While no one ca stop you from asking for a letter of marque, you have no right to be heard on the matter, which is my point. And the first amendment covers “petition the government for redress of grievances”. I’m not convinced that a request to become a pirate falls into the grievance category.
Beyond that, the author frames becoming a privateer as his “right” which it very clearly isn’t.
While no one ca stop you from asking for a letter of marque, you have no right to be heard on the matter, which is my point. And the first amendment covers “petition the government for redress of grievances”. I’m not convinced that a request to become a pirate falls into the grievance category.
Beyond that, the author frames becoming a privateer as his “right” which it very clearly isn’t.
You many not be convinced, but the Supreme Court is. It's been a long time since that phrase was interpreted, successfully, as the right to petition. Try and keep up. He is indeed entitled to become a privateer if the letter is granted. Just as you are entitled to own a machine gun IF you pass the requirements. Boring.
There is no way that the Supreme Court would confuse the First Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances an Article 1 power for Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Even if obtaining letters of marque and reprisal involves "petitioning Congress," it is not the same.
Point out an opinion that says the First Amendment bears some relation to Article 1 Section 8, or guaranteeing a citizen's right to petition for a letter of marque and reprisal.
While you're at it, why don't you elaborate on the difference between my comment and yours, and why I should be accused of "writing opinions for the Court."
IF the letter is granted. That is not what is being suggested in my reading. What is being suggested is that he has a “right” to a letter of marque BEING granted. Two very different issues.
While no one ca stop you from asking for a letter of marque, you have no right to be heard on the matter, which is my point. And the first amendment covers “petition the government for redress of grievances”. I’m not convinced that a request to become a pirate falls into the grievance category.
Beyond that, the author frames becoming a privateer as his “right” which it very clearly isn’t.
You many not be convinced, but the Supreme Court is. It's been a long time since that phrase was interpreted, successfully, as the right to petition. Try and keep up. He is indeed entitled to become a privateer if the letter is granted. Just as you are entitled to own a machine gun IF you pass the requirements. Boring.
There is no way that the Supreme Court would confuse the First Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances an Article 1 power for Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Even if obtaining letters of marque and reprisal involves "petitioning Congress," it is not the same.
Really? You're writing opinions for the Court now? Read the law.
Point out an opinion that says the First Amendment bears some relation to Article 1 Section 8, or guaranteeing a citizen's right to petition for a letter of marque and reprisal.
While you're at it, why don't you elaborate on the difference between my comment and yours, and why I should be accused of "writing opinions for the Court."
The court ruled long ago that the right to petition exists and that the first made that clear.
IF the letter is granted. That is not what is being suggested in my reading. What is being suggested is that he has a “right” to a letter of marque BEING granted. Two very different issues.
We disagree. I like it.✌️