"Five students chose to stay and get arrested today when the Lansing rally and protest against Governor Rick Snyder’s “financial martial law” (among other rights Snyder’s bill takes away) was interrupted by state police demanding that the protesters leave the interior of the Capitol. As protesters banged on the doors from the outside and protesters on the inside chanted, “Let them in! Let them in!” police tried to convince the protesters inside the Capitol to leave. ...
Those that stayed were mostly students, though one young man said he had to drop out of school due to high tuition costs and was now unemployed. They came from all over Michigan — from the Detroit area to Kalamazoo — to the rally at the Capitol in Lansing, Michigan. They sat linked, arm in arm, waiting to be arrested. While they waited, one of the young men said, “We just want to be clear, this isn’t the way we’d prefer to do this. It’s the only way we have to be heard.” By tomorrow, of course, Fox News will be reporting on these evil student thugs who dared to get upset when Governor Snyder took their voting rights away. But that will be inaccurate. ...
Governor Synder is begging for a protest tougher than this. He’s driven the good people of Michigan to drastic action. The protests today had an edge we didn’t see in Wisconsin yet, probably because Snyder is coming for their very voting rights on top of collective bargaining and other Draconian measures. While all of the protests have been inspiring and moving, the Michigan protests were heart-breaking at the same time, because no human beings in a so-called democracy should be driven to such desperation by a despotic leader. It’s shameful that the people of Michigan have less rights in many ways at this point than a few nameless countries we supposedly liberated in the name of freedom."
Read the entire article for a heart-felt tale of Michigan citizens protesting for their constitutional right to vote!
Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"
Full article from CPRBlog, which offers reader commenting:
"Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar Robert Adler has an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune looking at a series of developments in Utah-- administrative actions as well as pending legislation-- that could hinder citizen engagement in environmental decisions. The context, writes Adler, is this:
'Whether or not one agrees that Tim DeChristopher was legally or morally justified in his civil disobedience as “bidder 70” in Bureau of Land Management oil and gas leases, virtually everyone asks why he did it.I do not presume to speak for him. But one possible reason was surely his frustration about what he perceived as the ineffectiveness of other avenues to influence public decisions that affect his health and the quality of his environment.It is ironic, therefore, that at the very time Mr. DeChristopher and his attorneys have been fighting to highlight this frustration, multiple levels of Utah’s state government have been working to systematically shut the door to other citizens who want to raise — through entirely lawful means — important questions about the quality of our air and water, the use of our public lands and resources, and the nature of the world we will leave to our children.'
Americans already, in general, suffer from a lack of freedom to redress their grievances with their government. Why would their public servants want to further erode those Constitutional freedoms??
Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"
"Earlier this year, [U.S. Representative] John Conyers (Democrat-Michigan) introduced HR 108. All of these points only relate to federal elections. The bill would outlaw vote-counting machines that have no audit trail; it would provide that provisional ballots are not invalid just because they were cast in the wrong precinct; it would require all states to permit election-day registration; and it would require all states to permit early voting, in the period starting 15 days before election day."
BILL HR 108 SUMMARY AS OF:
1/5/2011--Introduced.
Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2011 - Amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 with respect to: (1) use of a national federal write-in absentee ballot; (2) verified ballots; (3) preservation of voting records; (4) requirements for counting provisional ballots; (5) minimum required voting systems and poll workers in polling places; (6) standards for establishing the minimum required voting systems and poll workers; (7) election day registration; (8) removal from voter registration list; (9) early voting; (10) voting systems and voter registration; (11) Internet registration; (12) voter identification; (13) election administration requirements; (14) required use of publicly available open source software in voting machines; (15) standards for conducting recounts; and (16) standards for prohibiting conflicts of interest of entities involved in manufacture, distribution, or other activities relating to voting machines.
Amends the Revised Statutes to prohibit false statements, including those about public endorsements, intended to mislead voters in federal elections. Creates a private right of action for preventive relief against such false statements. Authorizes the Attorney General to communicate to the public corrections to materially false information if state or local election officials have not taken prompt and adequate steps to do so.
Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) increase the penalty for voter intimidation; and (2) prohibit voter caging and challenges based on certain evidence. Defines "voter caging document" as: (1) a nonforwardable document that is returned to the sender or a third party as undelivered or undeliverable despite an attempt to deliver it to the address of a registered voter or applicant; or (2) any document with instructions to an addressee that the document be returned to a sender or third party but is not so returned, despite an attempt to deliver it to the address of a registered voter, unless at least two federal election cycles have passed since the date of the attempted delivery.
States that the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense, unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election.
Treats election day in the same manner as a legal public holiday for purposes of federal employment.
Directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress and the President on the impact of such treatment on voter participation.
Expresses the sense of Congress that private employers in the United States should give their employees a day off on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2012 and each even-numbered year thereafter to enable them to cast votes in the elections held on that day.
The Subcommittee on the Constitution shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, Federal civil rights, ethics
in government, tort liability, including medical malpractice and product liability, legal reform generally, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant
oversight.
112th Congress Subcommittee on the Constitution
H2-362 Ford H.O.B.
Telephone: 202-225-2825
Mr. Franks [Republican], Chairman / Mr. Pence [Republican], Vice-Chairman
"What has become clear in the United States is that there is widespread discontent, if not anger, with the current status quo. Budget deficits, fiscal madness, bailout after bailout after bailout, and a never ending printing press at the Federal Reserve as Ben Bernanke seeks to devalue, if not debase, the once mighty US dollar.Not surprisingly, many have called for an end to the Federal Reserve, a return to the gold standard, a return to balanced budgets, and the end of self-serving fiscal theft by politicians and their crony supporters and interest groups.Perhaps in response, a 28th Amendment Petition was released on Presidents' Day February 21st, 2011. It was published as an online petition at www.gopetition.com/petitions/28th.html and simultaneously released as a spoken musical performance by We the People Folk Group atwww.youtube.com/wethepeoplefolkgroup."
New York – Today, in a major victory for the rule of law, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the landmark case of Caperton v. Massey, reversing the decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals by a 5 to 4 vote.
"There has been an unprecedented flood of money into judicial elections in the states," said Susan Liss, Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. "And this decision makes clear that campaign contributions must not be permitted to undermine the impartiality of the courts."
"This is a major victory for the rule of law," stated James Sample, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that money should not influence the courts, and that justice should not be for sale."
This landmark case brought together an unlikely set of allies who supported Caperton in his bid for an impartial tribunal. The strange bedfellows included former state Supreme Court justices, corporations like Wal-Mart and Lockheed Martin, and advocates for fair courts like the Brennan Center for Justice and the Campaign Legal Center.
"The remarkable coalition supporting Caperton's position speaks to the considerable effect the outcome will have on our judicial system—and the widely recognized need to ensure that the courts continue to dispense fair and impartial justice," Liss observed.
In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the Supreme Court grappled with the question whether the fundamental right to a fair hearing before a neutral arbiter required disqualification of a judge in a case where one party to litigation had given extraordinary campaign contributions to the judge while the party's case was pending. Against a backdrop of a dramatic rise of special interest spending in judicial elections nationwide, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued before the Supreme Court on March 3 that the Constitution's due-process clause required a West Virginia Judge to recuse himself from a lawsuit involving an executive who spent $3 million to elect the judge. Those expenditures, which came at the same time the court was considering the executive's case, were more than all other contributions to the judge's election, combined.
Emphasizing that a "fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process," the Supreme Court ruled that the constitution required recusal under the circumstances of the case. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, and was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Chief Judge Roberts issued a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and Justice Scalia also filed a dissenting opinion.
Background materials on the case, including all the amicus briefs filed, can be found here. The Brennan Center's amicus brief can be found here.
For more information or to set up an interview with James Sample, please contact Jeanine Plant-Chirlin at 212-998-6289 or jeanine.plant-chirlin@nyu.edu, Susan Lehman at 212-998-6318 or susan.lehman@nyu.edu. You can also contact James Sample directly at 406- 690-3947.
###
>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw
By David Segal Published May 14th 2009 in Baltimore Sun Picture: U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI).
Where are they now?
Just three months ago, America was introduced to four newly appointed Senators - two of whom had never even run for office. They've receded from the fore of our consciousness over the months since, but they're still out there, doing the business of the people who elected the people who appointed them.
Senators Russ Feingold and John McCainare pushing an amendment to the Constitution to require that senators be elected by the people whom they are meant to represent. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, removed the appointment of senators from the purview of state legislatures, mandating popular elections, excepting for gubernatorial appointments when vacancies occur. It's time to close this loophole - and Maryland's Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, who sits on the Constitution subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee - can play a critical role in doing so.
Americans were rightfully dismayed by the political jockeying, and in some cases apparent outright corruption, that swirled around their ascension during the fall and winter. Now the appointees are laser-focused on consolidating the power that was handed to them. But their low popular support yields diminished legitimacy, making it harder to be taken seriously by their colleagues and to work effectively on behalf of their constituents.
So who could oppose electing our senators? Several so-called conservatives have lined up against the proposal - and some even against the 17th Amendment itself: They assert that state governments should decide how senators should be selected.
States can indeed take action right now, but despite this winter's mass outcry, legislation requiring that Senate vacancies be filled by special election has been introduced in just a handful of states this year, and it's already clear that only a few of these bills stand a chance of passing.
What happened in Annapolis this year illustrates why: Del. Saqib Ali introduced legislation to require special elections, but to avoid stepping on the toes of the powerful, it was written to not take effect until 2015 - when Gov. Martin O'Malley will presumably have left office. Even so, the proposal went nowhere.
States in which the legislature is dominated by the same party as the governor - especially those with relatively stable political dynamics - are unlikely to perceive an urgency to act on the Senate vacancy issue; the party that rules the legislature is hesitant to strip authority from a governor of the same party.
In states where power is shared by Democratsand Republicans, the parties have competing interests that complicate the vacancy issue, hurting chances of passage. Indeed, passage is likely only in states with the most unusual of political dynamics: a legislature controlled by a super-majority of one party but a governor of the opposite political affiliation.
Rhode Island, where I live, is the exception that proves this rule: Democrats hold 90 percent of legislative seats and the governor is a relatively unpopular Republican. Versions of Senate vacancy legislation need to be reconciled after having already passed the House and Senate; a likely gubernatorial veto would be easily overridden. (Governors have no role in ratifying constitutional amendments, so the threat of vetoes would be removed under Mr. Feingold's proposal.)
A national movement, and national branding of the push as a "good government" effort, would lessen the appearance that action or inaction by a given legislature would serve as a referendum on any particular governor or on any particular appointed senator. Passage by only 38 states would, once and for all, put an end to this vestige of the oligarchical politics of a century gone by.
The basic legitimacy of our system of governance requires that senators be chosen by the people. Senator Cardin should use his privileged position to aggressively push Senator Feingold's amendment.
A draft summary of what I see as the most important, most doable, federal election reform priorities for 2009...
Okay, so I've been asked on several occasions, since the election last year, what I regard as the top priorities for election reform in the U.S. of A. In hopes of keeping it simple, stupid, at least until I hear opinions on these back from you folks, here is a summary list of the most important, and most eminently-doable-at-the-federal-level reforms as I see it.
I welcome your thoughts, recommended changes, additions, etc. For the moment, this is not meant as a comprehensive list of all needed reforms, particularly at the various local levels. But it's meant as a list of the big ones, as I seem them, and the ones for which I believe we could actually find a consensus in this Congress sooner rather than later. Nor is this meant as whitepaper with arguments and details for each item. But hopefully most regular readers of The BRAD BLOG will understand what these reforms entail and why they are necessary, as written in this summarized, simple list.
After hearing from you all, I may post an updated version later and/or set these up on their own page, in order track legislation for each of them as they roll (or don't) through Congress. Here's the list... Hand-Marked Paper Ballots For All: All ballot selections, in all federal elections, must be hand-marked by the voter, on paper ballots, except for ballots marked by a non-tabulating assistive device, as may be required to meet HAVA's accessibility voting mandate, one per polling place, for use by those who wish such assistance in order to vote privately and independently.
Fully Disclosed Hardware & Software: All electronic voting and tabulating systems (eg. ballot tabulators, ballot marking devices for optional use voters who wish assistance), in jurisdictions that may use such systems, must employ fully open source, publicly disclosed hardware and software.
Precinct-Based Counting: Ballots cast at the precinct are to be counted in a fully public, transparent, and verifiable manner at the local precinct level, with full citizen observation allowed by law, and results posted publicly at the precinct before either ballots or results are forwarded to any other location(s).
Voting Databases Released: All vote tabulation databases are to be made available to the public.
Full Transparency: All ballot counting/tabulation/auditing processes are to be fully open and transparent to any and all members of the public.
No Remote/Networked Communications: No voting system may have remote communication capabilities, infrared or bluetooth capabilities, or be attached to the Internet or to a local area network at any time.
No Internet Voting: No ballots may be cast over the Internet.
Disclosure of Federal Testing Processes/Results: All federal voting system testing/certification processes must be fully documented and results made immediately available for public inspection.
Outlaw Deceptive Practices: Deceptive practices (such as disinformation concerning Election Day, poll locations, and registration information and processes, etc.), voter caging (the removal of voters from the rolls without notification or process for appeal), and voter intimidation (eg. use of threats, uniformed officers at the polls, etc.) shall be outlawed. These laws shall be enforced and penalized as felony crimes.
Same Day Registration: Same day voter registration will be mandated for all voters in federal elections.
Ban Disenfranchising Photo ID Restrictions: Restrictive Photo ID measures at the polling place must be outlawed. Federalize the types of voter ID that may be required at the polls for federal elections.
Notification of Rejected Absentee Ballots: All voters are to be notified and allowed timely opportunity to appeal the rejection of their absentee ballots for any reason.
Make Election Day a Holiday: Election Day must be made a federal holiday.
Move Election Day to Wednesday: Election Day is to be moved to Wednesday. (Would likely require a Constitutional amendment - see this for a quick explanation of why moving it to Wednesday is a good idea.)
"Right to Vote" Amendment: Amend the U.S. Constitution to declare a federal "Right to Vote" in all federal elections.
Disenfranchisement a Felony Crime: The purposeful disenfranchisement of any legal voter, for any reason, by any person, in any election, at any time, is to be a felony crime. Each individual case of such disenfranchisement is to be prosecutable to the full extent of the law.
US President Barack Obama. Image by jmtimages via Flickr
Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise. From: Judicial Watch
Help Protect the Constitution
March 4, 2009
Dear Fellow American,
Barack Obama violated our nation's highest laws by appointing not just one, but THREE constitutionally-ineligible politicians to his cabinet.
And Judicial Watch has gone to court to have the most prominent of the three, Hillary Clinton, removed from office as Secretary of State!
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
You see, the Founding Fathers wanted to bar legislators from government offices they might have designs on for personal enrichment from serving those offices for which pay had been increased while they served in Congress. That's why they wrote Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution (which is sometimes called the "Ineligibility" or "Emoluments" Clause).
The language could not be more straightforward. The Ineligibility Clause is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
During her most recent term in the U.S. Senate, the pay of the Secretary of State increased three times. And that prohibits Hillary from serving in the Cabinet!
But that's just the start.
Barack Obama has set a new record for violating the Ineligibility Clause!
In addition to Hillary, the appointments of U.S. Representative Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor and former U.S. Senator Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior both violate the Ineligibility Clause!
That's because, like Hillary they were all were in Congress when the pay for the Cabinet offices they now hold were increased. (Solis's nomination was approved by the Senate last week!)
Is this what President Obama means by "change we can believe in?" Well, we believe that if one wants to change the Constitution, it has to be done through the amendment process.
That is why, on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, Judicial Watch filed a historic lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department.
In our lawsuit, we ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to declare that Hillary's appointment as Secretary of State violates Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution and to enjoin her from continuing to serve as Secretary of State.
That means we are, in effect, asking the court to remove Hillary from office!
Our legal action on behalf of Mr. Rodearmel is a dead-serious and long overdue legal challenge to a Washington practice that violates the United States Constitution.
Politicians of both political parties should understand that the U.S. Constitution is not to be trifled with. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law!
Your special contribution now will help us be ready for what could be very fast-breaking developments in our lawsuit against Hillary and the State Department!
