Petition Tag - constitution


This is a call on Nigerians to rise up in solidarity against the Non Governmental Organizations Regulatory Commission Bill currently pending before the National Assembly. The Bill provides that before an NGO can operate in Nigeria, it must obtain a licence from the Commission which is vested with very wide powers to monitor and control NGOs. The licence is valid only for two years and at the expiration of the licence, an NGO shall cease to operate except the licence is renewed. There is no objective criteria for the issuance or renewal of the licence. It is entirely within the discretion of the Commission and an aggrieved person cannot challenge a refusal to issue or renew a licence in court. And any person who operates an NGO without a licence is liable to imprisonment for 18 months or to a fine of N500, 000 or to both imprisonment and fine.
By this Bill, civil society organizations who express critical views about government and demand accountability from public officers will be emasculated, branded illegal, their activities proscribed and their members imprisoned. Only organizations that are subservient or absolutely loyal to government may be allowed to exist. It is another attempt to eliminate dissent that should be resisted by Nigerians. It is the most draconian incursion our democracy is about to experience. The implications of the Bill are far reaching and traverse political party lines, ethnicity and religion. It is a brazen attempt by our legislators to expropriate constitutionally vested rights of Nigerians. Express your rejection of this anti democratic Bill. Spare a minute and sign the petition.

2. Mr. President, Declare AntiFa a terrorist group

Anyone who has been paying attention to current events in the United States of America, is aware of AntiFa and their terrorist activity.
From violence committed during our presidents inauguration, to the violence perpetrated on people at rallies across the nation. AntiFa has been growing in size, becoming bolder, and becoming more violent.
They have been very clear in their desire to tear apart our Republic and replace it with socialism / communism, and they advocate for, and use, violence to further their agenda. This is the definition of a terrorist group.
Please read, sign, and share this petition.
Thank You

3. Stop Discrimination and Say Yes to Equality!

Women’s Coalition of Zimbabwe (WCOZ), a representative of non-partisan women’s rights organisations and activists launched # Section 56 Campaign on Saturday the 8th of April 2017. CS56 is a Women’s Rights Activists campaign being coordinated by WCoZ to amplify the diverse voices of women’s rights activists in Zimbabwe, who after 3 years of a new progressive constitutional dispensation find that women’s day today lived realities have not changed and their demands for legal and administrative reforms continue to meet a myriad of excuses from various duty bearers.

The launch is a Women’s March titled #Section56March. The aim of the march is to amplify women’s voices in demanding for the full implementation of equality as covered in the Zimbabwean Constitution #Section56 on Equality and Non-Discrimination. The campaign will be speaking to issues of;
1. The failure to change of state practice toward women
2. The de-prioritisation of women
3. The deepening of marginalisation of women

4. Criminal Sanctions for Violators of Constitution of South Africa

FACT require that South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) take urgent steps and set the wheels into motion to develop the law to create appropriate criminal sanctions in respect of all residents and citizens who habitually violate the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

Civil remedies in many instances do not appear to have the desired effect on to curtail offenders contempt of the constitution.

▌Violating the Oath of office of the State President
▌Wasteful expenditure of state resources.

5. We The People Want President Trump to:

Mainly Democrats, the left, socialist and liberals have proven they have broken many of our American laws! We The People demand swift legal action taken against all involved. Many have been sown in to protect Americans and our constitution many of them turned the other check and went against our rights! We The People demand justice for all those in government positions now and past to be held fully accountable for there criminal actions. If you are not for We The People, Our Constitution Our Amendments and our freedoms and values. Your not entitled to any government position what so ever.

6. The Constitution in Australia - DEMAND YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

It is legally unchallengeable that the party system, with it's direct and indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite unlawfully striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all their Constitutional and legal powers, i.e., the institution of the Monarchy, as a prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including the final party political control over the Armed Forces of a nation; a control which, at present, is legally vested in the Queen to ensure that, where directly expressed to Her, THE WILL of the people shall at all times prevail.

This very important paragraph is taken from the work of Arthur.J.Cresby who spent 53 years studying and researching Constitutional Law.. His work entitled" YOUR WILL BE DONE" is available on the internet in pdf form and well worth reading.

THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, Please use this letter attached and Forward to the Governor General,


7. Enact Probable Cause in United States Public K-12 Schools

Implementing a probable cause standard would decrease racial bias in schools. Probable cause reduces bias and discrimination against students of color, since a warrant must be obtained before carrying out the search, as opposed to a standard of reasonable suspicion--where no warrant is required for a search to occur and school administrators may search whomever they suspect, which disproportionately is minorities.

According to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights in March of 2014, African American students are suspended and expelled at a rate three times point six times greater than that of white students. In Ohio, African American students are thirteen point three times more likely to be suspended or expelled than white students, therefore students in these schools are over four times more likely to be suspended or expelled compared to the rest of the nation-- this is according to the Kirwan Institute in February 2014. The University of Columbia explains that generally, minorities receive harsher and more severe punishments than white students for committing the same offenses.

