e enjte, 11 tetor 2007

THE COMPLETE VIRGINIA IMPEACHMENT PACKAGE





















ALEXANDRIA ADVOCATES ALLIANCE HOME PAGE
http://alexandriaadvocatesalliance.blogspot.com/2007/06/alexandria-advocates-alliance-home-page.html

A proposed Petition Of Impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney for having committed "High Crimes" and Misdemeanors in office, and for acts of Misfeasance, Malfeasance and Nonfeasance in office as well as the Commission of "War Crimes", Crimes against Humanity as defined by The Geneva Conventions.

No One Is Above The Law..No One!

Click Here For Petition Summary

Summary Of Cause (Outline Form)

Jefferson Manual Memorial Petition Notes (Plus)

PRESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT RELEASE

PROCEED TO THE END OF THE DOCUMENT
TO REGISTER YOUR VOTE OF SUPPORT

PETITION RESOLUTION FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF:
GEORGE W. BUSH,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND
RICHARD B. CHENEY,
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS
OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

A RESOLUTION -2007-

Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States and Richard B. Cheney, Vice President Of The United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance in office, acts of war crimes violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 , for failure to faithfully execute laws of this nation, willful disregard for and under mining of The Constitution Of These United States , and failure to fulfill their oaths of office .

Wherefore, George W. Bush, President of the United States and Richard B. Cheney, Vice President Of The United States, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Resolved, That George W. Bush, President of the United States and Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of The United States are impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance in office, acts of war crimes violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act, for failure to faithfully execute laws of this nation, willful disregard for and under mining of The Constitution Of These United States, and failure to fulfill their oaths of office, and that the following resolution of articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the United States of America, against George W. Bush, President of the United States of America and Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of The United States, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against them for high crimes, misdemeanors, acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance in office, acts of war crimes violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act, for failure to faithfully execute laws of this nation, willful disregard for and under mining of The Constitution Of These United States, and failure to fulfill their oaths of office.

WHEREAS, President George W. Bush, in his oath of office, swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States;” and

WHEREAS, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, in his oath of office, swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic;” and

WHEREAS, It is a fundamental principle of U.S. jurisprudence that no one is above the law and no one may operate outside of our constitutional system of checks and balances; and

WHEREAS, In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George W. Bush, and Richard B. Cheney in the conduct of the office of Vice President of the United States, in violation of their constitutional oaths faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States respectively, to the best of their abilities, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed have:

(1) Attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the Constitution since September 11, 2001.

This subversive conduct includes but is not limited to trying to suspend the constitutional WritHabeas Corpus ; coercing the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress; the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; constituting extraordinary mock courts; depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act ; unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the Constitution's Article III federal court system; violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Program ; violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ; instituting the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the United States of America itself, and
2) Violated The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution .U.S. soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor White, Black, and Latino and their military service is based on the coercion of a system that has denied viable economic opportunities to these classes of citizens. Under the Constitution, all classes of citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and calling on the poor and minorities to fight a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy power elite of this country is a denial of the rights of these soldiers; and

3) Violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and threatening others, including the members of the United Nations Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq; and

4) Prepared, planned, and conspired to engage in a massive war and catastrophic aggression against Iraq by employing methods of mass destruction that has resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom have been children. This planning included the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians, violates the Hague Regulations on land warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare , the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles , the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) ; and

5) Committed the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law.

From September, 2001 through January, 2003, the President and Vice President embarked on a course of action that systematically eliminated every option for peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once they approached Congress for consent to war, tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives were in jeopardy - rendering any substantive debate by Congress meaningless.

They have never received a Declaration of War by Congress, and in contravention of the written word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S. Constitution has declared that they will, and did, go to war regardless of the views of the American people. In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of War, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, acting in tandem, have acted in a manner contrary to their trusts as President and Vice President respectively and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States; and

6) Planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter , the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Briand Pact , U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United States; and

7) Purposely conspired with others to manipulate the intelligence process so as to defraud United States of America and intentionally mislead and deceive Congress and the American public regarding the threat posed by Iraq so as to justify the initiation of a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests; and

8) Subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of predictable catastrophe and destabilization of the mid east region created by the invasion of Iraq; and

9) In their conduct, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, the reputation and integrity of the United States of America; and

10) Openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States.

11) In the last three years repeatedly threatened Iran. However, they/we are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The President’s and the Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that their recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States; and

12) Acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention

 without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant”, all in subversion of law; and
13) Arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers while acting to undermine the authority of the legislative branch and the judiciary by issuing “signing statements” that claim that the executive branch may disregard laws enacted by Congress when the President or his subordinates deem it appropriate, and by the above referenced conduct.

In all of this George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trusts as President and Vice President respectively and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States; and

Wherefore, George W. Bush, President of the United States and Richard B. Cheney, Vice President Of The United States, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office; and

WHEREAS, In all of this George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of The City of Alexandria Virginia, and of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, Petitions from the country at large may be presented by the Speaker of the House according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of The City Of Alexandria Virginia, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT our senators and representatives in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of the George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from such office.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, a copy of this resolution as a petition request be delivered to the Office of the Clerk and entered in the United States Congressional Journal. The copies shall be marked with the word “Petition” at the top of the document and contain a copy of the original authorizing signatures of the Citizens Of the State of Virginia.

SUMMARY OF CAUSE LONG VERSION

http://thepetitionofimpeachment.blogspot.com/2007/07/alexandria-petition-of-impeachment.html

A Resolution by way of Petition calling for the Impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. CheneyTo be presented to the City Council of The City of Alexandria, Virginia And The Clerk Of The House Of The United States House Of Reprensentatives.

