Petition for Redress of Grievances

Petition for Redress of Grievances

November 14, 2023
Share Tweet Pin E-mail

Listen to Audio 

Stamp Act Story: Suppressing Petitions for Redress

In the bustling streets of colonial Boston, tensions ran high among the residents. The news of the Stamp Act had spread like wildfire, and the colonists found themselves burdened by an unjust tax imposed by a distant British Parliament. James Anderson, a printer by trade, was deeply troubled by the implications of the Act.

As James gathered with like-minded individuals at the local tavern, they discussed their grievances and the need to petition the government for redress. They decided to draft a formal petition outlining their objections to the Stamp Act and expressing their desire for its repeal. The petition aimed to be a peaceful and lawful means of registering their discontent.

However, when the colonists attempted to submit their petition, they encountered a harsh reality. The British authorities, aware of the growing discontent, had issued orders to suppress any petitions challenging the authority of Parliament. The local governor, a staunch supporter of British policies, declared such petitions illegal and prohibited their submission.

Undeterred, James and his fellow colonists persisted. They attempted to circulate the petition secretly, passing it from hand to hand in the shadows of the night. Unfortunately, their efforts were discovered, and the British authorities retaliated by arresting some of the key figures involved in drafting the petition, including James Otis Jr.

The suppression of the colonists further fueled the flames of discontent. It became a symbol of the broader struggle for colonial rights and self-determination. The events surrounding the Stamp Act and the suppression of petitions played a significant role in galvanizing colonial opposition, eventually leading to more organized resistance and the call for greater representation in the decision-making process.

Redress of Grievances

The phrase "redress of grievances" in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is part of the petition clause, which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The "redress of grievances" component emphasizes the right of the people to bring their complaints or concerns to the government. It essentially means that citizens have the right to seek remedies or solutions for their grievances from the government without fear of retribution.

This clause recognizes the importance of allowing individuals and groups to communicate their dissatisfaction with government actions or policies, and to request corrective measures. It reflects the broader democratic principle that citizens should have the ability to participate in the political process and hold their government accountable for its actions.

Historical Context

The framers of the Constitution were largely influenced by their personal experiences and were keen on establishing a government that respected individual liberties and protected citizens from the abuses they experienced under British rule. In addition, documents like the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the English Bill of Rights provided clear evidence that their experience was not an isolated incident.

During the colonial period, the British government often ignored or suppressed the grievances of the American colonists. The colonists faced issues such as taxation without representation and restrictions on petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

One example of this was Parliament’s passage of The Stamp Act in 1765. The Stamp act was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament on the American colonies, requiring that many printed materials, including newspapers, legal documents, and even playing cards, be printed on paper produced in London that carried an embossed revenue stamp.

Tensions between the colonies and the British government escalated after its passage, and Americans sought ways to address their grievances and communicate their concerns. However, they met stiff resistance and even imprisonment for voicing their disdain for this law.

Securing Redress of Grievances Since 1787

The founders believed that the right to petition the government for redress of grievances was essential in a free society. This right has become a fundamental aspect of our American heritage and a cornerstone of liberty for over two centuries, but it has not endured without a struggle.

While the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, there have been instances throughout U.S. history where government officials or institutions limited this right. A few historic examples include:

  • Alien and Sedition Acts (1798): Enacted during the presidency of John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts included provisions that targeted critics of the government. The Sedition Act, in particular, made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government. This directly limited the ability of citizens to openly criticize the government and seek redress of grievances.
  • Espionage Act (1917) and Sedition Act (1918): During World War I, these acts were passed, restricting certain forms of expression that were deemed disloyal, including statements that might interfere with the war effort. This led to the prosecution and imprisonment of individuals who spoke out against the government or the war, limiting their ability to petition for redress of grievances.
  • Red Scare and McCarthyism (1940s-1950s): During the post-World War II era, the fear of communism led to a suppression of political dissent. Government officials, particularly during the McCarthy era, targeted individuals suspected of being affiliated with or sympathetic to communist ideologies. This climate inhibited people from openly expressing their grievances and petitioning against perceived injustices.
  • Civil Rights Movement: In the mid-20th century, as the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum, there were instances where Southern state governments resisted the right to petition. African Americans seeking to address grievances related to racial segregation and discrimination faced violent repression, including police brutality and the suppression of protests.
  • Vietnam War Protests: During the Vietnam War, the government responded to anti-war protests with various measures, including arrests and restrictions on the right to assemble. The FBI's surveillance of anti-war activists, as revealed by the COINTELPRO program, also aimed to disrupt and discredit those petitioning against government policies.

