The Right To Petition: Does it include a right to a RESPONSE ???
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
So many times i have come on this board and seen questions like "What can we DO if we don't agree?" or "what if writing my congressman doesn't work" or statements like "we are powerless to do anything" or "i give up, because we have no voice" ...
well,
WHAT IF THE CONSTITUTION GAVE US AN OPTION THAT IS BEING DENIED OF US !?!
I ask you all to consider this question.
Why would our founding father put in the VERY FIRST AMMENDMENT to the BILL OF RIGHTS a clause about the RIGHT TO PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES?
Did they specifically enumerate this right only to offer it without recourse, or did they INTEND IT TO HAVE CONSEQUENCE?
In other words, why guarantee the people a RIGHT TO PETITION if the RIGHT TO A RESPONSE was not implicit?
I would simply like people to consider this question,
as it is UP FOR REVIEW right now ... actually it has BEEN RULES THAT WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO A RESPONSE even in matters of petition EXPLICITLY concerning the Federal Government and our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ...
In other words, The DC District Court of Appeals has ruled that even when you feel your constitutional rights are threatened by the government and you formally envoke your first ammenedment right to petition, you have NO RIGHT TO A RESPONSE ...
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING
Explanaition of En Banc Request Filed in DC by We The People Foundation After Their Original Case Was Dismissed In May of 2007
This is the DC Circuit Court Decision That Proclaims YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO A RESPONSE
This is the VERY PERSUASIVE Argument for a REHEARING Regarding This VERY IMPORTANT Constitutional Issue
I STRONGLY suggest you read the ENTIRE Petition For Rehearing Enbanc and then ponder.
WHY WERE WE GRANTED THIS RIGHT AT ALL?
What do YOU THINK about all this?
Are we being turned in to slaves to our own government with NO NON-VIOLENT RECOURSE, or is this all just crazy people who have gone off the deep end?
Hmm.
well,
WHAT IF THE CONSTITUTION GAVE US AN OPTION THAT IS BEING DENIED OF US !?!
Bill of Rights Amendment I wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I ask you all to consider this question.
Why would our founding father put in the VERY FIRST AMMENDMENT to the BILL OF RIGHTS a clause about the RIGHT TO PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES?
Did they specifically enumerate this right only to offer it without recourse, or did they INTEND IT TO HAVE CONSEQUENCE?
In other words, why guarantee the people a RIGHT TO PETITION if the RIGHT TO A RESPONSE was not implicit?
I would simply like people to consider this question,
as it is UP FOR REVIEW right now ... actually it has BEEN RULES THAT WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO A RESPONSE even in matters of petition EXPLICITLY concerning the Federal Government and our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ...
In other words, The DC District Court of Appeals has ruled that even when you feel your constitutional rights are threatened by the government and you formally envoke your first ammenedment right to petition, you have NO RIGHT TO A RESPONSE ...
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING
Explanaition of En Banc Request Filed in DC by We The People Foundation After Their Original Case Was Dismissed In May of 2007
This is the DC Circuit Court Decision That Proclaims YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO A RESPONSE
This is the VERY PERSUASIVE Argument for a REHEARING Regarding This VERY IMPORTANT Constitutional Issue
I STRONGLY suggest you read the ENTIRE Petition For Rehearing Enbanc and then ponder.
WHY WERE WE GRANTED THIS RIGHT AT ALL?
What do YOU THINK about all this?
Are we being turned in to slaves to our own government with NO NON-VIOLENT RECOURSE, or is this all just crazy people who have gone off the deep end?
Hmm.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
LOL!!!!!
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Everyone here already knows you can't read.
I suggest you simply stay away from this discussion, Jlew.
The court decisions and appeals cited here contain words both in bold and itallics ... we all know you can't read anything but straight text, and even that you seem to have serious problems with.
