J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California May 16, 2007
______________________________________________________
The Battle
Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L.
versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign
to Our Constitution
The
Right to Redress
--Not "Petition"
By Barbie, ACIC, National
J.A.I.L.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the
right
of the people ...
to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment (pertinent
portion)
An organization, We The People Foundation (WTP), brought a federal lawsuit that has been ongoing for the last five years on whether the People have the right to petition government for redress of their grievances. The decision by the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, decided May 8, 2007, may be found at
If there was ever a case that screamed out
for the J.A.I.L. solution, this one is it! There are two issues to be discussed
here. (1) Analysis of the Petition Clause; and (2) The court's reliance on
Supreme Court precedents.
1. The court fails to consider
the material portion of the Petition
Clause
This issue is so simple to figure out, that the court's decision is baffling. It
states:
These
scholars [referring to Law Review
authors] note that the
Petition Clause by its
terms refers only
to a right �to petition�;
it does not also
refer to a right to response or official consideration.
(Pg.9)
The Petition
Clause reads: "... to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In
ruling on the merits of this clause, the entire clause
must be read and considered --not just one or two words. In fact, the most
significant part of that clause was not considered by
this court. "To petition" is qualified by "government" and "for a redress of
grievances."
The first qualifier,
"government," indicates to whom the
petition is made. It doesn't specify any particular branch or agency, nor does
it limit the term. The subject matter of the issues of petition would determine
which branch or office of government is addressed by petition. The second
qualifier, "for a redress of grievances," is the one that gives meaning to the
entire clause. Without that qualifier, there is no meaning whatsoever to the
Petition Clause. There must be an objective, a purpose, a reason, indicated for petitioning. A petition for nothing is not a
right.
The phrase "to
petition" or even "to petition the government" is not a complete thought.
The logical missing ingredient is "why"? "for what purpose"? Without an
objective to be sought by petitioning, it is no right at all. The phrase "for a
redress of grievances" provides the objective for petitioning. It is the
objective complement which completes the thought of the entire clause and gives
it meaning. Ignoring that phrase is not an option.
The core ingredient
of the right of petition is "redress." The modifiers indicate the kind of
redress (of grievances) and who is responsible to provide that redress
(government). "To petition" is merely the means by which the objective (redress)
is sought from government by a petitioner. It is a means to an end, not an end
in itself.
To rule that the
right to petition does not necessarily include within that right the right to a
response or consideration of that petition is unconstitutional on its face,
since it fails to consider (1) the objective of petition, to wit, "redress of
grievances" and (2) to whom the petition for redress is addressed, to wit,
"government." Government is responsible for considering and
responding to a petition for redress of grievances, and thus, for providing the
redress sought by the petition, within the prima facie meaning of the Petition
Clause as stated.
Having failed to
grant that right, the appellate judges involved have violated the First
Amendment Petition Clause, rendering their decision null and void as repugnant to
the Constitution. They, as well as the trial court judge(s), are prime
candidates for the J.A.I.L. process when it becomes available, if petitioners
elect to pursue it in the future after exhausting the USSC and the violation is
not corrected. See Federal J.A.I.L. Bill, http://www.jail4judges.org/state_chapters/dc/DC_initiative.html
2.
The court fails to rely on the Constitution as its supreme
authority.
The final full
paragraph of the decision states:
We need not resolve this debate,
however, because we must
follow the binding Supreme Court
precedent. See Tenet v. Doe,
544 U.S. 1, 10-11 (2005). And under
that precedent, Executive
and Legislative responses to and
consideration of petitions are
entrusted to the discretion of those Branches. (Pg.9)
Rather than rely on
the entire Petition Clause as provided in the Constitution, as aforesaid, this
court abandons that consideration and turns to "binding Supreme Court precedent"
which holds that "Executive and Legislative responses to and consideration of petitions are entrusted to the discretion of those Branches." As the guardian of petitioners' rights, the federal court had the responsibility of overruling that "precedent" as violative of the Constitution. Court precedent is not binding if it violates the Constitution.
The concurring judge
even stated:
Even where the plain text yields a clear interpretation, the Supreme
Court has rejected a pure textualist approach in favor of an analysis
that accords weight to the historical context and the underlying
purpose
of the clause at issue. (Concurring Opinion, Pg.1)
Rather than
considering the Constitution for what it clearly says in its text, this court
turns to "weight to the historical context" and "underlying purpose of the
clause at issue." The clear "underlying purpose of the clause at issue" in
this case is shown in the clause itself. No other "underlying purpose" need
be conjured up. The "weight to the historical context" can mean whatever the
judges want it to mean--that's a very vague and subjective standard not
deserving of the Constitution. Thomas
Jefferson said: "Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but rather
bind them down by the chains of the
Constitution."
The
Constitution stands on its own except with reference to the Declaration of
Independence upon which it is based. The DOI sets forth the origin of
government, to wit, "...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..." This institution of government is
done by charter, i.e., the Constitution which establishes the consent of the
People to their government. The Constitution establishes everything anew and
does away with the historical tyranny under English law. It does not require any
crutch, such as an "historical
context" in the subjective opinion of
judges, upon which to maintain its integrity. Indeed, all
judges are bound by their oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution. They do not take an oath to
uphold and defend "Supreme Court precedent."
Relying on
anything other than the Constitution, and going beyond the limitations of the
Constitution in making this decision renders it null and void. One need not look
beyond the Petition Clause itself to determine its full meaning and
intention.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org
To be automatically added to future
mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and
email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
We
are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate to this
important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O.
Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603
J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our
Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL
is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Visit our active flash -
http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
* *
*
He has combined with others to subject
us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our
laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.
- Declaration of Independence
"..it does not require a
majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush
fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a
thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."
-- Henry David
Thoreau
<><
Return To JNJ 2007
Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years