We the People gives up hunger strike because government says so, Ron Paul forwards redress petition to House clerk
Posted on August 24th, 2008 by bile Tags: 1st Amendment, Bob Schulz, Congress, government, House of Representatives, hunger strike, National Park Service, petition for redress of grievances, Ron Paul, Senate, Texas, thugs, US Constitution, We the People Foundationhttp://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/…
Last Sunday we posted our Web Update titled “Next Step: Large Scale Hunger Fast.”
Last Tuesday, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz met for the third time with the staff of the National Park Service (NPS) to discuss the details of WTP’s permit for the hunger fast. The fast was originally scheduled to start on August 11, but was rescheduled to start on September 16, due to the current five week break by Congress.
Until Tuesday, the conditions of the permit included a 24 hours a day, 7 days per week hunger fast, with tents as shelters, provided there were “no sleeping bags, blankets and pillows for comfort.” Chairs would be allowed.
Last Tuesday, NPS informed Bob that no one would be allowed to sleep during the hunger fast! Anyone caught sleeping, they said, would be cited for violating the permit. The cost would be $75 for each citation plus court costs. Bob argued, without success, that our Hunger Fast was a First Amendment expression of our disgust with the Government’s failure to respond to our Petitions for Redress, and that a “no sleeping” rule would, in effect, amount to a denial of First Amendment Rights to Petition, Speech and Association.
Absent the initiation of yet another legal challenge, or hungering by People on 2-3 day shifts, the Park Service’s “no sleeping” Rule effectively cancels the large scale hunger fast.
The Park Service’s “no sleeping” rule did not effectively cancel the hunger fast. Those who where to be part of the We the People hunger fast who are deciding to go along with their rule cancels it. If you are asking the government for permission you deserve to be told no. I find it sad that some of these people will go out of their way to not pay income tax because the government won’t respond to them yet true civil disobedience scares them off. They need to realize that it’s not their government. It’s a group of thugs who need to be denied legitimacy and resisted. Canceling the fast is a sign of weakness in their resolve and just further legitimizes the government’s claimed authority over them.
Thus far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has “responded” to the Petitions for Redress by having them “forwarded to the Clerk of the House.”
While such a move is unique among the Members of the House, and is not a bad first step in etching the concept of Government accountability into the minds of some of the Members and advancing ever so slightly the question of the constitutional meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment, it is highly unlikely that the Petitions for Redress will advance to House Committees for consideration, much less a vote to provide Redress. With the possible exception of Ron Paul, we know of no other politician willing to consider the notion of being held accountable to the People outside the periodic electoral process.
Whether or not the Petitions for Redress served on Ron Paul advance beyond the Office of the Speaker of the House, a constituent’s Right to Redress (like that of Religion, Speech, Press and Assembly) is an individual Right that does not depend on the will of any person or majority, not in the House, not in the Senate, not on any Court bench, and not among those voting in any election.
Forwarding the Petitions for Redress to the Clerk of the House has not relieved Rep. Ron Paul of his individual obligation to respond by answering the questions embedded in each of the seven Petitions for Redress. Even if his answer is, “I lack knowledge enough to admit or deny,” he has a legal (constitutional) obligation to respond.
We pray Rep. Paul will personally respond to the Petitions for Redress.
It’s unfortunate that Paul’s staff if not also Paul himself are afraid of responding claiming that doing so would open the door for more petitions and they don’t have the staff to deal with that. Even if they don’t answer them promptly they could at least queue them up and let the petitioner know it’s queued. They get to it when they have the ability to do so. The very idea that it would lead to the Congressmen being inundated with petitions for redress of grievances should be reason enough to do so.