SUMMARY OF CAUSE(S):

(1) For the commission of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Office”, acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance in office, acts of “War Crimes” violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996, for failure to faithfully execute laws of this nation, willful disregard for and undermining of The Constitution Of These United States, and failure to fulfill their oaths of office; and

(2) For having violated the fundamental principle of American law, that: “no one is above the law” by acting in defiance of and outside of our constitutional system of checks and balances; and

(3) For ordering illegal electronic surveillance of American civilians without required warrants in clear violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

(4) For having authorized and conspired to commit acts of torture of prisoners in violation of both American and International law; and

(5) For having attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States by means of “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations” against The Constitution since September 11, 2001; and

(6) For having attempted the suspension of the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; and

(7) For coercing the totalitarian Patriot Act through the Congress of the United States; and

(8) For conspiring to commit torture in violation of The Federal Torture Act, Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and The Geneva Conventions as applicable to the United States under Article VI of The Constitution; and

(9) For having conducted massive round ups and incarcerations of foreigners without legal authority; and

10) For having constituted extraordinary mock courts beyond the scope of American law; and

(11) For depriving at least two American citizens of their constitutional rights by military incarceration; and

(12) For subverting The Posse Comitatus Act; and

(13) For having violated First Amendment Rights by authorized illegal acts of transgression against the rights of protection from unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures, free exercise of; religion, speech, peaceable assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances; and

(14) For having pursued a policy of “Court Packing” and undermining the judicial independence of The Constitution’s Article III “Federal Court System”; and

(15) For violating: the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, The U.S. War Crimes Act, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and

(16) For reinstitution of “Cointelpro” Program in violation of The Geneva Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention Against Torture, and The Declaration of Human Rights; and

(17) For institution of the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program and the establishment of the totalitarian Northern Military Command for The united State of America; and

(18) For violation of The Equal Protection Clause of The Constitution; and

(19) For violation of The United States Constitution, Federal Law and The United Nations Charter by numerous acts of bribery, intimidation and threats in support of belligerent acts against the state of Iraq; and

(20) For Preparing, planning, and conspiring to engage in a war of aggression against Iraq by employing methods of mass destruction resulting in the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom have been children. This planning included the threatened use of nuclear weapons, the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians, in violation of the Hague Regulations on land warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare , The Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, The Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide Convention, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) ; and

(21) For committing the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to The United Nations Charter and international law; and

(22) For planning, preparing, and conspiring to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into a war of aggression against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, The Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and The Constitution of the United States; and

(23) For purposely conspired with others to manipulate the intelligence process so as to defraud United States of America and intentionally mislead and deceive Congress and the American public regarding the threat posed by Iraq so as to justify the initiation of a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371: and

(24) For fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq: and

(25) For subverting the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than: 3300 United States service members, 650,000 Iraqi citizens. approximately $500 billion in war costs, and the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and causing the decades of predictable catastrophe and destabilization of the mid east region created by the invasion of Iraq; and

(26) For purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq; and

(27) For openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States; and

(28) For repeatedly threatened Iran, when we are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence, Article VI of the United States Constitution, to international law Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter that prohibits threats of use of force; and

(29) For acting to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant”, all in subversion of law; and

(30) For arrogating excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers while acting to undermine the authority of the legislative branch and the judiciary by issuing “signing statements” that claim that the executive branch may disregard laws enacted by Congress when the President or his subordinates deem it appropriate, and by the above referenced conduct; and

(31) For the signing and assumption of the grant of powers authorized in The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, without “advise and consent” of The Congress, taking unto themselves dictatorial powers in said unilateral Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency.", such an emergency construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
(1) Commission of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Office”, acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance in office, acts of “War Crimes”.

(2) Violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996.

(3) Failure to faithfully execute laws of this nation.

(4) Willful disregard for and undermining of The Constitution Of These United States.

(5) Failure to fulfill their oaths of office.

(6) Having violated the fundamental principle of American law, that: “no one is above the law”.

(7) Acting in defiance of our constitutional system of checks and balances.

(8) Ordering illegal electronic surveillance of American civilians without required warrants.

(9) Having authorized and conspired to commit acts of torture of prisoners in violation of American and International law.

(10) Having attempted to impose a police state upon the United States.

(11) Having attempted the suspension of the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(12) Coercing the totalitarian Patriot Act through the Congress of the United States.

(13) Conspiring to commit torture in violation of American and International laws.

(14) Having conducted massive round ups and incarcerations of foreigners without legal authority.

(15) Having constituted extraordinary mock courts beyond the scope of American law.

(16) Depriving at least two American citizens of their constitutional rights by military incarceration.

(17) Subverting the Posse Comitatus Act.

(18) Having violated First Amendment Rights.

(19) Having pursued a policy of “Court Packing” and undermining the judicial independence.

(20) Violating several sections of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.

(21) Violating The U.S. War Crimes Act.

(22) Violating The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

(23) Violating The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

(24) Reinstitution of “Cointelpro” Program in violation of several International laws.

(25) Institution of the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program.

(26) Establishment of the totalitarian Northern Military Command for The united State of America.

(27) Violation of The Equal Protection Clause of The Constitution.

(28) Violation of The United States Constitution, Federal Law and The United States Charter.

(29) Preparing, planning, and conspiring to engage in an illegal war of aggression against Iraq based upon lies.

(30) Violation of our own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

(31) Committing the United States to acts of war without congressional consent.

(32) Planning, preparing, and conspiring to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into a war of aggression against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, The Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and The Constitution of the United States.

(33) Purposely conspired with others to manipulate the intelligence process so as to defraud United States of America and intentionally mislead and deceive Congress and the American public regarding the threat posed by Iraq.

(34) Fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq.

(35) Subverting the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than: 3300 United States service members, 650,000 Iraqi citizens, approximately $500 billion in war costs, and the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and causing the decades of predictable catastrophe and destabilization of the mid east region created by the invasion of Iraq.

(36) Purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq.

(37) Openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States.

(38) Repeatedly threatened Iran, when we are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's that prohibits threats of use of force.

(39) Acting to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge, without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention.

(40) Arrogating excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers while acting to undermine the authority of the legislative branch and the judiciary by issuing “signing statements” that claim that the executive branch may disregard laws enacted by Congress when the President or his subordinates deem it appropriate.

(41) The signing and assumption of the grant of powers authorized in The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, without “advise and consent” of The Congress, taking unto themselves dictatorial powers in said unilateral Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency.", such an emergency construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

Jefferson's Manual is a sort of interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy.

Within the Manual itself, the section covering impeachment is designated Section LIII. Section 603 refers to the section of the entire volume (including the Constitution and Rules) in which you'll find the listing of acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor.

The second vehicle being of most interest to our method. It reads:"In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 552);
or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (April 15, 1970, p. 11941-2);

by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487)

or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).

"While some of these words are no longer used in our everyday speech, here are the important bolded words above to understand:Memorial: "a written statement of facts accompanying a petition presented to somebody in authority"Petitions, memorials, and private bills
[110th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 108-241]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]

Petitions, memorials, and other papers addressed to the House may be presented by the Speaker as well as by a Member (IV, 3312). Petitions from the country at large are presented by the Speaker in the manner prescribed by the rule (III, 2030; IV, 3318; VII, 1025).

A Member may present a petition from the people of a State other than his own (IV, 3315, 3316)

The House itself may refer one portion of a petition to one committee and another portion to another committee (IV, 3359, 3360), but ordinarily the reference of a petition does not come before the House itself. A committee may receive a petition only through the House (IV, 4557).

Preferred: "to make a charge against somebody by submitting details of the alleged offense to a court, magistrate, or judge for examination, or prosecute such a charge"

from the Encarta® World English DictionarySource: U.S. Government Printing Office

IMPORTANT BELOW!

Precedents:Hinds - III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515Cannon's - VI, 552

THE JEFFERSON MANUAL http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-mpp.htmEC.
LIII.IMPEACHMENT.

THE House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. Constitution United States, I. 3.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation.

When the President of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside: and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Constitution, I. 3.The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Constitution, II. 4.The trial of crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.

Constitution, III. 2.These are the provisions of the Constitution of the United States on the subject of impeachments.

The following is a sketch of some of the principles and practices of England on the same subject.
Jurisdiction. The Lords cannot impeach any to themselves, nor join in the accusation, because they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl. 12, 63. (A work of doubtful authority.) 4 Hats. 153, 186. Nor can they proceed against a Commoner but on complaint of the Commons. Ib. 84.

The Lords may not, by the law, try a Commoner for a capital offence, on the information of the king, or a private person; because the accused is entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but on accusation by the House of Commons, they may proceed against the delinquent of whatsoever degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the offence; for there they do not assume to themselves trial at common law.

The Commons are then instead of a jury, and the judgment is given on their demand, which is instead of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, but not try the delinquent. Ib. 6, 7.

But Wooddeson denies that a Commoner can now be charged capitally before the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites Fitzharris's case, 1681, impeached of high treason, where the Lords remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey's Deb. 325 ... 7. 2 Wooddeson 601, 576. 3 Seld. 1610, 1619, 1641. 4 Blacks. 257. 3 Seld. 1604, 1618, 9, 1656. 4 Hats. 200. et passim contra.

Accusation. The Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, become suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood. 597, 6 Grey 356. The general course is, to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by oral accusation at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the Commons.

The person signifies that the articles will be exhibited, and desires that the delinquent may be sequestered from his seat, or be committed, or that the peers will take order for his appearance.
Sachev. Trial. 325. 2 Wood. 602, 605. Lords' Journ. 3 June, 1701. 1 Wms. 616. 6 Grey 324.Process.

If the party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued, giving him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly examined. If any error be found in them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short day.

If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and they may proceed. Seld. Jud. 98, 99.Articles.

The accusation (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. Sach. Tr. 325. 2 Wood. 602, 605. Lords' Journ. 3 June, 1701. 1 Wms. 616.

Appearance. If he appears, and the case be capital, he answers in custody; though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but on special accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only, he answers a Lord in his place, a Commoner at the bar, and not in custody, unless, on the answer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he finds sureties to attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud. 98, 99. 4 Hats. 176, 185.

A copy of the articles is given him, and a day fixed for his answer. T. Ray. 1 Rushw. 268. Fost. 232. 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb. 379.

On a misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may answer in writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud. 100. The general rule on an accusation for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or restraint as the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such he is to answer. Ib. 101.

If previously committed by the Commons, he answers as a prisoner. But this may be called in some sort judicium parium suorum. Ib.

In misdemeanors, the party has a right to counsel by the common law; but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud. 102 ... 5.

Answer. The answer need not observe great strictness of form. He may plead guilty as to part, and defend as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny the whole, or give a particular answer to each article separately. 1 Rush. 274. 2 Rush. 1374. 12 Parl. Hist. 442. 3 Lord's Journ. 13 Nov. 1643. 2 Wood. 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in bar to the impeachment. 2 Wood. 615. 2 St. Tr. 735.Replication, Rejoinder, &c.

