5 ms·

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 di

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 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. Its important to understand the reasoning here: to wit, that if there isn't a concrete, particularized, redressable injury -- where "injury" is understood to be a violation of a legally-protected interest -- then there is no "Case" to resolve. The contentious part of this is primarily the "particularized" part, since that requirement means that violations of the Constitutional limits of government power do not give rise to a cause of action based solely on the general citizens interest in constraining the government to its bounds, as even though this may be a concrete violation of a legally-protected interest, it is not particularized. This certainly serves some economy-of-justice purposes, but it also makes it particularly hard to address systemic violations of the Constitution where an integral part of the charged abuse of power is the governments active concealment of the details of its actions and their particularized impacts.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Here is another analytical tack to consider: If Art III already empowered the judiciary to adjudicate petitions for the redress of grievances (since these are just "cases") why was it necessary to include this right again in the First Amendment? And why not make any clear link to the legal concepts or terminology already written in Art III?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> A petition for redress of grievance is exactly a case in Equity No, it is not. Petition for redress of grievances are much broader than (but include) cases in law and equity as those terms were well understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution. For a fairly obvious case, a request to consider a Constitutional amendment because of the purportedly undesirable effects of the operation the Constitution in the absence of such an Amendment is clearly a petition for redress of grievances -- and clearly not a case in law or equity within the scope of the Article III judicial power. Your right to petition government for your grievances arising from such an undesirable (to you) state of the Constitution is protected by the First Amendment right of petition, but that protection does not empower the Judiciary to act favorably on such a petition. Congress, however, could act on it by submitting a proposed Amendment for ratification by the States aimed at resolving the issue. The First Amendment right of petition does not bring all petitions it protects within the power of the judiciary to grant.

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 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. Its important to understand the reasoning here: to wit, that if there isn't a concrete, particularized, redressable injury -- where "injury" is understood to be a violation of a legally-protected interest -- then there is no "Case" to resolve. The contentious part of this is primarily the "particularized" part, since that requirement means that violations of the Constitutional limits of government power do not give rise to a cause of action based solely on the general citizens interest in constraining the government to its bounds, as even though this may be a concrete violation of a legally-protected interest, it is not particularized. This certainly serves some economy-of-justice purposes, but it also makes it particularly hard to address systemic violations of the Constitution where an integral part of the charged abuse of power is the governments active concealment of the details of its actions and their particularized impacts.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
Here is another analytical tack to consider: If Art III already empowered the judiciary to adjudicate petitions for the redress of grievances (since these are just "cases") why was it necessary to include this right again in the First Amendment? And why not make any clear link to the legal concepts or terminology already written in Art III?

dragonwriter 11y ago

> A petition for redress of grievance is exactly a case in Equity No, it is not. Petition for redress of grievances are much broader than (but include) cases in law and equity as those terms were well understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution. For a fairly obvious case, a request to consider a Constitutional amendment because of the purportedly undesirable effects of the operation the Constitution in the absence of such an Amendment is clearly a petition for redress of grievances -- and clearly not a case in law or equity within the scope of the Article III judicial power. Your right to petition government for your grievances arising from such an undesirable (to you) state of the Constitution is protected by the First Amendment right of petition, but that protection does not empower the Judiciary to act favorably on such a petition. Congress, however, could act on it by submitting a proposed Amendment for ratification by the States aimed at resolving the issue. The First Amendment right of petition does not bring all petitions it protects within the power of the judiciary to grant.