| Home | Bookmark | Tell | Active petitions in over 75 countries | Follow GoPetition |
Petition Tag - constitutional rights
1. Stop Mayor Bloomberg from invading our personal lives 
Mayor Bloomberg has recently proposed and is on route to enact a law limiting the the size of soft drinks for consumers in New York City.
We are adults we can decide this for ourselves and deal with the consequences positive or negative.
We must not allow the government to arbitrarily invade our personal lives.
2. Move to Amend USA Constitution declaring that Corporations are NOT People and Money is NOT Speech
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
Relating to:
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.
3. Former convicts' rights should be reinstated: Right to bare arms
Millions of Americans are denied their basic right to bare arms because of a mistake made in the past. These same people have families and themselves to protect. Most of which are living in lower income neighborhoods, and are subject to a life threatening situation sometimes on a daily basis.
4. No More Government Secrets: Show Us Source Code
The United States is besieged with traffic infractions, breathalyzer tests, electronic voting, red light cameras, and many other devices that drastically shape the freedoms of society. Some of which cause financial hardships, loss of driving privileges, incarceration, and higher insurance rates.
There is no way to provide a competent defense against the mystical devices that are used to bring conviction and when proof of inaccuracy is given its automatically thrown out.
Manufacturers are allowed to keep the software, firmware, and hardware hidden from court due to intellectual property laws leaving the Government to institute an unspoken 'don't ask, wont tell' mentality by only mandating minimum requirements for automatic convictions. This removes opportunities for defenses to refute human-written source code written by non-government manufacturers. These devices are automatically presumed to be accurate by the court of law.
This isn't about getting out of citations or criminal charges, as some have come out stating. Its about the civil liberties being jeopardized, financial railroading placed on society, and how the government turns a blind-eye to the need for open-source devices.
Its about being able to understand the inner workings of the methods that were used by agencies to hold us accountable for breaking the law. All we ask is to prove to us that we have broke the law, don't stand behind some fancy box full of physics and say that the box told you we did something wrong without showing us how the calculations were performed.
5. A change to grandparents' rights to protect parental rights
Grandparents' rights are a far too often ignored law that needs addressed. These rights have completely taken away parents' natural god given and constitutional rights as parents. In 2000, Troxel vs. Granville the supreme court ruled grandparents rights unconstitutional. These rights have destroyed families and children.
Pennsylvania courts are quick to take the side of a grandparent, while avoiding a fit parents objection, and rights. A grandparent does not have the title of parent, unless the situation warrants it, by the death of the parents, or the abuse of a child. This is a horrific and sad law that we as parents are tired of. Grandparents should visit their grandkids without stipulation, and without the courts. And should respect the parents wishes for their own children.
6. Petition for Redress of Grievances for liberty to be restored all Americans
To the United States Congress, United States Supreme Court and President of the United States:
Whereas, the First Amendment guarantees our right to Petition for Redress of Grievances, and
Whereas, the Senators and Representatives, all executives and judicial officers of the United States are bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and
Whereas, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, and
Whereas, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws, and
Whereas, Article 1 of the Constitution prohibits both the federal government and the states from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, and
Whereas, the Supreme Court has insisted that "a Bill of Attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both”, and
Whereas, “All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void” (Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)) and,
Whereas, We the People, have been betrayed through treachery and breach of allegiance, by those entrusted with the responsibility to safe guard our liberty and the United States Constitution,
We the People, in seeking Redress of Grievances, as is our right under Amendment I of the United States Constitution, ask this question of each branch of Federal Government:
“Where in the Constitution do you find authorization for each and all of the following?”
1. The redistribution of property by force and subterfuge; and the unequal application of tax laws amounting to punitive action against certain groups of American People and providing favored status to other groups
2. A paper money system that is morally and economically equivalent to counterfeiting
3. Willful and purposeful devaluation and destruction of American currency
4. Deploying military to fight undeclared wars
5. Targeting and labeling law-abiding American citizens as domestic terrorists
6. Declarations that disagreeing with policy is unpatriotic or disloyal to our country
7. Intrusions into the privacy of law-abiding American citizens
8. Perpetual massive indebtedness to foreign countries
9. Infringement upon the rights of the People to keep and bear arms through oppressive regulation and taxation designed for the very purpose of infringement
10. Passing laws and taxes without deliberation and without reading the legislation; said action is tantamount to the American People not having any representation
11. Enacting ex post facto laws and Bills of Attainder
12. Granting Constitutional rights and privileges to illegal aliens and prisoners of war
13. Funding mercenary organizations that engage in voter fraud and paid harassment of law abiding American citizens
14. Maintaining and deploying armies in peace time on United States soil
15. Unprecedented and arbitrary federal power, through the United States Treasury, for government intervention into, control of, and confiscation of, private property, private industry including but not limited to banking, insurance, manufacturing, farming and other sectors of the private economy (current and proposed)
16. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law (proposed)
17. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law (proposed)
18. Acts regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press (proposed)
We the People of the United States of America, who cherish liberty, taking into our most serious consideration, the best means of assuring our continued constitutional rights of self governance, as our ancestors in like cases have done, for asserting and vindicating our rights and liberties, declare,
That the citizens of the Unites States of America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the United States Constitution, Supreme Court case law and the Federalist Papers, have the following Rights:
• We are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and we have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of these without our consent.