There may be a replication, rejoinder, &c. Seld. Jud. 114. 8 Grey's Deb. 233. Sachev. Tr. 15. Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640 ... 1.Witnesses. The practice is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there: or a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in their discretion shall demand. Seld. Jud. 120, 123. Jury. In the case of Alice Pierce, 1 P. 2. a jury was impanelled for her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud. 123.

But this was on a complaint, not on impeachment by the Commons. Seld. Jud. 163. It must also have been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spiritual sat in the case, which they do on misdemeanors, but not in capital cases. Ib. 148.

The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands and goods. Ib. 188. This, Selden says, is the only jury he finds recorded in Parliament for misdemeanors: but he makes no doubt, if the delinquent doth put himself on the trial of his country, a jury ought to be impanelled, and he adds, that it is not so on impeachment by the Commons; for they are in loco proprio, and there no jury ought to be impanelled. Ib. 124.

The Ld. Berkeley, 6 E. 3. was arraigned for the murder of E. 2. on an information on the part of the king, and not on impeachment of the Commons; for then they had been patria sua.He waived his peerage, and was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and Warwickshire. Ib. 125. But 4 Hats. 73, says he was a Commoner, and that there was no waiver of privilege.

In 1 H. 7. the Commons protest that they are not to be considered as parties to any judgment given, or hereafter to be given in Parliament. Ib. 133. They have been generally, and more justly, considered, as is before stated, as the grand jury.

For the conceit of Selden is certainly not accurate, that they are the patria sua of the accused, and that the Lords do only judge, but not try. It is undeniable that they do try. For they examine witnesses as to the facts, and acquit or condemn, according to their own belief of them. And Lord Hale says, "the peers are judges of law as well as of fact." 2 Hale P. C. 275. Consequently of fact as well as of law.Presence of Commons.

The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld. Jud. 124. Indeed they are to attend throughout, either as a committee of the whole House, or otherwise, at discretion, appoint managers to conduct the proofs. Rush. Tr. of Straff. 37. Com. Journ. 4 Feb. 1709 ... 10. 2 Wood. 614. And judgment is not to be given till they demand it. Seld. Jud. 124. But they are not to be present on impeachment when the Lords consider of the answer or proofs, and determine of their judgment. Their presence however is necessary at the answer and judgment in cases capital, ib. 158, 159, as well as not capital. 162.

The Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is first taken on the question of guilty or not guilty: and if they convict, the question, or particular sentence, is out of that which seemeth to be most generally agreed on. Sold. Jud. 167. 2 Wood. 612.

Judgment. Judgments in Parliament for death have been strictly guided per legem terræ, which they cannot alter: and not at all according to their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment, nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum, non ultra legem. Seld. Jud. 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior courts.

The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and punishments prevail. For impeachments are not framed to alter the law, but to carry it into more effectual execution against two powerful delinquents. The judgment therefore is to be such as is warranted by legal principles or precedents. 6 Sta. Tr. 14. 2 Wood. 611. The Chancellor gives judgments in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward formerly in cases of life and death. Seld. Jud. 180. But now the Steward is deemed not necessary. Fost. 144. 2 Wood. 613.

In misdemeanors, the greatest corporal punishment hath been imprisonment. Seld. Jud. 184. The king's assent is necessary in capital judgments, (but 2 Wood. 614, contra) but not in misdemeanors. Seld. Jud. 136.Continuance. An impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of Parliament; but may be resumed by the new Parliament. T. Ray. 383. 4 Com. Journ. 23 Dec. 1790. Lords' Journ. May 16, 1791. 2 Wood. 618.

THE END.I WISH!

RIGHTS OF ASSEMBLY AND PETITION

Background and Development

The right of petition took its rise from the modest provision made for it in chapter 61 of Magna Carta (1215). 207

To this meagre beginning are traceable, in some measure, Parliament itself and its procedures in the enactment of legislation, the equity jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and proceedings against the Crown by ''petition of right.'' Thus, while the King summoned Parliament for the purpose of supply, the latter--but especially the House of Commons--petitioned the King for a redress of grievances as its price for meeting the financial needs of the Monarch, and as it increased in importance it came to claim the right to dictate the form of the King's reply, until, in 1414, Commons declared itself to be ''as well assenters as petitioners.''
Two hundred and fifty years later, in 1669, Commons further resolved that every commoner in England possessed ''the inherent right to prepare and present petitions'' to it ''in case of grievance,'' and of Commons ''to receive the same'' and to judge whether they were ''fit'' to be received. Finally Chapter 5 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 asserted the right of the subjects to petition the King and ''all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning to be illegal.'' 208

Historically, therefore, the right of petition is the primary right, the right peaceably to assemble a subordinate and instrumental right, as if the First Amendment read: ''the right of the people peaceably to assemble'' in order to ''petition the government.'' 209

Today, however, the right of peaceable assembly is, in the language of the Court, ''cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. . . . [It] is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions--principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause. . . . The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed.

Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score.

The question . . . is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purposes; not as to the relation of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.'' 210
Furthermore, the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for ''a redress of grievances,'' in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the Government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. 211

The right extends to the ''approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government.
Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.'' 212

The right of petition recognized by the First Amendment first came into prominence in the early 1830's, when petitions against slavery in the District of Columbia began flowing into Congress in a constantly increasing stream, which reached its climax in the winter of 1835.

