law of the land, logical and compassionate, and all the responsibilities to uphold them and protect them are on YOU, the individual, as you are next in line to your creator and/or the principles themselves - which is why I've been saying that atheists are actually the creator's greatest defenders, they just don't know it, because what they seek to protect are the principles themselves, and that is the core of what makes life/happiness possible and sustainable -

State Constitutions outline the procedure(s) - each state constitution is online, but it's even better to get a copy from your state book store or state house via the secretary of state - and become the statesmen and stateswomen we all need to become - read it, highlight it, study it, investigate it - hold everything up to the principles and what the role of government is and isn't to be, and what parts of society belong to us and can't be transfered to government at all or it will become unsustainable as government will only grow and eventually seek to only sustain its size and scope and control (re: charity, tourism, environment, health, etc.)

The role of government, state and federal, is meant to be very small - a lot of responsibility falls upon us, as citizens, but that is for a reason - we are very capable of the work and logic and compassion needed to achieve it - government isn't and never could be, as it's not close enough to the principles and/or the creator. We've got to demand back our charity most of all, it's a very important connection that government has turned into a massive inhumane entity - I feel like somebody farted in my mouth just thinking about it. (sorry, I can't stay serious for too long before some weird little comment slips from my skull.)

[LibertyInJeopardy]

Did congress make a law infringing upon the right to petition for redress of grievances?

I don't get it. What makes you think just because there is a petition that there must be a response, rather than that you should just not have your right to petition infringed upon by a law?

I just read through some of the lit. and watched the videos on the site.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This text clearly does not specify that the government must respond to any petition.

If there was procedure in the past that made responses the norm, was a law passed that ended that procedure? Was it a formal procedure or rule...or was it simply an informal procedure? In order for the government to cease that procedure would it have taken a law?

I'd love to see a response to the items listed on the site. But what about other issues? Even frivolous issues? Who decides what's frivolous? Do our congressmen and senators have to hear every single issue and respond to it? What qualifies as a legitimate response?

Are we permitted to withhold payment of taxes until the grievance is redressed or is it until the petition is responded to (even if we don't like the response)?

Has anyone tried the idea that we may withhold payment of taxes until a petition is responded to? Was a letter sent to the IRS informing them that payment of taxes is withheld until a response to the petition of redress of grievances is received thereby inviting the IRS to begin prosecution proceedings?

If the matter were taken to criminal court it would ensure a government response and a decision on the matter of this assertion, if the 1st amendment was used as the basis of the defendant's defense it may provide a path to higher courts through appeal. The defendant may lose the initial case, of course, but it would certainly garner some attention - and provide a course higher through appeal. Or it may cause the petition to be responded to. Or the defendant might win the case in a trial by jury, which should definitely earn publicity.

[BagOfEyebrows]

also, before I leave, for a fun little adventure, go to your town hall and ask the town clerk for a state constitution and see what transpires... experience varies town by town/city by city. My favorite was a town hall in Massachusetts where the town clerk told me to try Border Books (hahaha! State Constitutions can't be sold...)

or... visit your local library and check to see if your reference section has a STAND ALONE copy of your state constitution. If they don't, get one in there via donation.

Also - if anyone would want to help me obtain a book copy of each state constitution, email me at BagOfEyebrows@gmail.com and I will send you a SASE to snail mail me one- I'd like to start a collection of official copies of each state's constitution, because I one day want to teach a class on state constitutions, but have a lot of learning to do and figured a collection would make a nice visual prop for a classroom. I already have Massachusetts and New Hampshire - just need the rest.

[BagOfEyebrows]

I just read through some of the lit. and watched the videos on the site.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This text clearly does not specify that the government must respond to any petition.

If there was procedure in the past that made responses the norm, was a law passed that ended that procedure? Was it a formal procedure or rule...or was it simply an informal procedure? In order for the government to cease that procedure would it have taken a law?

I'd love to see a response to the items listed on the site. But what about other issues? Even frivolous issues? Who decides what's frivolous? Do our congressmen and senators have to hear every single issue and respond to it? What qualifies as a legitimate response?

Are we permitted to withhold payment of taxes until the grievance is redressed or is it until the petition is responded to (even if we don't like the response)?