You see, the law requires the courts to give "expedited consideration" to our lawsuit. There is the distinct possibility that this lawsuit could be fast-tracked to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It says a lot about Washington that Barack Obama ignored the Constitution by nominating Hillary to be Secretary of State; that Hillary ignored the Constitution and accepted the nomination; and the U.S. Senate ignored the Constitution and voted to confirm her and the other ineligible nominees.
But when politicians ignore the Constitution, your Judicial Watch will not. What's more, we will challenge the politicians and go to court to fight for the Constitution!
I urge you to support our historic effort to affirm the Constitution and the rule of law in our nation by making your most generous gift now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom Fitton President
P.S. Please make your best gift now as we must prepare now for the courts' consideration of our historic lawsuit. Of course, your tax-deductible gift will support all our investigations and lawsuits, and help us be ready for the next steps in our challenge to Barack Obama's unconstitutional appointments!
Contributions to Judicial Watch are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law. Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life.
>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw
January 22, 2009, New York – In response to President Obama’s signing of new executive orders today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) issued the following statement:
We welcome the beginning of the end of lawlessness. Under the previous administration, executive orders became synonymous with secrecy, torture and attempts to override the Constitution. It is genuinely uplifting to see them now used to set things right. President Obama’s orders today are an important first step in restoring the rule of law; let us take the next steps with great care not to open the way for a return to the darkness of these last years.
The order to close Guantánamo, though it provides little detail and allows perhaps too much time to get it done given the pressing issues at stake, is a good start. We believe the president will be able to close Guantánamo in less than a year: the priority must be to repatriate the many men who can go home and find safe havens for the approximately 60 who would face torture or persecution.
The government has to charge the rest of the detainees in federal criminal court. There can be no third way, no new schemes for indefinite or preventive detention or alternative national security courts. Any move in that direction would discredit all of the new administration’s efforts in the eyes of the world.
The order to close the CIA black sites where people were held in secret for the purpose of torture is to be applauded. There is no place for such black holes in a democracy. Their intended purpose is to circumvent the Geneva conventions and our own laws. If the order leaves the option of reviving those sites, it is more symbolic than a true reversal.
The order to make all agencies abide by the Army Field Manual’s acceptable interrogation tactics is perhaps the most important gesture toward restoring our moral authority as a nation. The Center for Constitutional Rights represents so many men who were brutally tortured by our government that this hits home for us in a way that it may not for those with no faces and lives to attach to the story.
Again, we caution that the order may leave an escape hatch if the CIA should want more tactics, i.e. torture, available in its arsenal. The Geneva conventions should be the only arbiter of what is possible for governments to do to human beings.
Today’s orders are filled with promise. In addition, to ensure no future administration will take us back to these dark times, there needs to be individual accountability for the torture program, and other crimes committed. Prosecution is the only way to deter future lawbreakers. These orders are the right start, let us make sure this does not happen again.
To read the text of the executive orders, click here or download the attachments below.
CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for the last six years – sending the first ever habeas attorney to the base and sending the first attorney to meet with a former CIA “ghost detainee.” CCR has been responsible for organizing and coordinating more than 500 pro bono lawyers across the country in order to represent the men at Guantanamo, ensuring that nearly all have the option of legal representation. CCR represented the detainees with co-counsel in the most recent argument before the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
- 30 -
>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw
Northampton, MA, September 17, 2008 –The "War on Terror" and The Constitution, a new booklet by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), is a concise summary of how key anti-terrorism laws and policies enacted since September 11, 2001, affect Americans’ constitutional rights. The new laws are organized into chapters corresponding to sections of the U.S. Constitution and articles of the Bill of Rights. Stories in each chapter show how the lives of innocent Americans and foreign detainees have been affected. BORDC is issuing the 24-page booklet on Constitution Day, the 221st anniversary of the U.S. Constitution.
Nancy Talanian, BORDC’s director and the booklet’s author, sees the booklet as a roadmap to show Americans the current status of their rights and liberties compared to where they should be according to the Constitution. “Armed with that knowledge,” she said, “they can work with one another and with their legislators to restore the essential rights they have come to expect.”
Nat Hentoff, a nationally recognized authority on the Bill of Rights, agrees. “No matter who the next president is or what the composition of the next Congress is,” he said, “the extent and the depth of what the Bush administration has done to the Constitution and to our standing in the world will remain unless and until enough Americans know how much remains to be done—and this booklet by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee provides the basic tools with which the citizenry can begin to act to make this America again.”