Finally on January 28, 1840, the House adopted as a standing rule: ''That no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever.''Because of efforts of John Quincy Adams, this rule was repealed five years later. 213

For many years now the rules of the House of Representatives have provided that members having petitions to present may deliver them to the Clerk and the petitions, except such as in the judgment of the Speaker are of an obscene or insulting character, shall be entered on the Journal and the Clerk shall furnish a transcript of such record to the official reporters of debates for publication in the Record. 214

Even so, petitions for the repeal of the espionage and sedition laws and against military measures for recruiting resulted, in World War I, in imprisonment. 215

Processions for the presentation of petitions in the United States have not been particularly successful.

In 1894 General Coxey of Ohio organized armies of unemployed to march on Washington and present petitions, only to see their leaders arrested for unlawfully walking on the grass of the Capitol. The march of the veterans on Washington in 1932 demanding bonus legislation was defended as an exercise of the right of petition. The Administration, however, regarded it as a threat against the Constitution and called out the army to expel the bonus marchers and burn their camps. Marches and encampments have become more common since, but the results have been mixed.

The Cruikshank Case .--The right of assembly was first before the Supreme Court in 1876 216 in the famous case of United States v. Cruikshank. 217

The Enforcement Act of 1870 218 forbade conspiring or going onto the highways or onto the premises of another to intimidate any other person from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States.

Defendants had been indicted under this Act on charges of having deprived certain citizens of their right to assemble together peaceably with other citizens ''for a peaceful and lawful purpose.'' While the Court held the indictment inadequate because it did not allege that the attempted assembly was for a purpose related to the Federal Government, its dicta broadly declared the outlines of the right of assembly.

''The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States.

The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States.'' 219

Absorption of the assembly and petition clauses into the liberty protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means, or course, that the Cruikshank limitation is no longer applicable. 220

The Hague Case .--Illustrative of this expansion is Hague v. CIO, 221 in which the Court, though splintered with regard to reasoning and rationale, struck down an ordinance which vested an uncontrolled discretion in a city official to permit or deny any group the opportunity to conduct a public assembly in a public place.

Justice Roberts, in an opinion which Justice Black joined and with which Chief Justice Hughes concurred, found protection against state abridgment of the rights of assembly and petition in the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

''The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.'' 222

Justices Stone and Reed invoked the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the result, thereby claiming the rights of assembly and petition for aliens as well as citizens. ''I think respodents' right to maintain it does not depend on their citizenship and cannot rightly be made to turn on the existence or non-existence of a purpose to disseminate information about the National Labor Relations Act.It is enough that petitioners have prevented respondents from holding meetings and disseminating information whether for the organization of labor unions or for any other lawful purpose.'' 223

This due process view of Justice Stone has carried the day over the privileges and immunities approach.

Later cases tend to merge the rights of assembly and petition into the speech and press clauses, and, indeed, all four rights may well be considered as elements of an inclusive right to freedom of expression. Certain conduct may call forth a denomination of petition 224 or assembly, 225 but there seems little question that no substantive issue turns upon whether one may be said to be engaged in speech or assembly or petition.

Footnotes

[Footnote 207] C. Stephenson & F. Marcham, Sources of English Constitutional History 125 (1937).

[Footnote 208] 12 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 98 (1934).

[Footnote 209] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876), reflects this view.

[Footnote 210] De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 , 365 (1937). See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937).

[Footnote 211] See Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961).

[Footnote 212] California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). See also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 913 -15 (1982); Missouri v. NOW, 620 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 842 (1980) (boycott of States not ratifying ERA may not be subjected to antitrust suits for economic losses because of its political nature).

[Footnote 213] The account is told in many sources. E.g., S. Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Union, chs. 17, 18 and pp. 446-47 (1956).

[Footnote 214] Rule 22, para. 1, Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. Doc. No. 256, 101st Congress, 2d sess. 571 (1991).

[Footnote 215] 1918 Att'y Gen. Ann. Rep. 48.

[Footnote 216] See, however, Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868), in which the Court gave as one of its reasons for striking down a tax on persons leaving the State its infringement of the right of every citizen to come to the seat of government and to transact any business he might have with it.

[Footnote 218] Act of May 31, 1870, ch.114, 16 Stat. 141 (1870).

[Footnote 219] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S 542, 552-53 (1876).

[Footnote 220] De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945).

[Footnote 222] Id. at 515. For another holding that the right to petition is not absolute, see McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) (the fact that defamatory statements were made in the context of a petition to government does not provide absolute immunity from libel).

[Footnote 223] Id. at 525.

[Footnote 224] E.g., United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954); Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961).

[Footnote 225] E.g., Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971).

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

After learning this information, Minnesotan and Impeach for Peace member (Jodin Morey) found precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck.

Impeach for Peace then used this as a template for their "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." Now any citizen can download the DIY Impeachment Memorial and submit it, making it possible for Americans to do what our representatives have been unwilling to do.

The idea is for so many people to submit the Memorial that it cannot be ignored.

DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENT Download, fill in your relevant information in the blanks (name, State, notary is optional), and send in a letter today.
We're sending this wave in to House Rep. Dennis Kucinich who has recently spoken in favor of impeachment.
There's also extra credit for sending a DIY Impeachment to your own representative as well as representatives reccommended by Keith Ellison of the House Judiciary.Rights of Assembly and Petition

RIGHTS OF ASSEMBLY AND PETITION

Background and DevelopmentThe right of petition took its rise from the modest provision made for it in chapter 61 of Magna Carta (1215).1339 To this meager beginning are traceable, in some measure, Parliament itself and its procedures for the enactment of legislation, the equity jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and proceedings against the Crown by “petition of right.”

