6 ms·

The US constitution allows for the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. No monetary injury required.

pdabbadabba 11y ago
Article III specifically defines the powers of the judiciary, and these powers do not include hearing petitions. It's an interesting question what substance the Petition Clause has. Unfortunately, it looks these days like it doesn't have much, since the First Amendment has never been interpreted to give petitions any binding legal effect. But I think it is clearly correct that the judicial branch, at least, does not have the power to adjudicate them under Article III. Edit: By the way, an 'injury' does not necessarily have to be a monetary injury to support standing, though the law about what sorts of injuries count is exceedingly difficult and, perhaps, incoherent at the margins. One interesting wrinkle is that courts assume a fairly concrete definition of "injury", but also permit Congress to expand the applicable conception of injury (within some limits) in particular situations by statute. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife is a good entry point to this area of law, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 (I do not think that the opinion itself is very good, but its discussion of other cases is helpful.) Edit: Removed an imprecise first sentence.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  The judiciary should be able to point to the alternative venue then.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    Unsatisfying as this response may be, I think they would probably tell you--as courts have repeatedly told frustrated plaintiffs since the birth of the Republic--that this other venue is the political process.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The alternative targets of such petitions directed at the federal government that the courts are not empowered under the Constitution to address are: 1) The Congress, 2) The President (and executive branch more generally), 3) Insofar as the former two entities are Constitutionally prohibited from redressing the grievance raised satisfactorily and/or choose to exercise their discretionary power to not do so, the State governments, who can initiate Constitutional changes which may resolve the issue. It is, however, not a Constitutional obligation of the federal judiciary to inform people of this in response to lawsuits that are outside of the power of the judiciary to resolve (though, its not uncommon for them to do so, at least as far as pointing to the first two alternatives.)
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      >"the courts are not empowered" You are now the second person to make this claim. It's not true. Specifically, the courts are empowered to hear such petitions by Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution: >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > You are now the second person to make this claim. I didn't make any claim about the courts being empowered or not empowered to hear particular cases, which is why you had to cut out a small phrase from the middle of the sentence out of context to respond to with your irrelevancy. I made a claim about the parts of governments that can be petitioned for things that the judiciary is not empowered to resolve, without any discussion of what the judiciary is empowered to resolve. (The question of the correctness of the well-established legal principle that the existence of a "Case" requires the allegation of a concrete, particularized, redressable injury is perhaps an interesting discussion, but not one which I made any claim regarding.)
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Well, you must be claiming that there is at least one particular case that a court may not be empowered to address. Otherwise, why are you making that specific distinction? That claim is trivially false, again by Article III, Section 2, Sentence 1: >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. If you already accept that something is a case, the judicial Power extends to it, it does not matter what the particulars are.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  It's an interesting question what substance the Petition Clause has. Isn't the Petition Clause what makes lobbying a Constitutional right, and not something that Congress could ban or otherwise unduly burden?
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    That sounds right. And there are some other technical things, I think, like the ability to bring a lawsuit (though not, of course, the ability to win one on the merits).
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Sorry, but I will have to destroy you here. First, the word 'lawsuit' does not occur in Article III (nor anywhere else in the US Constitution). You making a distinction between the word lawsuit and petition here is nonsense. Second, Article III, Section 2, Sentence 1: >The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution A petition for redress of grievance is exactly a case in Equity and is specifically allowed under Amendment I.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    How is this not a formulation that says that at bottom we are a nation governed by unelected philosopher kings? Any issue can generate a "petition for redress of grievances".
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    It's not that there isn't an argument to be made that a petition is a case. As a matter of language, of course, it could be. This depends on the precise definitions of "case" and "petition." But you are way too late to the party when it comes to deciding the legal meaning of these words. The prevailing judicial understanding, for more than 100 years, of the "Case and Controversy" clause has been that Article III courts can only hear lawsuits involving more-or-less concrete injuries. And as tptacek has pointed out, this is probably for the best. Imagine the chaos if the courts were constitutionally required to hear every grievance brought by a member of the public, even if it did not affect his or her interests in any concrete way. Then also imagine the quality of the legal reasoning that would result from such a farcical system, where there was no guarantee that a plaintiff actually had any interest in its outcome. You may wish that courts had the power to hear petitions for the redress of grievances when it is your grievance you wish to see redressed. But you should also consider the wider universe of grievances and whether you would really want to see them all ventilated in a court of law. Edit: There are very many cases that state this clearly but here is is a somewhat random selection: "The party who invokes the [judicial] power must be able to show, not only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally." - COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS v. MELLON, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/262/447.html#488 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/262/447.html#488 "Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: first, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" -- an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) "actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural' or ‘hypothetical.'" Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of -- the injury has to be fairly trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court." LUJAN v. DEVENDERS OF WILDLIFE, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 (very many citations omitted) "Although the law of standing has been greatly changed in the last 10 years, we have steadfastly adhered to the requirement that, at least in the absence of a statute expressly conferring standing, federal plaintiffs must allege some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action before a federal court may assume jurisdiction." LINDA R. S. v. RICHARD D., http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/614.html#t4 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/614.html#t4
dragonwriter 11y ago
> The US constitution allows for the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yes, it does. And you are free to petition the government, either in general or any of its particular branches, for redress of grievances. However, the 1st Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances does not grant the federal government, either in general or any of its particular branches, any additional powers not already provided to it elsewhere in the Constitution to provide redress of those grievances. Which is, I would think, a good thing: while you might prefer something more of the judiciary in this case, you probably don't want a blank check where just because someone is entitled under the First Amendment to complain to the government, suddenly the government is granted unlimited power to deal with that complaint.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

