Saturday, October 31, 2009

Petition Structure and Substance

As the groups who are interested in the Recall Petitions gather and examine these first drafts here at, there are obvious questions of structure and substance.

While the author has done considerable research in support of the cause of these Petitions it is well understood that each State, and each group that might adopt this cause may make some alterations.

Uniformity being the key to cooperation between the groups, and cooperation being the key to the success of gathering the maximum number of signatures, most of these Petitions follow the same basic format, save a little adjustment to Michigan and New Hampshire are probably in order.


Someone wrote to me and made the usual complaint of the use of big words that People do not know the meaning of, like PREAMBLE.

The preamble is a beginning paragraph of a document that explains its purpose. Most Constitutions have preambles, and some Bills of Rights as well.

The substance of the Preamble of the Petitions are basically the same from State to State depending upon if it was an Original State, a free standing State prior to entry into the Union (CA TX, TN), or a State formed from a Territory. So a study of the Petitions will lead to recognition of three basic differences.

It must be noted, that through the influence of Hello Michigan Blog, that the latter part of the language of the Preamble was taken from an opinion piece written by Steven J Silva, "‘We the People’ must defend the U.S. Constitution". Mr. Silva is a Delegate to the CC2009 for New Jersey.

The language was befitting and to the point as to who is to blame for the problems of this nation. Therefore, it is time to empower THE PEOPLE Beyond the Vote


This second section of the Petition for Recall was an apparent elaboration of the first part of the Preamble.

Whatever it is that we seek to do as THE PEOPLE needs to be grounded in law.

In this case the debate at formation of the document was statutory law verses common-law/fundamental law and Right.

It is for this reason that the statutory laws of each state were not consulted in the end. Many States have laws governing Recall Elections, and the process of creating the Petition is long and drawn out and the language has to be approved by the Secretary of State and then a Recall Election is scheduled.

As the reader may have noted, this is not the request for a Recall Election/referendum as one will find in the present New Jersey Bill of Rights which only requires 25% of the voters to call for a Recall Election.

After the appearance of 3.6 Million People in D.C. and 4 million pink slips being delivered to Congress the groundswell numbers of disaffected and disenfranchised Americans is exposed.

This Petition process is to cause the exposure of an even greater groundswell, and we want these People out, NOW! To be replaced by THE PEOPLE not the governor.

To achieve this the author was originally looking at just the fact that THE PEOPLE now elect the Senators by Popular vote (it used to be the State Legislatures that did this), therefore the Senators are directly accountable to THE PEOPLE.

To confirm this Right it was decided that he would set out to look at each State’s Original Constitution to place before all the fact that it was THE PEOPLE who created the Government and all government is accountable to them at all times.

He believes that he has achieved this objective.

After floating the idea nationally, one Patriot leader dismissed the effort claiming that the Courts have decided that THE PEOPLE cannot recall their Senators because the Constitution does not contain language to allow that.

In response, and using California Constitution and Article IX of the Bill of Rights (1789) as an Example, the reasoning of the Court is outrageous:
Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.
Sec. 21. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."

So, this section is not about asking Courts or Elected officials for permission to have our country and our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS back.


There is little doubt that the government will resist an effort such as this, but…judging from the ground swell of America who has awakened to the fraud that this government is, they will resist the effort only to swell our ranks, increase the outrage of THE PEOPLE, and at their own peril.

Reformation does not come without pain and struggle. Like a junkie getting off the stuff, there will be pain, but reformation will put an end to the game of the two gang system who both profit from our ignorance and their wars against our Freedoms.


The most important part of the causes was to make each one regarding a Constitutional violation by the Senate of UNALIENABLE Rights.

Some have said that some of the causes constructed by the author are “political” and not constitutional.

I find this hard to believe since the Constitution has over 40 statements against the Congress in that it shall not do this that or the other thing.

I find such a conclusion against the causes to generally be uninformed since the Congress really has no power to influence circumstances of THE PEOPLE of the States except by the Commerce Clause.

So when examining the CAUSES section, keep this in mind, the Congress is limited in its legislative authority by the Constitution.

Don’t believe me, take a look at this:
“The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction, but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.” (emphasis added) United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 549 (1875)
"[T]he court must be vigilant to scrutinize the attendant facts with an eye to detect and a hand to prevent violations of the Constitution by circuitous and indirect methods. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and ‘it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.' Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 , 6 S. Ct. 524, 535 (29 L. Ed. 746); Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 304, 41 S. Ct. 261, supra." Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28, 32 (1927)
“It does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of these ends is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state. There are, of necessity, limits beyond which legislation cannot rightfully go. While every possible presumption is to be indulged in favor of the validity of a statute, (Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 718 ,) the courts must obey the constitution rather than the law-making department of government, and must, upon their own responsibility, determine whether, in any particular case, these limits have been passed. 'To what purpose,' it was said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 167, 'are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, …' The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty, indeed, are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution.”
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661 (1887)
"It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence." Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U.S. 583, 271 U.S. 594”
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345 (1960)
"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, § 70
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added)
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson)
“His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken away from him by due process of law and in accordance with the Constitution.”
Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, 47 1905
"But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (1886)
When a Court goes beyond its authority it is called a “usurpation of power” and extraordinary remedy may be invoked. (Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 95-96, (1967))

So what about this circumstance where the Courts have ignored their duties under Byars and Mugler above, and not kept the statutory law in check against the encroachment upon our liberties?

Such a notion is not alien to our laws as Mugler shows, as well as this following case on Habeas Corpus:
“These are not extravagant expressions. Behind them may be discerned the unceasing contest between personal [Page 372 U. S. 401] liberty and government oppression. It is no accident that habeas corpus has, time and again, played a central role in national crises wherein the claims of order and of liberty clash most acutely not only in England in the seventeenth century, [Footnote 8] but also in America from our very beginnings, and today. [Footnote 9] Although in form the Great Writ is simply a mode of procedure, its history is inextricably intertwined with the growth of fundamental rights of personal liberty. For its function has been to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy…”
Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 399-401 (1963)

Government oppression is endemic in any place where there is power. Unfortunately for America the Courts are equally oppressive as the Legislature. There is no difference between them, probably because lawyers infest both of these branches of government.

The Jury was supposed to guard against that result, but the Recall Petition shows the War that the Senate has allowed to run against THE PEOPLE that way.

It is made clear by the Constitutions of the States, government exists for the Peace, Tranquility, and Prosperity of THE PEOPLE. This is the criteria by which the Senate was supposed to vote within the confines of the Legislative Estate.

They have oft traveled far off the plantation.


It was the authors effort to wrap up the Petition with an even more simplified conclusion than Preamble.

With the facts being well addressed in the Command of Right and CAUSES section, it only bears reiteration that WE are THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE are the government (thus the People can never be accused of treason, rebellion, or insurrection).

This idea is old and accepted, coming from the Magna Carta Article 61. I close this Article with this despised petition:

"Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even He and They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or anyone else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have no force nor effect [1297] and can be safely ignored with no legal ill effect. In addition, in the event of successful attempts at abrogation of such liberties, customs, or rights, the King has commanded and do hereby compel any and all subjects to swear oath to join the barons to assail the properties and persons and families of those (saving the King, Queen and the royal children) who had successfully completed such abrogation, including but not limited to that of the individual Members of Parliament who had voted in favor of any such successful attempts at abrogation [1215]. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it."
--Quote by Sir Winston Churchill, 1956

No comments:

Post a Comment