|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - bill of rights
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Along with Article 1, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution which states, "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
I have the right...
1.) To always be treated with respect;
2.) To be treated as an equal;
3.) To be in a healthy relationship;
4.) To not be controlled, manipulated, or jealous;
5.) To have a honest, and truthful relationship and one with good communication;
6.) To not be hurt physically or emotionally;
7.) To feel safe in my relationship at all times;
8.) To refuse sex or affection at anytime;
9.) To consensual sexual decisions, the right not to have sex, even if I have before.
10.) To have friends and activities apart from my boyfriend or girlfriend;
11.) To spend time by myself, with male or female friends and with family.
12.) To end a relationship without feeling guilty or being harassed or threatened.
"Teen Dating Bill or Rights" from dosomething.org
We've all been told that 10 of the 12 original articles in the Bill of Rights were ratified. In fact, all of them were ratified. Article #2 was ratified in 1992 and became our 27th amendment. Article #3 dealt with Free Speech and we all know it was ratified.
Article One of the Bill of Rights was actually ratified in 1792 but not recognized as ratified because people truly didn't know it was ratified. This case is now in the 3rd circuit court of appeals. (BoldTruth.com has the filing).
This is what this Petition is about. Finally getting it recognized for what it is. RATIFIED AND THE LAW OF THE LAND TO BE FOLLOWED.
One Representative for every 50,000 Citizens.
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.
Our forefathers established this country with a Constitution and Bill of Rights that are supposed to provide us with fundamental rights. Every candidate for political office, every elected official, and every government employee should be willing to commit in writing to always defend our fundamental rights. Sadly, many do not -- people in all parties and people in no parties.
GRIP, the Government Reform & Integrity Platform, is a non-partisan coalition of organizations and people who simply seek honesty and our fundamental rights from government. This all that we stand for, and getting signatures from our fellow Americans will be used to send a message to every candidate, elected official, and government employee.
GRIP is also asking every candidate to sign a contract, and we ask every American voter to vote only for candidates who sign the Contract agreeing to always be honest and protect our fundamental rights.
We ask you to vote only for people who say they will be honest and remain accountable - regardless of party. Dishonesty is the fundamental problem with government today. We must all do something about it, and signing this petiiton is quick, easy, and important.
Every candidate for political office, every elected official, and every government employee should be willing to commit in writing to always be honest.
Our forefathers established this country with a Constitution and Bill of Rights that are supposed to provide us with fundamental rights. Every candidate for political office, every elected official, and every government employee should be willing to commit in writing to always defend our fundamental rights.
This is what this petition provides. GRIP, the Government Reform & Integrity Platform, is a non-partisan coalition of organizations and people who simply seek honesty and our fundamental rights from government. This all that we stand for, and getting signatures on this petition is our mission.
Everyone should be willing to sign this petition, but dishonest candidates and government officials will be unwilling to sign because the contract provides that they may be removed from office if they violate the petition contract.
GRIP will ask every American voter to vote only for candidates who sign this Contract. Platform First - Party Second. Let's vote only for people who say they will be honest and remain accountable - regardless of party. Dishonesty is the fundamental problem with government today. This Contract can make a difference.
This is a petition to the Federal Parliament Senate for a Bill of Rights for ALL Australians. Australia is the ONLY Common Law nation that does not have a Bill of Rights for its citizens. We are asking for Australians to ask that the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia take to the people a referendum, ie, a people’s vote, for a Bill of Rights to be enshrined at a Constitutional level.
We ask that the Parliament provide the “means and the will” to instigate a Bill of Rights.
The means would be such things as a properly formed committee to oversee the process of writing a Bill of Rights and to include contributors from a broad section of the Australian community, for example.
The will is that they do this conscientiously and without regard to party politics, religion, vested interest or any such thing that will detract from a Bill of Rights and it is done with honesty, integrity and for the benefit of the Australian People.
When this petition has been signed by as many Australians as able, then it will be presented on the steps of Federal Parliament in Canberra.
This will be done at the end of the FREEDOM RUN which will be open to ALL Australians to participate. Those who believe in Australia as a nation and its peoples should partake. Those who are concerned for the future of this country, their children and their children’s children, should partake.
The FREEDOM RUN will start in Capital cities and regional centres and people will be able to partake in the whole run to Canberra, or may only ride or drive part of the way.
This FREEDOM RUN will also show the intent and will of the Australian people as to their sincerity in the promotion and intent for a Bill of Rights and it will be Australia wide.
The FREEDOM RUN and this petition show that the Australian people have had enough of Human Rights in this country being legislated away by both the State and Federal parliaments at the whim of politicians, who are more often than not, exempted from those very same laws. A Constitutional level Bill of Rights such as our petition seeks, cannot be legislated away by ANY politician, State or Federal. The people control the Constitution and parliaments and governments cannot contradict or dismiss the Constitution.
