Thanks for coming by – I appreciate the discussion.  While I certainly remain committed to my understanding, backed up by the historical discussion and reading that I shared, that Congressman Paul is not Constitutionally authorized (and most certainly not obligated) to respond to a petition on behalf of the US government, I do think that the right of petition is something that deserves further attention from this office and I will be working with the staff here to see if we can in fact come up with a way to address this matter in a fashion that would bring further public attention (and hopefully exercise) to this important right.

Tom 

Dear Tom:

Attached is a letter from me to Rep. Paul.  Would you please pass it on to him.

Thank you.

Best,

Bob Schulz

 

Dear Tom:

Thank you for your email dated July 31, 2008 (copy below). My comments in response to what you wrote are colored red.

Sincerely,

Bob Schulz

P.S. Please disregard my prior email, which was incomplete. I hit “Send” when I meant to hit “Paste.”  

From: Lizardo, Tom [mailto:Tom.Lizardo@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:34 PM
To: Bob Schulz
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: RE: Proper Petition for Redress

Mr Schultz:

No “t” in Schulz. It’s a common mistake.

I have reviewed your website and what is, ostensibly, the same “petitions” to which you have asked Congressman Paul to respond.

Yes, the Petitions for Redress found at www.givemeliberty.org/revolution are the same as those on the CD that I handed to Norman Singleton at Rep. Paul’s DC office on June 26, 2008, and the same as those on the CD that was served on Rep. Paul at his district office on June 30, 2008 by his constituent Mark Atkins. You said the letter from Mark Atkins to Rep. Paul and the accompanying CD would not reach the DC office because they were confiscated by the Capitol Police and “Security.”  It is my understanding another constituent will be serving the Petitions for Redress on Rep. Paul at one of his District offices this week.

One of your questions is to “admit or deny that Mexico is the 4^th richest oil nation in the world.”

This is a great example of the problem with your “petition.”  What does that phrase even mean?  Do you mean something like “4^th largest oil producing nation in the world.”  If so, the information I just reviewed shows Mexico to in fact be the FIFTH largest oil producing nation in the world for the last year that I could find complete records for (2006).

There are seven Petitions for Redress, each addressing a separate violation of the Constitution. The question you repeat if from the Petition for Redress that relates to the illegal immigration grievance.

There are 89 questions embedded in the immigration Petition for Redress.

You raise question number 81, which in its entirety reads, “Admit or deny that Mexico is the 4th Richest Oil Nation in the World. See http://tinyurl.com/35qbap .”  

Had you clicked on the link we provided you as our source for the information (http://tinyurl.com/35qbap), you would have come to the article published on CNN.com titled, “ Mexico's ex-president Lopez Portillo dies.”

The CNN article clearly answers your question, “What does the phrase mean?”  The article states in relevant part, “The state petroleum monopoly Pemex had discovered big oil deposits offshore in the Gulf of Mexico that were twice Alaska's North Slope -- doubling the nation's reserves -- just before Lopez Portillo was elected.

He concentrated on developing petroleum production, quickly turning Mexico into the world's fourth-richest oil nation at a time when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel was squeezing top dollar out of the United States and other big industrialized countries, creating a huge shortage.”

Tom, with respect, question 81 presents just one of the relevant facts related to the constitutional tort -- the President’s failure to “faithfully execute the laws” (as Article II of the Constitution mandates), and Congressional acquiescence, all presumably due to the desire of both political parties in the US not to alienate the Latino vote.

Question 81 is designed to add to the Petition for Redress the fact that Mexico, the source of most of the immigrants entering our country illegally every year, is  rich in natural resources, and if it were not for some other factor such as graft and corruption and/or the lack of individual Rights, Freedoms and Liberty in Mexico, the citizens of Mexico might be more inclined to remain in Mexico.    

Rep. Paul is certainly free to deny that Mexico is the fourth richest oil [producing] nation in the world on the ground that Mexico is the fifth richest oil producing nation in the world.  

In courts of law, a team of lawyers are employed to “go back and forth” and clarify questions such as this.  No such team of lawyers is employed in a Congressional office.

Tom, with respect, Rep. Paul should just answer each question based on the plain language approach to the interpretation of each question, as opposed to the intent of the question’s framers.  Let’s not engage in the games lawyers or bureaucrats play. Much  care and thought has gone into the preparation of each question in each Petition for Redress. Let’s not waste time over what the definition of the word “is” is.

The greater point though, I think, is that your argument is something like “every time a person writes to Ron Paul in a format similar to mine and asks this question” (which, again, I honestly have no clear idea even what it means) there is some constitutional right the author holds that the Congressman (apparently “personally”) must reply to said question.  This, of course, runs contrary to your own claim (on your website) that no court has defined even what the words in the constitution mean.  By the way, I’m not sure you are aware that courts have ruled on the issue, even if not presenting a “definition.”