Thus, while the King summoned Parliament for the purpose of supply, the latter—but especially the House of Commons—petitioned the King for a redress of grievances as its price for meeting the financial needs of the Monarch, and as it increased in importance it came to claim the right to dictate the form of the King’s reply, until, in 1414, Commons declared itself to be “as well assenters as petitioners.”

Two hundred and fifty years later, in 1669, Commons further resolved that every commoner in England possessed “the inherent right to prepare and present petitions” to it “in case of grievance,” and of Commons “to receive the same” and to judge whether they were “fit” to be received.

Finally Chapter 5 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 asserted the right of the subjects to petition the King and “all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning to be illegal.”1340

Historically, therefore, the right of petition is the primary right, the right peaceably to assemble a subordinate and instrumental right, as if the First Amendment read: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in order to “petition the government.”1341

Today, however, the right of peaceable assembly is, in the language of the Court, “cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.... [It] is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions— principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause.... The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed.

Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score. The question . . . is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purposes; not as to the relation of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.”1342

Furthermore, the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for “a redress of grievances,” in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the Government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters.1343

The right extends to the “approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.”1344

1339 C. STEPHENSON & F. MARCHAM, SOURCES OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HIS-TORY 125 (1937).

1340 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 98 (1934).

1341 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876), reflects this view.

1342 De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364, 365 (1937). See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937).1343

See Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961).1344

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). See also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 913-15 (1982); Missouri v. NOW, 620 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 842 (1980) (boycott of States not ratifying ERA may not be subjected to antitrust suits for economic losses because of its political nature).

The right of petition recognized by the First Amendment first came into prominence in the early 1830’s, when petitions against slavery in the District of Columbia began flowing into Congress in a constantly increasing stream, which reached its climax in the winter of 1835.

Finally on January 28, 1840, the House adopted as a standing rule: “That no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever.”

Because of efforts of John Quincy Adams, this rule was repealed five years later.1345

For many years now the rules of the House of Representatives have provided that members having petitions to present may deliver them to the Clerk and the petitions, except such as in the judgment of the Speaker are of an obscene or insulting character, shall be entered on the Journal and the Clerk shall furnish a transcript of such record to the official reporters of debates for publication in the Record.1346

Even so, petitions for the repeal of the espionage and sedition laws and against military measures for recruiting resulted, in World War I, in imprisonment.1347

Processions for the presentation of petitions in the United States have not been particularly successful. In 1894 General Coxey of Ohio organized armies of unemployed to march on Washington and present petitions, only to see their leaders arrested for unlawfully walking on the grass of the Capitol.

The march of the veterans on Washington in 1932 demanding bonus legislation was defended as an exercise of the right of petition. The Administration, however, regarded it as a threat against the Constitution and called out the army to expel the bonus marchers and burn their camps. Marches and encampments have become more common since, but the results have been mixed.
1345

The account is told in many sources. E.g., S. BEMIS, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS AND THE UNION, chs. 17, 18 and pp. 446-47 (1956).1346

Rule 22, 1, Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. Doc. No. 256, 101st Congress, 2d sess. 571 (1991).1347

1918 ATT'Y GEN. ANN. REP. 48.

The Cruikshank Case.—

The right of assembly was first before the Supreme Court in 1876,1348 in the famous case of United States v. Cruikshank. 1349

The Enforcement Act of 1870 1350 forbade conspiring or going onto the highways or onto the premises of another to intimidate any other person from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States.

Defendants had been indicted under this Act on charges of having deprived certain citizens of their right to assemble together peaceably with other citizens “for a peaceful and lawful purpose.” While the Court held the indictment inadequate because it did not allege that the attempted assembly was for a purpose related to the Federal Government, its dicta broadly declared the outlines of the right of assembly.

“The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.

If it had been alleged in these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States.”1351

Absorption of the assembly and petition clauses into the liberty protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means, or course, that the Cruikshank limitation is no longer applicable.1352

1348 See, however, Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868), in which the Court gave as one of its reasons for striking down a tax on persons leaving the State its infringement of the right of every citizen to come to the seat of government and to transact any business he might have with it.

1349 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

1350 Act of May 31, 1870, ch. 114, 16 Stat. 141 (1870).

1351 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S 542, 552-53 (1876).

1352 De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945).

The Hague Case.—Illustrative of this expansion is Hague v. CIO,1353 in which the Court, though splintered with regard to reasoning and rationale, struck down an ordinance which vested an uncontrolled discretion in a city official to permit or deny any group the opportunity to conduct a public assembly in a public place. Justice Roberts, in an opinion which Justice Black joined and with which Chief Justice Hughes concurred, found protection against state abridgment of the rights of assembly and petition in the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”1354

Justices Stone and Reed invoked the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the result, thereby claiming the rights of assembly and petition for aliens as well as citizens. “I think respondents’ right to maintain it does not depend on their citizenship and cannot rightly be made to turn on the existence or non-existence of a purpose to disseminate information about the National Labor Relations Act.

It is enough that petitioners have prevented respondents from holding meetings and disseminating information whether for the organization of labor unions or for any other lawful purpose.”1355

This due process view of Justice Stone has carried the day over the privileges and immunities approach.

Later cases tend to merge the rights of assembly and petition into the speech and press clauses, and, indeed, all four rights may well be considered as elements of an inclusive right to freedom of expression. Certain conduct may call forth a denomination of petition1356 or assembly,1357 but there seems little question that no substantive issue turns upon whether one may be said to be engaged in speech or assembly or petition.

1353 307 U.S. 496 (1939).

