At times, like an outdated however long-forgotten good friend, one thing we as soon as valued vastly involuntarily involves thoughts, reminding us how a lot we have now modified. So, it’s with our proper to petition the members of Congress.
Lest we overlook … American colonists went to battle to protect their capacity to complain to their authorities. In 1775, members of the Second Continental Congress despatched George III a petition, asking that they be allowed to barter with him with a view to keep away from battle.
As British topics, they may count on this attraction would attain the king as petitioning had been granted by the English monarchy for practically a century. However, George flatly refused to just accept the colonists’ plea, dismissively branding them as traitors.
Largely out of frustration with this response, the assembled legislators voted to declare the colonies’ independence and settle this challenge on the battlefield. Thus, not surprisingly, when the Invoice of Rights was drafted after the Revolution, petitioning the federal government was enshrined within the First Modification as a basic proper that would by no means be “abridged.”
Quick ahead to the Nineteen Nineties: E mail was changing into broadly used and members of Congress have been cautious about how they’d be capable of cope with this new technique of communication. Their employees was already swamped by the day by day avalanche of letters and the legislators couldn’t see how they may handle a a lot higher deluge, arriving via the web.
So, quietly, with out placing this coverage into legislation, the lawmakers modified the principles for corresponding with them: henceforth, solely mail from constituents can be accepted. Inquiries, feedback, ideas and criticism from individuals residing outdoors their Congressional districts and (for senators) states can be refused. Satirically, members of the U.S. Congress took their stand on the facet of George III.
As we speak, petitioning any and all members of Congress stays an inconvenient, uncared for proper. Whereas it’s unequivocally affirmed in our Structure (as a “cognate” proper, selling democracy) and unambiguously protected by federal legislation, the scope of petitioning has been vastly diminished: out of 535 members of the legislative department, you and I’ve entry solely to a few — our two senators and one member of the Home. (Teams can nonetheless ship petitions to all legislators: it’s solely people who’re so restricted.)
So far as I do know, over the previous 30 years, not a single member of Congress has argued that this residency requirement is unconstitutional, not to mention proposing to do away with it. (If you hear a lawmaker counsel “Write to your Congressman,” he’s actually telling you that your opinion doesn’t matter to him.) In the meantime, lobbyists, special-interest teams and — in fact — donors face no such limitations. Cash and highly effective affect can stream uninterrupted throughout district and state traces, whereas atypical citizen mail can’t.
What’s to be achieved about this illegal apply that’s so inimical to participating atypical People with the legislative course of? (Public opinion polls point out that the perceived indifference of lawmakers to public pursuits is making Congress more and more unpopular.) If members of the Home and Senate violate the Structure, we, logically, would possibly search a treatment within the courts, however there’s no sympathetic ear there both.
Not too long ago, a case that I had introduced in Connecticut, difficult petition restrictions, was dismissed by a district court docket decide on the grounds that Congressional communications are a “legislative exercise,” and, as such, get pleasure from “absolute immunity” from judicial overview. And Congress, nicely … that’s the door that’s already tightly shut.
It appears that evidently our greatest hope lies with know-how. Within the age of AI, arguments about Congressional workplaces being overwhelmed by mass mailings now not maintain any water. They will now not justify limitations on limiting public entry. To drive residence this level and persuade Congress to alter its methods, residents might want to make use of the petition itself — by organizing a large grassroots marketing campaign to advocate for the restoration of this as soon as sacred, inviolable and unrestricted proper. Petitioning is as necessary these days because the Founders meant it to be, not as George III wished it to be.
