The Second Amendment doesn’t require the government to allow the sale or ownership of ammunition. But I’ve always felt that the explicit text of Constitutional rights should be interpreted as broad principles that include penumbras that make those rights meaningful. Freedom of speech also protects the freedom to listen to speech. Freedom of the press also protects the freedom to read newspapers. Freedom to own and carry firearms also protects the freedom to own and carry ammunition. And freedom to petition requires the government to read petitions.
So, you think it’s a right to scribble on pieces of paper and keep it to ourselves?
I find it disturbing that you think it is a waste of our government’s time to read the grievances of its citizens.
Did you even read the cite I gave to the SCOTUS decision that says that is not so in post #52? Are you saying that the Supreme court can be ignored in favor of your personal interpretation of the constitution? Again, we are talking about facts as they relate to the existing jurisprudence regarding the 1st amendment, per your assertion in post #27:
We are not talking about our individual fantasies. Please, we are supposed to fighting ignorance here, not spreading it.
Yes. I noted that in post #10.
I find it more disturbing that you think they do. It’s dumped on tax funded minions who respond with whatever soundbite they think makes the writer feel special.
Politicians run on a platform that people vote on. That’s the agenda. Not thousands of bullshit letter writing campaigns paid for by special interest groups.
You said it was a waste of time to read them. Not anything about whether or not they did.
Do you really think politicians read them?
Yes, somebody reads them.
Yeah, they’re probably called ‘interns’. 20-somethings with a poly sci degree, and who otherwise know nothing about anything and have no authority. I know serious policy wonks respond to selected petitions, but that’s the point - the government gets to choose which petitions it responds to. That was a major criticism of the website - it was too easy to be used as propaganda.
And when the Obama administration got more petitions than it wanted, it just raised the signature threshold to make them go away. It was raised repeatedly from 5,000, to 25,000, then to 100,000. Many petitions that met these thresholds went unanswered.
I’d shut the website down on the simple grounds that it’s potempkin governance - providing the illusion of a process of communication where one does not exist. At best, the government is going to take action only on petitions that align with what they were already going to do, to provide the illusion of control to the petitioners. Or are there examples of the Obama administration acting on Tea Party or other conservative petitions to do something that they didn’t already want to do?
As for the cost of the website, if there are hundreds of petitions that require a response, and the response has to come from highly paid people in a bureaucracy, I can see that getting expensive. There might be a director of this project, an adminstrator or two, technical people working on customer service and bug fixing ( the site has been buggy ), the people reading the petitions, people to draft answers, legal and security people to make sure the answers don’t cause problems, probably reviews by White House staff before the release of responses, yada yada. I probably missed a diversity checker or two in there somewhere.
Spending a million per year is nothing in a government bureaucracy. Including pensions, office space, and bureaucracy, that probably only represents four or five employees.
Let’s say that there is a box with a sign that says “Insert Petition Here” outside the Capitol and the box leads directly into a shredder.
In your opinion, has the First Amendment been satisfied? I would guess no.
Assuming no, why is it worse than having some twenty-two year old kid whose father gave money to Lindsey Graham read the petition and promptly throw it away?
ETA: This isn’t something I care a great deal about, but it is an interesting question. Clearly the right to petition must mean something. It cannot mean that your petition will be granted, but it has to mean more than an empty gesture.
Did you see the court case I cited in post #52 and what Justice O’Conner said about that?
Nothing requires the Government to maintain a website for purposes of petitioning the Government. The Constitution does, however, require that it be possible somehow or another. And nowadays, a website is by far the cheapest and easiest way to meet that requirement. So if they’re not providing a website, what are they offering instead?
No Fox on the Philippines, remember? Trump would expect his pal Duterte to fix that, except he doesn’t really understand how either businesses or governments work.
Really the 1st just says that the govt may not punish you for expressing your opinion, not that they have to listen to it. And, really, if they had to read and respond to each and every grievance brought against them, then they would have no ability to function. I would have to write a grievance that they are spending so much time on grievances.
OTOH, the whole point of the website was to consolidation petitions. Rather than having each person submit their own, you could submit one to the website, and see if anyone agreed with you. If there are enough signatures on a petition, then that should signal that the petition should at least be read.
Gotta concede, the existing petition portal was pretty much worthless except for, as **k9bfriender **mentioned, as a central consolidator. I will not miss it much.
They should have some online site for this, since it’s rapidly becoming the main form of communication. But they should really dump the pretext that at some magic number of petitions then something will be done about it other than just bothering to read it. Because if you put the effort into it you can whip up a lot of signatures for some pretty stupid things, or for things that are not happening any time soon in our reality.
I believe the address is:
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW Washington, D.C. 20500 U.S.
And, I’m pretty sure every Congresscritter has an email address you can send stuff to. But if I wanted to get Trump’s attention, I’d probably tweet.
Yes, I saw it. But this is a discussion not a law school examination.
If we restrict the discussion strictly to what’s happened, then the only response to an OP saying the administration shut down the We the People website is to observe that that is an accurate reporting of the event.
But this is Great Debates. The purpose here is not merely to report events. It’s to discuss the meaning of those events, to speculate on why it happened and what may happen, and to offer our opinions on what should happen.
That’s very last decade of you.
Most of this is already setup.
What is needed is developers (but isn’t it already built?) and someone to maintain the site. That should be part of some general IT department’s role. I’d be surprised if the TCO for a simple website that hosts petitions would cost more than a $100K. If it costs significantly more than that then someone is seriously doing it wrong.
Yes it absolutely satisfies the first amendment. There is no law that says I have to listen to you. The first amendment does not guarantee an audience.