1354 307 U.S. at 515. For another holding that the right to petition is not absolute, see McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) (the fact that defamatory statements were made in the context of a petition to government does not provide absolute immunity from libel).

1355 307 U.S. at 525.1356 E.g., United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954); Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961); BE & K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 122 S. Ct. 2390 (2002).1357 E.g., Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971).

In a meeting Thursday, July 26th, 2007, members of ImpeachForPeace.org and After Downing Street met with Congressman Dennis Kucinich in his Washington DC office to present the Congressman with thousands of "Do It Yourself Impeachments" collected over the past few months.

DIY Impeachment Memorials are actually a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson's Manual"), which empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment against any federal official themselves.

These Memorials support the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.
During our meeting, Congressman Kucinich agreed to place all signers of the DIY Impeachment Memorials specifically referencing Cheney into the Congressional record.

Rep. Kucinich also agreed to enter into the record the names of signers of regular petitions to impeach Cheney.

Because there is a limit to the number of pages that a representative can submit to the Congressional Record each day, Rep. Kucinich stated he will continue to submit petitions every day until all the names are submitted.
The most powerful statement for impeachment is the submission of a Memorial, however, so if you have not yet sent a Memorial for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney to ImpeachForPeace.org, please do so!

Go to http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html and download the Memorial.
Then send it to the address listed on the cover letter."Jefferson's Manual" is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy.

The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House. Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure.
Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution.
The Alexandria Advocacy Alliance, On Behalf of the Citizens of The City of Alexandria, Virginia Petition to Impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney...

www.petitiononline.com/POIALXVA/petition.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

THE SCORE CARD:19

CO-SPONSORS FOR H.RES. 333 RICHARD B. CHENEY

OH KUCINICH-10

CA - Woolsey-6, Lee-9, Farr-17, Waters-35, Filner-51GA Johnson-4 IL Schakowsky-9

MD Wynn-4

MN Ellison-5

MO Clay-1

NJ Payne-10

NY Clarke-11

PA Brady-1

TN Cohen-9

TX Jackson-Lee-18

VA Moran-8

WA McDermott-7

WI Baldwin-2 28

CO-SPONSORS FOR H.RES. 589 ALBERTO R. GONZALES


WA Inslee-1

AZ Pastor-4, Grijalva-7

CA Tauscher-10, Becerra-31

CO Perlmutter-7GA Johnson-4

IA Braley-1KS Moore-3

KY Chandler-6

MA McGovern-3, Frank-4

MN McCollum-4, Ellison-5

NJ Holt-12NM Udall-3

NV Berkley-1

NY Bishop-1, Ackerman-5, Clarke-11, Maloney-14, Arcuri-24 OR Wu-1, Blumenauer-3, DeFazio-4, Hooley-5

TN Cohen-9

WI Baldwin-2

84 (+)

CITIES/COUNTIES/TOWNS WITH IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTIONS

CA: Arcata, Berkeley, Fairfax, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sebastopol, West Hollywood

CO TellurideIL Urbana

MA: Amherst, Ashfield, Brookline, Buckland, Cambridge, Colrain, Heath, Charlemont, Great Barrington, Lanesborough, Leverett, Leyden, Montague, Northampton, Pelham, Rowe, Shutesbury, Stockbridge, Warwick, Wendell, Whately

MD Takoma Park

MI Detroit, Ferndale

NC Carrboro, Chapel Hill

NH Hanover

NY :Ithaca, Woodstock, Middletown, New Paltz, Nyack, Plattsburg, Tompkins County, Town of Ithaca

OH Oberlin

VT: Peru, Plainfield, Putney, Richmond, Rochester Rockingham, Roxbury, Springfield, Stannard, St. Johnsbury, Sunderland, Brattleboro, Bristol, Brookfield, Burke, Calais, Craftsbury, Dummerston, East Montpelier, Grafton, Greensboro, Guilford, Hartland, Jamaica, Jericho, Johnson, Marlboro, Middlebury, Montpelier, Montgomery, Morristown, Newbury, Newfane, Townshend, Tunbridge, Vershire, Westminster, Wilmington, Woodbury

Posted by Ed, Dickau

PRESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT RELEASE

The Alexandria Advocates Alliance, Virginians for Peace and Accountability. Com and We The People Now.org Announce the commencement of a full scale online and “on-the-ground” Petition Drive for the Impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, for cause as specified in The Constitution Of The United States, and in the manner as provided for in The Jefferson Manual of Procedure.


In addition the home page provides access to three additional relevant document:

(1) A Detail Summary of Cause(s) ,

(2) An Outline [ more abbreviated form] version of the Summary of Causes and

(3) Jefferson Manual Memorial Petition Notes (Plus).

These additional documents are offered to all Virginians for educational, informational and research purposes. The current movement and growing organization began under the Banner of the Virginians for Peace and Accountability. Com and its initial discussion group and educational forum program held at George Mason University on June 23, 2007.
For a detailed record of that forum and group activities simply open and follow the links below.

Since then members of the Alliance have been in active contact with members of The US House of Representatives preparatory to the filing of The Petition with The Clerk of the House as a “Memorial Petition” as provided for in The Jefferson Manual of Procedure.

The anticipated time line for that submission is mid September, preceding the large A.N.S.W.E.R.org sponsored September Protest Rally in Washington DC.

Members of The Alexandria Advocates Alliance, Virginians for Peace and Accountability. ComWe The People Now.org organizations are involved with many other organizations and organizational efforts spear heading movements for both Peace in Iraq and Impeachment in Washington.
A Second Town Hall Forum is in the planning stages. This gathering will feature the topic: Congressional Accountability; ”How Can 300,000,000 Citizens Hold 435 Representatives Accountable?”

