# The American Democrat/On the Right of Petition

ON THE RIGHT OF PETITION.
The right of petition is guarantied to the American citizen by an amendment to the constitution, made in 1801. By this clause, congress is prohibited from passing any law to prevent the people from peaceably assembling, in order to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This prohibition, like those on the subjects of the liberty of the press, liberty of speech and liberty of conscience, was perfectly supererogatory, the states having conceded to congress no authority to pass any law to the contrary. It is understood that all these provisions were introduced through the influence of Mr. Jefferson, who was desirous that the constitution should exhibit on its face, what might be termed its profession of political faith, since foreigners did not comprehend the negative restrictions on the power of the federal government, that grow out of the fact of its being purely a government of deputed and defined authority.
The right of petition is by no means an important political right in this country, where the constituents hold so strong a check on their representatives, and where no important laws can long exist without their approbation. In countries in which the people cannot assemble to cause publick opinion to act on their rulers, and in which the great majority are disfranchised, or never possessed a vote, the right of petition is an all important right. Men confound the characters of the institutions of different nations, when they ascribe the same importance to it here.
​Although the people have a right to petition, congress is not bound to waste its time in listening to and in discussing the matter of petitions, on the merits of which that body has already decided. A discretionary power rests in congress to receive, or to reject a petition, at pleasure, the right going no farther than the assembling and petitioning; else would it be in the power of a small proportion of the people to occupy all the time of the national legislature on vexatious and useless questions.
A state has no right to petition congress at all. The legislature of a state has its limited powers as well as congress, and, did the constitution of a particular state include this among the other powers of its legislature, the governing principle of the federal constitution is opposed to it. The right of petition as claimed by a state can do no legitimate good, and may lead to much evil, as a brief examination will show. The federal government acts directly on the people, through agents of its own; for whenever it accepts the agency of a state, the agents of that state are in effect the agents of the general government. Now, the representation in one body of congress, is not a state representation, but it is a representation founded on numbers. As a state, if possessing authority to petition, one state ought to have the weight of another, whereas, in congress, one state has much more influence than another, as the following example will show. The senators of fourteen states may vote for the passage, or the repeal of a law, under the influence of petitions from their several state legislatures, and yet the veto of the representatives of the remaining twelve states shall defeat the measure in the other house. It follows that the states, purely as states, are not so strictly constituents of congress as to claim a right to petition. The danger of the practice is derived from ​the tendency of creating local feelings, through the agency of the local governments, and of thus endangering the peace of the Union.
It would be difficult to show that a state has more right to petition congress, than congress has to petition a state. This interference of the different parts of a complicated and nicely balanced machine, might derange its entire movement.