Equitable Access to Government

Equitable Access to Government

Equal access for some American citizens has not always been equitable, when it comes to accessing American government, whether it be access to officials, or services. Many reasons are available for this unequal access. In the beginning it was race and lack of money or property. (Kranich) "When some are excluded or lack the knowledge, income, equipment, or training necessary to participate fully in public discourse, they must overcome obstacles to access in order to ensure fairness." Some people were not considered citizens because of their race. We made laws to correct these problems, for instance the thirteenth amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery, and the fourteenth amendment to the constitution eliminated the 3/5 rule. The 3/5 rule was a good thing at the time, but then that will take more time than this paper allows to discuss and prove. The civil rights act was passed in 1968, along with several other laws, to make governmental access and services equitable to all people.

Apparently, now our 535 rulers in congress, by a vote of 399 to 3, in the house and by Unanimous Consent in the senate, believe they need to restrict access to members of congress and to the president or anyone that (they) choose. All that is required is to state some group is not qualified to have free access to our natural right of free speech and assembly, guaranteed by first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (HR347) "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority." Apparently, peaceful assembly is not to be tolerated if the protesters have the wrong message, or simply does not agree with the current policy of the 535. It is not enough to keep people out of federal buildings so the bill adds (HR347) "a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance." This translates to the president or his campaign manager or anyone who happens to agree with the president. (YouTube) Judge Andrew Napolitano does a great job of explaining the ramifications of this bill. HS347 is unconstitutional and must be repealed.

There are no guidelines stating what constitutes either a message or a group. Therefore, the tea party can be banned at whim. A Republican Party meeting can be banned. Even a protest against Obamacare can be banned, with or without cause. With the passage of the Notational Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and along with HR347 there is no more equal access to government people or services, if (they) don't like you. (Kranich) "Affirmative Action, Lyndon Johnson's attempt to overcome generations of discrimination and injustice against women and minorities, became the law of the land without achieving the approval of Americans who saw it as "unfair" because it appeared to favor some over others." There was no public discourse with either HR347 or the NDDA. Therefore, like affirmative action, the people will also find it unfair and inequitable.

The way to fix the problem is to repeal all the unconstitutional laws that have been passed in the last 60 years. Protesting to our congressional representative or senators is useless, because they wrote the legislation and are impervious to the problem. The only way I see to fix this problem, is to change out the entire 535 members of the ruling class and the removal of the current occupant of the Oval Office in November. While not impossible to do, it will take a herculean effort by "We the People".

Resources

HR347. Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Bill summary and Status 112th Congress. Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011