According to Talanian, “We now have substantial proof that human failures within our government, not the laws and policies in place prior to September 11, 2001, contributed to the terrorist attacks on that day. Furthermore, no proof has been offered to substantiate executive branch claims that new laws and policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act have made this country safer. One could argue that the government is wasting resources prying into the lives of innocent people and storing millions of their private records in databases and treating potentially all of us as terrorism suspects.”
In 2002, BORDC spearheaded a nationwide campaign that put city, county, and state governments on record for upholding their residents’ constitutional rights. The passage of eight statewide resolutions and more than 400 local resolutions and ordinances led Congress to strengthen its oversight when it reauthorized the PATRIOT Act in 2006. BORDC’s current focus is on the People’s Campaign for the Constitution, a grassroots effort to hold members of Congress accountable to their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
We've endured repeated abuses of power by the Executive Branch of our government. Time after time, we've watched Congress fail to stand up for what's right. We've seen the very symbols of our democracy tarnished, as our nation's reputation suffers at home and abroad because of these abuses.
That's why Common Cause has launched a campaign to Recapture the Flag and unite us around the promise and hope of America.
Then, find out where your candidates stand. We've asked every congressional and presidential candidate to make five simple promises:
• End torture, respect human rights and restore America’s reputation in the world. • Respect the rule of law and fiercely challenge anyone who seeks to undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. • Root out corruption, special interest abuses and partisan prejudice in the administration of justice. • Hold to account – without exception – anyone who breaks the law or violates the public trust. • Protect personal freedom by rejecting warrantless spying and other affronts to individual liberty.
America can, and must, hold fast to the values that have made this country great - freedom from tyranny, respect for individual liberty and government based on the rule of law.
Let's make it clear that We The People expect no less from the next President and Congress.
.>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_spIxaeaLuzOEFAu8DcTYLdWAeJgthT0uT3fnTdGKuTVVsGTgwk0PVQF2sfzoNrz1IoUn2_xTrtiQzIFDj-L_QX-cMapSm6zrHH0UP6JhhEA3zOVOhhMMHN9bsUQkl6TOGeWcIIFwx5HYG9AzVAUm0_=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sDBFQy0dulz3EajOkEAdlXp-bbX3esqYbo1Dbn-M-1vC7grjNIKj6YAzORCVVclRd3O55EpbNw_ROVTJ14LNrjyZUwqmO6C79azecsnO3Eii5Ud6CVBpa7AnEns0nhGxpUuaucECSVA4ywN51WsX7p=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tIOYOgY9Goe9aNhhurYDxk0yw6d4fl7fARlmyIXqiB3112VeH5jUPhESxuM6Dg1Ela7IpcMJ17Lu9NEopkw_1bcCc7wqTSL7x0BV0qmc_rJcPbhyILu3Aci2X0M4N0JMycarEPEyvqTNZNSerfXNZ0=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sJqwzzXB-0eWqay6u4R59oUBM6hl8gaNoxKkpdCVtylQEXtTiMY1HZ71VyZW3q7fDEnuuSeywXTP7x-H3OzeR3DDgdxs6h1Z6GtN6obuibNMtFRFKeq_36Hr5NoEAJZ3JkBxnG8_de7ODddJNfJgTU=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vm2v1vahiEmF0FERZVM_4LkttBD1HnkeXNZmtJpVSiRZ4ZhcMq9TQ9_YOgJz0ljmOrmaIKDHxUTeLpSJDg0h_Qmhwogyp5DrGXUBlHUwh7bXGeCdr75JK8RBuybKQKKqLczpKuZwtbRr8QYgN7FMVR=s0-d)
Download the booklet:![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s5PXu1EeaOSV2uk7OqSqXzT0a-m4gl4BmzH45PKGjh_NpA3_BqEe4OOgC3xGAqR35veYIS3z_1xzfXiDS_aI2iy2Ku-fU6Vc6lKX8-3aVQBKGEKY2TsN9VbJFzMjVBy_5kTxi0ePL-7Eoy-yllGSlc=s0-d)