Tom, with respect, I have already told you I do not believe every communication between a constituent and a member of congress qualifies as a Petition for Redress, requiring a response and protected by the First Amendment. I have provided you with a comprehensive definition of a proper Petition for Redress that would require a response

The statement on our website that I believe you are referring to reads, “In January 2008, after almost 5 years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the landmark WTP lawsuit seeking a Judicial declaration  - for the first time in history - of the Constitutional meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment.” (emphasis in the original).

You say we have contradicted ourselves because we say Rep. Paul is obligated to respond to the First Amendment Petitions for Redress and we also say no court has ever declared the rights of the people and the obligations of the government under the last ten words of the First Amendment.

Tom, with respect, this is not a contradiction in terms. Both statements are true.

You know our Rights don’t come from the Judicial branch. You know we don’t need to wait for SCOTUS to tell us what the intent of the Framers was behind the First Amendment’s accountability clause, that is, whether Rep. Paul is obligated to listen and respond to proper Petitions for Redress of constitutional violations.

You know that for the meaning of the accountability clause we can look to the historical context and purpose – the original intent of the Framers .

You know what the Framers said as they debated the pros and cons of the clause. You know that the Framers meant to imply a corresponding governmental duty of a fair hearing seems clear given the history of petitioning in the colonies and the colonists' outrage at England's refusal to listen to their grievances. You know the Framers of the Bill of Rights maintained that citizens' petitions, would be heard and considered. You know that in Congress' first decades petitions were received and considered, typically by referral to committees.

You know all this because we have provided you (through Jennifer Bailey in your office) with a detailed HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

As I mentioned when speaking with you, as you think the right exists, it would require a staff of thousands and a Congressman who never did anything other than reply to questions.  Moreover, your own “rules” of the petition you sent to me (specifically, that it be “new information”) are violated by several of the ”questions” in your petitions.  As you said to me, “many answer themselves” (meaning that they are not, in fact, even questions in earnest).  There is no constitutional right to make a Member of Congress answer a question such as:  “admit or deny that Mexico is the 4^th richest oil nation in the world.”

As I mentioned, not every communication is a protected Petition for Redress. Granted, however, every Congressman’s staff would be busy during the immediate future responding to Petitions for Redress regarding violations of the Constitution, simply because the sheer number of current violations.. However, once the Petition for Redress process was fully revived in America, it shouldn’t take too long to restore the nation to constitutional governance carried out in decency and good order, thereby lessening the demands on the time of the Members and their staffs to respond to such Petitions for Redress.

With respect, you labor under a misapprehension. The questions are in earnest and submitted in good faith.

Rep. Paul has not been asked for “new information.” He has merely been requested to admit or deny specific, single sentence statements of fact. We realize we are not entitled to our version of the facts. We also realize some amount of time is required to respond to each question. Therefore, as was the case with Question 81 in the Immigration Petition for Redress, following many of the questions we provide a link or citation to our source of our statement of fact. Rep. Paul is, of course, free to make use of the citation or not. 

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with House Rule 22 (101^st Congress, 2^nd session, 1991) which, according to “The Constitution of The United States: Interpretation and Analysis” (published by the Library of Congress) states that Members may forward such petitions to the Clerk.  You see, the right to petition for redress states that the right is “to petition THE GOVERNMENT” (as an entity) and NOT each individual agent thereof.  For petitions directed to Congress, the Rules of the House direct these to the hands of the Clerk and Speaker (contrary to the claims and implications on your website).

Tom, with respect, I’m sure you realize no House Rule can trump the Constitution.

In reviewing the current House Rules I do not see any Rule similar to Rule 22 of the 101 Congress.

That said, House Rule 22, 101^st Congress, 2^nd session, 1991 (assuming it says what you say – I have not checked it), merely states that Members “may” forward “such” petitions to the Clerk. You do not say the Rule said “shall” forward such petitions to the Clerk. Nor do you say a Member was constitutionally relieved of any obligation to respond by forwarding such a petition to the Clerk.  By “such petitions” the 1991 Rule might not have been referring to Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts.

Speaking of House Rules, I am reminded of another House Rule, the one adopted in 1830 which declared that any Petition for Redress from an abolitionist would be “permanently tabled.” That was the first time the Government went on record in America saying it did not have to listen or respond to Petitions for Redress. The slavery question could have been settled peacefully, as was the case in all other countries, and the civil war avoided, if the Members of the House had honored their oaths by properly responding to those Petitions for Redress regarding the constitutionality of slavery and peonage.

Finally, with respect, your suggestion that the Right is a Right to petition THE GOVERNMENT as an entity, not individual agents of the Government, is unsupported, ill-advised and dangerous. Besides,  you contradict yourself. If, as you say, Petitions for Redress must be submitted to  THE GOVERNMENT as an entity, and THE GOVERNMENT has three branches – Executive, Congress and Judiciary,  then you are arguing that the People’s Petitions for Redress must be submitted to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, and the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, in addition to the Speaker of the House.