According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as a result of racial discrimination, colored students can experience severe psychological trauma and feel criminalized for their ethnicity-- and as a result, racialized communities face a lack of minority representation in public offices and committees because they feel as though their voices do not matter in the grand scheme of things. In schools, minorities are racially targeted and punished significantly more than their white peers, and carry their experiences of racial profiling into their adult lives. Schools are where our country’s next generation learn the ways of the world-- a standard of reasonable suspicion will engender and continue the persisting racism in our schools and, consequently, society as a whole.

As stated by the National Education Association in March 2011, a standard of reasonable suspicion makes it much easier for the school district to enact harsher punishment policies for students, which usually come in the form of zero-tolerance policies. In these cases, minor infractions are dealt severe punishments. Zero-tolerance policies have been enacted in many schools across the country, leading to criminalization of students, even for the smallest of offenses, such as bringing cough drops or nail files to school. This increase in suspensions leads to increased criminalization of minorities in particular, as explained in our racial bias contention. The Ontario Human Rights Commission further details that, after experiencing this, students of color learn to distrust laws and the school system that criminalizes them. They are at an academic disadvantage compared to their white peers and become unlikely to achieve the same level of academic successes. Furthermore, when students are sent to juvenile detention centers, the quality of the education they receive drops drastically, which results in some students not receiving an adequate education and cannot contribute to society.

According to the University of Indiana, our nation’s schools are becoming a gateway to the adult criminal justice system. Criminalization of students in schools leads to a poor learning environment and develops an inherent distrust among students for both the nation’s laws and the school system, which reduces learning and productivity for not only the perpetrators, but disrupts the education for uninvolved students as well. This leads to students growing up and failing to become productive and law-abiding members of society.

Once suspended, students are more liable to become repeat offenders-- and this translates into their adult lives as well. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, students, and disproportionately minorities, who face criminalization in schools are much more likely to commit criminal offenses as adults. In fact, as stated by PBS in 2013, 68% of all males in state or federal prison do not have a high school diploma. This evidence simply cements the notion that a standard of reasonable suspicion creates distrust in students and pushes these students into a later life of criminal offenses.

This is the school-to-prison pipeline, and it is a detriment to society, the economy, and our younger generation. Reasonable suspicion only exacerbates the issue, and causes more students to enter the pipeline. A probable cause standard would alleviate the racial bias on minorities in schools, allow them to continue their education and thrive, and become fully-functioning members of society.

8. Real Freedom for the USA

Before I get into outlining the history of our government. I do not care who won the election! But we do something about "our" situation.

Our government has oppressed us for centuries. We came to this country to escape the government and we are right back to where we started

Together we can take this country back. We need to start this petition to let our government know we are serious about sitting down with President and telling him exactly what we as a people want to happen, which is fixing the economy {and we can} If we fix the economy we would solve the main problem facing our World

Our problem is not racism it's money. If there wasn't such a huge gap in the economy there would not be a problem with homeless Veterans and others, crime would decline dramatically.

We need to sit down face to face with our President with someone of our choosing, and tell him what needs to be fixed and how it is going to be fixed,

We need to tell them what is going to happen, not just ask them to change it, because they will not do anything. We need to tell them what we need and want done and if they do not we will impeach the government and start all over with normal everyday people who will, not rich people who won't.

Here are some of the problems that need to be addressed and the solutions to fix them.

The economy ~~solution ~~take away the governments' paychecks and reduce the amount of people in congress, boycott the entertainment industry.

The ozone ~~solution ~~ using only brick or stone for building, using only hemp for paper and clothes, using more natural products to clean. Growing hemp will add more oxygen and using brick and stone will help save the trees and is a more stable structure.

Crime ~~ solution ~~fix the economy, by leveling out the playing field so people won't need to steal therefore we would a decrease in murders.

9. Call it a Republic: refer to our government as a “Constitutional Republic”

The media and most politicians continue to misrepresent our form of government as a democracy despite the fact that we are a Constitutional Republic. By changing the language, the powerful elites are dumbing down the masses and misrepresenting our entire political system. Don’t believe me? Ask a friend, neighbor or family member what form of government we have and see for yourself.

A Constitutional Republic protects against the tyranny of the majority, encourages coalition building and discourages voter fraud. It is why the framers of the constitution decided on a Constitutional Republic. Remember the reason for America in the first place was to escape the tyranny of an inferior political system that oppressed the masses.

Now we are at a tipping point where we need your help. Sign this petition that will be sent to all major media outlets, elected officials and pundits who continue to misrepresent our form of government.

10. The President Should Comply With The Constitution

It’s 2016; people are all worked up with the Presidential election. And well they should be, more than ever before. Because the President’s span of power has expanded every term closer to that of a dictator or king! Particularly during the past several years under the Obama administration. Time and time again he has expanded his powers further outside the parameters of the Constitution. The executive branch has become a corrupt cartel not letting anything get in their way. President Obama said himself: “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

Well perhaps you are part of the minority that really believes that he is “providing the kind of help America needs.” But now the door is open, and President Obama and the future Presidents will keep on passing laws without the legislative branch. This is completely unconstitutional!

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 says concerning the President, “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” President Obama swore all this not only in the inauguration but also the next day in a private ceremony because Chief Justice John Roberts switched the order of some of the words in the oath. Twice he has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution; but again and again he has violated It!

