Posted on 08/08/2003 3:08:47 PM PDT by Nephi
We The People say “YES” to both questions.
The Founders said “YES” to both questions.
Now we will ask the United States Supreme Court to say “YES” to both questions.
Whether the Supreme Court confirms this self-evident truth, depends on you -- your passion for liberty, truth and justice, and your active participation and financial support.
At this serious moment in the life of our Country, we ask each of you to consider making the eternal cause of freedom a real and permanent part of your life.
Last week we announced the soon-to-be filed class action lawsuit, “We The People v. The United States Government.”
Unlike every other legal argument and court action that has been advanced by the “Freedom Movement” to date, this lawsuit does not question any specific statute, regulation, procedural protocol, legal doctrine or judicial interpretation.
It does not require, nor rest upon, any analysis of administrative procedure, delegation of authority or statutory construction. It does not require a judgment regarding proper jurisdiction or the definition of words. It does not require the courts to directly reverse or explain the legal labyrinth of prior judicial decisions that has evolved into the web of tyrannical judicial activism that presently exists in America.
This historic lawsuit places one core issue on the table:
Do We The American People enjoy popular sovereignty over our government, or not? Is the United States Federal Government accountable to We The People, and subject to our Petitions, or not?
This lawsuit will challenge the entire paradigm of legal thought that has defined the course of America for the past 50-75 years. This historic lawsuit will not rest on the definition of certain legal words of art, the interpretation or application of specific Titles and Sections of the U.S. Code, or the effect of previous court decisions.
From the inception of our nation the Right to Petition was virtually unquestioned as a means for individuals to be heard by Congress. As required, Congress directly answered these Petitions and even crafted significant volumes of legislation upon their content. In the early 1830’s Congress began to receive an abundance of Petitions from abolitionists against slavery. In 1840, southern Congressmen succeeded in getting the House to pass a “gag rule,” requiring the permanent tabling of all such Petitions. The Rule was not challenged in court and became procedural precedent until the Right to Petition effectively became the “forgotten Right”. In 1845, under John Quincy Adams’ leadership, the unconstitutional gag rule was repealed, but, by then it was too late, the precedent was established.
People have fought to protect, preserve and defend this ancient Right for hundreds of years, ever since the Middle Ages. It is the sole instrument by which the People, either as individuals, or as minority groups, can peacefully secure and exercise the unalienable Right to individual freedom that is God’s blessing to every human being.
Once the court, as we believe it must, recognizes this forgotten Right, elected officials at every level of government will once again be forced to listen and respond to the concerns of their constituents, rather than lobbyists alone. Individuals and small groups of Americans will once again be able to hold their elected officials directly accountable to the spirit and intent of the Constitution. And, where government persists in unconstitutional acts, the People will be able to lawfully withhold their taxes until their questions are honestly answered and their grievances are remedied. Click here for a sample of the arguments we will present to the court.
If the People of this nation can quickly assemble and publicly demand this declaration of our Rights by the courts, the days of despotism are most assuredly numbered.
We must convince the Court that the American People, in large numbers, are keenly interested in this defining legal issue. The Court must feel the searing white-hot light of public scrutiny being focused on this issue. Otherwise, the court may politicize the issue, choosing the status-quo over the spirit and intent of the Constitution: choosing political expediency over truth, liberty and justice. Judges are not omniscient. They are not gods or god-like. They are political beings. They suffer from the same human imperfections, flaws and lapses in judgment that effect us all.
Let's see who can keep the discussion relevent to the premise of the article.
givemeliberty.org has scheduled a full page ad in USA Today that will ask Americans a few questions. You can help if you would like to donate to help defray the costs of the ad(s).
If you wish to exercise the moral authority to withold your money, you should be prepared to demonstrate your moral integrity by accepting your punishment - don't whine about it.
Have you ever read the first amendment?
In an officail Act of the Continental Congress, the founding fathers wrote: "If money is wanted by the 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."*
*"Continental Congress To The Inhabitants Of The Province Of Quebec." Journals of the Continental Congress. 1774-1789 Journals 1: 105-13
You mean like you whine about Pat Buchanan?
Sure have. Please tell me, in return, which part of ......the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances......., in today's constitutional law, requires Government to make any reply to, or even accept, a formal petition? The practice is, sadly, long out of use.
If petitions to Government can be revived, then great. I think it would take another amendment, though, to flesh out the concept.
The only problem with what the Continental Congress said or did is that it was all supplanted by the Constitution and the amendment that created the income tax.
but don't expect me to do anything to encourage it. I give up. Liberal communists won. The constitution says what they say it says and means what they say it means. All is lost.
The quote from the Continental Congress was included to give a sense of what the founding father intended. I also included a link to sample arguments, but since you and apparently most freepers have given up already, it won't be of much interest.
Neither have I, which is why I started the thread in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.