Article III specifically defines the powers of the judiciary, and these powers do not include hearing petitions. It's an interesting question what substance the Petition Clause has. Unfortunately, it looks these days like it doesn't have much, since the First Amendment has never been interpreted to give petitions any binding legal effect. But I think it is clearly correct that the judicial branch, at least, does not have the power to adjudicate them under Article III. Edit: By the way, an 'injury' does not necessarily have to be a monetary injury to support standing, though the law about what sorts of injuries count is exceedingly difficult and, perhaps, incoherent at the margins. One interesting wrinkle is that courts assume a fairly concrete definition of "injury", but also permit Congress to expand the applicable conception of injury (within some limits) in particular situations by statute. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife is a good entry point to this area of law, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 (I do not think that the opinion itself is very good, but its discussion of other cases is helpful.) Edit: Removed an imprecise first sentence.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
The judiciary should be able to point to the alternative venue then.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Unsatisfying as this response may be, I think they would probably tell you--as courts have repeatedly told frustrated plaintiffs since the birth of the Republic--that this other venue is the political process.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The alternative targets of such petitions directed at the federal government that the courts are not empowered under the Constitution to address are: 1) The Congress, 2) The President (and executive branch more generally), 3) Insofar as the former two entities are Constitutionally prohibited from redressing the grievance raised satisfactorily and/or choose to exercise their discretionary power to not do so, the State governments, who can initiate Constitutional changes which may resolve the issue. It is, however, not a Constitutional obligation of the federal judiciary to inform people of this in response to lawsuits that are outside of the power of the judiciary to resolve (though, its not uncommon for them to do so, at least as far as pointing to the first two alternatives.)
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    >"the courts are not empowered" You are now the second person to make this claim. It's not true. Specifically, the courts are empowered to hear such petitions by Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution: >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > You are now the second person to make this claim. I didn't make any claim about the courts being empowered or not empowered to hear particular cases, which is why you had to cut out a small phrase from the middle of the sentence out of context to respond to with your irrelevancy. I made a claim about the parts of governments that can be petitioned for things that the judiciary is not empowered to resolve, without any discussion of what the judiciary is empowered to resolve. (The question of the correctness of the well-established legal principle that the existence of a "Case" requires the allegation of a concrete, particularized, redressable injury is perhaps an interesting discussion, but not one which I made any claim regarding.)
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Well, you must be claiming that there is at least one particular case that a court may not be empowered to address. Otherwise, why are you making that specific distinction? That claim is trivially false, again by Article III, Section 2, Sentence 1: >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. If you already accept that something is a case, the judicial Power extends to it, it does not matter what the particulars are.
twoodfin 11y ago
It's an interesting question what substance the Petition Clause has. Isn't the Petition Clause what makes lobbying a Constitutional right, and not something that Congress could ban or otherwise unduly burden?
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  That sounds right. And there are some other technical things, I think, like the ability to bring a lawsuit (though not, of course, the ability to win one on the merits).
jsprogrammer 11y ago
Sorry, but I will have to destroy you here. First, the word 'lawsuit' does not occur in Article III (nor anywhere else in the US Constitution). You making a distinction between the word lawsuit and petition here is nonsense. Second, Article III, Section 2, Sentence 1: >The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution A petition for redress of grievance is exactly a case in Equity and is specifically allowed under Amendment I.
- tptacek 11y ago
  How is this not a formulation that says that at bottom we are a nation governed by unelected philosopher kings? Any issue can generate a "petition for redress of grievances".
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  It's not that there isn't an argument to be made that a petition is a case. As a matter of language, of course, it could be. This depends on the precise definitions of "case" and "petition." But you are way too late to the party when it comes to deciding the legal meaning of these words. The prevailing judicial understanding, for more than 100 years, of the "Case and Controversy" clause has been that Article III courts can only hear lawsuits involving more-or-less concrete injuries. And as tptacek has pointed out, this is probably for the best. Imagine the chaos if the courts were constitutionally required to hear every grievance brought by a member of the public, even if it did not affect his or her interests in any concrete way. Then also imagine the quality of the legal reasoning that would result from such a farcical system, where there was no guarantee that a plaintiff actually had any interest in its outcome. You may wish that courts had the power to hear petitions for the redress of grievances when it is your grievance you wish to see redressed. But you should also consider the wider universe of grievances and whether you would really want to see them all ventilated in a court of law. Edit: There are very many cases that state this clearly but here is is a somewhat random selection: "The party who invokes the [judicial] power must be able to show, not only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally." - COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS v. MELLON, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/262/447.html#488 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/262/447.html#488 "Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: first, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" -- an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) "actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural' or ‘hypothetical.'" Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of -- the injury has to be fairly trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court." LUJAN v. DEVENDERS OF WILDLIFE, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 (very many citations omitted) "Although the law of standing has been greatly changed in the last 10 years, we have steadfastly adhered to the requirement that, at least in the absence of a statute expressly conferring standing, federal plaintiffs must allege some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action before a federal court may assume jurisdiction." LINDA R. S. v. RICHARD D., http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/614.html#t4 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/614.html#t4

dragonwriter 11y ago

> The US constitution allows for the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yes, it does. And you are free to petition the government, either in general or any of its particular branches, for redress of grievances. However, the 1st Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances does not grant the federal government, either in general or any of its particular branches, any additional powers not already provided to it elsewhere in the Constitution to provide redress of those grievances. Which is, I would think, a good thing: while you might prefer something more of the judiciary in this case, you probably don't want a blank check where just because someone is entitled under the First Amendment to complain to the government, suddenly the government is granted unlimited power to deal with that complaint.