This is the same man who said “I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on its
enduring principles for expedience sake. I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values [make that our Constitution] not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values [our Constitution] have been our best national security asset – in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval. Fidelity to our values [our Constitution] is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.” President Obama may believe these things in his heart, but he has treated the Presidential oath as mere ritual and is not taking it seriously. Perhaps this is because he realizes that he is not being kept accountable like previous Presidents were.

In August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon was forced to resign from the Presidential office or face impeachment. The reasons for the articles of impeachment were numerous. Nixon’s formed a covert group called the plumbers to “fix leaks.” He used them to keep tabs on his enemies including politicians, journalists, actors, or anyone else that might leak information that could harm his reelection. So he harassed them with tax audits and legal action. Then came the famous Watergate scandal when he sent five men to break into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. When the men were caught President Nixon immediately ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop the FBI from any further investigation. Nixon is known as one of the most corrupt Presidents ever. But compared to our current President he doesn’t seem quite so devious.

President Nixon did spy on a number of his enemies. But President Obama used the National Security Agency to raid massive searches on thousand of private phone calls and emails. This is clearly against the 4th Amendment which gives us the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

While Richard Nixon is given a bad rap for using the CIA to block the FBI from investigation of the Watergate scandal, Barack Obama used the CIA to spy on US Senators who were investigating the CIA’s illegal actions.

One of the articles of impeachment was that President Nixon declared war on Cambodia without Congressional approval. President Obama, however, said regarding Syria, “I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific Congressional authorization.”

Richard Nixon’s missing tapes total 18 and a half minutes. Barack Obama’s CIA officials admit that they disposed of tapes that could be used against them in court during the torture scandal.

We have allowed our current President to get away with many corrupt activities and violations of the Constitution. We have allowed him to be act as a king. We have allowed the Executive branch to open a gate that the next President will open even wider.

The Internal Revenue Service, unconstitutionally created in 1862, has become his gang of thugs to “take out” Barack Obama's enemies. No not terrorists, but Tea Party members, gun shop owners, and religious people. President Obama said discriminately “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion”. The President can’t get angry at people and target them! He must remember that he is a President, not a king.

Alexander Hamilton wrote down some of the major differences between a king and a President. One major difference is that a President does not have authority to appoint officers without Senate approval. A king, however, may appoint officers at will. Presidents have been creating “czars”, basically a word for unapproved officials, for a long time. George W. Bush had 14 and Barack Obama has 45. Each President is expanding his power more. How many czars will the next President have?

He isn’t protecting us very well either. Barack Obama told the border patrol to stand down and even to give de facto green cards to illegal immigrants who were illegally brought into America as children. He does not have the Constitutional authority to break laws!

These are only a few examples of the many ways that the executive branch has violated the Constitution. It isn’t just President Obama. Every President is expanding his authority more than the previous President. We cannot tolerate this any longer! We can only imagine how much power the next President will grant himself. If the Constitution is not enforced it accomplishes nothing. It becomes merely a relic or piece of history. No matter what the President does it must be in accordance with the Constitution! We cannot let our country be ruled in a autocratic style.

The Constitution restricts the President to be a President. If we allow the President to act like a king, then we are handing our country over to tyranny. In the past, we would impeach such a President, like we did with Richard Nixon. We must keep the President accountable to stay within the parameters of the Constitution. If we don’t we will find ourselves under leaders no different than King George the 3rd, Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin.

I ask you to sign my petition, titled “The President Should Comply With The Constitution.” Which calls upon our President to submit to the orders of the Constitution. It is time to hold our President accountable again.

11. Judicial Overreach Concerning North Carolina's Voter Id Law

The 9th and 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly limits the power of the federal government and protects the rights of the states to govern themselves. The more power the federal government has the less freedom we have.

In July, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit based in Virginia overturned North Carolina’s Voter ID Law. The law required a photo identification to vote, reduced early voting days and ended same day registration. All three judges on this panel were appointed by Democratic presidents.

The court incorrectly ruled that the law disproportionately affected minorities saying it violated the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act and eliminated the voter identification requirement. Statistics show that the disenfranchisement of black voters did not occur. In fact, participation of black voters increased by almost 2 percent. In 2010 before the law was in place, 40.3 percent of blacks voted then after the law was in place for the 2014 midterms 42.2 percent of blacks voted. The court produced no evidence that there was any racial bias in any of the deliberations of the law. The plaintiffs could not produce a single person that was unable to obtain a ballot because of this law. The court unfairly ruled that the legislature was acting “with discriminatory intent.”

Thirty-four other states have voter ID laws in place which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The court also added back a week of early voting even though a dozen states still do not have any type of early voting. The court also added back same day registration while the majority of states do not allow same day registration. Does this ruling mean that all of these states are violating the Constitution? The courts disregard of legal precedent, ignoring the 400 pages of facts from the district court, and ignoring the positive outcome for minority turnout after the law was implemented shows the court’s intent was not one of an independent arbiter but one of recklessly pushing a partisan agenda.

After the ruling, in a joint statement Speaker Tim Moore and Senate Leader Phil Berger said, “Since today’s decision by three partisan Democrats ignores legal precedent, ignores the fact that the other federal courts have used North Carolina’s law as a model, and ignores the fact that a majority of other states have similar protections in place, we can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election.”

Governor Pat McCrory stated the following, “Photo IDs are required to purchase Sudafed, cash a check, board an airplane or enter a federal court room. Yet, three Democratic judges are undermining the integrity of our elections while also maligning our state. We will immediately appeal and also review other potential options.”

