The PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REFERENDUM MOVEMENT (POARM) was initiated to lobby lawmakers to pass initiative and the referendum to place an issue on the ballot via petition to allow all US registered voters to support or override the US Supreme Courts decision with regard to the \"one nation, under God\" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Why Because,it is the citizens\' ability to redress grievances in a convenient, timely and effective manner. Such redress prevents representative government from becoming misrepresentative of the people\'s will.
For a century, the petition process of choice in America has been voter initiative and referendum. Legislation describes how the right of redress will be exercised and how the people\'s decisions will be implemented. This mechanism enables voters and reform-minded public officials to circumvent the political establishment and place significant issues on the ballot when government fails to act as needed or behaves contrary to the public good:
The process that enables citizens to introduce new legislation for approval or rejection at the polls, is often referred to as a \"proposition\" or \"ballot measure.\"
BECAUSE THIS PETITION PROCESS has been in continuous use in America for 100 years, initiative and the referendum has become part of the \"organic law of the land,\" a term that is known to be synonymous with due process:
\"While it has been held that the idea of direct legislation is as old as government, the adoption of the initiative and the referendum as a part of the organic law in some jurisdictions came about as a result of the growth of dissatisfaction and distrust of the people for their legislative bodies, and because of the increase of corruption in legislation due to the power and influence of large corporations and powerful groups of individuals, and was not due to any willful or perverse desire of the people…. The legislation power is vested in the legislation assembly and in the people.\"
--Corpus Juris Secundum
ONE CAN SAFELY CONCLUDE THAT, in the absence of a petition process, the people are denied due process. This view was espoused by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clark in a concurring opinion written in 1962:
\"I would not consider intervention by this (U.S. Supreme) Court into so delicate a field if there were any other relief available to the people.... But, the majority of the people ... have no \'practical opportunities for exerting their political weight at the polls\' to correct the existing \'invidious discrimination.\' ... has no initiative and referendum. I have searched diligently for other \"practical opportunities present under the law. I find none other than through the federal courts. The majority of the voters...have been caught up in a legislative strait jacket. ...has an \"informed, civically militant electorate\" and \"an aroused popular conscience,\" but it does not \"sear the consciences of the people\'s representatives.\" … The people have been rebuffed at the hands of the .... We therefore must conclude that the people ... are stymied and without judicial intervention will be saddled with the present discrimination in the affairs of their ... government.\" Emphasis added. --Baker v. Carr
EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHT OF REDRESS is recognized by the courts, it is impractical for the people to engage the judicial system each time they have a grievance against government. Holding rein on government is the role of citizen petition, a procedure that developed alongside the political system for this very purpose. Redress was a fact of life in the republican states of Greece and Rome, theme of the Magna Carta and underlying cause of the American Revolution:
\"In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every trait which would define a tyrant
is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.\"
--Declaration of Independence
RESIDENTS OF EACH STATE ARE guaranteed a republican form of government by Article IV, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, as evidenced by this state supreme court ruling: \"In a republic, all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on that authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For these ends, they may alter or reform the government in such manner as they think proper. In this country, these are well-recognized political truths, independent of any written constitution or laws.\"
In conclusion, government\'s only legitimate reason for existence is to serve the sovereign citizens. Ours is a system created for that purpose by the people themselves. And, of course, what the people invent, they are free as a body to \"alter, reform or abolish.\" This end is achieved through initiative and the referendum,a centuries-old petition process that provides a convenient, timely and effective way to correct the faulty actions of government. The citizen petition is a hallmark of civilization, an alternative to armed revolt, an integral part of our constitutional heritage and a key component of representative government. The initiative and the referendum procedure is a recognized form of due process. Yet, no petition mechanism exists nationally, despite the constitutional protections afforded this ancient right.
So, please support my call for a national vote on whether or not the Supreme Court\'s decision regarding the \"one nation, under God\" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance is worthy of your support.
I am just one (1) US Citizen, registered to vote in the State of Texas, who believes that the US Supreme Court\'s decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, needs to be supported or overridden based on the results of a national vote.
Help spread the word about this petition. Copy the code below and paste it into your website or blog to help promote this petition.
(No links added)
The views expressed in this petition are solely those of the petition's sponsor and do not in any way reflect the views of iPetitions. iPetitions is solely a provider of technical services to the petition sponsor and cannot be held liable for any damages or injury or other harm arising from this petition. In the event no adequate sponsor is named, iPetitions will consider the individual account holder with which the petition was created as the lawful sponsor.