WE THE PEOPLE...

November 14, 2008 Blog

There used to be a document floating around that started out, "We the people..." It was called "The Constitution of the United States of America." Has anyone seen it lately?

In 1791, ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified. Commonly called the "Bill of Rights" (although the tenth amendment had nothing to say about rights), these amendments are more familiar to most citizens than the Constitution itself.

Of all the amendments, the first has probably received the most publicity, and only the first parts, generally called "freedom of religion, speech, the press and assembly", are well known. We hear a lot of talk about the "Separation of Church and State" clause in the First Amendment. This is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Actually, the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion including speech and the print media anywhere in this great nation, including in public places. Read it for yourself!

The First Constitutional Amendment:
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.

Today, I want to talk about the lesser known part of the First Amendment. It concerns the people's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  The word "petition" could refer to any one individual, but it would seem, rather, that this refers to petitions voiced by a large number of citizens. This is in keeping with the tone of our Constitution that begins with, "We the people..."

To "redress" means to "rectify" the matter addressed. Citizens have the right to a proper response. This right has been violated time and again by the very elected officials who are obliged to assure our Constitutional rights! It has gotten so bad that most citizens no longer sign petitions because experience tells them that it will do no good. In most cases, the petition will not even be recognized.

Some government officials try to explain this inaction by arguing that it is in the government's competence to determine whether a grievance is valid or not. I insist that our Constitution gives citizens this right. As already stated, the Constitution is clearly a document of the people designed to limit Congress and not the other way around. Lincoln emphasized this in his Gettysburg Address when he said that our government was "of the people, by the people and for the people." The obvious interpretation is that citizens have the right to petition and be heard.

Some argue that citizens with a grievance have the right to petition but not necessarily to have their grievance heard, let alone redressed (rectified). Proponents of this interpretation compare it with the right of free speech. You have the right to speak but not necessarily to be heard. Although this sounds logical, the First Amendment was definitely not passed with that idea in mind. The whole concept is that a grievance be properly considered before being rejected as inappropriate.

PRESIDENT ELECT'S CITIZENSHIP

One example of the failure to redress a citizen petition is in regards to the President elect's citizenship. Our Constitution (Article II, Section 1) requires the President to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama claims to fulfill the qualifications for the office of President but has consistently refused to provide documentation. Citizen petitions and even lawsuits have failed to achieve this desired objective. He refuses to provide documents that could prove that he is a natural born citizen of the United States who has not relinquished his American citizenship at any time. On the other hand, he has denied access to documents which some contend could prove otherwise.

I am aware that a couple of websites go to great lengths to argue the case for Obama, but the fact remains, that the original "Long Document" birth certificate and other pertinent documents remain under lock and key. What is shown can be easily counterfeited or falsified.

Hundreds of thousands have viewed the video of the attorney, Philip J. Berg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w regarding the lawsuit against Obama and the DNC regarding Obama's eligibility to be President of the US.

An Associated Press release published October 25, 2008, reported that U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had dismissed the case. Judge Surrick ruled that Mr. Berg "has no standing" (is unqualified) to question Obama's citizenship (I read the entire PDF document of Surrick's ruling). Apparently, our judges are more concerned about a citizen's qualification to file grievances than they are in a person's qualification to be President.

What is most alarming to me is the fact that both Obama and the Democratic National Committee are refusing to answer all accusations and to produce evidence that could refute these serious accusations. This is at best, an admission of guilt and at worst a statement that says neither the US Constituion nor the people of the United States are important to them.

The plaintiff, Berg, is now appealing to the Supreme Court.

 

BAIL-OUTS

 

Regarding the AIG. and Wall Street bailout plans, I contend that using taxpayer money without the people's explicit consent to bail out private corporations and financial institutions is unconstitutional. The FDIC guarantees the investor's money, but not losses of the institution.

The insurance giant and bailout recipient AIG has already received over $120 billion from the Treasury and Federal Reserve. The initial bailout was made days prior to the passage of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" without congressional authority. There is no Constitutional basis for such an act, yet citizens and organizations which have filed grievances are not being heard. Now many large corporations including the three auto giants are claiming billions in bailout money that belongs to taxpayers. The cities of Atlanta, Phoenix and Philadelphia are also clamoring for bailout money that belongs to us. Both Republican and Democratic politicians are deliberately robbing tax payers on the pretense of an economic crisis.

There is no doubt about the crisis, but the greater danger is the deliberate ignoring and violation of the people's Constitutional rights.

 

I VOTE AND PAY TAXES

When I hear people complain about the government, I ask if they voted. If they answer negatively, I ask why. They often say, "they are all corrupt" or "my vote won't count anyway" or they will give some other lame excuse. If they voted, I ask them why they selected a particular candidate. I am amazed at the answers I get. Some say, "I am Republican" or "I always vote Democrat." Many voted for Obama because he is young, or eloquent , or good looking, or  because they hate George W. Bush, or for all the above reasons. Those voting for McCain had to have other reasons, but some voted for him because he is white or because his running mate was a woman.

Many Americans and illegal aliens have grievances who do all in their power to milk the system for supposed entitlements. Others are incarcerated for committing heinous crimes or don't pay their taxes.

People like those described above may not deserve to be heard, but I am concerned that the grievances of responsible citizens are not being heard and redressed.

Political candidates make promises and everyone knows that they seldom keep them. These are only bait designed to get votes. I don't listen to what a candidate promises, but check his or her track record, philosophy of life, concept of government and ethical views. These are of great importance to me. Regardless of whether I vote for a candidate, however, I expect an elected official to serve the people of the United States and not his own interests, those of cronies, campaign contributors or of special interest groups.

Many and perhaps most Americans swallow commercials whole without reading the fine print. They overload the Internet with forwarded messages that contain preposterous claims without checking their verity. And they are gullible enough to believe whatever politicians, activists and the media tell them without checking their verity.

 

I appeal to all good Americans to study the important and hopefully still pertinent documents of our founding fathers. Let's fight for our rights!

---