Has anyone tried the idea that we may withhold payment of taxes until a petition is responded to? Was a letter sent to the IRS informing them that payment of taxes is withheld until a response to the petition of redress of grievances is received thereby inviting the IRS to begin prosecution proceedings?

If the matter were taken to criminal court it would ensure a government response and a decision on the matter of this assertion, if the 1st amendment was used as the basis of the defendant's defense it may provide a path to higher courts through appeal. The defendant may lose the initial case, of course, but it would certainly garner some attention - and provide a course higher through appeal. Or it may cause the petition to be responded to. Or the defendant might win the case in a trial by jury, which should definitely earn publicity.

whatever is in the constitution is law until procedure is followed to eradicate it - however, the only way to eradicate it comes back to knowing you can't break the supreme law of the land/the principles, and that is where almost every tax case fails - because they think seperation of church/state is about religion, and it isn't.

The principles in the Constitution are spiritual, but are also logical and vital to our existing at all - all somebody would need to do is go to court expressing this and meaning it - not based on 'constitutional law' but THE LAW the constitutions were written from and the principles of LIFE - you can not break the law, and the government can't force you to break the law, you've got to be willing to go to prison for it - the supreme being and/or the principles of liberty and freedom have to be abided by or one is basically submitting to self destruction - of themselves as well as their government, ironically enough.

What we need is a bunch of atheists to fully understand this - and to take it to court, town hall and the state house - to demand they can not break the creator's supreme law and can not allow the government to allow these infringements in an official document on federal or state levels. Get the law and principle breaking crap removed from documents. But try getting a bunch of atheists to acknowledge a creator... it's a tough challenge. But - what if the creator is simply the principles themselves?

That's what I've been thinking, anyways. I know it sounds kinda crazy, and maybe it is just crazy and I'm wrong - I just don't know yet.

But one thing I do know for sure: Bob is not supposed to die as he will be a great help in the upcoming years for the restoring of this Constitutional Republic.

All my favorite speakers... Paul, Badnarik, Griffin... they all also cite federal constitution as being most powerful, when it isn't - that is not the most powerful document given to us - the rights our creator bestowed upon us are the most powerful, which means our state constitutions are next in line - federal could easily be brought back down to size once we get the state constitutions working as they are supposed to be.

Apologies in advance for my rambly scattered brain ways - have a good Wednesday and I'll check back as time allows.

[Deborah K]

Bob Schultz was supposed to speak at the Washington DC March/Rally, but instead the crowd was told he was not there because he'd begun his hunger strike - I'm not sure exactly why he did that, but it breaks my heart - please, reach out to him, tell him to end the hunger strike and to guide us through our state constitutional procedures - it's going to vary state by state, so Bob will need a lot of supporters to do the work that has to be done. He has the right idea, it just needs to be done in the right steps is all. He's a brilliant, brilliant man - but he's been trying to save this Republic for decades and I think he's just so tired now, exhausted and frustrated - we need to somehow re-inspire him, to get him to want to live for this cause, not to die for it.

Actually, that isn't accurate. He was invited to speak and initially agreed to but backed out for the following reason, and I quote: "Given the present demands on my time by WTP’s unfolding Plan to restore the Republic by holding our elected officials accountable to the Constitution under the First Amendment’s accountability clause, and the nature, facts and circumstances of the March, I find I cannot justify the expenditure of the time and energy required to participate in the March."

If the crowd was told otherwise, I was not aware of it. I was running around all day and didn't get to hear everything that was said on stage.

Also, his hunger strike does not officially start until August 11th, so there is time to try and talk him out of it. I agree with you that we need to re-inspire him.

Here is more from the email I got from him informing me of his withdrawl:

"The first step of the Plan, may be remembered in history as the day Americans began, in earnest, the moral and solemn process of holding their (servant) Government accountable to the Constitution -- under threat of withdrawal of allegiance, support and tax money.

On June 30, 2008, approximately 1200 WTP volunteers began the process of claiming and exercising their First Amendment Right of Redress for constitutional violations by formally serving a Legal Notice and Demand for Redress upon the President, the Attorney General and every member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate at their local, district offices.

Demanding an official response within forty (40) days, the Notice included seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations of the Constitution:
1. The Iraq invasion in violation of the war powers clauses.
2. The Federal Reserve System’s violation of the money clauses.
3. The USA Patriot Act’s violation of the privacy clauses.
4. The direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor in violation of the tax clauses.
5. The federal gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment.
6. The failure to enforce immigration laws in violation of the “faithfully execute clause.”
7. The construction, by stealth, of a "North American Union" without constitutional authority.