12. End Government Seizure of Private Property

There has been much dispute lately about the federal government's seizure of private property, particularly out west. The government has tried to justify it through eminent domain. Eminent Domain is when the government seizes private property for public use, but provides just compensation to the owner.

This is allowed under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which states,"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The federal government has been seizing property from citizens whose families have owned the land for generations, but the land isn't for public use. The most prominent example of this would be the Bundy family's farm in Nevada.

The Bureau of Land Management attempted to seize land and cattle from the Bundy family, claiming that they were trying to protect the habitat of the Desert Tortoise. That is not public use of property, therefore, it is against the Constitution. In addition to that, the BLM euthanized dozens of Desert Tortoises not long prior to this, because they claimed to be unable to afford the care of them. If they couldn't afford that, than how could they afford to spend a million dollars rounding up Cliven Bundy's cattle? The BLM also attempts to justify the land and cattle seizures by saying that Mr. Bundy hadn't been paying grazing fees for 20 years. Why should citizens have to pay money to the government in order for their cattle to graze on their own property?

The federal government has been doing this for too long. They own 28% of the total land in the United States, and even more than that in some states. 84% of Nevada is now owned by the federal government, as well as 69% of Alaska, and nearly as much of most other western states. It is wrong for the federal government to have taken this land, and it is time for the American people to stand up and say so.

13. All deputies to meet and elect the head of state immediately. As per Lebanese Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, Members of Parliament

In accordance with Article 47 of the Lebanese Constitution, we bring this petition to your attention so that you apply the spirit and letter of the Constitution in order to end the prolonged vacancy at the head of the State. Our Constitution requires Parliament to "meet immediately and as of right" to elect the President (Art. 74), and requires each of you to "proceed immediately with the election of the Head of State without any discussion, or any other matter." (Art. 75).

We therefore request from every deputy that he fulfills as of right (Art. 73), without delay (Art. 74), and immediately (Art. 75), his or her constitutional duty to elect the head of state.

You will find enclosed the Constitutional declaration in which Humanist Lebanon develops the argument of the present petition. We join its signatories with the determination to bring to an end the country’s persistent deadlock resulting from the lack of enforcement of clear constitutional texts.

September 2016

14. Implement Uniform Civil Code in India, now!

Muslim women in India have suffered because of Triple Talaq which is Unilateral, Arbitrary and Contravenes both the Constitution and the Principles of Gender Justice in Islam.

Triple Talaq has been banned in more than 20 Muslim majority countries, including PAKISTAN and BANGLADESH while polygamy was prohibited in TURKEY and TURKMENISTAN among other countries.

15. Stop abuse of Presidential Executive Power which seeks to ratify treaties without two-thirds approval of the U.S. Senate

The U.S. Constitution states in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, that, in reference to the President, “He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senate present concur;....”

In recent years, the President and the executive branch have entered into multiple agreements with other countries without a two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate. Often this is under the guise of negotiating a “trade agreement” or an “executive agreement,” rather than a treaty.

A treaty, as defined by Merriam-Webster is “an official agreement that is made between two or more countries or groups.” According to the U.S. Department of State’s own website, in explaining the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement, it states, “ agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a Constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are ‘international agreements other than treaties’ and are often referred to as ‘executive agreements.’” In other words, in this self-contradictory statement, they seem to justify their own actions by wording it as a loophole.

Additionally, on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration website, on the definition of free trade agreements (FTAs), they explain that an FTA is “an agreement between two or more countries where the countries agree on certain obligations that affect trade in goods and services….”. Also, ‘.... the main goal of trade agreements is to … enhance the rule of law in the FTA partner country or countries.”

This explanation certainly seems to meet the definition of a treaty.

Throughout the majority of this nation’s history, trade and tariff agreements with other countries were deemed no different than any other international “treaties.”

The early examples of the executive branch not respecting its boundaries date back to the introduction of the fast-track authority given to the President during Nixon’s administration. This procedural mechanism gave the executive branch the power to change the schedule by which trade agreements were voted on, to write lengthy legislation without review or amendments, to limit the debate on the agreements, and effectively to violate Congress’s constitutional authority to “determine trade policy?” Fast track authority was implemented in the passing of controversial trade pacts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Asian-Pacific Trade Agreement and the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

As recently as the G20 summit, September 2016, there is suggestion that President Obama will announce that he and Chinese President Jinping will sign on to the Paris climate treaty. White House senior adviser Brian Deese said the president has the legal authority to do so without the ⅔ Senate approval because the pact is an ”executive agreement.”