The Forum will be held on Saturday, October 20, 2007 at George Mason University, from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm. As further details become available, the information will be posted at Virginians for Peace and Accountability. Com.

A second project currently under discussion is that of convening A Third Continental Congress in late October in Philadelphia.

Membership in the The Alexandria Advocates Alliance, is open to any resident of Virginia or any organization nationwide interested in becoming involved in this effort.
As other individuals or organizations join, appropriate linkages will be posted in the side bar of The Alexandria Advocates Alliance Home Page.

The period of planning and testing the campaign plan and mechanisms is complete and as August 15, 2007 we are in full step off mode.
On the street canvas activities will be increased. Active solicitation of additional allies in a coalition network that reaches into almost every Virginia Community is well under way.

Your interest, support, involvement, input or commentary will be greatly appreciated.

For the most rapid response to any question(s) you may have; contact Ed. Dickau at ed.dickau@yahoo.com or call 703-683-5833 .
Posted by Ed, Dickau

Who We Are:

Ed. Dickau
Virginians For Peace and Accountability
We The People Now.org
Contact Tony Teolis Veterans For Peace Chapter 16
Sign Veterans For Peace Impeachment Campaign Petition
Veterans For Peace Chapter 16 of Northern Virginia
Veterans For Peace Impeachment Website

Blog Archive

▼ 2007 (3)
▼ June (3)
George Mason Impeachment Forum Saturday 06/23/07
Our Humanity Requires We Answer These Questions
Alexandria Advocates Alliance Home Page

Alexandria Action Links

Alexandria City Council
Alexandria City Government (Email)
Alexandria Times.com
Contact Radio Media
Contact Television Media
PFAW Media Guide
Project Spotlight (Spread The Word and Be Heard)
The Washington Post.com
Virginia Newspapers

The Resource Links

A Letter From Ramsey Clark
A Nation Decieved.org
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition. Org
A28 Nationwide Impeachment Actions
Able Independent Media Resource Links
ACERSNow.org
Action Center for Justice
After Downing St
Alexandria Democratic Committee.org
Alexandria: The Woodrow Wilson Bridge
Alternet.org
American Friends.org (Iraq)
American Thinker.com
Amnesty International.org
Black Quill Letters
BloodForOil.org
Bushflash.com
C-Span Capitol Spotlight
Campus Antiwar Network
Center for Constitutional Rights
Citizens Impeachment Commission
Code Pink 4 Peace.org
Common Cause.org
Common Dreams
Complete Goverment Resource Room
Congressional Quarterly
Consortium News.com
Constitution Summer
Counter Punch.org
Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes (Home Page)
Culture of Peace Initiative
David Swanson
Demans Typepad.com
Democracy Corps.com
Democracy Now.org
Democracy Rising
Democratic Underground.com
Democrats.com
Democrats.us
Dennis Kucinich Site
Dennis Kucinich: Cheney Articles Of Impeachment [ H Res 333 complete]
Denny’s News and Views (The Ohio, Pa and Political Watch Connection)
Gold Star Families For Peace
Google News Search (Impeach Bush and Cheney)
Google Web Search (Impeach Bush and Cheney)
Grassroots America
Green Party of the United States
Hated.com
Hip Hop Caucus
Huffington Post.com
Impeach 07.Org
Impeach Bush Meetup.com
Impeach Cheney.org
Impeach for Peace
Impeach Pac.org
Impeachment Them.com (New Jersey) Well Organized Contact Established
Impeachment Watch The TPM Cafe
Independent Progressive Politics Network
Information Clearing House.info
Iraq Casualties.org
Iraq Veterans Against The War
Irregular Times.com
Just A Bump In The Beltway
Massachusetts Impeachment.org
Maui Peace Action
MDS (Arlington Tx)
Michael Moore
Mid East Dispatches
Military Free Zone
Military Project.org
Move On.org
Movement For A Democratic Society (MDS)
National Lawyers Guild
National Priorities (Get Your Cost Calculator Here)
NDN New Democrat Network.blog
NDN New Democrat Network.org
Neighbors For Peace and Justice
Netvouz.com (Impeachment Tag)
Noam Chomsky Official Site
People For The American Way.org
Political Animal
Political News and Blog Links
Prince Williams Democratic Committee.com
Progress Ohio.org
Rasmussen Reports.com
Roll Call.com
Rose Covered Glasses (Ken Larson)
SDS (Chapter Listings)
Service Academy Grads Against The War
Slate Magazine.com
Smirking Chimp.com
Students For A Democratic Society (SDS)
Subversion Of Democracy.org
Takoma Park MD, Impeachment Project
Tampas Back Door Ways (Impeachment Support)
Tampa’s Back Door.com
The Boyle Articles of Impeachment
The Center for Nonviolent Communication
The Daily Kos
The Highest Law Of Our Land
The Nation.com
The Next Revolution
The Peace Alliance
The Politico.com
The Precinct Master Home Page
The White House
This Can’t Be Happening. Net (Dave Lindorff)
Tom Paine.Common Sense
Tom Songs.org (Good Guy and a Veteran)
True Majority Action
Truthout.org
United for Peace and Justice
Velvet Revolution
Veterans For Peace
Virginia Democratic Party
Virginians For Peace and Accountability
Voters For Peace
Willie Nelson
Wonkette.com
World Can't Wait
Zimbio.Com
Zogby.com
Postuar nga në Nuk ka komente:
Abonohu te: Postimet (Atom)