Step two of the plan is about to get underway. It involves a formal request of the eleven federal judicial circuits outside the DC circuit to declare the obligation of the Government officials to respond to the Petitions and, the inherent Right of the people to withdraw their allegiance and support from the Government if their elected representatives fail to respond.

Preparations are underway for step three of the Plan. To draw attention to the fact that our government officials are violating the Constitution and refuse to be held accountable I will begin a hunger fast on August 11."

I didn't ask permission to publish excerpts from this email, however I think Bob would be fine with it.

[Deborah K]

Did congress make a law infringing upon the right to petition for redress of grievances?

I don't get it. What makes you think just because there is a petition that there must be a response, rather than that you should just not have your right to petition infringed upon by a law?


If they don't respond one way or another, they are essentially disregarding the will of the people. To ignore our redress of grievance is to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Matt Davidson]

We must understand that these petitions were served NOT to get a response BUT to justify future actions as we redress these grievances ourselves. This was done by the founders just the same way. Did Sam Adams expect to get a response from the king? NO! He was just filing these to have an excuse to overthrow tyranny. Understand that for RP to respond to these would be both POINTLESS and COUNTER to the true purpose of filing these.

Remember the Declaration of Independence...

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."

[Deborah K]

We must understand that these petitions were served NOT to get a response BUT to justify future actions as we redress these grievances ourselves. This was done by the founders just the same way. Did Sam Adams expect to get a response from the king? NO! He was just filing these to have an excuse to overthrow tyranny. Understand that for RP to respond to these would be both POINTLESS and COUNTER to the true purpose of filing these.

Remember the Declaration of Independence...

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."


An expected response is more than appropriate. I'm sure even our founders expected a response however, as you state, a lack of response gives us more than enough reason to organize an overthrow.

[flower]

Can the GOP delegates nominate a Presidential candidate who openly defies the Constitution?

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.

Normally, convention delegates would be expected to cast their vote for McCain because he received more votes than Ron Paul or Mitt Romney during the primaries and caucuses. Beyond this, Party rules require the votes be cast for McCain.

However, the delegates are soon to face a new — and very troubling and very public conundrum:

What if there were a set of new, irrefutable facts regarding Senator McCain and Rep. Paul that would “stop the show” and bring forth the possibility of a convention upset?

These startling facts would force the delegates to question their consciences, and put each of them on the horns of a practical and deep moral dilemma that will require them to search their souls for an answer to a VERY important question, “Can I cast my vote for a man who openly defies the Constitution?”

Between now and the end of August, the delegates will learn that the voting record of John McCain puts him in the company of Alan Dershowitz, who has publicly stated that “The People have no unalienable Rights, the Constitution is merely a piece of paper and the Government should not be held accountable to the Constitution by the People.” The delegates will learn that that candidate’s voting record also puts him in the company of President Bush who was recently quoted saying, “The Constitution is just a God d***** piece of paper.

The delegates will also learn that Senator McCain has cast his Senate votes squarely in cooperation with Rep. Henry Hyde who, as Chairman of the House Committee was responsible for the passage of the Iraq Resolution on October 2-3 of 2002 (five months before the invasion).

During the Hearing, Hyde responded to committee member Ron Paul’s stirring defense of the war powers clauses of the Constitution and Paul’s opposition to the Resolution by slamming Paul and the Constitution, saying (quoting from the Hearing transcript), “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. There are things that are no longer relevant to a modern society- things that are inappropriate, anachronistic.”

On the other hand, the delegates will learn between now and August that the other candidate - Ron Paul, as a member of Congress has never cast a vote for legislation that was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America, and that he believes the last ten words of the First Amendment guarantee the Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution.

In fact, the delegates will learn, that candidate Paul publicly declared in 2001, “[T]he right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.”

The delegates will learn that McCain: 1) violated the war powers clause of the Constitution by voting for the Iraq Resolution; 2) violated the money clauses of the Constitution by voting in favor of Fiat money and the Federal Reserve System; 3) violated the privacy clauses of the Constitution by voting in favor of the USA Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping and surveillance; 4) violated the tax clauses of the Constitution by voting in favor of the enhancing the federal income tax system; 5) violated the Second Amendment by voting in favor of gun controls; and 6) violated the general welfare clause of the Constitution by voting in favor of foreign aid and intervention in the internal affairs of foreign countries.

Very importantly, before the start of the convention in September, these two GOP candidates, as sitting members of the Congress of the United States, will be given a most public opportunity to declare their intentions as to their personal commitment to the Constitution.

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.

We know what the delegates ought to do. As Americans, they should place the Constitution and its essential principles above the Party and its rules. As Americans first, their loyalties should flow to their Constitution before Party.

Prayerfully, the delegates will be forced by conscience to cast their votes for the candidate who has earned the trust of the American People by living his oath to honor and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

The time is at hand when those who support the vision of the Republic and Freedom espoused by Ron Paul will be able to move that vision forward by “bootstrapping” the exercise of Petitioning for Redress into a potent campaign issue, with the potential of altering the outcome of the convention by exposing those candidates who — by their own record — are incapable of honestly swearing the Presidential Oath of Office.


http://captkarl.blogivists.com/2008/06/12/convention-show-stopper/

~~~~~~~~~



this person obviously expected Ron Paul to respond.....

[mlmvh]

Here's a different story about why Bob Schultz didn't speak at the Revolution March:

Fred Smart on Why No Bob Schulz at Revolution March

http://freedomshenanigans.blogspot.com/

[Deborah K]

Here's a different story about why Bob Schultz didn't speak at the Revolution March:

Fred Smart on Why No Bob Schulz at Revolution March

http://freedomshenanigans.blogspot.com/

Fred Smart and Rose L. have since invited me on their national conference call and admitted it was a huge misunderstanding. Fred Smart was not privy to my agreement with Bob Schulz and does not speak for Bob.

[mlmvh]

Yay! I'm so glad there's a happy ending! Someone emailed me that podcast yesterday; the podcast was recorded back on 7/22.

[Deborah K]

Yay! I'm so glad there's a happy ending! Someone emailed me that podcast yesterday; the podcast was recorded back on 7/22.

Yep, lots of inaccuracies in his 'testimony'. :rolleyes:

[pepperpete1]

Could you please tell me, What is the happy ending?

[Deborah K]

Could you please tell me, What is the happy ending?


It has to do with the Bob Schulz-speaking-at-the-march debacle.

[Thomas_Paine]

Oh lawdy lawdy, Ron Paul hasn't prioritized responding to an internet petition. *sigh* His lackadaisical approach to an invisible petition really makes me question his credibility as a champion of the Constitution. I mean, yeah he ran for President against all odds and inspired our movement, but what has he done for me lately?

+1

[BagOfEyebrows]

Actually, that isn't accurate. He was invited to speak and initially agreed to but backed out for the following reason, and I quote: "Given the present demands on my time by WTP’s unfolding Plan to restore the Republic by holding our elected officials accountable to the Constitution under the First Amendment’s accountability clause, and the nature, facts and circumstances of the March, I find I cannot justify the expenditure of the time and energy required to participate in the March."

If the crowd was told otherwise, I was not aware of it. I was running around all day and didn't get to hear everything that was said on stage.

Also, his hunger strike does not officially start until August 11th, so there is time to try and talk him out of it. I agree with you that we need to re-inspire him.

Here is more from the email I got from him informing me of his withdrawl:

"The first step of the Plan, may be remembered in history as the day Americans began, in earnest, the moral and solemn process of holding their (servant) Government accountable to the Constitution -- under threat of withdrawal of allegiance, support and tax money.

On June 30, 2008, approximately 1200 WTP volunteers began the process of claiming and exercising their First Amendment Right of Redress for constitutional violations by formally serving a Legal Notice and Demand for Redress upon the President, the Attorney General and every member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate at their local, district offices.

Demanding an official response within forty (40) days, the Notice included seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations of the Constitution:
1. The Iraq invasion in violation of the war powers clauses.
2. The Federal Reserve System’s violation of the money clauses.
3. The USA Patriot Act’s violation of the privacy clauses.
4. The direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor in violation of the tax clauses.
5. The federal gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment.
6. The failure to enforce immigration laws in violation of the “faithfully execute clause.”
7. The construction, by stealth, of a "North American Union" without constitutional authority.

Step two of the plan is about to get underway. It involves a formal request of the eleven federal judicial circuits outside the DC circuit to declare the obligation of the Government officials to respond to the Petitions and, the inherent Right of the people to withdraw their allegiance and support from the Government if their elected representatives fail to respond.

