Topic

constitution

23 petitions

This petition won 1 week ago

Petition to Delfin N. Lorenzana, Leni Robredo, Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, Jose Christopher Belmonte, Risa Hontiveros, Socrates Villegas, Rose Trajano, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Cristina Ellezar Palabay, Emerlynne Gil, Galileo Gerard Kintanar Jr., Antonio Carpio, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Herbert Docena, Hajji Moh'd Ersad Malli, Paolo Manalo, Florin T. Hilbay, Michael L. Tan, Abdiel Dan Elijah S. Fajardo, Miro Quimbo, Peter Angelo V. Perfecto, Rex RB. Reyes, Jr., John Paolo A. Villasor, Leah C. Tanodra-Armamento, Robert Reyes, Sonia Punzalan, Oscar Moreno, Joel B. Doria, Teddy Baguilat, Marlon Manuel, Ryan V. Silverio

Uphold the Constitution, oppose a power grab

We Filipinos ask our soldiers and national leaders to uphold the Constitution and oppose efforts to establish authoritarian rule. With President Duterte's expressed plan to declare a revolutionary government, we Filipinos are facing the greatest threat to democracy and freedom since the Marcos dictatorship. Essentially a power grab, the establishment of a revolutionary government headed by Duterte would give him absolute control by eliminating checks and balances provided by a functioning Congress and Supreme Court and other Constitutional bodies and removing from us citizens the protection of the Bill of Rights. As dictator, he would have the power of life and death over Filipinos, much as Ferdinand Marcos did. Duterte, as revolutionary leader, cannot rule 100,000,000 Filipinos on 7,100 islands effectively without the support of our 500,000 soldiers who could implement his orders. Our Armed Forces through Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana must show him the logistical difficulty of such an enterprise, the threat to national security of a breakdown of law and order amidst threats from ISIS-like brigands and foreign countries, and the harm to our national and economic interests that would be brought about by the destruction of institutions it took our taxpayers and public servants decades to build. If despite sound advice, President Duterte still chooses to declare a revolutionary government, we ask our soldiers in the Armed Forces to stick to the Constitution and immediately support the oath-taking of the Vice-President who is next in its prescribed line of succession. Succession must be seamless. There must be almost no gap between the two events above to prevent the breakdown of law and order, a civil war, the repeat of dictatorship and plunder, or the invasion of our islands and seas by foreign elements that would exploit such a leviathan political crisis. Let us defend our Constitution and oppose President Duterte's planned revolutionary government by signing and sharing this petition. We are sending this to National Defense Secretary Lorenzana with copies furnished to Vice-President Leni Robredo, Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, Congressman Kit Belmonte, Senator Risa Hontiveros, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, Archbishop Socrates Villegas, KARAPATAN Executive Director Tinay Palabay, Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) Secretary-General Rose Trajano, International Commission of Jurists Senior Legal Adviser Emerlynne Gil, and others.

Voltaire Veneracion
6,232 supporters
Started 1 month ago

Petition to Kevin Faulconer, Barbara Bry, Lorie Zapf, Chris Ward, Myrtle Cole, Mark Kersey, Chris Cate, Scott Sherman, David Alvarez, Georgette Gomez

San Diego City Council Must Repeal Proclamation Honoring Islamist Organization

On November 7, 2017, the San Diego City Council proclaimed November 4 as “Council on American-Islamic Relations-San Diego Day.” CAIR is a subversive Muslim Brotherhood front group with undeniable links to Islamic terrorism. They have duped the City Council into believing that they are a social justice organization that promotes diversity and inclusivity. However, CAIR poses an overwhelming threat to America, and we need to remind these politicians that they have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the citizens of San Diego! The following is just a sample of CAIR’s true nature: CAIR was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial The FBI has banned outreach with CAIR since 2008 In 2014, the United Arab Emirates, a devout Muslim country, designated CAIR a terrorist organization In 2015, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) published a report entitled Profile: The Council of American Islamic Relations, which stated the following: "CAIR chapters continue to partner with various anti-Israel groups that seek to isolate and demonize the Jewish State" and “[s]ome CAIR leaders have overtly expressed the notion that Israel and U.S. law enforcement pose a bigger threat to American Muslims than terrorist groups such as ISIS.” Six CAIR leaders have been arrested, convicted, or deported for terrorism-related crimes As patriotic Americans, we ask you to join the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund and its allies to object to the City Council’s proclamation and call on the Council to repeal its vote establishing “Council on American Islamic Relations-SD Day.” 

Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund
826 supporters
Started 2 months ago

Petition to Texas State Senate, Texas State House, Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives

Repeal Texas H.B. 89

House Bill 89 was signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott on May 2nd, 2017 and became effective on September 1st, 2017. This law prohibits state pension funds from being invested into any company that boycotts the nation of Israel, and it prohibits state and local governments from contracting with companies that boycott Israel. Additionally, the company must provide a written verification that they will not boycott Israel. Recently, contractors in Dickinson, TX applying for disaster relief funds after Hurricane Harvey were instructed to provide a sworn statement saying that they would not boycott Israel. We believe that HB 89 violates the U.S. Constitution for the following reasons: 1) The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. As applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, the state of Texas cannot discriminate against an individual or entity based on his/her/their belief on the state of Israel. Additionally, the State of Texas cannot demand that one pledge loyalty to a foreign nation. 2) In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the United States Supreme Court ruled that states can not prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically-motivated boycott. 3) Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any state from entering into a treaty, alliance, confederation, agreement, or compact with another state or foreign power. The State of Texas' demand for loyalty toward a foreign nation is an implied agreement between the State of Texas and the foreign nation of Israel. The gross negligence of Texas legislators to acknowledge constitutional concerns regarding HB 89 is detestable. We believe that action is necessary when those who represent us fail to respect the established law. One of the most profound consequences of this unconstitutional law is undoubtedly the denial of disaster relief funds for victims of Hurricane Harvey based on that person's beliefs. Based on careful review of laws and judicial precedents, We the People have determined Texas House Bill 89 to be unconstitutional. As is appropriate with any unconstitutional legislation, We the People request through this petition that House Bill 89 be repealed.  