Barack Obama has just given the United Nations jurisdiction to go after the State of Arizona and the 22 other states that are attempting to enforce the immigration laws that he refuses to enforce.
Unfortunately, you read that right. On August 20, the United States, for the first time ever, submitted a 29 page “Universal Periodic Review" (UPR) to the UN Human Rights Council which outlines a laundry list of alleged human rights abuses supposedly committed by the United States.
Of course, the UPR is pure rubbish, but it's also much more than an opportunity for Barack Hussein Obama, the Apologist-In-Chief, to bad-mouth America to the rest of the world. Contained within that laundry list of so-called abuses is a direct condemnation of S.B. 1070, legislation enacted by the State of Arizona (and supported by two-thirds of the American people), which seeks to do the job that the federal government has refused to do... secure the border.
According to the UPR: "A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
The submission of this UPR is the first step in a United Nations review process which will culminate with the issuance of a plan of action, approximately 90 days from now, from a panel of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon.
And yes... the United States would be expected to "voluntarily" comply with the UN panel's recommendations, but as the UN Human Rights Council states on its website: “The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State...."
In short, Barack Obama has upped the ante. Not content with simply filing a frivolous federal suit against the people of Arizona, Obama has transformed his amnesty feud with the American people into an international human rights cause and effectively placed the people of Arizona (and the 22 other states that are considering similar border security legislation) under the jurisdiction of a triumvirate of America-hating United Nations bureaucrats.
Dear David Cameron,
Further to your election as our Prime Minister and your invitation to the British public to offer our energy, ideas and passion, we have put our names down on this petition to show our support for the Human Rights Act. We sincerely hope you will take note of this petition and understand that we have considered the Conservatives' reasons for replacing the Act with a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. In light of all the arguments and evidence, we strongly believe that the Human Rights Act is one of the most precious and important pieces of UK legislation and we feel passionate about protecting it. We would like to take this opportunity to remind you that it was instigated by the great Conservative Prime Minister, Winston Churchill.
This is not a political stance specific petition; we voted for a range of parties in the recent election, however we are appealing to you, as you negotiate our country's future, to assure us that you will not repeal this Act.
Our reasons for this are as follows:
1) Human rights are important words to us and human rights law is vital. It has evolved over many years to protect citizens from their state and to allow everybody to enjoy rights that they deserve, simply by their nature of being human. The Human Rights Act is simple and gives every person in the UK the following rights:
1) the right to life
2) freedom from torture and degrading treatment
3) freedom from slavery and forced labour
4) the right to liberty
5) the right to a fair trial
6) the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
7) the right to respect for private and family life
8) freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
9) freedom of expression
10) freedom of assembly and association
11) the right to marry and to start a family
12) the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
13) the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
14) the right to an education
15) the right to participate in free elections
16) the right not to be subjected to the death penalty
There are absolutely no articles in the Act that we, as members of the public, would not want to be fully protected by. We can see no reason for taking any of these rights away.
2) The Human Rights Act has been hugely misunderstood and misinterpreted. Many of the more ‘ridiculous’ law suits brought under the name of the act have been dismissed. It does not allow criminals to get whatever they want, in fact it actually makes it a legal requirement that the public is protected from dangers to society. Just one example of the benefits of the act is its use in keeping an elderly married couple in long-term care together. Although in an ideal world this should have been avoided by common sense or compassion, the fact is that law is clearly needed to prevent unpleasant situation like this occurring. Secondly, the Act does not, as it sometimes suggested, mean that threats to our nation’s security cannot be dealt with. The Act requires courts to balance public safety against individual rights and, if necessary, a person at risk of harming our country can certainly have their liberty deprived.
3) Far from, as the Conservatives have suggested, the Human Rights Act devaluing the words ‘human rights’, the Act actually strengthens them. The Conservatives have shown a great deal of interest in foreign policy and human rights abroad, but if we do not respect human rights at home we do not set a good example. For example, Guantanamo Bay has severely damaged the reputation of the USA. The USA put a lot of pressure on in the international community to respect human rights, yet did not themselves. This has tainted the concept of human rights negatively and has given countries who abuse human rights leverage to argue against changing their abusive practice. The UK should be an excellent example to the international community of a country that has the utmost respect for human rights. Removing the words ‘human rights’ from our laws would be a terrible signal of our lack of promotion of the concept within our own borders.