16. An Amendment to Stop Judicial Activism

Judicial Legislation: An Oligarchy’s Infiltration of the Republic

“When…power is lodged in the hands of men independent of the people, and of their representatives, and who are not, constitutionally, accountable for their opinions, no way is left to control them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm.” In his Anti-Federalist Papers, New York judge Robert Yates prophesied the futility of preventing a body of unelected judges from usurping legislative power from the people and the state governments. After nearly 228 years, the United States has witnessed the fulfillment of Yates’ ominous oracle and the degradation of the Founders’ view of federalism. Through a careful examination of the judiciary’s originally enumerated authority, the transgressions of an ambitious collection of pseudo-legislators are revealed, ripe for amendment, so that constitutional equilibrium may be restored.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution defines the “judicial Power” enumerated in Article III as, “neutrally deciding a case by interpreting the law and applying it to the facts, then rendering a final and binding judgment.” However, judges cannot simply attach their own opinion onto a decision which carries the force of law. In two landmark cases, Marbury v Madison and Cohens v Virginia, Chief Justice John Marshall stresses the duty of the judiciary to always interpret and apply the law in favor of the Constitution. “It is apparent,” he writes in Marbury, “that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of the courts…Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?” In Cohens, speaking to the power of the courts to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress, Marshall notes that, “whenever a particular statute contravenes the constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter, and disregard the former.” Furthermore, he carefully explains, “It can be of no weight to say, that the courts…may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature…The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” Prior precedent clearly prohibits judges from ruling contrarily to the “Supreme Law of the Land.” In checking unconstitutional actions of the legislature, the court may not use its authority to subvert the people’s will expressed in the Constitution.

Despite prior precedent that deplores a judge’s use of the bench as an assembly, judicial history is contaminated with blatant violations of Article I, Section I of the Constitution: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…” Ignoring original intent, the court has, at times, used its authority not to defend the Constitution, but to advance a political agenda. For example, in Griswold v Connecticut, the Supreme Court invented a “right to privacy,” which ultimately led to the legalization of sodomy and abortion. In the intentionally complex opinion, Justice William Douglas reflects the strategy of his partner, ACLU lawyer Melvin Wulf, who advocated for applying, “in a general sort of way,” principles of similar cases which should be “perhaps even extended a little bit” to fit the present case. In this way, justices, according to Yates, “mould the government into almost any shape they please.” Other examples of this practice contaminate the Supreme Court’s record. In Everson v Board of Education, the court misconstrued Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between church and state to ban “the free exercise of religion” from public places, though it did not cite precedent to justify the decision. Recently, in Natl. Fed. of Ind. Bus. v Sebelius five justices interpreted the word “penalty” to mean “tax,” thereby legalizing Obamacare and the intrusion of the federal government into the private sector. The most explicit example of judicial legislation is an infamous successor to Griswold, Roe v Wade, in which the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion. At the conclusion of his opinion, Justice Blackmun establishes specific criteria governing abortion in each trimester, essentially writing the abortion laws for an entire nation himself. From the due process clause, the controlling language in Roe, Blackmun and six other judges somehow extract detailed rules for conducting abortions and an unfounded excuse to murder innocent children. Roe and the aforementioned cases serve to demonstrate the subtle tyranny with which the judiciary controls the lives of US citizens and expose the unconstitutional subversion of legislative power from Congress. Such overreach must be stopped.

The Framers, aware of the lust with which men seek power, provided a remedy for unlawful confiscations of sovereignty—the amendment process, as found in Article V of the Constitution. Mark Levin, a nationally syndicated conservative radio host, in his book appropriately titled, The Liberty Amendments, proposes a pragmatic resolution to the judicial tyranny under which the people and their state governments have suffered. The amendment reads, “Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.” Under the present constitution, court decisions are unable to be remanded. As Yates warns, “No errors [judges] may commit can be corrected by any power above them…” Levin’s amendment would grant to the state legislatures the ability to check the judiciary and limit federal encroachment. Considering that, in Griswold, Everson, and Roe the Supreme Court struck down state statutes, a supermajority legislative override would restore the important balance of federalism between the national and state governments. Levin rightly observes that, “By adding the override, for the first time justices will know that their most significant majority opinions may not solely be judged by history, but by the people who must live under them…”

Influential philosopher and advocate for the separation of powers, Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, said that of the three powers—the legislature, executive, and judiciary—“the judiciary is next to nothing.” Certainly he and the Founders did not expect a branch, whose enumerated purpose is to neutrally interpret the law, to morph into a comprehensive source of power. John Adams famously explained that the American republic is “a government of laws, and not of men.” If this is true, then the Constitution should be the fountainhead of all derived authority, not an assembly of five unelected judges. The people are secure in their rights only when justices rule in favor of the “Supreme Law of the Land.” To maintain such security, a workable check must be installed to curb judicial legislation and eliminate the oligarchy which has infiltrated the republic.

17. Third term for Obama

Due to the lack of trust and confidence the American people have in the current presidential candidates, we the people would like to amend the Twenty Second amendment to allow the current sitting president to run for a third term.

18. Stop gun control bills from passing to law

The Obama administration is trying to pass more gun control laws before the President's term is over, signing small bills into laws here and there.

Each time a bill is passed it is creating more infringements on our constitutional Second Amendment rights.

In order to stop these infringements we need to show Washington that we see what they are doing and that it is wrong.


As Samoan citizens living in New Zealand, Australia, USA and other countries, we continue to maintain our connections with our lands, family titles and ties to Samoa.

OUR COMMITMENT TO SAMOA is not only by words but by our Deeds and Financial remittances to our families and churches.