Do me a favor and don't derail this serious debate with your superfluous juvenile cracks.
they are neither warranted nor welcome.
thank you.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
that actually make me spit out the water I was drinking... thanks
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
you call this a serious debate???
you need to just chill out. I'm just glad I'm not you. you live in this constant bubble of fear. have a beer, life is good.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
If I opened it now would you not understand?
its hard to comprehend what the hell you are biggy fonting all about.
so you have the right to bitch. good. but you are demanding a response back when you bitch? help us out here.
edit: and isn't ignoring a petition / letter etc... still a response?
here's the redress that our congressmen will give us for our grievances - "Thank you for your concern about issue X, I will continue to do everything in my power to influence congress to correct this situation... blah... blah... blah..."
My redress to that is to vote for someone else to take over you job.
While I can't stand most politicians and know that they are more interested in saving their own ass and making money then actually governing, but we as the voting public have every opportunity to vote for a change.
I'm done blaming politicians and the system... my blame falls on people who either don't care or don't know enough to make informed voting decision. We elect crooks, then complain when they act like crooks.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
my experience has been that you can't have a serious debate with a lunatic who constantly flaps their arms about. the only thing you can do is continually point out to everybody else that said person is, in fact, a lunatic in the hopes that the rest of the people will recognize this fact and eventually ignore the lunatic.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Some of the finer points of the Petition For Rehearing En Banc, submitted by We The People Foundation
Typed out by me from PDF for those of you lazy fucks out there who might otherwise contribute if only you did not have to click a link and find the information for yourself ... i know you love to be spoon fed, so here:
Page 12-
As argued in the People's original Brief to the Court, there is absolutely nothing in American History or Jurisprudence that contradicts the People's interpretation of the meaning of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment. On the other hand, the People's interpretation is supported by all of history, from the English Magna Carta to the American Declaration of Independence and beyond.
For instance, Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta (the cradle of Liberty and Freeom from wrongful government, signed at a time when King John was sovereign) reads in relevant part:
"61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have the transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us..." (emphasis added by the People)
Surely, Chapter 61 was a procedural vehicle for enforcing the rest of the Charter. It spells out the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government, and the procedural steps to be taken by the People and the King, in the event of a violation by the King of any provision of that Charter: the People were to transmit a Petition for a Redress of their Grievances; the King had 40 days to respond; if the King failed to respond in 40 days, the People could non-violently retain their money or violence could be legally employed against the King until he Redressed the alleged Grievances.
In addition, the 1689 Declaration of Rights proclaimed, "It is the Right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning is illegal." This was obviously a basis of the "shall make no law abridging the right to petition government for a redress of grievances" provision of our Bill of Rights.
In addition, in 1774, the same Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence unanimously adopted an Act in which they gave meaning to the People's Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement as they spoke about the People's "Great Rights." Quoting:
"If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner opressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." -Continental Congress To The Inhabitants of The Province Of Quebec." Journals of the Continental Congress 1774, Journals 1: 105-13.
In addition, in 1775, just prior to drafting the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson gave further meaning to the People's Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement. Quoting:
"The privelage of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, an hou improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator." - Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.
In addition, in 1776 the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress. The bulk of the document is a listing of the Grievances the People had against a Government that had been in place for 150 years. The final Grievance on the list is referred to by scholars as the "capstone" Grievance. The capstone Grievance was the ultimate Grievance, the Grievance that prevented Redress of these other Grievances, the Grievance that caused the people to non-violently withdraw their support and allegiance to the Government, and the Grievance that eventually justified War against the King, morally and legally. The Congress gave further meaning to the People's Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement. Quoting the Capstone Grievance:
"In every stage of these Opressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by with repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is thus unfit to be the ruler of a free people... We, therefore... declare, That these United Colonies... are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown..." Declaration of Independence, 1776
This list of historical explanations of the Right To Petition For A Redress Of Grievances and the historical record explaining the UNDERSTOOD NOTION THAT A RESPONSE WAS GUARANTEED continues for another three pages, but I found it most appropriate to end the quote and carry on discussion at the conclussion of the Capstone Grievance of the Declaration of Independence ...