4) We welcome the promotion of more responsibility within society and are happy to lend a great deal of support to making this ideal a reality. The Human Rights Act is not the place for this however. There are many pieces of law that outline out responsibilities towards each other; the Act is the place to outline the state’s responsibilities towards us. It is therefore illogical to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
5) The Conservatives are unhappy with judges having power to advise Parliament, as the Act has allowed. We contest the idea that judges should not have a say in politics. They are exceptionally bright, informed members of society who would have had to demonstrate nuanced understanding and careful, responsible judgement before gaining such a position of authority. They will have a niche understanding of human rights that politicians cannot have because of the breadth of their mandates, and it is not wrong that they should not be consulted for their opinions. We note that, contrary to popular understanding, the Act does not give judges power to decide laws; MPs always have the last say on the laws Parliament produces.
6) It concerns us that a piece of legislation should only be designed to protect the British. For example, the issues of migration and asylum seeking have become confused, and there is often a lack of understanding that asylum seekers, who have suffered unimaginably and may face torture or even murder if they return to the country of origin, are different to economic migrants. We do not want our country to remove the piece of law that guarantees minorities such as asylum seekers the dignity they desperately deserve.
7) The Human Rights Act has not been imposed by Europe. The European Convention of Human Rights (upon which the Human Rights Act is based) was designed by European countries after World War II and has nothing to do with the EU. The Human Rights Act therefore actually allows human rights issues to be dealt with domestically rather than going all the way to courts in Strasbourg.
The Ammunition Accountability Act (Alabama senate bill 541, Arizona house bill 2833, California senate bill 997, Connecticut Senate bill 603, Hawaii house bill 2392, senate bill 2020, 2076, house resolution 82-07, concurrent resolution 104-06, Illinois house bill 4258, 4259, 4269, 4349, senate bill 1095, Indiana house bill 1260, Kentucky house bill 715, Maryland house bill 517, Mississippi senate bill 2286, Missouri senate bill 1200, New Jersey assembly bill 2490, New York assembly bill 10259, 6920, 7300, senate bill 1177, 3731, Pennsylvania house bill, Rhode Island senate bill 2742, South Carolina senate bill 1259, Tennessee house bill 3245, senate bill 3395, Washington house bill 3359) is an act concerning ammunition coding. The purpose is to code and track all ammunition sold in the U.S. If passed into law, the act states that any person who manufactures handgun or assault weapon ammunition shall register with the commissioner of public safety and maintain records for a period of seven years concerning all sales, deliveries, and all other transfers of coded ammunition. In addition, any person selling coded ammunition at retail shall register with the commissioner of public safety, record the date of each sale, the name of the purchaser, the purchaser's motor vehicle operator's license number or other government issued ID card, the date of birth of the purchaser, and the unique identification code of the ammunition sold. The retailer must then maintain these records in a database for a minimum period of three years.
This system is flawed, an invasion of our privacy and unconstitutional.
1. It is an invasion of privacy to keep track of what type of rounds and how many rounds of ammunition a permitted, law abiding citizen purchases. This information should not be public knowledge unless the individual making the purchase is a criminal. This can be verified by the purchaser showing a valid state pistol permit.
2. The probability of a person obtaining someone else’s ammunition without the owner’s knowledge is far greater than obtaining control over another person’s firearm.
3. Serial numbers on ammunition can be bootlegged by criminals who know they can send an investigation in the wrong direction just by etching a fake serial number in the projectile. This can in turn incarcerate an innocent individual for a crime they did not commit.
4. This Act is an infringement on our right to bear arms. The Second Amendment clearly states “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This amendment was put into place to keep power with the people of the state, not the government. The government taking control over our ammunition is an indirect infringement of this right.
The Tenth Amendment provides 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.”
In Accordance to Article I Section 2 of the State of North Carolina Constitution. It also Clearly states:
Sec. 2. Sovereignty of the people.
"All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole."
Also In Accordance Article I
Sec. 35. Recurrence to fundamental principles.
A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.
Sec. 36. Other rights of the people.
The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
It is our belief that the federal government has consistently over-stepped its constitutional boundaries and usurped the powers reserved to the states, and therefore the people.
A North Carolina Sovereignty Resolution will remind the federal government of its proper role and place.
Our goal is to have a resolution adopted and passed by the North Carolina State Legislature during the calendar year 2009.
Is North Carolina alone in this movement? The answer is no. There are no less than 31 states that are claiming and/or planning similar legislation.
The State Sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that loose balance.
So, would you please join us in support of a North Carolina Sovereignty Resolution by signing the petition?
In Support of:
A Joint Resolution claiming Sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,and Article I Sections 2, 35 and 36 of the State of North Carolina Constitution over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and directing distribution.
A petition of the American people, declaring our intent to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to work within the lawful Constitutional framework to hold all in conspiracy against us accountable for their crimes.