Such an argument is limp and unavailing and runs counter to practice followed from 1791 to 1830 when, according to the Historical Record, when a citizen submitted a Petition for Redress to his Representative in the House, the Petition was usually submitted to a Committee of the House and the Petitioner always received a response, unless the Petition was totally libelous or frivolous. Every Wednesday the Members dealt with Petitions for Redress.

To wit, I have asked our staff here to prepare the instruments listed as “petitions” on your website in a manner consistent with the Rules of the House for submission to the Clerk so that the Speaker may discharge of them in accord with the wishes of the House. This is, according to the US Constitution and Rules of the House, the proper means for handling a petition for redress of grievances.  From what I can tell, Congressman Paul’s office ALONE plans to act in accord with those dictates. 

Interesting, but troubling for, as you know, it represents the certain demise of the Petitions for Redress and a call for the continuation of unconstitutional and unaccountable government in America (and the upheaval that such behavior is sure to eventually produce). Approximately 500,000 people live in Rep. Paul’s district. Their ONLY political links to the federal Government are Rep. Paul, Senators Hutchison and Cornyn and President Bush. The seven Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts were served on all four of these federal representatives. Neither Rep. Paul nor any of the other federal representatives have responded to the Petitions for Redress. You suggest Rep. Paul does not intend to answer any of the questions but,   instead, his intentions are to merely send the Petitions to the Clerk and Speaker of the House, there to be discharged in accordance with the wishes of the House.  This, in spite of the fact that all history hath shown that those in Government do not like opposition from any quarter, and will do most anything to keep from being held accountable except by the majority – the electorate as a whole.

However, ours is not a Democracy and our Rights do not depend on the majority. Our Right to constitutional governance carried out in decency and good order, and our First and Ninth Amendment Right to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution are INDIVIDUAL Rights. They are unalienable. The full force and effect of the Right to Redress are not dependant on one more than half the number of people voting in our precincts or in the halls of Congress.  

As to your other claims, I think it would be best to respond to those in a less formal fashion at some point.

I do not know what the other claims are that you refer to. Please explain.

Sincerely,

Tom Lizardo

Chief of Staff
Rep. Ron Paul

 

Mr Schultz:

I have reviewed your website and what is, ostensibly, the same “petitions” to which you have asked Congressman Paul to respond.

One of your questions is to “admit or deny that Mexico is the 4^th richest oil nation in the world.”

This is a great example of the problem with your “petition.”  What does that phrase even mean?  Do you mean something like “4^th largest oil producing nation in the world.”  If so, the information I just reviewed shows Mexico to in fact be the FIFTH largest oil producing nation in the world for the last year that I could find complete records for (2006).

In courts of law, a team of lawyers are employed to “go back and forth” and clarify questions such as this. No such team of lawyers is employed in a Congressional office.

The greater point though, I think, is that your argument is something like “every time a person writes to Ron Paul in a format similar to mine and asks this question” (which, again, I honestly have no clear idea even what it means) there is some constitutional right the author holds that the Congressman (apparently “personally”) must reply to said question.  This, of course, runs contrary to your own claim (on your website) that no court has defined even what the words in the constitution mean.  By the way, I’m not sure you are aware that courts have ruled on the issue, even if not presenting a “definition.”

As I mentioned when speaking with you, as you think the right exists, it would require a staff of thousands and a Congressman who never did anything other than reply to questions.  Moreover, your own “rules” of the petition you sent to me (specifically, that it be “new information”) are violated by several of the ”questions” in your petitions.  As you said to me, “many answer themselves” (meaning that they are not, in fact, even questions in earnest).  There is no constitutional right to make a Member of Congress answer a question such as:  “admit or deny that Mexico is the 4^th richest oil nation in the world.”

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with House Rule 22 (101^st Congress, 2^nd session, 1991) which, according to “The Constitution of The United States: Interpretation and Analysis” (published by the Library of Congress) states that Members may forward such petitions to the Clerk.  You see, the right to petition for redress states that the right is “to petition THE GOVERNMENT” (as an entity) and NOT each individual agent thereof.  For petitions directed to Congress, the Rules of the House direct these to the hands of the Clerk and Speaker (contrary to the claims and implications on your website).

To wit, I have asked our staff here to prepare the instruments listed as “petitions” on your website in a manner consistent with the Rules of the House for submission to the Clerk so that the Speaker may discharge of them in accord with the wishes of the House.  This is, according to the US Constitution and Rules of the House, the proper means for handling a petition for redress of grievances.  From what I can tell, Congressman Paul’s office ALONE plans to act in accord with those dictates. 

As to your other claims, I think it would be best to respond to those in a less formal fashion at some point.

Sincerely,

Tom Lizardo

Chief of Staff
Rep. Ron Paul