• The three branches of the United States government derive their just powers solely from the consent of the governed.
• We the people have the right and the obligation to alter or abolish any government that becomes destructive of the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator and rights codified in the United States Constitution.
• We have the right peaceably to assemble, consider our grievances, petition the three branches of the Federal Government; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory and proclamations, defamatory declarations, and commitments for the same, are illegal.
• We the People of the United States of America, do claim, demand, and insist on, as our indubitable rights and liberties that the federal government must be answerable and accountable to the people; which cannot be legally taken from us, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without our own consent, and said consent has never been given.
In the course of our inquiry, we find numerous infringements and violations of the foregoing rights; which demonstrate systemic corruption formed to subvert and destroy our constitutional republic and to enslave the American people.
We submit this Petition for Redress of Grievances in an ardent desire that precious liberty be restored to ourselves and preserved for future generations of Americans.
UPDATE: April 26, 2011
Kevin was sentenced to 10 years in State Prison for involuntary manslaughter on Oct. 16, 2009. He will be eligible for Parol next January. In fact the Parole Board is currently reviewing his case.
He has thus far served more than 2 1/2 years as a model inmate. He has not received even one disciplinary report since the day that he turned himself in to law officials. He gets along well with prison staff as well as the other inmates. He has completed all required classes as well as some that were not required. He has used this time in prison to grow spiritually and focus on ways to improve his life as an individual. His plans upon release from prison, are to be a responsible parent to his young children and to become involved in some type of programs to warn young people of the dangers of alcohol, drugs and firearms.
I thank God for getting him through all of this safely and for caring people like you who sign this petition asking the Parole Board to Please allow him the chance to come home and prove himself to be a real asset to society.
ORIGINAL PETITION:
On September 27, 2008, Kevin Sutton, 36 years old, shot and killed Jeffrey Kipp Harper, who grabbed a knife off of a table and cut Kevin Sutton across his ribs, kicked him backward out of his own door, and told him that he was getting his gun to kill him. The incident took place at the home of Kevin Sutton. His friend, Jeffrey Kipp Harper became very belligerent and out of control after having an excessive amount of alcohol. Kevin told him to leave his home and Kipp became violent. This is when Kipp attacked him with a knife and kicked him out of the door.
Kevin had planned to go hunting earlier in the day and his gun was still leaning next to the porch when he caught hold of it upon pulling his self up off the ground. Kevin heard Kipp say he was going back in to get his gun and saw him point what appeared to be a revolver at him through he window when he, Kevin, fired the shotgun at Kipp through the window in defense of his own life.
The Investigator admitted at the Preliminary Hearing that there had not been a “real” search of the premises for any additional firearms.
There were two witnesses at the scene during the alleged crime who both admit that they don’t remember what happened because they were high on drugs and drunk on Tequila. These two drug addicts were found back at the scene very early the following morning, inside the house (they did not live there). They had broken down the crime scene tape and gone into the house. The morning after this, it was discovered that two TV’s, a VCR and some other things had been stolen from the residence.
Kevin Sutton was charged with Malice Murder and Felony Murder. The District Attorney reasons that since Kevin was on the outside that he should have been able to get to safety. However, they are not taking into consideration the fact that Kevin has a physical disability (cerebral palsy) that severely affects his ability to run.
What has happened to everyone’s constitutional right to defend oneself and family?
8. Workers’ Constitutional Rights Arising From Unlawful Termination Case of Hilda Zhang
Hilda, an accountant, was forced to falsify accounting records and reports (cook the books). After she complained about her boss’s unlawful instructions and activities both inside and outside the company she was immediately dismissed on 16 December 2003.
In the Federal Court, a judge characterized Hilda’s complaint as “only in the capacity as employee” and the employer’s counsel conceded that: “the illegality is in fact on the part of the employer”. However the Federal Court struck out her claim of unlawful termination of employment certified by the Industrial Relations Commission and dismissed her appeals, holding her claim “had been instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause” because she did not file a complaint against her boss’s unlawful instructions and activities “to a Court or Tribunal” before she was terminated.
Under the Covering Clause 5 of the Constitution: “This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State;……”, however, Hilda has been punished whilst she tried to uphold and obey law in the workplace, and sought protections from the courts. The Full Federal Court ignored Hilda’s appeal grounds in respect of workers’ Constitutional rights in the workplace.
On 21 April 2006, under the Judiciary Act, notices of a Constitutional matter certified by the High Court were serviced to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth, the States and Territories. Apparently the High Court wanted to obtain opinions from the Attorneys-General, the elected officers and members of parliaments, on whether that workers’ Constitutional rights in the workplace arisen from this case were of “public importance”, which was an essential “Criteria for granting special leave to appeal” under the Judiciary Act. However none of the Attorneys-General directly responded to the notices specifically addressed to them under the Judiciary Act.
