My position is misstated in Jacob's message. Summarizing, it is:
1. There is a right to answers to some kinds of questions, but not all
kinds. The kinds to which we have a right include questions of the form
"What actions have you committed?" and "How and how much public funds
did you expend?" An example of a kind to which we do not have a right is
"What is the time of day?"
2. There is a right to redress, but the redress is not, with the
exception of the kinds of questions to which we have a right to answers
as in (1), the answers themselves, but the remedy sought if they do not
answer. The proper historical names for the remedies are the prerogative
writs, such as /quo warranto, habeas corpus, prohibito, mandamus,
procedendo/, and /certiorari/. The correct way to have framed the WTP
petition was as a petition for a writ of /quo warranto/, under which if
the government does not provide answers, that is, proof of its authority
to require persons to file returns and pay income taxes on wages, then
the petitioners obtain the redress of a judgment by the court that the
government must cease making and enforcing its unauthorized claims.
3. The provision of the U.S. Constitution that provides the basis for
this right is not the First Amendment Right of Petition, which is only
the right not to be penalized for petitioning. It is also not the Fifth
Amendment Right of Due Process, which is only about restrictions on the
ways that the exercise of rights may be disabled. It is not contained in
the Seventh Amendment provision "rules of the common law" because that
only applies to cases tried by a jury. It is contained in the Ninth
Amendment, but the way to support that is to go back to the amendments
proposed by the state ratifying conventions, which include:
* "/Provided/, That all commissions, writs, and processes, shall run
in the name of the people of the United States, and be tested in
the name of the President of the United States, or the person
holding his place for the time being, or the first judge of the
court out of which the same shall issue." New York Ratification
Debates, _http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.htm_
* "10th. That every freeman restrained of his liberty is entitled to
a remedy, to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove
the same, if unlawful, and that such remedy ought not to be denied
nor delayed." Virginia Convention Bill of Rights,
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_23.htm
* "That every Person restrained of his Liberty is entitled to an
enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal
thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not
to be denied or delayed, except when on account of Public Danger
the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus." "That the Privilege of the /Habeas Corpus/ shall not by
any Law be suspended for a longer term than six Months, or until
twenty days after the Meeting of the Congress next following the
passing of the Act for such suspension." New York Ratification
Declaration, http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_decl-ny.htm
* "10. That every freeman, restrained of his liberty, is entitled to
a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the
same if unlawful; and that such remedy ought not to be denied nor
delayed." North Carolina Declaration of Rights,
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_nc.htm
* "12th. That every freeman ought to find a certain remedy, by
recourse to the laws, for all injuries and wrongs he may receive
in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right
and justice freely, without sale, completely and without denial,
promptly and without delay; and that all establishments or
regulations contravening these rights are oppressive and unjust."
Virginia Convention Bill of Rights,
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_23.htm
* "12. That every freeman ought to find a certain remedy, by
recourse to the laws, for all injuries and wrongs he may receive
in his person, property,or character; he ought to obtain right and
justice freely without sale, completely and without denial,
promptly and without delay; and that all establishments or
regulations contravening these rights are oppressive and unjust."
North Carolina Declaration of Rights,
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_nc.htm
* "1st. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when
they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their
posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with
the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and
pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Virginia Convention
Bill of Rights, http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_23.htm
* "1. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they
form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity,
among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means
of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining happiness and safety." North Carolina Declaration of
Rights, http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_nc.htm
>From there we have to go back to the historical meaning of those
writs, adopted by reference, as remedies which may sought by the
sovereign, which, following the Declaration of Independence, became the
people, any one of which may appear on behalf of all.
Now, I realize this chain of reasoning is somewhat vague and indirect,
and that is has been taken advantage of to deny the remedies, but if it
is really understood the principles are clear. Out job is to not only
understand it but assert it, and perhaps get a constitutional amendment
that makes it explicit.
Jacob Roginsky wrote:
> The question that I raised was not who was the proper guarantor of
> redress under the old English law, but rather what government capacity
> was responsible for the guaranteed delivery of redress. My reading of
> Article 61, Section 2 of Magna Carta is that it is/was the judicial
> capacity. If so, then the federal court properly concluded that
> albeit WTP had a right to petition the other two branches of
> government for redress, but had no right to obtain redress/answers
> from them. This is Jon Roland's long-held position.
>
> The question that still remains is whether WTP has a right to obtain
> answers to its questions on the legitimacy of various government
> authorities and actions. I would say that it absolutely has such a
> right. However, the right lies not in the Petition Clause of the
> First Amendment, but the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
> If the government fails answer these questions, WTP has the standing
> and a cause of action to engage compulsory judicial process to force
> government to answer the questions. You and I are in full agreement
> that the business of government immunities is a fraud upon Magna
> Carta, the very type of tyranny that brought the angry barons to the
> gates of the king's castle and forced His Royal _Hindness_ to sign
> Magna Carta.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
