Robert Schulz's turn

[Demosthenes]

If Schulz doesn't collect a salary from WTP, how does he support himself?

According to Schulz, "gifts."

[Truthstalker]

According to Schulz, "gifts."

Google:

Did you mean: grifts

[Neckbone]

Radio show with Bob Schulz, Dan Evans, and Seth Heald of the DOJ.

http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/ ... hp?id=9031

I was misquoted.

Dan, Demo, etc.:

I know that Schulz, like all of us, has a constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances. That's great, and I'm glad we all share that fundamental right. But what is Schulz's rationale for the proposition that the government must respond in a manner satisfactory to Schulz and provide the redress to which Schulz deems himself and his followers entitled? I don't recall hearing Bob's rationale for his claims. Can you guys tell me where Bob came up with the notion that upon petitioning the govt., Bob gets whatever Bob asks for?

Neckbone

[Demosthenes]

He thinks that demanding a response is a case of first impression.

And yet,

465 U.S. 271 MINNESOTA STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES v. KNIGHT ET AL.

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals' communications on public issues. Indeed, in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463, 464 -466 (1979), the Court rejected the suggestion. No other constitutional provision has been advanced as a source of such a requirement. Nor, finally, can the structure of government established and approved by the Constitution provide the source. It is inherent in a republican form of government that direct public participation in government policymaking is limited. See The Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison). Disagreement with public policy and disapproval of officials' responsiveness, as Justice Holmes suggested in Bi-Metallic, supra, is to be registered principally at the polls.

[Disilloosianed]

I have also heard one or the other of the WTPs argue that the right for redress inherently includes a right for the government to listen and respond. Otherwise, what you what you have is a right to scream into the wind. And that does make some sense, on its face. However, where the WTPs get it twisted is that there are already mechanisms to exercise that right when you have a valid claim against the government. Take the Federal Tort Claims Act, for example.

As mentioned above, the way to get rid of the income tax (or to address any of WTP's other issues) is to vote for representatives who will do it. The problem, of course, is that there will never be enough voted in at any one time to, say, repeal the 16th Amendment. So what their argument on right to redress basically boils down to is that any radical group should be able to immediately move its issues that no one else is concerned with to the front of the line for federal government action, simply because they are issues that no one else would take an interest in.

[Lambkin]

I have also heard one or the other of the WTPs argue that the right for redress inherently includes a right for the government to listen and respond. Otherwise, what you what you have is a right to scream into the wind.

How about when the response is to yawn and have a scratch? Is that good enough?

[Disilloosianed]

Pretty much.

Although, it's actually a case about libel, McDonald v. Smith 472 U.S. 479, *485 (1985) talks about the right to petition as being "cut from the same cloth" as all the other rights in the First Amendment. In other words, it's about the ability to express yourself, not to force someone else to take action or even pay attention. No one has imprisoned anyone in WTP for all the complaining they do about the government or for when they had their 60-V, 1000-V march.

Compare this with, say, Tiananmen Square. Being mowed down by tanks for voicing displeasure with the government is having a lack of right to petition the government for redress.

[.]

As Demo has already pointed out, the USSC said it better and quite succinctly in 465 U.S. 271 MINNESOTA STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES v. KNIGHT ET AL. long ago.

Bob will continue to try to feather his rapidly shrinking nest as he goes down in flames.

[Nikki]

EWWWWW! Burning feathers

[notorial dissent]

Not that I think Schulz is anything but a lying bag of wind, and a useless sack of fairly low grade fertilizer, but the biggest response to his lie is that the gov’t does in fact respond to “the right of petition” all the time every day. They respond when they take action on letters about problems, and the Congress responds when one of its members gets a “petition” from constituents that actually is valid. What they don’t do is jump to when every nut case who can find a pen, or this case a computer, and blurts out a list of demands generates something. They do respond, and do respond every day, but it has to be about something real. That, if for no other reason, is why Bob Shulz is a liar and a fraud.

[Trippy]

Bob will continue to try to feather his rapidly shrinking nest as he goes down in flames.

As a measure of how desperate he's becoming, Bob's resorted to linking his "cause" with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

On March 18th we posted an article titled “Mid-East Policy vs. the U.S. Constitution” in which we said we were inviting representatives of the Israel Lobby (AIPAC) and the Governments of the United States, Israel and Palestine to attend GML 2007 to comment on the accuracy of a recent paper published by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, entitled, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” and a book published recently by Jimmy Carter entitled, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”

We wrote that according to Mearsheimer, Walt and Carter, the United States has abandoned its own national interest and security to advance the interests of Israel, that neither strategic nor moral arguments can justify America’s unconditional support for Israel, that the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israel’s unlawful expansion and military occupation of the Palestinian Territories, that the United States is paying for the destruction of the Palestinian society, that U.S. policy in the Middle East (including giving Israel well over $140 billion in U.S. income tax revenues) has been driven by the activities of the “Israel Lobby,” and that the Israel Lobby attacks any person or organization that criticizes or is perceived to be a threat to Israel’s interests.

We wrote that if, in fact, the information presented by the Professors and Carter was correct, it must be concluded that U.S. Foreign Policy is repugnant to the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.

In support of such a conclusion we presented the following line of logic:

If Palestinians are being oppressed and their society is being destroyed by Israel, and if Palestinians and empathetic Arabs and Muslims in surrounding countries are now directing their anger and hostilities against America because our financial aid to Israel is paying for the destruction of the Palestinian society, and if these hostile acts by Arabs and Muslims against America are the underlying cause of the domestic “War on Terror” in America, and if the “War on Terror” in America is the proximate cause of the developing Police State in America (euphemistically called the National Security State), and if the growing Police State is eroding the individual Rights, protected Freedoms and cherished Liberties of the People, then it would be undeniable that U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel is not in our national interest and is not serving the general welfare of all Americans.

In short, if U.S. Middle-East policy, (including foreign aid, U.S. military actions, high-technology weapons sales, covert CIA interdictions, etc.) is the result of the de facto wholesale adoption of the self-interests of the state of Israel over the constitutionally protected self-interests of the American People, then our Government is, in effect, conducting foreign policy that is abhorrent to the Constitution.

As reported by Mearsheimer, Walt and Carter, U.S. foreign aid is being used to establish and further a racist and minority religious belief system, it is being used to unlawfully imprison and impoverish large segments of the Palestinian/Muslim population, it is being used to attack other nations in the region that oppose Israel’s destruction of the Palestinian society, and it is being used to achieve questionable political ends that have resulted in injurious “blowback” upon the American populace -- including the attacks of 9-11 and the continuing diminution of our civil liberties. In essence, our aid and assistance is being used to deprive human beings, both here and abroad, of their unalienable Rights as endowed by their Creator.

Certainly, it is not in the interest of mankind to stifle debate on such an important issue. The issue must enter the public discourse in America, under the protection of the First Amendment’s speech, press and assembly guarantees and, if necessary, under the First Amendment’s guarantee of the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.

[jkeeb]

So, its those darn jooz and the zionists that are taking Schultz's property. Mazel tov.

[grixit]

While i do disagree with the government of Israel on some things, and with the US government's attitude towards the middle east on some things, the historical support for Schultz's argument is weak. US foreign policy has often involved cuddling up to some really awful governments (as in way more awful than Israel and Palestine put together) without importing their practices here.