It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: diggindirt
Understanding the Constitution requires knowing the meaning of the words used and the way they are used. Grammar. It is important.
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.
Redress is still a transitive verb---requiring action.
to petition the government for a redress of grievances
originally posted by: diggindirt
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: diggindirt
Reply to Flatfish:
You have the right to petition for a redress of grievances.
Correct.
To petition (a verb transitive, meaning to file a formal, written request)
for (a preposition, means to obtain)
redress ( verb transitive, a remedy or the means to a remedy on the part of the Government)
of (preposition, means for or about)
grievance (noun, a real or fancied complaint)
The citizen/s must take action in the form of drawing up a petition in order to compel the government to supply a remedy or the means to a remedy for their complaint/s. The use of the verb transitive "redress" is the "guarantee" you seek because it requires action by the body being addressed by the very nature of the word.
Please show me how redress can occur without a response from the government being petitioned.
Again, I am not contending that the government must comply with the requests in the petition/s but they must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. Do you not understand that the word "redress" is a verb transitive and by its very nature demands action on the part of the recipient of the petition?
Yet again, words have meaning and the authors of the Constitution knew the meaning of those words and used them carefully. The right to petition for redress of grievances had been a part of English law since the signing of the Magna Carta, a document, (one of many) upon which the founders of the US based the tenets of the Constitution. It was from this right that the inclusion of this passage in the Declaration of Independence sprung:
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
At the time of the Declaration, the colonists were under British law, a part of which was the right to petition for redress of grievances as found in the Magna Carta. The colonists were declaring that the King had violated the very law by which he was bound to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy, using that violation as one of many which compelled them to declare themselves independent of a tyrant.
If you'd spend a little time defining the word "petition," you'll see that there is no guarantee of success.
I've given the definition of "to petition" above. It is the act of filing a formal, written request. However, the framers of the Constitution didn't stop with the right to petition, they specified that the petition was for "redress of grievances" which by the very nature of the word---verb transtitive---means that action is required by those to whom the petition is addressed.
I don't know how to make it any plainer than simply using the definitions of the words used by the authors of the document.
Please show how the meaning of redress does not include actions by the recipients of the petition/s.
Look, the petition is a "request" and there's nothing "compelling" about it.
The petition or request could very well be deemed to be unreasonable and/or without merit and not worthy of relief or redress.
Nowhere does it state that the government is compelled to provide relief, or a means to relief, just because someone or some group files a petition requesting it.
Hell when I was 16, I petitioned my dad for a new Ford Mustang and the only thing he was compelled to give me was the clear understanding that if I wanted that car I was going to have to buy the damn thing myself with my own money, because he sure as hell wasn't buying it for me.
By your own definitions listed above, the "petition" is simply a request for "redress" or relief. Nothing binding or compelling about it in any way.
I think you just pulled that part out of your ass.
Your father provided you the "means for relief" to your petition---work, save money, have a car. See, it's that simple, a remedy or a means to a remedy. Same with government. I made it clear---the government doesn't have to provide the requested remedy but may provide a means to the remedy. It could be as simple as informing the petitioner of the legal way to a remedy, say, by filing in a court of law and providing the name and location of the proper court. They don't have to give you legal advice but must tell you where and how to obtain the means to a remedy.
Have you never filed a petition with government? If you had done so, you would know these things. They must provide you with the "means to a remedy" if the person the petition is filed with cannot or will not provide the remedy.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Byrd
How is "capturing and occupying a building" a "petition for redress"?
It is my understanding that the petitions had been ignored.
Note that he starts out by offering them escorts. There is no order to leave. (He does not believe that he can issue an order to leave because he doesn't believe he has authority on land that the federal government claims to own.)
He as much as admits that the petitions have been ignored.
Clearly if you watched the video linked above you heard him say they want replies to the petitions. You can see it was completely peaceful and civil.
As for land usage, in the first press conference they asserted that the land should be returned to its lawful owners. The ranchers who have lost land unlawfully should have their property returned to them.
That would leave the land that was obtained by the federal government lawfully, that is donated or sold freely, without threat or coercion, for a specific purpose (conservation, preservation, etc.) would be turned over to the county by the federal government to be administered by the county according to the terms of the covenant by which the landowners conveyed the land to the federal government.
Bullying is as much of a problem today in governmental agencies as it is in our schools.
I'm betting they made numerous copies of those documents and sent them to faraway places. You can bet they didn't destroy their own evidence!
Ammon answers questions from the press, explaining that it is their wish to return the plundered lands to the people of the state and county. There are no threats of violence, none at all.
originally posted by: NotTooHappy
a reply to: diggindirt
So, if you demand something from the Federal Government; the Federal Government is obligated to give it to you? That's your argument?
The first says you can petition for a redress. It does not say that you are guaranteed one.
originally posted by: diggindirt
Is your ability to read and comprehend somehow impaired?
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Flatfish
It isn't me who is ignorant of the meaning of words and parts of speech.
If you could prove to me that "redress" is an intransitive verb, I might take more notice of what you say. But since you have less knowledge of grammar than an average fifth grader, I'm inclined to ignore any further posts of yours on any subject.
Your endless parroting is quite tiresome and your lack of understanding of language is just plain sad.
The blame for the incident in Oregon lies squarely at the feet of the elected officials who failed in their duty to the people they are supposed to be serving.
Let's just say we agree on the definition of "redress."
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Flatfish
Let's just say we agree on the definition of "redress."
Show me your definition from a legal dictionary. I've provided links. You disagree with the legal dictionary's definition?
You can disagree all you wish, doesn't change the meaning of the word.
You keep focusing on the petition part of the clause and ignoring the other verb used in the clause. That verb is "redress" and is a transitive verb.
In order to understand the amendment you must understand the history of the amendment which began with the Magna Carta.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Flatfish
Still waiting for that definition you've been unable to provide.