Camden Kroll
61 supporters
Update posted 4 months ago

Petition to Ken Paxton, Pam Bondi, Xavier Becerra, Mark Brnovich, Chris Carr, Eric T. Schneiderman, Lisa Madigan, Roy Cooper, Bruce Beemer, Mark Herring

Attorneys General: Ask U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate Winner Take All for electors

Allocating electoral votes by Winner Take All is unfair and may be unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (one person, one vote). Before the 2020 presidential election, Attorneys General especially of populous states like California and New York should take this to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the Winner Take All system. "Lessig's equal protection argument…[is] on the right side of history and logic."—Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law and cofounder of American Constitution Society (December 5, 2016, on Twitter) Law professor and activist Lawrence Lessig writes (emphasis added), 'Yes, the Constitution creates an inequality because of the way it allocates electoral college votes. A state like Wyoming, for example, gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus…California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes. 'But the real inequality of the electoral college is created by the “winner take all” (WTA) rule for allocating electoral votes. WTA says that the person who wins the popular votes gets all the electoral college votes for that state. Every state (except Maine and Nebraska) allocates its electors based on WTA. But that system for allocating electoral votes is not mandated by the Constitution. It is created by the states. And so that raises what should be an obvious and much more fiercely contested question—why isn’t WTA being challenged by the Democrats in this election? 'The strongest argument about why it isn’t is an argument of reliance (some people gussy this up to a point about “the rule of law” but that’s just confused rhetoric): The election was waged assuming WTA; it’s not fair now, the argument goes, to change the rule for how electors will be counted. 'No doubt, it is unfair to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. They spent money in reliance on the existing system. But that’s not the only “unfairness” at stake here: What about the unfairness being felt by the millions of voters whose votes were effectively diluted, or essentially disenfranchised? Why doesn’t their harm also weigh in the balance? 'It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. But based on that complaint, were I a citizen of California, I’d ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasn’t CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, I’d ask my AG the same. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?' Lessig quotes a statement of the argument written by Atlanta lawyer Larry Sims. Salient parts of Sims's argument (emphasis added): 'a winner-take-all system of allocating Electors by the states denies the minority of voters within each state any representation whatsoever within the Electoral College and ultimately in the case of the 2000 and 2016 elections, denies the plurality of voters nationwide their choice for President under circumstances in which the constitutionally established small state advantage made part of the Electoral College would not. This is neither a reasonable nor a rational result in a representative democracy. This result was dictated by the winner-take-all method of allocating Electors used by the states. It is this state law method of allocating Electors that is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and its bedrock principle of one [person] one vote. … The winner-take-all allocation of multiple Electors (ranging from 3 Electors in our smallest states to 55 in our largest) denies any voice whatsoever to each state’s minority voters, no matter how substantial their vote may be. The distortion of presidential election results by the winner-take-all apportionment of a state’s Electors is an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection of the law.' Donald Trump threatens the U.S. Constitution itself through his aggressive statements against the press (threatening to "open up libel laws"), against free speech (suggesting the government should revoke citizenship as punishment for protest-burning the American flag, which the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld as protected speech), against religious groups (notably Muslims), promoting cruel and unusual punishment (Trump has spoken multiple times in support of waterboarding, which international and U.S. law have deemed torture, which is illegal), and against other institutions protected by the U.S. Constitution. Not only is Donald Trump apparently ignorant of the Constitution, his attacks make clear that he does not care to understand it or intend to uphold it. Given what is at stake, Attorneys General should take the argument against Winner Take All, which is not in the Constitution, to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo credit: AP/Evan Vucci/Getty/artisteer via Salon.com) Related articles: How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President Five presidential nominees who won popular vote but lost the election Updated 8/29/17 to edit recipients to match the top 10 states (as of 2008) whose voters are most impacted by biased representation due to Winner Take All. I also added links to a few related articles. While Democrats may be most aware of the unfairness of Winner Take All electors after the 2000 and 2016 elections, the 14th amendment of the Constitution is meant to apply to all U.S. citizens regardless of party affiliation, hence this is not a partisan issue. It's time to amend this undemocratic process that has allowed (at last count) five presidential candidates to win the most votes but lose the presidency. Updated 3/4/17 to replace Kamala Harris, now a U.S. Senator, with Xavier Becerra, acting Attorney General for California. Updated 12/14/16 to add emphasis and another example of Trump's attacks on Constitutional institutions. A New York Times op-ed today titled "Buck Up, Democrats, and Fight Like Republicans" by Dahlia Lithwick and David S. Cohen mentioned the Winner Take All unconstitutionality argument (emphasis added): "There’s no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump’s anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional; a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party." Updated 12/13/16 to add additional Attorneys General, per commented suggestion.

R T
448 supporters