Talk:Right to petition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Outside of the US[edit]

I'm not familiar with details of right to petition outside of the US, and only have info about its use in the UK incidentally (through looking at the history of the American version), so if you're knowledgable about its use internationally - please expand/add new sections. -- SilverStar 19:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC) i know it is because my mom studied that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.194.11 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this right unique to the United States? Slywriter (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not unique to the United States. There are many different aspects to the right to petition -- for example how it is used in China. I do not feel knowledgeable enough to write about the legal uses of the right outside the United States, but it is a big and unfortunate gap in this article. --Knoot (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Historic Right to Petition Lawsuit[edit]

I feel it would be appropriate to include in the "Right to petition" section, some kind of information regarding the ongoing historic Right to Petition lawsuit, which was initiated by the We the People Congress/Foundation chaired by Bob Shultz. I'm not fluent in Wiki, but perhaps someone interested in this might like to add at least some basic info and link to GiveMeLiberty.org in reference to this matter. I just thought i'd make mention of it here.

If this lawsuit is considered "closed" by the Supreme Court, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to mention that the Supreme Court has never ruled in regards to the meaning of the "Accountability Clause" of the First Amendment? (“... and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) Perhaps that too would be worth documenting here, since this is the Wiki version of the "Right to Petition" heading.

Also, perhaps it would be worthwhile mentioning the a little history of WHY the "Accountability Clause" was added into the Bill of Rights by the American founders? I only have limited information about this, but surely the Wiki researchers will be able to fully document the references for this:

Within an act of the 1774 Continental Congress regarding Petitioning for Redress of Grievances, the founding fathers said:

“If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”

If the Supreme Court is not willing or able to rule on the actual meaning of the "Accountability Clause", then perhaps the rest of the world who reads Wiki can do so on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfinityBBC (talkcontribs) 08:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


InfinityBBC (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear user InfinityBBC: Actually, if this is the case I'm thinking of, the case was not "ongoing." The We the People Foundation and Bob Schulz (it's spelled "Schulz," not "Shultz") had already lost the lawsuit by the time of your April 2008 posting. We the People Foundation had argued unsuccessfully that, based on the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the government should have a duty to respond to a taxpayer's demand for an explanation as to why taxpayers are subject to income tax. On May 8, 2007, the argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States, May 8, 2007, case no. 05-5359, U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir., 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,523 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
The Foundation then took this case to the United States Supreme Court and, on January 7, 2008, the Supreme Court rejected the Foundation's case. Certiorari denied, We the People v. United States, case 07-680, Order list, United States Supreme Court, p. 22 (Jan. 7, 2008); certiorari denied, Schulz v. United States, case 07-681, Order list, United States Supreme Court, p. 22 (Jan. 7, 2008); petition for rehearing denied, Schulz v. United States, case no. 07-681, Order list, United States Supreme Court, p. 10 (Feb. 25, 2008).
Also, there appears to be little if anything that is particularly "historic" about the lawsuit. Famspear (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I note that at the bottom of the page on this Schulz/We the People web site, here, [1], Schulz appears to still be asking for contributions for this "lawsuit" (as of March 9, 2009). As far as I can tell, the last reference on that page appears to be a reference to an oral argument that was to have been heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on February 4, 2008. However, as already noted above (and in the article on We the People Foundation), the case appears to have ended on February 28, 2008, over a year ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the petition for rehearing. Famspear (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

From the United States Supreme Court:

"Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues." -- Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984).

Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463 (1979), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Arkansas State Highway Commission's refusal to consider employee grievances when filed by the union, rather than directly by an employee of the State Highway Department, did not violate the First Amendment. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the references to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight and Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, I added the material to the separate article entitled Right to petition in the United States, as these cases relate specifically U.S. law. Famspear (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


InfinityBBC (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

so let's see...

Within an act of the 1774 Continental Congress regarding Petitioning for Redress of Grievances, the founding fathers said: “If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”

however, in 1984 SCOTUS said: "Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues." -- Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984).

hummm... gee, i wonder then why SCOTUS has simply not officially ruled on the actual meaning of the First Amendment Accountability Clause...?

could it be because SCOTUS, along with the other branches of government at nearly ALL levels now, are entirely corrupt? could it be that the founders were correct in presuming this nation's government would become so utterly corrupt and decided that the Accountability Clause was important enough to include in the First Amendment?

i'm not exactly sure, but if i was a betting man... ;-)

it would be nice for the "wiki-gods" to allow inclusion of this historic statement by our founding fathers (who actually wrote the Bill of Rights as well) regarding the Right to Petition Accountability Clause in this most appropriate section, but i continue to wait for their "divine" approval.

jgkhfxjfxjddx puta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.62.187.75 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Right to petition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)