Opinion ID: 848785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: michigan's petition clause

Text: While I recognize the principles underlying, and the historical significance of, the Petition Clause, as outlined by Justice Young in his concurring opinion, I am reluctant to question the wisdom of the United States Supreme Court in interpreting the federal constitution. However, on the basis of the principles noted in Justice Young's concurring opinion, I think the bench and bar in this state would benefit from a thorough analysis of the protections afforded petitioners under the Michigan Constitution. Because this Court was not presented with such an analysis, I would request additional briefing from the parties. Notably, the structure of Const 1963 differs from the federal constitution. Each right included in the federal constitution's First Amendment is expressed as a separate clause in Const. 1963, art. 1, the Declaration of Rights. Const. 1963, art. 1, in pertinent part, provides: Sec 2. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. Sec 3. The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Sec. 4. Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.... Sec. 5. Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. By contrast, the First Amendment to the federal constitution provides: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [US Const., Am. I.] Because McDonald's determination that the rights to free speech and free press and the right to petition were inseparable was based on the structure of the Petition Clause, and because the structure of Michigan's Petition Clause is decidedly different from the federal clause, I would inquire whether the framers of the Michigan Constitution intended to afford greater protection to petitioners by creating a distinct clause. Because this issue was not briefed by the parties, and, thus, is not properly before the Court, I would ask the parties for further briefing on the issue.