On January 31, 2017 citizens participated in rallies and meetings at several of Sen. Rubio's local Florida offices, organized in part using tools provided by MoveOn.org. That day a spokesperson from Rubio's office made this statement to the Miami Herald: "The leftwing [sic] extremists at Move.On org and their paid protestors are entitled to express their opinions, and like all presidents, Trump is entitled to nominate his cabinet."[1] I am not a left-wing extremist, nor am I paid for these efforts. I'm just a mom engaged in democracy, which I have been my whole life. This is my first experience being directly attacked by a politician (via his spokesperson), and I am especially concerned since the statement is 100% false. I have been reaching out to Senator Rubio's offices for the better part of a month to find out about his specific positions on healthcare reform and education, issues that directly impact my children. In addition to policy questions, I asked when Senator Rubio would be available for meeting with citizens (individually or in town hall settings). Although I was told a policy staffer and scheduling staffer would contact me, it did not happen. When it became clear that my singular voice would not be heard, I helped organize rallies at one of his local offices two consecutive Tuesdays. It is not acceptable to use "alternative facts" to attack the reputation of regular citizens. American democracy demands participation, not simply voting every few years and walking away. Voicing questions and concerns to our elected representatives is a crucial part of democracy and to label it "extremism" undermines core American values. Spreading false information about citizens in an effort to pit one "side" against the other and intentionally manipulate public perception is called scapegoating. This is not leadership. This is divisiveness and it is weakening our great country. [1] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/doral/article129853034.html

If candidates perjure themselves under oath during cabinet confirmation hearings, can we trust anything they say? Why isn't Congress outraged by the lies told to them during the hearings by Tom Price and Steve Mnuchin? Mnuchin lied about his bank, OneWest's, involvement in robot signing foreclosure documents; Price lied about the sweetheart deal he received to purchase pharmaceutical stock while he was introducing legislation to approve one of their drugs. The Committee's downplaying of these lies is cronyism of the worst sort and defies the laws of our land. If these candidates were the choice of a Democratic president, the committee members would be outraged and refuse to confirm. Instead, Mitch McConnell says the Democrats are just 'looking for issues.'

This seat was stolen from President Barack Obama. The Republicans changed the rules of the Supreme Court in the judiciary nomination process by refusing to consider any nominee put forward by President Barack Obama following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. This was their delay tactic. We need to tell Congress that Gorsuch does not deserve a confirmation because the process that led to his nomination was illegitimate. The Senate’s Republican majority, Mitch McConnell, declared they would not give Garland hearings, would not examine his qualifications, and would not take a vote. They made up a rule: A nominee for the Supreme Court can be considered for only three-quarters of any president’s term. In the fourth year, confirmations have to wait until after the election. They changed the rules of the game to their own benefit. Further, last October, Ted Cruz, John McCain, and Richard Burr were pledging to hold the vacant seat open for four years in the event of a Hillary Clinton win. That was their commitment. We, the people, must continue to tell our Congressional leaders to stand up against this administration and its bullying, filibuster Gorsuch nomination and demand Garland provides the baseline against which to measure any SCOTUS nominee’s ideological reasonableness.

We can't allow Senate Republicans to set the precedent of ignoring a duly appointed meritorious nominee for the Supreme Court. The Democrats mistakenly chose not to go nuclear. Now they must get the job done through boycott, filibuster, and whatever legal means necessary. Force the Republicans' hand. Either they back down and appoint Judge Garland or they go nuclear. Either way, the Democratic caucus will remain the principled party. It is a mistake to consider a new nominee and attempt to defeat or diminish him.

The security of the United States of America depends on there being no conflict of interest on the part of the president. If Donald Trump claims he has no conflicts of interest, he needs to prove it by revealing his taxes. There is no reason why he needs to wait until his IRS audit is complete.

An 18-year-old can buy a home, for example, but can’t run for office to represent the districts in which they vote and pay taxes. Nearly all state constitutions have included age qualifications of their own, some closely to those outlined in the Federal Constitution. Many do not. Consequently, the right of a young person to run for office in the United States is determined by a nonsensical patchwork of statutes that is plainly indefensible for its arbitrariness, even if one genuinely believes that young people, by and large, can’t be trusted with elected office

President Trump has stated that no one cares about his conflicts of interest or his financial status. As the Commander in Chief, President Trump's financial debts to foreign organizations, Deutsche Bank and the Bank of China, is a vulnerability and expose him to influence. An explanation of the conflicts of interest is available here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/guide-donald-trump-debt The Director, Office of Government Ethics has stated: "A conflict of interest is anything that creates an incentive to put your own interests before the interests of the people you serve. The Supreme Court has written that a conflict of interest is, and I’m quoting here, “an evil which endangers the very fabric of a democratic society, for a democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of corruption.” That same Court referred to what it called a “moral principle” underlying concerns about conflicts of interest. The Court cited, and I’m quoting again, “the Biblical admonition that no man may serve two masters, a maxim which is especially pertinent if one of the masters happens to economic self-interest.” A President is no more immune to the influence of two masters than any subordinate official. In fact, our common experience of human affairs suggests that the potential for corruption only grows with the increase of power." https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/0/6E08189CF6AF742B852580A500799063/$FILE/Remarks%20of%20W%20M%20Shaub%20Jr%20(1).pdf 5 USC 1100 PART III Subpart J CH 110 states: The enhanced personnel security program of an agency shall integrate relevant and appropriate information from various sources, including- .... information relating to any criminal or civil legal proceeding; financial information relating to the covered individual, including the credit worthiness of the covered individual; .... including relevant security or counterintelligence information .... that may suggest ill intent, vulnerability to blackmail, compulsive behavior, allegiance to another country, change in ideology, or that the covered individual lacks good judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness... Title 3 The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 Disclosures of financing and personnel; limitation on acceptance of donations: "Sec. 6. (a)(1) The President-elect .... shall disclose to the Administrator the date of contribution, source, amount, and expenditure thereof of all money, other than funds from the Federal Government, and including currency of the United States and of any foreign nation, checks, money orders, or any other negotiable instruments payable on demand, received either before or after the date of the general elections.... Please read https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/

I want a democracy. Trump is evidence that it is rapidly disappearing.

The Republican Party has fallen in line with and normalized a radical conservative agenda set on dismantling our democracy. Our country needs a Senate that can check the ever increasing power of the Executive Branch. Moderate Republicans must be courageous and disavow their party by becoming Independents or Democrats.

There will be no more significant and lasting action by the new president than his appointment to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Despite his overwhelming approval by the American people, President Obama was deprived of his constitutional prerogative to have his nominee for the seat considered by the senate. Senator McConnell's strategy for obstructing President Obama was cynical and against the interests of all Americans but we can agree that a president who received a minority of votes does not have a mandate from Americans to appoint a justice to The Supreme Court.

This Muslim ban is contrary to American values and is likely unconstitutional.

This petition is aimed at stopping Trump's autocratic power grab and making him respect the rule of law.