But to repeat; the government exists to serve the people, the people do not exist to serve the government. The people have the right to petition the government. That means the government has the duty to let itself be petitioned. And the people, not the government, gets to choose how it wishes to communicate.
And it’s 2017. People communicate online. The government has to accommodate that. Just as they have had to learn how to accommodate it when the majority of people communicated by telephone. Or telegram. Or typewritten letters sent through the post office. None of which, I’ll point out, existed in 1791. Communications back then consisted of writing a letter by hand with a feather and then having it delivered by a man riding a horse. Are you arguing that’s the only means of communicating a petition the government is required to accept?
That’s an impressively long list of things that they might be able to save $1 million on. However it fails to explain (a) why they completely ignored and allowed to fall apart a forward-thinking open channel of communications to the federal government that the Obama administration had set up and which was fully functional, and (b) why, if they’re so fiscally responsible, they pushed for a bill that the wingnut majority just passed that will add $1.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. ISTM that the cost of racks and servers is kind of trivial compared to an astronomical debt that will be a crushing burden to future generations.
Like they really care about saving $1 million? Just tell Trump to stay in Washington, you know where his job is, and save taxpayers about $2 million per WEEK.
I agree with the sentiment, but I don’t agree that the government must fund and operate a web portal to permit the petitions. The internet has been around commercially since the late 1980s. When did this constitutional right spring into existence? 1990? 1995? 2010?
There is nothing wrong with setting forth reasonable administrative procedures for submitting a petition. Think of it this way: I have a right to access the local courts for any damage done to me, right? But I have to follow procedure. I have to write a complaint pleading sufficient facts, I have to attach a cover page, serve it on all parties by the prescribed method, etc. I have to pay a filing fee or fill out a form justifying my claim that I cannot afford the fee.
I cannot just get drunk and fire off a Facebook message to the local circuit clerk. Would anyone seriously argue that I am being denied access to the courts because the state does not allow a simple procedure that any idiot could follow?
It seems to me that a government that doesn’t make it as easy as possible for its citizens to petition it for grievances is one that is run by morons or by those who just don’t care.
Not necessarily. We all realize that it would be impossible for Trump, Ryan, or McConnell, or really any of them to read and respond to every single email, or er petition, they receive.
What’s wrong with weeding out the drunken ones given with little thought? As long as the procedure is not needlessly burdensome, why not make someone go through a modest couple of steps to make sure that the individual has given some thought to the petition?
No, you hand-waved it away. You gave no cite for the requirement that the government must allow petitioning via the internet. What court ruling has made this so? That you think the government must do this is, perhaps, an interesting opinion. At best.
And I repeat: I want to petition the government by radio or semaphore flags in front of the WH lawn. That doesn’t create a mandate that the government accommodate me.
No, I’m arguing that the constitution doesn’t say how the petitioning must happen, as long as it can happen. And there has been no court cases saying that the government must allow communication via email or a web portal. You, of course, are free to initiate such a court case. Let us know how that works out for you. Perhaps you can start by suing Obama, since he didn’t create the web portal until 2011.
First, we require modest steps for other rights of citizens. We require citizens to purchase guns with their own money. That would be an absurd requirement for petitioning the government. The better analogy would be an argument that the government should purchase guns for indigent people who want them. And when an indigent person requests a gun, he should have a user friendly web portal to request it instead of having to write a letter or go to a government office.
Second, isn’t having the staff screen the petitions a violation of the First Amendment? IOW, I have a right to petition the government, i.e. Trump, Ryan, McConnell, etc., not to petition a staffer. Who is this staffer that has decided to ignore my petition? I didn’t vote for him.
Shouldn’t the First Amendment require that my petition make it to Trump’s hand?
Right, but you mentioned guns. I was just pointing out how much of an incredibly higher burden it takes to exercise one’s gun rights than it does to vote or petition the government.
The argument was that requiring homeless people to put their petitions on paper and mail them would be too great of a burden and deny them their First Amendment rights. If that is the standard, wouldn’t the government be required to purchase guns for indigent people and allow the request to be made at home through a web portal?
The President is mentioned in the Constitution. I fear that you are being obtuse here.
And I would point out that I consider those things which you call burdens are merely modest steps. Thus my point.
I believe that the Amendment says “petition the government” and not “petition the President”. Thus my other point.
And finally, I don’t believe the government can or should be forced to maintain a website where people can petition the government. Only that it is a good idea.
I agree that it would be a good idea, and that it would be piss-poor behavior by the government to not have some sort of web portal for folks to petition. But let’s be serious-- such a portal could easily attract thousands of inquiries (maybe even tens of thousands), many by trolls, and it would not be reasonable to insist that each and every one of them gets an answer.
Well, I choose to petition my government via morse code sent by the trampling hooves of a team of trained horses running past the White House whenever I have something to say. It is now up to the government to have trained personnel with their ear to the ground 24/7/365 just in case I am trying to petition the government.
</snarky>
Though it may be nice and convenient for government to provide for a website where they accept and process petitions I think it is a step to far to demand a right to petition the government through any particular means. Suddenly we could have people demanding their right to petition via any means of expressive conduct. Modern Art? Interpretive Dance? Wedding Cake design? Orchestral music? or many, many more methods.
So long as government provides a postal address then I think they have done their legally required bit. If a private citizen wants to set up a petition site and attempt to use social pressure to convince government to take petitions there seriously then they are free to do so. But nothing comes close to requiring government to set up a petition site online.
Anyone who ever looked at the petitions at the old petitions website should admit that it was chock full of trolls and those who had a serious lack of understanding about the powers of the US government.
You can petition, but it seems unlikely that the government has the authority to “Nationalize the Twinkie industry.”
And the federal government really does not have the ability to “Impeach New York’s Governor” but that didn’t stop someone petitioning the White House.
But at least it would be within the government’s power to "change the national anthem to R. Kelly’s 2003 hit “Ignition (Remix).”
And one I can agree with. Someone petitioned that the White House should, “Admit that these petitions are just going to be ignored.”
There is no duty for the government to READ the petitions. It’s a waste of their time to do so. They already have a job to do and reading the “petition of the day” decreases their efficiency.
I said the people not every individual person. The government should make reasonable efforts to be petitionable via the means that are widely used. The internet qualifies. So do telephones and letters. And if tens of millions of Americans ever adopt interpretive dance as a means of communication, it would qualify as well.
The government should be held to a higher standards on fundamental rights than doing the legal minimum.
And keep in mind we’re not debating about the government setting up an online petition site. That site has been up and running for several years. The debate is about the government shutting down that existing site and making it more difficult for people to exercise their right to petition. You might argue over how much resources the government needs to put into increasing the opportunities for people to exercise their constitutional rights; but there’s virtually no justification for the government acting to reduce those opportunities.