In the Annual Report for the Financial Year 2011-2012 by the Central Bank of Samoa (p10), it said the following:

"Private remittances increased a further 6 percent to $392.2 million in 2011/12 (on top of a 6 percent recovery in 2010/11), underpinned by a 29 percent increase in remittances for households as well as a 7 percent (or $2.5 million) growth in funds for Churches. Families remained as the main recipients of funds, with its share edging up 2 percentage points to 75 percent, followed by Churches with 10% share. The main sources of household remittances were NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA and the USA with shares of 37 percent, 32 percent and 20 percent respectively..."

In Central Bank of Samoa Bulletin of September 2014, it said at page 10:

"The gross inflow of private remittances went up by 16.7 percent to $94.8 percent million largely due to increased funds for "households" and church. The main sources of remittances were from NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA..."

The Lawyers and Legal Practice Act 2014 violates our rights under Article 15 of The Constitution of Samoa to be equal before the law and entitled to equal protection under the law.

20. Implement legislation that limits excessive campaign contributions

The wealthy 1% influence election decisions through their immense wealth. The presence of colossal contributions funneled through Super PACs, social welfare organizations, politically active nonprofit organizations and unions violate numerous articles of the U.S. Constitution that proclaim officials must be elected by the people.

The renowned saying "We the People" is being contorted into "We the Corporations".

Political and economic favors are traded between wealthy benefactors and political officials.

The wealthy 1% use the candidates as puppets while they pull the strings. If we continue down this path our once strong nation will be reduced to one that enacts legislation to solely benefits big business.

21. Support Al Carroll's "A Proposed New Constitution"

If it were up to the American public, the following solutions would have become law many decades, even half a century or more, before today:

1. Abolishing the Electoral College.

2. Ending the buying of elections.

3. Limiting election campaigns to three months.

4. Ending wars quickly in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Each war continued over half a decade after the American public wanted to get out.

5. Reforming the office of vice president, widely regarded with contempt by most, and producing candidates that even most voters of the same party as the presidential candidate did not want.

6. Ending corporate welfare and other wasteful spending.

7. Ending most foreign military aid, and support for tyrants and dictators around the world.

8. Limiting the power of the Supreme Court.

9. Ending the political monopoly of wealthy elites.

10. Guaranteeing privacy from government intrusion.

Each of these proposals have widespread bipartisan support and are hugely popular across the political spectrum by great majorities. But none of these proposals have majority support among elected political elites, economic elites, or the leadership of either party.

The constitution itself is the biggest barrier to solving these problems. Not one of these problems have been, or ever could have been, quickly solved, precisely because the constitution makes it difficult. Most of these problems require a constitutional amendment, something made deliberately long and difficult by the founders. A few of these could be solved temporarily by ordinary laws, which could then be easily overturned next election.

So why not go to the root of these problems? Why not a new constitution? Support history professor Al Carroll's A Proposed New Constitution at

22. Allow the sale of firearms on Facebook

Facebook has been a much safer and more consistent place to sell items than craigslist since the sell tab was released.

It is legal to sell firearms in a person to person transaction at an FFL in the majority of states.

Facebook should not bend to the governments pressure to disallow the sale and discussion of firearms under the first and second amendments.

23. Collectif Coalition des Algériens de l'Etranger

Non à la médiocrité politique.
Non à la discrimination institutionnalisée!

Il suffit de lire la Constitution proposée au peuple algérien pour avoir une idée globale sur l'intérêt réel accordé à la Communauté Algérienne établie à l'Etranger et une idée précise sur celles et ceux qui tiennent entre leurs mains le destin de tout un peuple.

24. It is Time for the States to Utilize the Compact Clause to Protect Themselves Against Illegal Immigration

It is Time for the States to Utilize the Compact Clause to Protect Themselves Against Illegal Immigration

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

As the world watches in horror as ISIS kills, maims, and terrorizes the people of France, Belgium, and Russia, as the U.S. state department issues a world wide travel alert until February 2016, as the FBI and DHS issue warnings to the American people that the United States is under high alert for a terror attack on the homeland, nothing is being done about our open porous borders. It is absolutely beyond comprehension.

We face a crisis in our country today. Wide swaths of open land on our borders are literally open doors for terrorists; we are inviting them in to threaten our communities and kill our citizens. Due to this emergence it serves Americans well to be aware of what options the United States Constitution offers them via the States. Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 may provide the answer. Your representative may not even be aware of this lawful loophole.

The clause states that “No State shall, without Consent of Congress… enter into any agreement or Compact with another State… or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit delay.”

Under the current dire circumstances, it is time for the governors of the border states to utilize the Compact Clause and take action since the federal government is doing absolutely nothing. To focus on the southern border, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas are currently being “invaded” and are certainly in “imminent Danger.” Thus, they can take action to seal up the border, send in the militia, send in armed guards or take whatever action they deem necessary to prevent the illegal and dangerous movements into their states. The compact can be between as little as two states. Thus, if California doesn’t want to join in they do not have to do so, but Arizona, New Mexico and Texas can be pro-active.

The compact clause states that Congress must consent to the compact – unless – actually invaded or in imminent danger. The southern states in America are most definitely being invaded. ISIS is surging. The illegal immigration crisis is escalating while the federal government is cowering in a corner – afraid of political consequences, or better yet encouraging them. Shame on them. It is time for the States to act and this clause gives them the legitimacy to do so.

