|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - amend
Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution at common law.
The Australian people want and need Free Speech. The Prime Minister needs to call a referendum to have this changed.
Skateboarding is absolutely prohibited on Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz. We would like to at least have this ordinance amended so that only trick skating is prohibited, as only trick skaters damage property when attempting or performing "tricks".
Those on a skateboard in the bike lane only wishing to get around prove no greater threat to themselves or others around them than cyclists.
We wish that skateboards be allowed in the bike lane, as long as no "tricks" are performed.
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule. We Move to Amend.
~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010
Whereas, government of, by, and for the people has long been a cherished American value; and the people’s fundamental and inalienable right to self−govern, and thereby secure rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; and
Whereas, free and fair elections are essential to democracy and effective self−governance; and
Whereas, corporations are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and the people have never granted constitutional rights to corporations, nor have the people decreed that corporations have authority that exceeds the authority of the people of the United States; and
Whereas, corporations are artificial entities, created for the purpose of conducting commerce inside and outside of our country’s borders and should be designated as such, and
Whereas, interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by appointed Supreme Court justices to include corporations in the term “persons” has long denied the peoples’ exercise of self−governance by endowing corporations with constitutional protections intended for the people; and
Whereas, the illegitimate judicial bestowal of political rights upon corporations usurps basic human and constitutional rights guaranteed to human persons; and
Whereas, corporations are not and have never been human beings, and therefore they do not vote in elections and should not be categorized as persons for purposes related to elections for public office; and
Whereas, the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that rolled back the legal limits on corporate spending in the electoral process creates an unequal playing field and allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection, and policy decisions, and to sway votes, and forces elected officials to divert their attention from the peoples’ business, or even vote against the interest of their human constituents, in order to ensure competitive campaign funds for their own re-elections; and
Whereas, tens of thousands of people, organizations, and municipalities across the nation are joining with the Move to Amend movement to call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to abolish corporate constitutional rights and the doctrine of money as free speech;
Now, therefore be it resolved that the members of the governing body of this local municipality, call on the North Carolina General Assembly to petition Congress that the U.S. Constitution be amended to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutionally protected political speech.
This petition is for the parents who play an active and vital role in their child or children’s lives. Unfortunately, for unmarried parents, the laws currently in place in Arkansas and states like it presumably assign one parent to be a “custodial parent” and the other as a “noncustodial parent”, without making a reasonable assessment to determining whether this is the best decision to make in regards to the child or children.
Therefore, this injustice causes an inequality for parents who are present in their child or children’s live by way of multiple levels of support. The laws possibly do this because traditionally one parent is the breadwinner while the other raises the child or children, but times change, and with the change of times comes a need for change of laws. Not all laws from yesteryear are applicable to today and the future, and that is why this petition urges lawmakers to revise statues such as “Arkansas Code of 1987 Title 9: Family Law (Subtitle 2: Domestic Relations).” to reflect the 21st century. If both parents play an equal role, then both parents should have equal parenting rights protected by the law, which leads this discussion to the concept of shared parenting.
Shared parenting refers to a collective agreement in child custody in which the care of the children is equal or substantially shared between the biological parents. More and more parents today are moving away from the traditional custody agreements that consist of a “custodial parent” and “noncustodial parent”. Instead, they are opting for shared parenting. In a shared (or joint) parenting agreement, both parents have almost equal physical custodial time with their children. Moreover, both parents are responsible for making the important decisions in their child's life. Shared parenting is a valiant attempt by both parents to be involved in their child's life for the benefit of the child. Shared parenting heavily involves both parents and does not mean that one parent has the kids almost all of the time with occasional visits to the other parent. This type of parenting is one of the best ways for unmarried parents to work together in the best interest of their child or children, especially when both parents are truly active in their child or children’s lives. Having both parents in a child’s life as true equals is in the best interest of the child. Out with the “Custodial/Noncustodial” and in with “Equal, Fair, and Balanced Parenting”. Shared parenting is more effective than ¾ parenting from one parent and ¼ parenting from the other and vice-versa. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule when one parent is inactive or significantly less active in a child’s life.
Shared parenting is great if both parents do it! Although, there has been a dark past of have the experience of one parent not being in their lives as much as they should or at times not being in their lives period. Those individuals most definitely do not need or deserve same rights as a true parent who is there day in and day out and actively present in their child’s life. Individuals who are not mature enough to be responsible parents make it difficult for those who are. This cause some of them fight back through use of the court system, but can end up being futile because the burden of proving that the other parent is “unfit” is left up to them to substantiate although the point of “fit” or “unfit” is not necessarily an issue. A hardworking parent who has a major part in their child’s life should not have to resort to such madness only to possibly secure their rights as a parent.
The law should be in the best interest of the child, and having both parents in a child’s life as true equals when both play pivotal roles in the child’s life is in the best interest of the child.
"The intent of this petition is to have liquor sales laws in British Columbia amended SUCH THAT:
1. Liquor sales regulations facilitate the rights of both citizens and businesses to exercise their freedom, rather than inhibit it.
2. An atmosphere of peace, prosperity, and cooperation is created and upheld to the highest standard.
3. Hours of legal sale should be expanded in order to allow citizens the greatest possible opportunity to enjoy their right to choose.
4. The issuance of liquor sales licenses should be expanded to include ANY legitimate retailer in the food category including grocers, convenience stores, and non-permanent vendors.
5. Public consumption of alcohol should be decriminalised, with an accompanying "stiffening" of punishments for public intoxication and disorderly conduct. This puts the onus of maintaining proper conduct onto the citizen rather than on Peace Officers, contributing to a sense of pride, personal responsibility, and cooperation.
Current traffic law 1174 does not address the consequences of ignoring the reds of a school bus and causing injury or death to a child.
“Support Our Port” is committed to a multi-use Oshawa harbour for recreation and industry – bringing the greatest benefits to the city, and the people of Oshawa.
This would include the construction of an ethanol facility in the port of Oshawa to create jobs, support the local economy, and support farmers and the environment.
Producing ethanol in the Oshawa port would use local corn. It would be a source of greener, more environmentally-friendly energy and would inject millions of dollars into the city’s economy through new taxes.
The Rape Shield Laws should be changed because they no longer provide for a fair trial. They have made it easier to obtain convictions, but the defendant is having an increasingly hard time trying to prove his innocence.
The Rape Shield provides protection for the "victim", but it allows for the "rapist" to have his reputation dragged through the mud, and his life is ruined even if he is found not guilty.