On 10 May 2006, the High Court did not doubt that Hilda’s appeals were about workers’ fundamental Constitutional rights and did not doubt that she could win her appeals if special leaves to appeal were granted, however, holding to the effect that they were not “sufficient to justify a grant of special leave to appeal” because “No Attorney-General has indicated a desire to intervene”, even though the High Court was informed on 5 May that 600 people had supported and signed the petitions against the laws made by the Federal Courts in the judgments of Hilda’s matter.
On 23 August 2006 a solicitor from Victorian Government Solicitor finally responded to the notices of 21 April 2006 and wrote: “This office deals with all s 78B notices referred to the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria”, “As a general rule, the Attorney-General does not intervene in special leave applications”, “The High Court has indicated previously that is not appropriate as, until leave is granted, there is nothing to intervene in”.
The Judiciary Act did not refer s 78B notices to any Government Solicitors, who were neither the elected officers nor members of parliaments, but the Attorney-General surrendered his responsibility, as the elected people’s representative, which has been enacted by the Judiciary Act, to some solicitors. The solicitors were not able to take this responsibility and excused themselves by saying: The High Court has indicated previously that is not appropriate for the Attorney-General to intervene, until leave is granted. However, the High Court did not indicate that they knew anything in relation to the solicitors’ allegation. In the transcript, the High Court simply said: “The applicant has also filed, and [served], a notice under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to the Attorneys-General……. No Attorney-General has indicated a desire to intervene.”
Implicitly, people’s fundamental Constitutional rights are important for the people. Over a thousand people have signed the petition on paper including Ms Sharan Burrow (the president of Australian Council of Trade Unions), Father Bruce Duncan (Redemptorist Priest) and Mr Peter Marshall (the president of Victorian Trade Hall Council) and Members of Parliaments.
Organizations Have Supported the Petition:
Central Branch of Union Solidarity, Maritime Union of Australia Victorian Branch, International Socialist Organization, Communication Workers Union, P+T Victorian Branch, Union Solidarity, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Party, Australian Services Union, Industrial Workers of the World, Friends of the Earth, Communication Workers Union of Australia, Socialist Alliance, Unite, Geelong and Region Trades and Labour Council, Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union North Districts Committee (AMWU Victorian Branch), Thornbury Women’s Neighbourhood House, Darebin Workers Rights and Social Justice Campaign, Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union Victorian Branch, Construction and General Division of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Victorian Branch, United Firefighters Union Victorian Branch, Darebin Community Legal Centre, Australian Nursing Federation Victorian Branch, Australian Meat Industry Employees Union, Australian Education Union Victorian Branch, Mining and Energy Division of the CFMEU Victorian Branch, Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers Victoria/Tasmania Branch, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University Students Union, Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union of Australia, Electrical Trades Union of Australia Southern States Branch, Australia Asia Worker Links Inc., Women's Information Referral Exchange, Australian Nursing Federation, Country Alliance, Preston Reservoir Progress Assoc, National Tertiary Education Union, Western Suburbs Legal Service Inc., Union of Australian Women Southern Branch, Union of Australian Women, seditioncharter.org
MPs Have Supported the Petition:
Ms Nicola Roxon MP (ALP), the Hon Simon Crean MP (ALP), Mr Lindsay Tanner MP (ALP), Senator Lyn Allison (ADP), Ms Anna Burke MP (ALP), Ms Catherine King MP (ALP), Senator Gavin Marshall (ALP), Ms Maria Vamvakinou MP (ALP), Mr Carlo Carli MP (Vic ALP) and Mr Alistair Ross Harkness (Vic ALP), Mr Gavan O’Connor MP (ALP), Ms Tamara Lobato MP (Vic ALP), Mr Donato Antonio Nardella MP (Vic ALP), Ms Dympna Anne Beard MP (Vic ALP), the Hon Marsha Rose Thomson MLC (Vic ALP), Mr Ian Douglas Trezise MP (Vic ALP), Mr Luke Donnellan MP (Vic ALP) and Mr Jude Perera MP (Vic ALP), Mr Anthony Robinson MP (Vic ALP), Mr George Seitz MP (Vic ALP), Mr John Eren MP (Vic ALP), Mr Shaun Leane MLC (Vic ALP), Ms Colleen Hartland MLC (Vic Greens), Mr Greg Barber MLC (Vic Greens), Mr Nazih Elasmar MLC (Vic ALP), the Hon Robert Smith MLC (Vic ALP), Ms Gayle Tierney MLC (Vic ALP), Mr Tim Pallas MP (Vic ALP), Ms Fiona Richardson MP (Vic ALP), the Hon Gavin Jennings MLC (Vic ALP), Mr Evan Thornley MLC (Vic ALP) and Mr Martin Pakula MLC (Vic ALP)
Local Government:
Moreland City Council
Online petition: http://gopetition.com/online/9454.html (to Federal Senate)
Website: http://www.upholding-peoples-rights.blogspot.com
Email: Upholding.Peoples.Rights@hotmail.com
9. Rights NOT to be taken away when attending parochial school
There is no history but i'd very much so like to make one. Why is it that in parochial schools all of my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are taken away but i still have to follow the laws and learn about the constitution? i really think it's unfair.
(please forgive my bad spelling)