Commenting has been turned off for this post
тна Return to thread
Ernest Montague's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
B-hanimal's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Ernest Montague's avatar

Really? You're writing opinions for the Court now? Read the law.

Expand full comment
B-hanimal's avatar

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."

Expand full comment
Ernest Montague's avatar

The court ruled long ago that the right to petition exists and that the first made that clear.

Expand full comment
jcholder's avatar

IF the letter is granted. That is not what is being suggested in my reading. What is being suggested is that he has a тАЬrightтАЭ to a letter of marque BEING granted. Two very different issues.

We disagree. I like it.тЬМя╕П

Expand full comment