Preparations are underway for step three of the Plan. To draw attention to the fact that our government officials are violating the Constitution and refuse to be held accountable I will begin a hunger fast on August 11."

I didn't ask permission to publish excerpts from this email, however I think Bob would be fine with it.

awesome news, thanks for that info, DeborahK - someone who was at the march/rally told me that it was announced that Bob had started his hunger strike and that is why he wasn't there - then I saw some folks talking about it in a chat, and got very concerned that the info was legit - that email doesn't mention Bob starting his hunger strike, so maybe it was just a misunderstanding by some who was there - that is very good news to read, and as it's from the source itself, it definitely eases my immediate concerns. That means there is still time to talk him out of putting his life in jeapordy - there's much better ways to draw attention to this plan of his, and much better, positive ways to get it achieved.

Thanks for the accurate info - you made my day over here. I apologize for the confusion about Bob starting his hunger strike - hopefully he can be pleaded with to stick around in good health to assist with all the work that we've got to do on state, town and city levels.

[pepperpete1]

Latest updates on communication between Tom Lizardo and Bob Schulz:

Dear Tom:
Thank you for your email dated July 31, 2008 (copy below). My comments in response to what you wrote are colored red.
Sincerely,
Bob Schulz
P.S. Please disregard my prior email, which was incomplete. I hit “Send” when I meant to hit “Paste.”
From: Lizardo, Tom [mailto:Tom.Lizardo@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:34 PM
To: Bob Schulz
Cc: Mfbodine@cs.com; mike@givemeliberty.org; MWilbourn@wi.rr.com; bette123@nc.rr.com
Subject: RE: Proper Petition for Redress
Mr Schultz:
No “t” in Schulz. It’s a common mistake.
I have reviewed your website and what is, ostensibly, the same “petitions” to which you have asked Congressman Paul to respond.
Yes, the Petitions for Redress found at www.givemeliberty.org/revolution are the same as those on the CD that I handed to Norman Singleton at Rep. Paul’s DC office on June 26, 2008, and the same as those on the CD that was served on Rep. Paul at his district office on June 30, 2008 by his constituent Mark Atkins. You said the letter from Mark Atkins to Rep. Paul and the accompanying CD would not reach the DC office because they were confiscated by the Capitol Police and “Security.” It is my understanding another constituent will be serving the Petitions for Redress on Rep. Paul at one of his District offices this week. One of your questions is to “admit or deny that Mexico is the 4th richest oil nation in the world.”
This is a great example of the problem with your “petition.” What does that phrase even mean? Do you mean something like “4th largest oil producing nation in the world.” If so, the information I just reviewed shows Mexico to in fact be the FIFTH largest oil producing nation in the world for the last year that I could find complete records for (2006).
There are seven Petitions for Redress, each addressing a separate violation of the Constitution. The question you repeat if from the Petition for Redress that relates to the illegal immigration grievance.
There are 89 questions embedded in the immigration Petition for Redress.
You raise question number 81, which in its entirety reads, “Admit or deny that Mexico is the 4th Richest Oil Nation in the World. See http://tinyurl.com/35qbap .”
Had you clicked on the link we provided you as our source for the information (http://tinyurl.com/35qbap), you would have come to the article published on CNN.com titled, “ Mexico's ex-president Lopez Portillo dies.”
The CNN article clearly answers your question, “What does the phrase mean?” The article states in relevant part, “The state petroleum monopoly Pemex had discovered big oil deposits offshore in the Gulf of Mexico that were twice Alaska's North Slope -- doubling the nation's reserves -- just before Lopez Portillo was elected.
He concentrated on developing petroleum production, quickly turning Mexico into the world's fourth-richest oil nation at a time when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel was squeezing top dollar out of the United States and other big industrialized countries, creating a huge shortage.”
Tom, with respect, question 81 presents just one of the relevant facts related to the constitutional tort -- the President’s failure to “faithfully execute the laws” (as Article II of the Constitution mandates), and Congressional acquiescence, all presumably due to the desire of both political parties in the US not to alienate the Latino vote.
Question 81 is designed to add to the Petition for Redress the fact that Mexico, the source of most of the immigrants entering our country illegally every year, is rich in natural resources, and if it were not for some other factor such as graft and corruption and/or the lack of individual Rights, Freedoms and Liberty in Mexico, the citizens of Mexico might be more inclined to remain in Mexico.
Rep. Paul is certainly free to deny that Mexico is the fourth richest oil [producing] nation in the world on the ground that Mexico is the fifth richest oil producing nation in the world. In courts of law, a team of lawyers are employed to “go back and forth” and clarify questions such as this. No such team of lawyers is employed in a Congressional office.
Tom, with respect, Rep. Paul should just answer each question based on the plain language approach to the interpretation of each question, as opposed to the intent of the question’s framers. Let’s not engage in the games lawyers or bureaucrats play. Much care and thought has gone into the preparation of each question in each Petition for Redress. Let’s not waste time over what the definition of the word “is” is.
The greater point though, I think, is that your argument is something like “every time a person writes to Ron Paul in a format similar to mine and asks this question” (which, again, I honestly have no clear idea even what it means) there is some constitutional right the author holds that the Congressman (apparently “personally”) must reply to said question. This, of course, runs contrary to your own claim (on your website) that no court has defined even what the words in the constitution mean. By the way, I’m not sure you are aware that courts have ruled on the issue, even if not presenting a “definition.”
Tom, with respect, I have already told you I do not believe every communication between a constituent and a member of congress qualifies as a Petition for Redress, requiring a response and protected by the First Amendment. I have provided you with a comprehensive definition of a proper Petition for Redress that would require a response
The statement on our website that I believe you are referring to reads, “In January 2008, after almost 5 years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the landmark WTP lawsuit seeking a Judicial declaration - for the first time in history - of the Constitutional meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment.” (emphasis in the original).
You say we have contradicted ourselves because we say Rep. Paul is obligated to respond to the First Amendment Petitions for Redress and we also say no court has ever declared the rights of the people and the obligations of the government under the last ten words of the First Amendment.
Tom, with respect, this is not a contradiction in terms. Both statements are true.
You know our Rights don’t come from the Judicial branch. You know we don’t need to wait for SCOTUS to tell us what the intent of the Framers was behind the First Amendment’s accountability clause, that is, whether Rep. Paul is obligated to listen and respond to proper Petitions for Redress of constitutional violations.
You know that for the meaning of the accountability clause we can look to the historical context and purpose – the original intent of the Framers .
You know what the Framers said as they debated the pros and cons of the clause. You know that the Framers meant to imply a corresponding governmental duty of a fair hearing seems clear given the history of petitioning in the colonies and the colonists' outrage at England's refusal to listen to their grievances. You know the Framers of the Bill of Rights maintained that citizens' petitions, would be heard and considered. You know that in Congress' first decades petitions were received and considered, typically by referral to committees.
You know all this because we have provided you (through Jennifer Bailey in your office) with a detailed HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. As I mentioned when speaking with you, as you think the right exists, it would require a staff of thousands and a Congressman who never did anything other than reply to questions. Moreover, your own “rules” of the petition you sent to me (specifically, that it be “new information”) are violated by several of the ”questions” in your petitions. As you said to me, “many answer themselves” (meaning that they are not, in fact, even questions in earnest). There is no constitutional right to make a Member of Congress answer a question such as: “admit or deny that Mexico is the 4th richest oil nation in the world.”
As I mentioned, not every communication is a protected Petition for Redress. Granted, however, every Congressman’s staff would be busy during the immediate future responding to Petitions for Redress regarding violations of the Constitution, simply because the sheer number of current violations.. However, once the Petition for Redress process was fully revived in America, it shouldn’t take too long to restore the nation to constitutional governance carried out in decency and good order, thereby lessening the demands on the time of the Members and their staffs to respond to such Petitions for Redress.
With respect, you labor under a misapprehension. The questions are in earnest and submitted in good faith.
Rep. Paul has not been asked for “new information.” He has merely been requested to admit or deny specific, single sentence statements of fact. We realize we are not entitled to our version of the facts. We also realize some amount of time is required to respond to each question. Therefore, as was the case with Question 81 in the Immigration Petition for Redress, following many of the questions we provide a link or citation to our source of our statement of fact. Rep. Paul is, of course, free to make use of the citation or not. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with House Rule 22 (101st Congress, 2nd session, 1991) which, according to “The Constitution of The United States: Interpretation and Analysis” (published by the Library of Congress) states that Members may forward such petitions to the Clerk. You see, the right to petition for redress states that the right is “to petition THE GOVERNMENT” (as an entity) and NOT each individual agent thereof. For petitions directed to Congress, the Rules of the House direct these to the hands of the Clerk and Speaker (contrary to the claims and implications on your website).
Tom, with respect, I’m sure you realize no House Rule can trump the Constitution.
In reviewing the current House Rules I do not see any Rule similar to Rule 22 of the 101 Congress.
That said, House Rule 22, 101st Congress, 2nd session, 1991 (assuming it says what you say – I have not checked it), merely states that Members “may” forward “such” petitions to the Clerk. You do not say the Rule said “shall” forward such petitions to the Clerk. Nor do you say a Member was constitutionally relieved of any obligation to respond by forwarding such a petition to the Clerk. By “such petitions” the 1991 Rule might not have been referring to Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts.
Speaking of House Rules, I am reminded of another House Rule, the one adopted in 1830 which declared that any Petition for Redress from an abolitionist would be “permanently tabled.” That was the first time the Government went on record in America saying it did not have to listen or respond to Petitions for Redress. The slavery question could have been settled peacefully, as was the case in all other countries, and the civil war avoided, if the Members of the House had honored their oaths by properly responding to those Petitions for Redress regarding the constitutionality of slavery and peonage.
Finally, with respect, your suggestion that the Right is a Right to petition THE GOVERNMENT as an entity, not individual agents of the Government, is unsupported, ill-advised and dangerous. Besides, you contradict yourself. If, as you say, Petitions for Redress must be submitted to THE GOVERNMENT as an entity, and THE GOVERNMENT has three branches – Executive, Congress and Judiciary, then you are arguing that the People’s Petitions for Redress must be submitted to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, and the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, in addition to the Speaker of the House.
Such an argument is limp and unavailing and runs counter to practice followed from 1791 to 1830 when, according to the Historical Record, when a citizen submitted a Petition for Redress to his Representative in the House, the Petition was usually submitted to a Committee of the House and the Petitioner always received a response, unless the Petition was totally libelous or frivolous. Every Wednesday the Members dealt with Petitions for Redress. To wit, I have asked our staff here to prepare the instruments listed as “petitions” on your website in a manner consistent with the Rules of the House for submission to the Clerk so that the Speaker may discharge of them in accord with the wishes of the House. This is, according to the US Constitution and Rules of the House, the proper means for handling a petition for redress of grievances. From what I can tell, Congressman Paul’s office ALONE plans to act in accord with those dictates.
Interesting, but troubling for, as you know, it represents the certain demise of the Petitions for Redress and a call for the continuation of unconstitutional and unaccountable government in America (and the upheaval that such behavior is sure to eventually produce). Approximately 500,000 people live in Rep. Paul’s district. Their ONLY political links to the federal Government are Rep. Paul, Senators Hutchison and Cornyn and President Bush. The seven Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts were served on all four of these federal representatives. Neither Rep. Paul nor any of the other federal representatives have responded to the Petitions for Redress. You suggest Rep. Paul does not intend to answer any of the questions but, instead, his intentions are to merely send the Petitions to the Clerk and Speaker of the House, there to be discharged in accordance with the wishes of the House. This, in spite of the fact that all history hath shown that those in Government do not like opposition from any quarter, and will do most anything to keep from being held accountable except by the majority – the electorate as a whole.
However, ours is not a Democracy and our Rights do not depend on the majority. Our Right to constitutional governance carried out in decency and good order, and our First and Ninth Amendment Right to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution are INDIVIDUAL Rights. They are unalienable. The full force and effect of the Right to Redress are not dependant on one more than half the number of people voting in our precincts or in the halls of Congress. As to your other claims, I think it would be best to respond to those in a less formal fashion at some point.
I do not know what the other claims are that you refer to. Please explain. Sincerely,
Tom Lizardo
Chief of Staff
Rep. Ron Paul

[newbitech]

Latest updates on communication between Tom Lizardo and Bob Schulz:
the email correspondence

very interesting. please keep us up to date as much as possible. maybe start a new thread in a sub forum?