Citizens awake! The danger is here More danger is coming. With the newfound knowledge of the Compact Clause - which allows states to defend themselves in times of invasion or imminent danger - calls must be made to your governors, and representatives on the state level, urging them to take action. Be wary of attempts to downplay the legitimacy of the Compact Clause. The fact that states can enter into a compact to protect themselves in times of invasion or imminent danger according to Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 should not be distorted by political agenda and political legalese.

Our founders deliberately empowered the local and state governments giving them permission to rise when danger presented itself. We the people must act. Google your state representatives and email them, call them, sign the Compact Clause petition. Do the same with your governor. It is time for the states to protect themselves. It is time for us to demand it.

Janine Turner


25. Support Prayer/Contemplation before Canadian Civic Council Meetings

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled (April 15) that opening and closing council meetings in Saguenay Quebec with a Catholic prayer violated Quebec's provincial human rights act.

Edmonton has a worldwide reputation over 35 years of opening City Council meetings with a prayer or chant or musical presentation from one of the 13 + various faith traditions found in this community of 1.3 million residents.

This long-standing inclusive practice strengthens our community by building an environment to foster respect and understanding for Councillors, City Staff and meeting attendees. Ideas for the future include inviting rep. from the atheist/agnostic community to offer a reflection, moments of silence after any/all contributions to create a positive atmosphere of clarity, gratitude and mindfulness . ( for the liberties and freedoms we enjoy as Canadians)

It is my understanding that the purpose of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Tolerance, Freedom and Equality. It applies to corporations as well as individuals.

The Charter states that "a law will be found to restrict expression if it has the effect of frustrating the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self fulfillment and human flourishing" ( Limiting the Right )

The Charter ( 27 ) "This charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada."

According to the Edmonton Journal "City lawyers want Edmonton councillors to temporarily cancel the prayers that start their meetings for fear the practice is unconstitutional". The April 28 agenda calls for a motion to not have a prayer.

26. Duluthians Believe that Money Is Not Free Speech

This effort is being made to provide Duluth residents an opportunity to voice their opinion about the damaging effects, to our political process, to our democracy, of huge amounts of unaccounted for money being infused into our election process since multinational corporate money was declared to be legally the same as an individual person’s right to free speech and since multinational corporations, even foreign multinational corporations, were declared to be identical, in the eyes of the law, as an individual person.

Since Citizens United, in 2010, the people have become less, and less, in control of our election process as their voices, and their freedom of speech, are being drowned out by Dark Money and Super PAC money.

We must have transparency in our political process.

We must get our country back into the hands of the people!

27. America Needs You ASAP! The Iranian Deal Must Be Checked By Article II, Section II, Clause II - Demand It! Deal To Be Reached By March 24 - By Janine Turner & Juliette Turner

Here are our thoughts as to why we believe this petition is urgently important.
----Janine Turner & Juliette Turner

Your ancestry and the Founding Fathers feared the unchecked autocracy of a king, a tyrant, a dictator—or even an American president—that allowed one man to risk, and possibly ruin, the safety, liberty, and sovereignty of the people. They not only believed but knew first hand that fallible human weakness inherent in a leader, made ruthless by the quest for power and unquenchable vanity, could and would leave the people vulnerable and violated if left unchecked.

The Founding Fathers left a way to check and balance such tyrannical behavior. It was simply and specifically written in America’s founding document, the United States Constitution. Yet, this world acclaimed and historically proven document is only viable if you insist it be. If no resistance is met then silent, slippery usurpations blend into precedents upon which Presidents prey.

One such violation is happening before your very eyes—the current Iranian negotiations and impending deal. This “deal,” a treaty by another name, is supposed to be read, checked, debated, and vetted by your representatives in the United States Senate. Article II, Section II, Clause II of the Constitution states, “He (President) shall have power, by and with the advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds present concur.” In other words, the President cannot make a deal with another country and impose it upon you without your approval which flows through your duly elected Senator.

President Obama, however, is banking on the hope that you, and the majority of the American people, do not know the United States Constitution. Apathetic ignorance is the trump card which enables him to slide the Iranian deal into effect without being accountable to anyone.

My friends, this action, no matter what the precedent or the title of the deal, is a blatant infringement upon your democratic rights and the results could be disastrous – literally. Both President Obama and his administration will argue that the “deal” is technically not a “treaty.” (Merriam Webster defines the word treaty, “an official agreement that is made between two or more countries or groups.”) The Obama administration deceptively calls the negotiations the “Iranian deal,” even though it is “an official agreement that is being made between two or more countries” – the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France & Germany and Iran.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 69, which defines Article II, Section II, Clause II, refers to treaties as such that involve peace, commerce, alliance and every other description. The definition of the Iranian deal certainly falls into these categories.

President Obama’s unilateral attempt to execute the impending “Iranian deal” upon you without approval of the Senate is deplorable and apocalyptically dangerous. Even more stunning is the lack of revolt by the press, the people, and the Congress. Everyone’s focus is on the contents of the deal and the implications of the deal, not on how to stop the deal from being implemented.

Everyone except for Senator Lindsey Graham. Senator Graham is putting forth a bill that insists on the Iranian deal being subjected to an up or down vote in the Senate. Though I respect and admire Senator Lindsey Graham immensely and applaud him for doing so, there are two flaws to this method: a) it is not necessary – Senate approval is already a law under our United States Constitution; b) it allows the President to veto the bill, which then paralyzes debate, approval, and recourse.

