4 ms·

What's this fuss about petitions? Last time I checked, the form of government in the US was a republic, that is the offices of government are appointed by and

What's this fuss about petitions? Last time I checked, the form of government in the US was a republic, that is the offices of government are appointed by and derive their legitimacy from the people as a whole. We as a people should not have to petition the White House to grow sense and pass sensible laws, in the way one petitions a monarch. This is the wrong way of combating the laws that come out of Congress thanks to lobbyist influence. It encourages the wrong mindset.

GabrielF00 14y ago
Its in the first amendment: 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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- obviouslygreen 14y ago
  Not sure what you're going for here. The literal definition of "petition" is not what's intended there and having the right to ask nicely doesn't mean the government is required to implement something else that allows this; the primary means is through electing and speaking with officials. And that doesn't work either. [edit: As pointed out below, my use of "literal" here is not as intended; by "literal definition" I was attempting to say "relevant definition" in the sense of the mechanism used by the We the People website.]
  - andrewem 14y ago
    Actually, while I am not a Constitutional scholar, I believe that the literal definition of "petition" is precisely what is meant by that section of the First Amendment. The Founders knew what petitions were and how they intended them to function when sent to the government. The proof of that is that back in 1774 the Continental Congress sent a petition [1] to King George III (well, theoretically to him, but in practice to the two Houses of Parliament) requesting that a set of laws they disliked be repealed. This was about 15 years before the Bill of Rights was approved by Congress [2], so one can assume that people were still aware of it. The analogy isn't perfect since the US doesn't have the same system of government and so petitions to the US government can't go to quite the same party or parties, but it's bizarre to claim without evidence that the plain sense of the word as used then and now isn't what's meant. The fact that the President is making it easier to gather signatures for a petition doesn't change the fact that they're requests to the government initiated by citizens, for the redress of grievances. (Now if you are a Constitutional scholar, as say the current President is, I'd love to hear an argument as to why the straightforward meaning is wrong. Any such response would likely cite various Supreme Court decisions from the last 200+ years.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
    - obviouslygreen 14y ago
      I believe I stated my post poorly. I should have said the relevant definition of "petition." It more generally means to request. Regardless, it's my uninformed impression that "petition" here isn't used in the specific sense of being enjoined by a number of people. You're certainly correct that they are petitions, though a petition in this sense matches petition in the general sense, as a request regardless of format. I definitely am not a Constitutional scholar, though, and I appreciate the informative response.
- crusso 14y ago
  The first amendment reference to "petition" has nothing to do with the form of the request. It's all about the RIGHT to complain about the government itself and to request a solution from it without reprisal.
brown9-2 14y ago
This is the wrong way of combating the laws that come out of Congress thanks to lobbyist influence. It encourages the wrong mindset. I agree with this and I think you are being downvoted unfairly. The "wrong mindset" is one in which you complain to the President/White House/Executive Branch any time "the government" does something you disagree with. The scope of what they can change when it comes to domestic law is very small. When "the government" does something you don't like, the far better person to petition is your Congressman and Congress as a whole, the branch of government which passed this law (and all laws) in the first place.
- artimaeis 14y ago
  You're correct that they cannot do much to change domestic law. I'm glad to see some sensible commentary here. On the other hand within this mindset what they can do is put pressure on other bodies. In this case it's pretty clear they are putting pressure on both the Library of Congress and the FCC. If either of those bodies take a step in the direction we want then it would be a much quicker process than going through the entirety of passing a bill through to being a law. Something a lot of people seem to be passing is that bills are typically large behemoths when they go through the entire process. They can be sweeping an powerful but due to the process of committees they go through there are often unforeseen items tacked onto the bills in an effort to further various platforms (be they legitimate, pork, or lobbied). I personally really appreciate the route the White House seems to be taking with this as it would prevent the muss and fuss of the entirety of Congress while potentially making for a quick and reasonable change.
mcherm 14y ago
To the contrary, the right to petition the government is one of the key points in the Declaration of Independence and is boldly enshrined within the first amendment to the US constitution (without which the Constitution would not have been adopted).

GabrielF00 14y ago

Its in the first amendment: 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.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
obviouslygreen 14y ago
Not sure what you're going for here. The literal definition of "petition" is not what's intended there and having the right to ask nicely doesn't mean the government is required to implement something else that allows this; the primary means is through electing and speaking with officials. And that doesn't work either. [edit: As pointed out below, my use of "literal" here is not as intended; by "literal definition" I was attempting to say "relevant definition" in the sense of the mechanism used by the We the People website.]
- andrewem 14y ago
  Actually, while I am not a Constitutional scholar, I believe that the literal definition of "petition" is precisely what is meant by that section of the First Amendment. The Founders knew what petitions were and how they intended them to function when sent to the government. The proof of that is that back in 1774 the Continental Congress sent a petition [1] to King George III (well, theoretically to him, but in practice to the two Houses of Parliament) requesting that a set of laws they disliked be repealed. This was about 15 years before the Bill of Rights was approved by Congress [2], so one can assume that people were still aware of it. The analogy isn't perfect since the US doesn't have the same system of government and so petitions to the US government can't go to quite the same party or parties, but it's bizarre to claim without evidence that the plain sense of the word as used then and now isn't what's meant. The fact that the President is making it easier to gather signatures for a petition doesn't change the fact that they're requests to the government initiated by citizens, for the redress of grievances. (Now if you are a Constitutional scholar, as say the current President is, I'd love to hear an argument as to why the straightforward meaning is wrong. Any such response would likely cite various Supreme Court decisions from the last 200+ years.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
  - obviouslygreen 14y ago
    I believe I stated my post poorly. I should have said the relevant definition of "petition." It more generally means to request. Regardless, it's my uninformed impression that "petition" here isn't used in the specific sense of being enjoined by a number of people. You're certainly correct that they are petitions, though a petition in this sense matches petition in the general sense, as a request regardless of format. I definitely am not a Constitutional scholar, though, and I appreciate the informative response.
crusso 14y ago
The first amendment reference to "petition" has nothing to do with the form of the request. It's all about the RIGHT to complain about the government itself and to request a solution from it without reprisal.

brown9-2 14y ago

This is the wrong way of combating the laws that come out of Congress thanks to lobbyist influence. It encourages the wrong mindset. I agree with this and I think you are being downvoted unfairly. The "wrong mindset" is one in which you complain to the President/White House/Executive Branch any time "the government" does something you disagree with. The scope of what they can change when it comes to domestic law is very small. When "the government" does something you don't like, the far better person to petition is your Congressman and Congress as a whole, the branch of government which passed this law (and all laws) in the first place.

artimaeis 14y ago
You're correct that they cannot do much to change domestic law. I'm glad to see some sensible commentary here. On the other hand within this mindset what they can do is put pressure on other bodies. In this case it's pretty clear they are putting pressure on both the Library of Congress and the FCC. If either of those bodies take a step in the direction we want then it would be a much quicker process than going through the entirety of passing a bill through to being a law. Something a lot of people seem to be passing is that bills are typically large behemoths when they go through the entire process. They can be sweeping an powerful but due to the process of committees they go through there are often unforeseen items tacked onto the bills in an effort to further various platforms (be they legitimate, pork, or lobbied). I personally really appreciate the route the White House seems to be taking with this as it would prevent the muss and fuss of the entirety of Congress while potentially making for a quick and reasonable change.

mcherm 14y ago

To the contrary, the right to petition the government is one of the key points in the Declaration of Independence and is boldly enshrined within the first amendment to the US constitution (without which the Constitution would not have been adopted).