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.
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."
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.