The mechanism already exists: Article II, Section II, Clause II. It simply has to be enforced. No excuse or ready precedent or supposed air tight definitive can usurp the due protection you are entitled by this current Constitutional law of the land. Only your silence can accomplish this. Stand up and take back your voice. You have the right. You have the law. You have the opportunity. Call your Senator today. Insist that the Constitutional law be followed: that the Iranian deal stand the scrutiny of the Senate as prescribed in Article II, Section II, Clause II.

Facebook, Twitter, e-mail your friends. Your time has come. Petition. You must not forfeit your rights, your safety - your Constitution - because you have succumbed to the abetted belief that you can make no difference. Ring the warning bell. Be a Paul Revere.

Be a part of the collective wisdom of the people. Americans rule together; Americans must be heard. Your time is now. Patrick Henry says it best,

"They tell us sir that we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have us bound hand and foot?"

Rally for your rights and for the enforcement of Article II, Section II, Clause II – before America’s enemies are at your door step.

Janine Turner & Juliette Turner

Founder - Constituting America

National Youth Director - Constituting America

March 4, 2015

28. RedHanded Campaign

The Redhanded Campaign has put into a publication official documentation that proves law enforcement officials are breaking the law before Grand juries and that prosecutors are aiding & abetting the criminal conduct and that members of the judiciary are covering it up.

29. Boycott all movie theaters that refuse to show the movie entitled "The Interview"

"The Interview", a movie produced by Sony will not be shown because there is no movie theater in the United States that will show it according to Michael Lynton CEO of Sony Pictures.

Movie theaters have been threatened by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and have decided out of fear to not show Movie. Has this great nation become a nation of cowards?

Which group of fanatics will tell the United Sates what to hear or see next?

It is not the movie that is important but the first crack in our democracy and our first amendment that is important.

Charlie Chaplan was not afraid of Adolph Hitler when he made "The Great Dictator" and it is shown till this day.

30. Drill Baby, Drill

A minority of extreme environmentalists have initiated a petition to prevent the bringing of energy jobs to the coastal area of South Carolina. Their voices threaten the will of the 77% majority of the people of this state.

South Carolina has the ability to enter a boom economic period with the advent of new off shore drilling, with the environment being maintained and improved.

Energy production can and does work hand in hand with a clean environment.

Don't let the doom and gloom naysayers stifle your voice, economic well being and future prosperity. What they don't tell you, it's not just about cheaper gas and energy independence. It's also about the everyday products dependent upon petrochemicals. Everything from your daily vitamins, medicines, clothing, kitchenware, furniture, appliances, electronics and so much more! There is barely an item you encounter in your daily life that was not produced with a petrochemical. Yes, even your smart phone and iPad.

Sign the petition to bring energy jobs to South Carolina.

It is understood that:

The United States of America must achieve energy self sufficiency and reduction in reliance on foreign oil.

Less expensive off shore energy production excess can provide export profits and attract major industries to our shore.

Until green energies prove to be productive, reliable, affordable and efficient, we must rely upon the alternatives, such a offshore energy production, clean coal, nuclear and hydroponic sources.

South Carolina offshore drilling will produce thousands of new jobs and millions in additional tax revenue benefits. **(Until offshore surveys are completed and studied no concrete figures can be presented.)

The Gulf of Mexico platforms are highly prized by offshore fishing and diving tourist trips. They form an artificial reef teeming with life and generate for Louisiana alone, over 5,500 full time jobs and around $324 million annually. The reefs produce fish densities anywhere from 10 to 100 times than that of the sea floor, per Bob Shipp, professor at the Marine Sciences Department, University of South Alabama.

3000 of the current 3700 off shore US oil platforms are in the Gulf of Mexico, with 1/3 of the commercial fisheries in North America, situated in Louisiana. These platforms produce 80% of US oil and 72% of US natural gas.

Dr. Charles Wilson of LSU's Department of Oceanography & Coastal Science, states, "The fish Biomass around an off shore oil platform is 10 times greater per unit area than that for natural coral reefs." he adds, "Then to 30,000 adult fish live around an oil production platform in an area half the size of a football field."

In a study by Dr. Shipp, found that the northwestern part of the Gulf of Mexico was basically empty of stocks of red snapper for the 1st hundred years of the fishery. With the appearance of thousands of platforms, the western Gulf has become a major source of red snapper.

With SC off shore energy production, the state will experience and increase in not only energy production jobs, but also in the ancillary increase in tourism jobs, increasing fishing and diving tourism, job creation in housing and other supportive industries, as well as increased state and local tax revenues.

The oil rigs will not be seen from coastal communities, like the City of Beaufort, nor from the beaches of Hunting Island. They will be beyond the sight lines of beaches, approximately 75 to 100 miles off shore, in comparatively shallow water as opposed to the Deepwater-Horizon Well, which sits at 5,000 ft. The shallow depth will make the well easier to inspect, maintain and secure from potential accidents.

Island Packet, 8/25/2014, "Since 2010, two well-containment companies have developed technology that could quickly cap and contain a well blowout to prevent another Deepwater Horizon-scale disaster", said Erik Milito, a spokesman for the oil lobbyist American Petroleum Institute.

Read more here: