The Petition of Right, passed on 7 June 1628, is an English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state, reportedly of equal value to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689. It was part of a wider conflict between Parliament and the Stuart monarchy that led to the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, ultimately resolved in the 1688 Glorious Revolution. Following a series of disputes with Parliament over granting taxes, in 1627 Charles I imposed "forced loans", and imprisoned those who refused to pay, without trial. This was followed in 1628 by the use of martial law, forcing private citizens to feed, clothe and accommodate soldiers and sailors.
Introduction
Petition of Right
Petition of Right | Introduction
Charles I Sorry. I cannot find the answer based on the context. Charles I. Charles I
what was one of the provisions of the petition of right (1628)
user
No person should be forced to provide a gift, loan or tax without an Act of Parliament.
assistant
what does the term "petition of right" refer to?
user
It is an English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state.
assistant
who formulated it?
user
The Petition of Right, passed on 7 June 1628, is an English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state, reportedly of equal value to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689. It was part of a wider conflict between Parliament and the Stuart monarchy that led to the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, ultimately resolved in the 1688 Glorious Revolution. Following a series of disputes with Parliament over granting taxes, in 1627 Charles I imposed "forced loans", and imprisoned those who refused to pay, without trial. This was followed in 1628 by the use of martial law, forcing private citizens to feed, clothe and accommodate soldiers and sailors.
Petition of Right | Introduction
These implied the king, or state, could deprive any individual of property, or freedom, without needing to justify it. It united opposition at all levels of society, particularly those elements the monarchy depended on for financial support, collecting taxes, administering justice etc, since wealth simply increased vulnerability.
Petition of Right | Introduction
An established element of Parliamentary procedure, this had not been expressly prohibited by Charles, allowing them to evade his restrictions, but avoid direct opposition. The Committee redrafted the content as a 'Petition', which was accepted by the Commons on 8 May, and presented the same day to the Lords by Coke, with a bill approving subsidies to encourage acceptance. After several days of debate, they approved it, but attempted to "sweeten" the wording; they then received a message from Charles, claiming he must retain the right to decide whether to detain someone.
Petition of Right | Passage
It was later passed into formal law by the Long Parliament in 1641 and became one of the three constitutional documents of English civil liberties, along with the "Magna Carta" and the Bill of Rights 1689.
Edward Coke | Petition of Right
The Petitions of Right Act 1860 (23 & 24 Vict., c. 34) was an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom that codified and simplified the process of obtaining a petition of right.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Introduction
The prohibition of abridgment of the "right to petition" originally referred only to the Congress and the U.S. federal courts. The incorporation doctrine later expanded the protection of the right to its current scope, over all state and federal courts and legislatures, and the executive branches of the state and federal governments.
Right to petition | United States of America
After setting out a list of individual grievances and statutes that had been broken, the Petition of Right declares that Englishmen have various "rights and liberties", and provides that no person should be forced to provide a gift, loan or tax without an Act of Parliament, that no free individual should be imprisoned or detained unless a cause has been shown, and that soldiers or members of the Royal Navy should not be billeted in private houses without the free consent of the owner. In relation to martial law, the Petition first repeated the due process chapter of "Magna Carta", and then provided that: This clause was directly addressed to the various commissions issued by Charles and his military commanders, restricting the use of martial law except in war or direct rebellion and prohibiting the formation of commissions.
Petition of Right | Provisions
The law as to petitions of right applied to Ireland but not to Scotland, and a right to present such a petition was also thought to exist in colonies whose law was based on the common law of England. Ultimately, in many colonies legislation was passed with respect to claims against the government which made it unnecessary to resort to a petition of right.
Petition of right | Scotland and Ireland
The resulting debate led to some MPs being unable to speak due to their fear that the King was threatening them with the destruction of Parliament. Coke, despite the fear in Parliament, stood and spoke, citing historical precedents supporting the principle that members of the Commons could, within Parliament, say whatever they wished – something now codified as Parliamentary privilege. The Petition of Right was affirmed by the Commons and sent to the Lords, who approved it on 17 May 1628; the document's publication was met with bonfires and the ringing of church bells throughout England. As well as laying out a long list of statutes which had been broken, it proclaimed various "rights and liberties" of free Englishmen, including a freedom from taxation without Parliamentary approval, the right of "habeas corpus", a prohibition on soldiers being billeted in houses without the owner's will, and a prohibition on imposing martial law on civilians.
Edward Coke | Petition of Right
The Act preserved the right to proceed at common law, but gave an alternative remedy. The procedure was regulated by the 1860 Act, and in England also by rules made under the Act on 1 February 1862. The petition was left with the Home Secretary "for the consideration of His Majesty", who if he thought fit granted his "fiat" that right be done. The "fiat" was sealed in the Home Office and issued to the applicant who filed it in the central office of the High Court of Justice, and a sealed copy was served on the Treasury Solicitor, with a demand for a response on behalf of the Crown.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Procedure
I am not the sponsor of this legislation, nor have I ever endorsed or spoken in favor of it." The Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance defines a 'free petition' as: "In Massachusetts all citizens have the right to petition the state legislature. This procedure is called the right of free petition. A citizen drafts and files a Petition and accompanying Bill. A legislator sponsors the Bill in the General Court. If a legislator disagrees with the contents of the Bill, he/she may indicate this by placing the phrase 'By request' after his/her name." The text of S787 specifies that it was filed by "Richard J.
Richard J. Ross | S787 Controversy
The Lord Chancellor could direct the hearing of petitions of right in that court even when not started there.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Procedure
A state of war automatically activated martial law; as such, the only purpose for commissions, in their view, was to unjustly permit martial law in circumstances that did not require it.
Petition of Right | Provisions
The Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 (13 Car 2 Stat. 1 c. 5) was an Act of the Parliament of England. Its long title was "An Act against Tumults and Disorders upon pretence of preparing or presenting publick Peticions or other Addresses to His Majesty or the Parliament". Petitions to either the House of Commons or House of Lords seem to have been later in origin than petitions to the Crown. They are not referred to in the Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689), but the right of petition is a convention of the constitution. Petitions to the Lords or the whole Parliament can be traced back to Henry III.
Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 | Introduction
Where such acts were wrongful the remedy was still by action against the official as an individual and not in his official capacity.
Petition of right | Claims allowed
In English law, a petition of right was a remedy available to subjects to recover property from the Crown. Before the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, the British Crown could not be sued in contract. However, as it was seen to be desirable that Crown contractors could obtain redress, lest they be inhibited from taking on such work, the petition of right came to be used in such situations, especially after the Petitions of Right Act 1860 simplified the process. Before the petition could be heard by the courts, it had to be endorsed with the words "fiat justitia" on the advice of the Home Secretary and Attorney-General.
Petition of right | Introduction
The subsequent proceedings, including those as to disclosing relevant documents followed as far as possible those in an ordinary action. A judgment in favour of the applicant was equivalent to a judgment of amoveas manus ouster le main. Costs were payable to and by the Crown. A petition of right was usually tried in the Chancery or King's Bench divisions but where the subject-matter of the petition arose out of the exercise of belligerent rights on behalf of the Crown, or would be heard in a prize court if the matter were in dispute between private persons, the applicant could at his option start his petition in the Admiralty Court.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Procedure
While the prohibition of abridgment of the right to petition originally referred only to the federal legislature (the Congress) and courts, the incorporation doctrine later expanded the protection of the right to its current scope, over all state and federal courts and legislatures and the executive branches of the state and federal governments. The right to petition includes under its umbrella the legal right to sue the government, and the right of individuals, groups and possibly corporations to lobby the government. Some litigants have contended that the right to petition the government includes a requirement that the government listen to or respond to members of the public.
Right to petition in the United States | Scope
In Blackstone's "Commentaries, Americans in the Thirteen Colonies read that "the right of petitioning the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances" was a "right appertaining to every individual". In 1776, the Declaration of Independence cited King George's failure to redress the grievances listed in colonial petitions, such as the Olive Branch Petition of 1775, as a justification to declare independence: 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.
Right to petition in the United States | Historic roots
At common law the petition went through its earliest stages in Chancery. The petition suggested a right disputing the title of the Crown, and the Crown endorsed the petition soit droit fait la partie. Then a commission was issued to inquire into the truth of the suggestion. After the return to the commission, the Attorney-General filed a response and the merits were determined as in any "inter partes" action. If the right was determined against the Crown, judgment of amoveas manes was given in favour of the applicant.
Petition of right | Common law
The first significant exercise and defense of the right to petition within the U.S. was to advocate the end of slavery by petitioning Congress in the mid-1830s, including 130,000 such requests in 1837 and 1838. In 1836, the House of Representatives adopted a gag rule that would table all such anti-slavery petitions. John Quincy Adams and other Representatives eventually achieved the repeal of this rule in 1844 on the basis that it was contrary to the right to petition the government.
Right to petition in the United States | First use
Coke undertook the central role in framing and writing the Petition of Right. The ongoing struggles over martial law and civil liberties, along with the rejection of the "Resolutions" seriously concerned the Commons. Accordingly, Coke convinced the Lords to meet with the Commons in April 1628 in order to discuss a petition to the King confirming the rights and liberties of royal subjects. The Commons immediately accepted this, and after a struggle, the Lords agreed to allow a committee chaired by Coke to draft the eventual document. Hearing of this, the King sent a message to Parliament forbidding the Commons from discussing matters of state.
Edward Coke | Petition of Right
He was now at variance with the Parliamentary Party on two great subjects of policy, disapproving both of the intention of Parliament to take the powers of the executive and also of its inclination towards Puritanism. When once the breach was made it naturally grew wider, partly from the energy each party put into its work, and partly from the personal animosities which arose.
Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford | The Petition of Right and its aftermath
A petition was put forth to the Secretary of State for Scotland pleading that the sentence be reduced to penal servitude because of her gender and the fact that she was destitute, and husband had abandoned her and was left homeless and penniless. The Secretary, Viscount Novar, rejected that and stated that he would not interfere with the law.
Susan Newell | Petition
The Petition Clause first came to prominence in the 1830s, when Congress established the gag rule barring anti-slavery petitions from being heard; the rule was overturned by Congress several years later. Petitions against the Espionage Act of 1917 resulted in imprisonments. The Supreme Court did not rule on either issue. In "California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited" (1972), the Supreme Court said the right to petition encompasses "the approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution | Petition and assembly
This Latin phrase was normally translated as "Let right be done". One of the most famous "causes célèbres" in English law, the Archer-Shee case, arose out of proceedings on a petition of right.
Petition of right | Introduction
In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms, and sometimes taken for granted, many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right. According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written,
Right to petition in the United States | Introduction
While these are commonly referred to as a "petition" they are forms of civil action against the government that may result in the courts issuing a writ directing the government to act, or refrain from acting, in a specified manner.
Right to petition in the United States | Restrictions
The petition was rejected by the party registration committee.
Secular Right | History
The original conceptualization proffered by Canan and Pring emphasized the right to petition as protected in the United States under the US Constitution's specific protection in the First Amendment's fifth clause. It is still definitional: SLAPPs are civil lawsuits filed against those who have communicated to government officialdom (in its entire constitutional apparatus). The right to petition, granted by Edgar the Peaceful, King of England in the 10th century, antedates Magna Carta in terms of its significance in the development of democratic institutions. As currently conceived, the right claims that democracy cannot properly function in the presence of barriers between the governed and the governing.
Strategic lawsuit against public participation | History
The Act applied only to England and Wales but was extended to Ireland by the Petitions of Right (Ireland) Act 1873
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Territorial extent
Even worse, he made little attempt to hide this; as in the crisis of 1640 to 1642, foreign ambassadors were told any concessions were temporary, and Charles expected to regain them by force if needed. No sooner had Parliament adjourned than Charles once again resumed his previous policies, imposing unauthorised taxes, then imprisoning those who resisted using the non-jury Star Chamber. When Parliament and the normal courts quoted the Petition in support of objections to the tax, and the detention of Selden and Sir John Eliot, Charles responded it was not a legal document. Although confirmed as a legal statute in 1641 by the Long Parliament, debate over who was right continues; however, "it seems impossible to establish conclusively which interpretation (is) correct".
Petition of Right | Aftermath
This right is exercised by preparing a conforming petition signed by 10% of the registered voters who turned out in the last general election in an odd-numbered year (i. the most recent General Assembly election). Once the petition is submitted, the local governing body can vote to pass the requested ordinance, and if they refuse, it is then submitted directly to the voters.
Faulkner Act | Overview
The declarations of acceptance were deposited by Robert Boothby MP with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 14 January 1966.
Human rights in the United Kingdom | Right of petition
No petition to the Commons has been found earlier than Richard II; but from the time of Henry IV petitions to the Commons have been freely made. The political importance of petitioning dates from about the reign of Charles I. The development of the practice of petitioning had proceeded so far in the reign of Charles II as to lead to the passing in 1662 of an Act against "tumultuous petitioning". It provides that no petition or address shall be presented to the king or either house of Parliament by more than ten persons; nor shall any one procure above twenty persons to consent or set their hands to any petition for alteration of matters established by law in church or state, unless with the previous order of three justices of the county, or the major part of the grand jury.
Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 | Introduction
Under the AEDPA's new standards, when a prisoner's claim has been adjudicated in state court, that individual's petition for habeas corpus shall not be granted unless the state court decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States". In 2007, the United States Supreme Court held that, as a "precondition" for relief under the AEDPA, habeas petitioners must demonstrate evidence that a state court's error resulted in "actual prejudice".
Davis v. Ayala | The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under federal law
The Conservative government elected in 1951 ratified the First Protocol to the ECHR in 1953 relating to the rights to property, education and free elections, but resisted the right of petition on the grounds that the common law would come under scrutiny by an international court. Labour's election in 1964 led to reconsideration of the issue and this time the only senior dissenting voice was that of the Home Secretary, Frank Soskice. Although willing to accept the right of petition, he objected to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on the basis that it would deprive the United Kingdom of a degree of flexibility in dealing with petitions and could lead to political embarrassment.
Human rights in the United Kingdom | Right of petition
This right is exercised by preparing a conforming petition signed by 10% of the registered voters who turned out in the last General Assembly election. Once the petition is submitted, the local governing body can vote to pass the requested ordinance, and if it refuses, it is then submitted directly to the voters.
Faulkner Act (mayor–council) | Introduction
The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals. In Europe, Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ensures the right to petition to the European Parliament. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany guarantees the right of petition to "competent authorities and to the legislature". The right to petition in the United States is granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791).
Right to petition | Introduction
The Petition of Right 1628 reversed the effect of the decision by preventing the power of arbitrary committal by the King. The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 restored the right to petition the courts for being let free against the wishes of the King and his Council. John Selden acted as counsel for one of the defendants, Edmund Hampden, in this case; he was a Member of Parliament and claimed afterwards that there was an effort made by the King and Robert Heath, the Attorney General, to tamper with the rulings of the case. While historians have generally agreed with Selden's assertions, Mark Kishlansky has disputed them.
Darnell's Case | Significance
This logic strengthened the newly defined universal rights, which applied to all humans, not just the "civilized". The petition has several examples of such counter-intuitive but forceful arguments to push the slave-owning reader off his balance.
1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery | About the contents of the petition
Despite being unanimously accepted by the Commons on 3 April, the Resolutions had no legal power and were rejected by Charles. He presented an alternative; a bill confirming "Magna Carta" and six other liberty-related statutes, on condition it contained "no enlargement of former bills". The Commons refused, since Charles was only confirming established rights, which he had already shown willing to ignore, while it would still allow him to decide what was legal. After conferring with his supporters, Charles announced Parliament would be prorogued on 13 May, but was now out-manoeuvred by his opponents. Since he refused a public bill, Coke suggested the Commons and Lords pass the resolutions as a Petition of Right, and then have it "exemplified under the great seal".
Petition of Right | Passage
They in themselves were an expression of strong latent support for monarchy and the English traditional constitutional limits on its power, a desire to lose the military overtones of the earlier Protectorate and the increasingly small level of control Cromwell was able to exert due to ill health and frustration with a lack of revolutionary ideology amongst his subjects.
Humble Petition and Advice | Introduction
The decision by William O. Douglas started by reviewing the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and reiterating the importance of the Right to Petition: We conclude that it would be destructive of rights of association and of petition to hold that groups with common interests may not, without violating the antitrust laws, use the channels and procedures of state and federal agencies and courts to advocate their causes and points of view respecting resolution of their business and economic interests vis-a -vis their competitors. The Court went on to say that, like other First Amendment rights, the right to petition is not absolute.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited | Decision
This view was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in 1984: 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.
Right to petition in the United States | Scope
On the abolition of the short sale system, however, he drew a line, explaining that it was not related to the accident, which involved the sale of stocks that were received in error. 32nd petition answer - a petition calling for the investigation and criminal punishment of all former and incumbent member of the National Assembly for violations of the .
Petitions to Blue House | Answers 31–40
The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 ultimately allowed claims to be brought against the Crown as against any other party and throughout the UK, rendering the Act and process obsolete.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Repeal
Charles instructed the House of Lords to reject the bill, and adjourned Parliament on 11 July, but needing money for the war, recalled it on 1 August. However, the Commons began investigating Charles' favourite and military commander, the Duke of Buckingham, notorious for inefficiency and extravagance. When they demanded his impeachment in return for approving taxes, Charles dissolved his first Parliament on 12 August 1625.
Petition of Right | Background
In its view because of this original intent it was never meant to apply as a right granted to individuals.
State v. Buzzard | Introduction
An angry Commons declared the petition ‘scandalous, insolent and seditious; tending to destroy the constitution of Parliaments, and to subvert the established government of the realm’. The five presenters of the petition were ordered into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, then four of them were sent as prisoners to Gatehouse Prison, where they remained till the end of the session. They were William Colepeper, chairman of the quarter sessions, who had drawn up the petition; David Polhill; Thomas Colepeper (who absconded before the others were sent to the Gatehouse); William Hamilton; and Justinian Champneys. On 14 May Daniel Defoe flanked by a guard of sixteen gentlemen of quality in case of any attempt to arrest him, presented a "Legion's Memorial" (of which he was tacitly understood to be the author) to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Robert Harley.
Kentish Petition of 1701 | Introduction
[I]t is expedient that new … regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same. Sugar Act Preamble, 1764
1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance | Constitutional Chronology
The emergence of petitioning during the reign of Edward I of England (1272-1307) contributed to beginnings of legislative power for the Parliament of England. Petitions became a common form of protest and request to the British House of Commons in the 18th and 19th centuries; one million petitions were submitted to the UK's parliament between 1780 and 1918. The largest was the Great/People's Charter, or petition of the Chartists.
Petition | Early history
It was repealed by section 40(3) of, and Schedule 3 to, the Public Order Act 1986.
Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 | Introduction
In "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), the first case in which the right to assembly was before the Supreme Court, the court broadly declared the outlines of the right of assembly and its connection to the right of petition: The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution | Petition and assembly
1628: English Petition of Rights By the laws of England, subjects should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or any like charge not set by common consent in parliament. 1683: New York Charter of Liberties and Privileges Noe aid, Tax, Tallage, Assessment, Custome, Loane, Benevolence or Imposicion whatsoever shall be laid assessed imposed or levyed on any of his Majestyes Subjects … or their Estates … but by the act and Consent of the Governour Councell and Representatives of the people in Generall Assembly … 1689: English Bill of Rights … levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretense of prerogative, without grant of parliament … is illegal.
1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance | Formal Assertions of "No Taxation without Representation"
The Petition to the King was a petition sent to King George III by the First Continental Congress in 1774, calling for repeal of the Intolerable Acts.
Petition to the King | Introduction
The petitioners thus raise the questions on: (1) Whether the resort to certiorari and prohibition was the proper remedy; (2) Whether the petitioners have legal standing to assail Resolution 8678; and, (3) Whether applying the resign-to-run rule to appointive officials and not to elective ones violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Quinto v. COMELEC | The assailed Comelec Resolution
Petitions for freedom were lawsuits filed by enslaved persons against slaveholders asserting their right to freedom. The right to petition for freedom descended from English common law and allowed people to challenge their enslavement or indenture. While some cases were tried during the colonial period, the majority of petitions for freedom were heard during the antebellum period. Petitioners used a variety of arguments to obtain their freedom.
Freedom suit | Arguments for freedom
Even though defendants employed deceptive and unethical means, the Supreme Court held that they were still immune. This is because the Sherman Act is designed to control "business activity" and not "political activity." With this underpinning, the Court stated, "[Because] the right of petition is one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, . . . we cannot, of course, lightly impute to Congress an intent to invade these freedoms." The antitrust laws were enacted to regulate private business and do not abrogate the right to petition.
Noerr–Pennington doctrine | Doctrine
Magna Carta Petition of Right English Bill of Rights
Outline of government | Landmark English Documents
And "if . . . conduct constitutes valid petitioning, the petitioner is immune from antitrust liability whether or not the injuries are caused by the act of petitioning or are caused by government action which results from the petitioning."
Noerr–Pennington doctrine | Origins
Your Petitioner humbly prayeth that he may be restored to the possession of the said lands enjoyed by his predecessor, and kept in the same, till the said Sir Edward Bagshaw shall show reason to the contrary to this Board."
Fartrin | History
1768: Petition to the King … ancient and inestimable right of being governed by such Laws only, respecting their internal Polity and Taxation, as are derived from their own Consent with the approbation of their Sovereign … … Memorial to the House of Lords … no Power on Earth has a Right to impose Taxes upon the People … without their Consent, given by their Representatives in Parliament … … Remonstrance to the House of Commons … the common unquestionable Rights of British Subjects, who, by a fundamental and vital Principle of their Constitution, cannot be subjected to any Kind of Taxation … without their Consent given by their Representatives in Parliament … 1774: Jefferson's … Rights of British America … Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own.
1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance | Formal Assertions of "No Taxation without Representation"
The Court also found that the State's evidence of fraud in certain petition efforts did not establish the fraud was caused by the method of payment to circulators. Thus, the Court held that the statute did not justify the burden placed on the initiative proponents' core political speech rights.
Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters | Procedural posture and actions
He coined the phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty", insisting that defendants' accusers and their evidence be thoroughly tested in court. Major constitutional documents include: Magna Carta (foundation of the "great writ" "Habeas corpus"—safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action), the Bill of Rights 1689 (one provision granting freedom of speech in Parliament), Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty". A strong advocate of the "unwritten constitution", Dicey stated English rights were embedded in English common law, and "the institutions and manners of the nation".
Culture of England | The law
The authors acknowledge how the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, with its "paternal solicitude", makes it so that "the poor villager is no longer obliged to grovel before the proud seigneur of his parish; the unfortunate vassal can halt in his tracks the impetuous boar that piteously ravaged his crops; the timid soldier dares to complain when he is run down by the splendid coach of the superb publican; the modest priest can sit down in ease at the table of his most illustrious and most reverend superior; . . . the black African will no longer find himself compared to a stupid animal which, goaded by the prod of a fierce driver, irrigates our furrows with his sweat and blood." However, they were angered that women would be left out of being given rights and being able to partake in the reshaping of their country.
Women's Petition to the National Assembly | The petition
The petitioners argument for relief revolved around three primary points.
Agostini v. Felton | Arguments
The petition of the three colonels or The Humble Petition of Several Colonels of the Army was a document of the English Interregnum. Written by the Republican agitator John Wildman in the name of John Okey, Thomas Saunders, and Matthew Alured—three colonels in the New Model Army—it criticised Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate, called for the institution of the Council of Officers' Agreement of the People of December 1648 and was circulated in the army during 1654. On 18 October that year, after the petition had been ceased and the three officers arrested, John Wildman published it . Okey was court-martialled, found not guilty of treason, and set free once he resigned his commission.
Petition of the three colonels | Introduction
Several more active members of the opposition were imprisoned, which caused outrage; one, John Eliot, subsequently died in prison and came to be seen as a martyr for the rights of Parliament.
English Civil War | Parliamentary concerns and the Petition of Right
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court involving the right to make petitions to the government. The right to petition is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This case involved an accusation that one group of companies was using state and federal regulatory actions to eliminate competitors. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to petition is integral to the legal system but using lawful means to achieve unlawful restraint of trade is not protected.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited | Introduction
The doctrine was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in "Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc." and "United Mine Workers v. Pennington". The Court later expanded on the doctrine in "California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited". In "Noerr", the Court held that "no violation of the [Sherman] Act can be predicated upon mere attempts to influence the passage or enforcement of laws". Similarly, the Court wrote in "Pennington" that "[j]oint efforts to influence public officials do not violate the antitrust laws even though intended to eliminate competition." Finally, in "California Motor Transport", the Court added that "the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government [and] [t]he right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." Pursuant to this doctrine, immunity extends to attempts to petition all departments of the government.
Noerr–Pennington doctrine | Origins
In answer, John Marshall advanced his view with a petition from the freeholders of Richmond which observed that, "Virtue, intelligence, are not among the products of the soil. Attachment to [slave] property, often a sordid sentiment, is not to be confounded with the sacred flame of patriots." Any white male who had served in the War of 1812 or who would serve in the militia in their future defense of the country deserved the right to vote.
Virginia Conventions | Constitutional Convention of 1829–1830
The Petition Clause protects the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances". The right expanded over the years: "It is no longer confined to demands for 'a redress of grievances', in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters." The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances therefore includes the right to communicate with government officials, lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits with a legal basis.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution | Petition and assembly
On the other hand, the petitioner may be complaining against the law it to "... make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances". A petitioner need not seek a change to an existing law. Often, petitioners speak against (or in support of) legislative proposals as these progress.
Petitioner | To the government
Modern notions of political independence and citizens' rights descend from the 1689 English Bill of Rights. "No taxation without representation" comes from its fourth provision. This English Bill of Rights was not the first such manifesto. In 1683, the Assembly of New York had passed a similar Charter of Liberties and Privileges asserting that "supreme legislative power should forever be and reside in the Governor, council and people, met in general assembly", and enumerated citizen's rights—taxation voted only by citizen's representatives, trial by peers, exemption from martial law and quartering of soldiers, and religious toleration. After his 1748 visit to New York, Massachusetts Governor William Shirley wrote of the New York Assembly, "They seem to have left scarcely any part of His Majesty's prerogative untouched, and they have gone great lengths toward getting the Government, military as well as civil, into their hands." However New England historians ignored this beginning of constitutional politics, which came from a Dutch colony, even as they trumpeted Boston actions that imitated, half a century later, what had already been accomplished in New York.
1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance | Constitutional Chronology
A petition of right was available: Where the Crown was in possession of the property of the applicant, and the title of the Crown appeared by record, as by inquest of office, the remedy was somewhat different and was called monstrans de droit. Petition of right was not available in respect of engagements in the naval, military or civil service, which, were not generally considered as contracts of employment but as appointments enjoyed "during the pleasure" of the Crown. This relationship based on the royal prerogative only ended in 1996. Nor was the action available for breach of public duty, "e.g." a failure to perform treaty obligations, nor for trespass or negligence or other torts by Crown servants.
Petition of right | Claims allowed
In 2002, Justice Hodges wrote the majority opinion for Initiative Petition No. 366, which would have required that all official state business be conducted only in English. If passed at a general election, it would have banned using "...state money from being spent on translations for public documents or providing services in a different language." The majority opinion rejected the petition as an unconstitutional limitation on freedom of speech as well as infringing the rights of non English speaking citizens to interact with their government. As stated in Hodges' written opinion, "Restricting all governmental communications to English prevents citizens who are of limited English proficiency from effectively communicating with their government." The proposed initiative could not be put on the general election ballot.
Ralph B. Hodges | "English-only petition"
The speeches of Sir William Meredith and Sir George Savile in favour of the petition were reported by Furneaux from memory. In the course of the debate the remark was made by Lord North, who opposed the petition, that if similar relief were asked by the dissenting clergy there would be no reasonable objection to it. Acting on this hint Furneaux and Pickard called a meeting of nonconformist ministers of the three denominations, who adopted an application to Parliament (prepared by Furneaux) for relief from doctrinal subscription. A relief bill passed the Commons on 3 April 1772 without a division; on 18 May it was rejected in the Lords.
Philip Furneaux | Activist
The writ of "habeas corpus" shall be granted as of right in all cases in which a discretion is not especially conferred upon the court by the legislature; but the legislature may prescribe forms of proceeding preliminary to the obtaining of the writ.
Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1853 | Proposition Number Two
Supporting Bradlaugh were William Ewart Gladstone, T. P. O'Connor and George Bernard Shaw as well as hundreds of thousands of people who signed a public petition. Opposing his right to sit were the Conservative Party, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other leading figures in the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church.
Charles Bradlaugh | Imprisonment
On January 19, 1775, the petition was presented to the House of Commons by Lord North, and was also presented to the House of Lords the following day. Because the petition was intermingled with many other documents, and given the increasing turmoil of the times, little attention was given to the petition by Parliament. Likewise, the King never gave the Colonies a formal reply to their petition.
Petition to the King | Response
Law Proposed by Initiative Petition - The proposed law would provide a system of voter registration by mail applicable to all qualified voters and would eliminate statutory provisions permitting certain persons to vote only for presidential electors.
1986 Massachusetts general election | Question 6
In answer, John Marshall advanced his view with a petition from the freeholders of Richmond which observed that, "Virtue, intelligence, are not among the products of the soil. Attachment to [slave] property, often a sordid sentiment, is not to be confounded with the sacred flame of patriots." Any white male who had served in the War of 1812 or who would serve in the militia in there future defense of the country deserved the right to vote. Abel P. Upshur, a judge on the Virginia General Court, spoke for conservatives when he asserted that there "is a majority of interest as well as a majority in number".
Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829–1830 | Meeting and debate
A petition in Jane's name was sent to Henry VII's first Parliament in December of 1485. The petition probably did not come directly from Jane herself as she was still in her captors' hands. It sought an order that Jane be returned to Morley within six days of the order being made, that the Willoughbys be remanded without bail and tried for the alleged felonies of ravishment and robbery at the next session of the King's Bench, that they receive a felon's sentence if found guilty, and that Jane's right to sue for trespass, false imprisonment, robbery and rape also be preserved.
Jane Statham | Parliamentary petition and legal reform
By the 1760s, English law recognized what William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" called "the law of redress against public oppression". Like the natural law’s right of revolution, this constitutional law of redress justified the people resisting the sovereign. This law of redress arose from a contract between the people and the king to preserve the public welfare. This original contract was "a central dogma in English and British constitutional law" since "time immemorial". The Declaration’s long list of grievances declared that this bargain had been breached. This well-accepted law of redress justified a people resisting unconstitutional acts of government.
Right of revolution | Natural law or positive law
Isaacs J gave a concurring judgment setting out his own reasons, in which he similarly emphasised the requirement of section 7 that the senators be directly chosen by the people, stating this was "more than a mere direction, more even than a simple mandate as to the mode of election; it describes the composition of the Houses themselves, so as to express the essential nature of these branches of the Parliament. Nothing could be more fundamental than the directly elective character of the two Houses."
Blundell v Vardon | Petition referred to the High Court
The law of South Dakota prohibits sex offenders from circulating petitions, carrying a maximum potential sentence of one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Circulation of a petition by a prisoner in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is a prohibited act under , and is punishable by solitary confinement. The term "Petition" as used in both of these regulations is restricted to those petitions which are directed at the executive or legislative branches of government, and does not include documents filed in a court of law, which are also referred to as "petitions", such as petitions for coram nobis, mandamus, habeas corpus, prohibition, and certiorari, among others.
Right to petition in the United States | Restrictions
Justice Kennedy defended the historical comparison of the cause of action to the "suits at common law" available in 1791. He felt that to expand the right beyond what was available to plaintiffs at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights was nothing more than rewriting the Constitution, stating "[w]e cannot preserve a right existing in 1791 unless we look to history to identify it."
Chauffeurs, Teamsters, &amp; Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry | Dissent
Some countries like the United Kingdom have no entrenched document setting out fundamental rights; in those jurisdictions the constitution is composed of statute, case law and convention. A case named "Entick v. Carrington" is a constitutional principle deriving from the common law. John Entick's house was searched and ransacked by Sherriff Carrington. Carrington argued that a warrant from a Government minister, the Earl of Halifax was valid authority, even though there was no statutory provision or court order for it. The court, led by Lord Camden stated that, "The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property.
Constitutional law | Human rights
But in contrast, other states dispensed with the onerous preconditions on the exercise of the right. In the 1776 Virginia constitution the right would arise simply if government was "inadequate" and Pennsylvania's 1776 constitution required only that the people considered a change to be "most conducive" to the public welfare.
Right of revolution | During the American Revolution
The victim is then told to file "pro se" in court and deny that anyone helped prepare the documents.
Petition mill | Introduction
In 1628, Wentworth was one of the more vocal supporters of the Petition of Right, which attempted to curb the power of the King. Once Charles had grudgingly accepted the Petition, Wentworth felt it appropriate to support the crown, saying, "The authority of a king is the keystone which closeth up the arch of order and government". He was consequently branded a turncoat. In the parliament of 1628, Wentworth joined the popular leaders in resistance to arbitrary taxation and imprisonment, but tried to obtain his goal without offending the Crown. He led the movement for a bill which would have secured the liberties of the subject as completely as the Petition of Right afterwards did, but in a manner less offensive to the King.
Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford | The Petition of Right and its aftermath
Petitioners were found guilty by the trial court and the decision was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari, but limited it to whether section two or three of the Smith Act violated the First Amendment and whether the same two sections violated the First and Fifth Amendments because of indefiniteness. George W. Crockett, Jr., Abraham J. Isserman and Harry Sacher argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the brief was Richard Gladstein. Solicitor General Philip B. Perlman and Irving S. Shapiro argued the cause for the United States. With them on the brief were U.S.
Dennis v. United States | Appeal
The Act applied to any liberty that possessed a separate commission of the peace, be they divisions of a county, counties of a town or city or sokes. The justices of the peace of any liberty, or of any county in which a liberty lay, were given the right to prepare a petition seeking the union of the liberty with the county. Notice of the resolution to prepare the petition was to be published for three successive weeks in both a London newspaper and one circulating in the county involved. The petition was to lay out the reasons for the proposed union, and to set out in detail the arrangements for taking over the property of the liberty, and the payments to be made, or continued employment by the county of those holding franchise or office in the liberty.
Liberties Act 1850 | The Act
Members of the group were unable to obtain bank loans and contracts. Suharto remarked: "I didn't like what the so-called Petition of Fifty did. I didn't like their methods, even more so because they called themselves patriots".
Petition of Fifty | Government response
After the first representative English parliament in 1265, the emergence of petitioning in the 13th century is some of the earliest evidence of parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people. During the early 17th century, the Petition of Right 1628 reasserted the values of the Magna Carta against King Charles I. The idea of freely debating rights to political representation took form during the Putney Debates of 1647. After the English Civil War the Bill of Rights 1689 in England and Wales, and the Claim of Rights Act 1689 in Scotland, enshrined principles of representative democracy, no tax without Parliament, freedom of speech in Parliament, and no "cruel and unusual punishment".
Human rights in the United Kingdom | History
Public functionaries and employees will respect the public exercise to their right to petition, as long as it is formulated in writing, in a peaceful and respectful manner. In political petitioning, only citizens of the republic have this right.
Constitution of Mexico | Article 8
The Declaration of Right, or Declaration of Rights, is a document produced by the English Parliament, following the 1688 Glorious Revolution. It set outs the wrongs committed by the exiled James II, the rights of English citizens, and the obligation of their monarch. On 13 February 1689, it was read out to James' daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange, when they were jointly offered the throne, although not made a condition of acceptance. The Declaration itself was a tactical compromise between Whig and Tories; it established grievances, without agreeing their cause, or solution.
Declaration of Right, 1689 | Introduction
The basis of the petition was that all the money had been left to charity although at the time the will was written Joanne was not born. Rhodes found that any monies left over from the charitable purposes should be given to Joanne Lister although the chaitiable purposes should continue.
John Maynard (politician) | Education
He stated that it was unlikely to receive enough signatures, but might convince the President to refer the bill to the Supreme Court under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Ordinary referendum | Mooted petitions