Please note that OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THE KING WOULD NOT RESPOND and because, as quoted, "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is thus unfit to be the ruler of a free people" ...
You would do yourself a great service to read the rest of this Petition For Rehearing En Banc, submitted by We The People Foundation as it is the latest motion in an ogoing courtcase to RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND NATURAL SOVERIGN RIGHTS!
What have you to say folks?
Jlew and Godpt3, please EXCLUDE yourself from this discussion, since you have so far proved yourselves incapable of rational and constructive debate.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
hahahaha. dude come on. look at your posts. there is no one on this board who debates like you. maybe ahimus, but he posts about stuff I dont really care to know about like free will and determinism. no offense ahimus.
but fuck, look at what you post. it is 4 pages long. most of it about such meaningless jibberish, its hard to have a meaningful conversation.
but hey, keep up the good fight, I gotta run, fox news is on.
Atually that was pretty fukn funny...
It just fit with the semantics of the pre-amble.
Sorry Drifting... lol
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I dont need 4 pages with 25 links and 9 color coded paragraphs. there arent enough hours in a day.
we are going to get nowhere with 9/11 debate. so skip that. now this thread? I mean come on.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
dumb it down for me. or give me the cliff notes of your thread.
you want some sort of response from the government when you protest or bitch about something?
this summer i have interned for a u.s. senator and here is my take on your idea. i'll go ahead and tell you that i didn't read any of your links because my opinion was already formed on this issue.
i go through the mail everyday. some of it is serious, much of it is not. there is one constituent who writes in everyday on little postcards. his handwriting is not legible, he does not form complete sentences and does not use propper punctuation. i'm not saying everyone must write perfectly, but if you are going to contact your local representative, take it seriously and be professional.
this man babbles about rediculous things everyday and in my opinion, does not need a response everyday and probably isn't even looking for one. many people just like to bitch and have nothing better to do.
say your idea for an amendment passed and every government official was required to write a response. well, say one letter slipped throught cracks or an intern like myself accidentally threw it away (you and me are human, we make mistakes). now the senator/rep./whomever, has denied your constitutional rights. will he now be sued, impeached from office...? all over a lost constituant letter?
drifting, i tried to give you a serious response. your posts, however, are a little thick for A MESSAGE BOARD. remember the forum in which your speaking.
and jlew, that shit was funny.
Chopitdown, you have effectively just argued that the constitution no longer applies to our government because the government has essentially OUTGROWN the constitution ... that because the federal government has mushroomed to such a unweildy size that it can no longer be bothered with the constraints of the constitution which implemented said government, and that it should no longer be held accountable and answerable to the people which wrote said constitution.
Please go read the sections of the Request for Rehearing that i posted that quote multiple historic sources which seem to clearly indicate the EXPRESSED INTENT OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS that WE ARE TO HAVE OUR PETITIONS ANSWERED else we should WITHOLD GOVERNMENT FUNDING (ie. TAXES) ...
read it.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Michael,
what we are talking about here are formal petitions ... picture something a lawyer would write ... we aren't talking about postcards ... I agree, every crazy loon shouldn't be allowed to bug congress, but well written professional inquiries regarding CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS aboslutely should be addressed and seem to be the historical norm ...
again, from the Petition for a Rehearing by We The People ,
[note, every single sentence here includes a footnote in the PDF]:
"Congress viewed the receipt and serious consideration of every Petition as an important part of its duties. Congress referred Petitions to committees and even created committees to deal with particular types of Petitions. Ultimately, most Petitions resulted in either favorable legislation or an adverse committee report."
Also please note, i am not asking for an ammendment. Actually I am not asking for anything. This is all verbatim from Wethepeople.org ... but what is being argued is that this IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, not something that requires legislation ...
western government has been expected to answer petitions, historically, since at least as far back as the 1700's!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
thanks, i just wanted to clear things up and establish exactly what you are talking about. i will take a look at your links.