Ensuring Future Protection: Safeguarding the Right to Petition Government

While we still have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, we should be vigilant in protecting it for ourselves and future generations. Here are just a few ways this right is currently being threatened.

  • Health & Safety: During the height of the recent pandemic, authorities have imposed restrictions on the right to assemble and protest in the name of public safety.
  • Online and Digital Expression: Social media and online platforms are changing the landscape for free expression and petitioning. Challenges have risen as these platforms navigate issues related to content moderation, disinformation, and the balance between allowing diverse opinions and preventing harmful or misleading information.
  • Whistleblower Protections: Individuals who expose government wrongdoing or unethical practices through whistleblowing may face legal challenges and even retaliation. Ensuring robust legal protections for whistleblowers is crucial for maintaining transparency and accountability within government institutions.
  • Access to Information: Challenges persist in ensuring that citizens have access to information about government actions and policies. Transparency is essential for informed petitioning, and efforts to restrict access to information can hinder the public's ability to understand and address grievances.
  • Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression: While not directly related to petitioning, issues such as gerrymandering (manipulation of political district boundaries to favor one political party or group over another), and voter suppression, can impact the democratic process. When citizens feel that their votes have been marginalized or that the electoral system is unfair, it may affect their trust in the political process and their willingness to petition for a redress of grievances through established channels.

Remaining well-informed about ongoing events and legal changes is a vital part of our duty as citizens to keep our elected representatives, and the laws we must obey, in check. If you feel like you don’t have the time to be directly involved, join a group you can support that will let you know about issues that are important to you. In many cases these groups make it easy to know who to contact and what to say.

If you belong to one of these groups, please feel free to recommend it in the comments section below.

 

8 comments

Sep 16, 2024
Meg Mehserle

I can endorse as Godly groups here in Georgia, working for election integrity:
VOTERGA.org
GAConstitutionParty.org
GeorgiansForTruth.org

God is my shield, and the lifter of my head – oh yes, HE is! Please pray for Georgia.
I myself was a Poll Worker for two years, then a poll watcher for only five days. I was wrongly dismissed immediately after I asked to compare notes with those of the county. I had apparently stumbled across early signs of vote flipping. Since then, our Houston County elections office personnel, and now county commission and chairman have been working against this exposure. I will never give up exposing and getting rid of these corrupted machines and their manipulators in my county. I welcome your prayers and any assistance. (478)987-1728

Aug 26, 2024
Sooky DiGregorio

I like you like and support your fight!! Thank you

Dec 19, 2023
Shelby Boyce

NH family courts are violating numerous constitutional rights in collaboration with dcyf, Law enforcement and multiple other agencies contracted or just associated in the professional field to illegally remove children from the safety of their homes, inflicting severe abuse on the children as well as parents. Ignoring facts, laws, bullying, threatening, lacking proof, termination of rights without due process. The list goes on. NH families want justice and children returned immediately to start the very sensitive long process of healing what’s been shattered in years of separation and severe trauma to all involved. Crimes against humanity. Abuse & neglect from those in “power” deprivation of rights under the color law, religious freedom violations, special needs children harmed, illegal trespass, harrasment. Threatening, covered up facts and evidence. The list is a long one.

Dec 18, 2023
Shelby Boyce

NH family courts are violating numerous constitutional rights in collaboration with dcyf, Law enforcement and multiple other agencies contracted or just associated in the professional field to illegally remove children from the safety of their homes, inflicting severe abuse on the children as well as parents. Ignoring facts, laws, bullying, threatening, lacking proof, termination of rights without due process. The list goes on. NH families want justice and children returned immediately to start the very sensitive long process of healing what’s been shattered in years of separation and severe trauma to all involved. Crimes against humanity. Abuse & neglect from those in “power” deprivation of rights under the color law, religious freedom violations, special needs children harmed, illegal trespass, harrasment. Threatening, covered up facts and evidence. The list is a long one.

Dec 01, 2023
Dominus Litis

TO THE DISHONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS

DECEMBER 1, 2023

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF UNLAWFUL TAKINGS

The undersigned petitioners, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby petition this Court for redress of unlawful takings by the courts in violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. The non-delegation doctrine is a constitutional principle that prohibits Congress from delegating its lawmaking power to other branches of government, including the judiciary.

2. Law enforcement is the responsibility of the executive branch, specifically of law enforcement agencies. The judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply the laws that Congress has enacted, not to enforce them.

3. In recent years, there have been numerous instances of courts issuing levies, orders, and warrants that have violated the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.

4. These unlawful takings have resulted in the seizure of property and assets from individuals with powers not delegated to the judiciary by the US Constitution, therefore makes these actions a Usurpation of power.

5. The petitioners are seeking redress for these unlawful takings, including the return of all property and assets that were seized illegally.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

1. The non-delegation doctrine prohibits Congress from delegating its lawmaking power neither the judicial or executive branch.

2. Whether law enforcement is the responsibility of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. And law enforcement is not judiciary enforcement.

3. Whether courts have issued levies, orders, and warrants in violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine by exercising legislative power in the issuance of any judicial written instrument and have law enforcement enforce said instruments as if they were law to be enforced.

4. Whether individuals have a right to redress for unlawful takings by the courts.

ARGUMENT

I. The Non-Delegation Doctrine Prohibits Congress from Delegating Its Lawmaking Power to the Judicial Branch.

The non-delegation doctrine is a well-established principle of constitutional law. In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Supreme Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which authorized the President to establish codes of fair competition for industries. The Court held that the NIRA was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the President because it did not provide an intelligible principle to guide the President’s exercise of power.

The non-delegation doctrine applies equally to Congress’s delegation of power to the judiciary. In Keller v. Barger, 432 U.S. 816 (1977), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not delegate to the Court of Claims the authority to determine whether individuals were entitled to federal benefits. The Court explained that the delegation of such power would violate the separation of powers because it would allow the judiciary to exercise legislative functions.

II. Law Enforcement Is the Responsibility of the Executive Branch, Not the Judicial Branch.

The Constitution vests the executive branch with the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the United States. Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This does not includes the responsibility of carrying out court orders, nor does it authorize the judiciary to directly enforce its own orders.

Law enforcement, agencies such as the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, are part of the executive branch. These agencies are responsible for investigating crimes, making arrests, not the enforcement of the judiciary and executing warrants. The judiciary does not have its own law enforcement arm, and it cannot directly enforce its own orders.

III. Courts Have Issued Levies, Orders, and Warrants in Violation of the Non-Delegation Doctrine, the Supremacy Clause and the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the United States Constitution.

In recent years, there have been numerous instances of courts issuing levies, orders, and warrants that have violated the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.

For example, in Madison v. Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to compel executive officials to act, was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the judiciary.

Similarly, in United States v. Industrial Workers of the World, 252 F. 242 (D.C. Wash. 1918), the court issued a blanket injunction that prohibited members of the Industrial Workers of the World from engaging in any activities that might interfere with the war effort. This injunction was later struck down on appeal, as it was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the judiciary.

These are just a few examples of the many instances in which courts have issued levies, orders, and warrants in violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.

IV. Individuals Have a Right to Redress for Unlawful Takings by the Courts.
1)The petitioners seek redress for these unlawful takings, including the return of all property and assets that were seized illegally.
2)The petitioners also seek a declaratory judgment that the Non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine have been violated.
3)The petitioners ask for an injunction against any Future attempts to exercise legislative power by the judiciary.

WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray that this
Court:
1. Grant redress for all unlawful takings by courts in
violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine
2. Order the return of all property and assets that were seized illegally;
3. Declare that the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine have been violated; and
4. Enjoin the judiciary from using legislative power or delegating such power to any other branch of government.

Leave a comment