I am very suspicious of anyone who uses coercion to get people to take a position.

It does discuss January 6th at face value, instead of the intel community farce it really was (admittedly, a disgrace to the constitution all the same)

always has been

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wixtjUL42E

Not sure how much feedback you got or if this is welcome but to me, most of these points sound quite right:

Based on the text provided and the current date (January 2026), here is an analysis of who likely wrote this petition and an explanation of the structural and rhetorical changes needed to improve its appeal.

## Profiling the Author

Based on the language, specific legal citations, and the philosophical tone, the author is likely a **"Constitutional Institutionalist"**—someone who is politically homeless in the current polarized environment. They are likely a legal scholar, a former civil servant, or a disaffected conservative/classical liberal.

Here is why this profile fits:

* **The "Republic" vs. "Democracy" Rhetoric:** The text opens by referencing "citizens who still believe in the Republic." This is a distinct shibboleth. Progressives usually emphasize "Democracy" (majority rule/rights), while traditional conservatives emphasize "The Republic" (structures/limits on power).

* **The Focus on Process over Policy:** The petition is not angry about *what* the government is doing (e.g., specific tax rates or social issues); it is angry about *how* they are doing it (violating Article I, ignoring the War Powers Resolution).

* **The "UN Charter" Argument:** This is the strangest inclusion for a conservative-sounding text. Relying on Article VI to claim international treaties (like the UN Charter) are the "Supreme Law of the Land" is a very specific, academic legal argument often used to constrain American unilateralism. This suggests the author is an **internationalist**, perhaps someone involved in foreign policy or international law who opposes isolationism.

* **The January 6th Comparison:** The author dislikes the "chaos" of J6 but dislikes the "operational" executive overreach of the current administration even more. This triangulation is typical of the "Never Trump" conservative or the "Blue Dog" Democrat.

**In summary:** The author is likely a highly educated, centrist legal idealist who believes the system is broken not because of the *people* in it, but because the *rules* are being ignored.

## Why the Petition is "Unpalatable" (The Issues)

You are correct that the text is disjointed. It tries to appeal to everyone but likely alienates everyone instead.

1. **The "J6" Section is Polarizing:** By explicitly centering the petition around the January 6th anniversary, the author instantly alienates any Trump supporters or Republicans who might otherwise agree with the points about "War Powers" and "Executive Overreach." Conversely, by calling the current administration a *worse* danger than J6 ("more severe because it is operational"), they risk alienating Democrats who view J6 as the singular worst event in recent history.

2. **The "UN Charter" Trap:** Citing the United Nations Charter as a binding constraint on the US President is a "poison pill" for American conservatives. While legally arguable under the Supremacy Clause, politically, it reads as "Globalism over Aemrican Sovereignty."

3. **Abstract Guilt:** The opening paragraph ("we have failed—the world, ourselves...") is depressive and self-flagellating. Most people sign petitions to demand action from others, not to confess their own sins.

4. **Vagueness:** It alludes to "ongoing or escalated military action" and "ill-gotten gains," but it never actually says *what* war or *what* financial crime is happening. It assumes the reader is already a constitutional lawyer.

## Recommended Changes

To make this petition effective, the focus needs to be narrowed, and the unnecessary cultural signals need to be removed. Here is what should be changed:

### 1. Remove the January 6th Framing

The comparison to January 6th confuses the message. Is this a memorial for the riots of 2021, or a petition about War Powers in 2026?

* **Change:** Cut the paragraphs referencing the anniversary entirely.

* **Reasoning:** If the current President is violating the law *now*, that stands on its own merits. Dragging in J6 restricts the coalition to people who are still focused on that specific event, rather than people concerned about current military overreach.

### 2. Drop the "International Treaty" Argument

Using the UN Charter to argue against the US President is politically ineffective in the US.

* **Change:** Focus exclusively on the **US Constitution (Article I)** and the **War Powers Resolution**.

* **Reasoning:** "The President is ignoring Congress" is a winning argument that appeals to both libertarians (Right) and anti-war activists (Left). "The President is ignoring the UN" appeals to very few American voters and actively hostile to many.

### 3. Shift from "Guilt" to "Rights"

The opening lines ("We have failed") are weak.

* **Change:** Rewrite the opening to focus on the rights of the citizens that are being usurped.

* **Reasoning:** People sign petitions because they feel aggrieved, not because they feel guilty. The tone should be: "Congress is allowing the President to steal *your* power to declare war."

### 4. Definition of Claims

The petition demands restitution for "ill-gotten gains" and "appropriations for military operations."

* **Change:** The petition must explicitly name the conflict or the corruption. For example, "Stop funding the unauthorized deployment in [Region X]" or "Investigate the [Specific Business Deal]."

* **Reasoning:** Without specifics, this reads like a theoretical law school exam rather than a call to political action.

### 5. Simplify the "Structural Reform" Demand

The final demand asks to stop the "coordination of economic, political, and media power."

* **Change:** Limit the demands to concrete legislative actions (e.g., "Pass the Reassertion of Congressional War Powers Act").

* **Reasoning:** The current wording sounds conspiratorial. It resembles language used by both the far-left (anti-capitalist) and the far-right (deep state), making the "sensible center" uncomfortable.