A week after passing a hardcopy of the linked opinion around the local We the People chapter meeting, I am concerned that Bob Shultz and his moderators will not update the WTP information update docket.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit ... Docket.htm
It seems like people would be a little more interested.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. It sounds like somebody named J.A.I.L. is ready to bail WTP out; if they should ever be informed, that is:
The Right to Redress
--Not "Petition"
First Amendment (pertinent portion)Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right
of the people ... to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.
An organization, We The People Foundation (WTP), brought a federal lawsuit that has been ongoing for the last five years on whether the People have the right to petition government for redress of their grievances. The decision by the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, decided May 8, 2007, may be found at
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -5359a.pdf
If there was ever a case that screamed out for the J.A.I.L. solution, this one is it! There are two issues to be discussed here. (1) Analysis of the Petition Clause; and (2) The court's reliance on Supreme Court precedents.
1. The court fails to consider the material portion of the Petition Clause
This issue is so simple to figure out, that the court's decision is baffling. It states:
These scholars [referring to Law Review authors] note that the Petition Clause by its terms refers only to a right “to petition”; it does not also refer to a right to response or official consideration. (Pg.9)
The Petition Clause reads: "... to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In ruling on the merits of this clause, the entire clause must be read and considered --not just one or two words. In fact, the most significant part of that clause was not considered by this court. "To petition" is qualified by "government" and "for a redress of grievances."
The first qualifier, "government," indicates to whom the petition is made. It doesn't specify any particular branch or agency, nor does it limit the term. The subject matter of the issues of petition would determine which branch or office of government is addressed by petition. The second qualifier, "for a redress of grievances," is the one that gives meaning to the entire clause. Without that qualifier, there is no meaning whatsoever to the Petition Clause. There must be an objective, a purpose, a reason, indicated for petitioning. A petition for nothing is not a right.
The phrase "to petition" or even "to petition the government" is not a complete thought. The logical missing ingredient is "why"? "for what purpose"? Without an objective to be sought by petitioning, it is no right at all. The phrase "for a redress of grievances" provides the objective for petitioning. It is the objective complement which completes the thought of the entire clause and gives it meaning. Ignoring that phrase is not an option.
The core ingredient of the right of petition is "redress." The modifiers indicate the kind of redress (of grievances) and who is responsible to provide that redress (government). "To petition" is merely the means by which the objective (redress) is sought from government by a petitioner. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
To rule that the right to petition does not necessarily include within that right the right to a response or consideration of that petition is unconstitutional on its face, since it fails to consider (1) the objective of petition, to wit, "redress of grievances" and (2) to whom the petition for redress is addressed, to wit, "government." Government is responsible for considering and responding to a petition for redress of grievances, and thus, for providing the redress sought by the petition, within the prima facie meaning of the Petition Clause as stated.
Having failed to grant that right, the appellate judges involved have violated the First Amendment Petition Clause, rendering their decision null and void as repugnant to the Constitution. They, as well as the trial court judge(s), are prime candidates for the J.A.I.L. process when it becomes available, if petitioners elect to pursue it in the future after exhausting the USSC and the violation is not corrected.
2. The court fails to rely on the Constitution as its supreme authority.
The final full paragraph of the decision states:Rather than rely on the entire Petition Clause as provided in the Constitution, as aforesaid, this court abandons that consideration and turns to "binding Supreme Court precedent" which holds that "Executive and Legislative responses to and consideration of petitions are entrusted to the discretion of those Branches." As the guardian of petitioners' rights, the federal court had the responsibility of overruling that "precedent" as violative of the Constitution. Court precedent is not binding if it violates the Constitution.We need not resolve this debate, however, because we must follow the binding Supreme Court precedent. See Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1, 10-11 (2005). And under that precedent, Executive and Legislative responses to and consideration of petitions are entrusted to the discretion of those Branches. (Pg.9)
The concurring judge even stated:
Rather than considering the Constitution for what it clearly says in its text, this court turns to "weight to the historical context" and "underlying purpose of the clause at issue." The clear "underlying purpose of the clause at issue" in this case is shown in the clause itself. No other "underlying purpose" need be conjured up. The "weight to the historical context" can mean whatever the judges want it to mean--that's a very vague and subjective standard not deserving of the Constitution.Even where the plain text yields a clear interpretation, the Supreme Court has rejected a pure textualist approach in favor of an analysis that accords weight to the historical context and the underlying purpose of the clause at issue. (Concurring Opinion, Pg.1)
Thomas Jefferson said:
"Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but rather bind them down by the chains of the Constitution."
The Constitution stands on its own except with reference to the Declaration of Independence upon which it is based. The DOI sets forth the origin of government, to wit, "...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..." This institution of government is done by charter, i.e., the Constitution which establishes the consent of the People to their government. The Constitution establishes everything anew and does away with the historical tyranny under English law. It does not require any crutch, such as an "historical context" in the subjective opinion of judges, upon which to maintain its integrity. Indeed, all judges are bound by their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They do not take an oath to uphold and defend "Supreme Court precedent."
Relying on anything other than the Constitution, and going beyond the limitations of the Constitution in making this decision renders it null and void. One need not look beyond the Petition Clause itself to determine its full meaning and intention.
______________________________________
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau
