Talk:Right to petition in the United States

A fact from Right to petition in the United States appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the right to petition in the United States required the 1844 rescinding of a gag rule prohibiting discussion of abolitionist petitions in the House of Representatives?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/December.

Wikipedia

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Broken links/referances[edit]

The first one is broken.--Hodeken (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is misleading and not with full disclosure...the "secrecy"_ thereto " trusteeship*"__dictate regulations, and it unfair practices to society thereto complaint cases and process... Remedy is being held hostage, under Federal terms and "subject mattets" forms". Remedy is nonexistent in USA because of unvoluntary agreement and commerce... I protest and disagree with the remedy process "orders", continue to dispute" matters in details and display under "petitioner" admission. Tiadhue (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing: The distinction between petitioning and lobbying[edit]

The founders made a huge distinction between petitioning and lobbying. Petitioning was a right. Lobbying was corruption.

Petitioning is communicating directly with the people you vote for. Lobbying is when a paid professional, such as a fancy lawyer or a retired judge or public official, lobbies on someone's behalf. To the founders, this was a completely taboo practice. Using some wealthy or famous person's reputation to sway public officials was seen as completely corrupt. See this article: https://priceonomics.com/when-lobbying-was-illegal/

After several decades with no lobbying, America had largely forgotten about its evils. After 80 years, the Civil War was such a traumatic event that it put the nail in the coffin of many assumed bits of history. If you look at the Wikipedia article on the history of US lobbying, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lobbying_in_the_United_States , it doesn't start till after the Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyastr (talk • contribs) 04:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusionary Clauses. When politicians constrain the right of redress to ANY citizen, knowingly and willingly, by blocking access to the established right of redress of our government they violate the Constitution as well the spirit of America. I have very limited knowledge regarding the frequency of the application of these illegal clauses in legislation however, if even only ONE citizen is denied this right, we all suffer.one need to end. To date the most egregious[edit]

Ban the legislative use of Exclusionary Clauses, at every turn. 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:4D (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]