http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/Up ... -07-27.htmThe Ron Paul Question:
Will He Respond?
An interesting and potentially serious situation is developing regarding Rep. Ron Paul. It appears as though Ron’s staff may not have informed the Congressman of the Petitions for Redress, notwithstanding: a) the fact that there exists proof that on June 30 the Petitions for Redress were properly served on Ron Paul at his district office in Texas by a constituent; b) the fact that on June 30, Bob Schulz dropped in to Ron Paul’s DC office to deliver a personal letter to Ron Paul, along with a copy of the Petitions for Redress: and c) Ron Paul’s public declaration in 2001 that the People’s First Amendment Right of Redress includes an inherent Right to a response to their Petitions for Redress.
Last week, Plan supporter Ray Mills had the opportunity to personally speak to Ron Paul in Boone, NC at a Ron Paul rally and book signing event. Ray was able to question Ron Paul regarding the Petitions and his intention to respond. Rep. Paul stated he knew nothing about the service of the Petitions for Redress and that he would look into the matter.
Last Friday (July 25), Bob Schulz spoke by phone with Ron’s chief of staff, Tom Lizardo, about the Petitions for Redress. Tom said he was generally aware of the Petitions but would have to check with his Legislative staff to see what was being done about them. Tom did express a concern of his. He asked if Bob believed the Right to Petition required Ron Paul to respond to every communication received by him from any constituent. Bob told Tom he did not believe each and every communication would necessarily receive the protection of the First Amendment as a proper Petition for Redress requiring a response. Bob then sent Tom a definition of a proper Petition for Redress – one that would require a response.
Needless to say, a serious situation would ensue should Ron Paul fail to respond, responsively (i.e., with formal, specific answers to the questions in the Petitions for Redress). Absent such a response[,] Ron Paul’s credibility as an adherent of the Constitution could quickly be called into question.
The Constitution is not a menu. Rep. Paul is an official of the U.S. Government, and as a true believer and outspoken defender of the Constitution he cannot be found defending only some of its provisions, such as the war powers, money, privacy and tax clauses, while disobeying another, such as the accountability clause of the First Amendment. Again, it is important to note he has publicly admitted such an obligation to Respond.
Ironically, should Ron Paul fail to Respond to the Petitions, he would in effect, not only be ignoring the affirmative duty expressly placed upon him by the last ten words of the First Amendment, he would (through his "Campaign for Liberty") be left promoting the notion of majority rule as the sole avenue of recourse by which the People can (peacefully) cure constitutional torts or secure their individual Rights.
In other words, Ron Paul's potential failure to Respond would place him in the awkward position of publicly embracing political principles endemic to a pure democracy, while simultaneously holding himself, as a duly elected official, beyond the legal construct protecting the actual exercise of Individual Rights and Popular Sovereignty as guaranteed by the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and numerous other expressions of Fundamental Law dating back to Magna Carta.
It is time to move the battle for Liberty beyond the limited paradigm of electoral politics and governance by the majority: It is time to exercise the individual Right to Petition our Government for Redress of Grievances and Restore Constitutional Order.
(bolding added).
Ron Paul: Just not good enough to live up to the high standards set by Bob Schulz.
