Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Petitioning Congress, Restoring a Basic Constitutional Right

Petitioning Congress, Restoring a Basic Constitutional Right

A person signing papers.

Pexels, Cytonn Photography

Now and then, like an old but long-forgotten friend, something we once valued greatly involuntarily comes to mind, reminding us how much we have changed. So, it is with our right to petition the members of Congress.

Lest we forget…American colonists went to war to preserve their ability to complain to their government. In 1775, members of the Second Continental Congress sent George III a petition, asking that they be allowed to negotiate with him in order to avoid conflict. As British subjects, they could expect this appeal would reach the king as petitioning had been granted by the English monarchy for nearly a century. But, George flatly refused to accept the colonists’ plea, dismissively branding them as traitors. Largely out of frustration with this response, the assembled legislators voted to declare the colonies’ independence and settle this issue on the battlefield. Thus, not surprisingly, when the Bill of Rights was drafted after the Revolution, petitioning the government was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental right that could never be “abridged.”


Fast forward to the 1990s: email was becoming widely used and members of Congress were wary about how they would be able to deal with this new means of communication. Their staff was already swamped by the daily avalanche of letters and the legislators could not see how they could manage a much greater deluge, arriving through the Internet. So, quietly, without putting this policy into law, the lawmakers changed the rules for corresponding with them: henceforth, only mail from constituents would be accepted. Inquiries, comments, suggestions, and criticism from persons residing outside their Congressional districts and (for Senators) states would be refused. Ironically, members of the U.S. Congress took their stand on the side of George III.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Today, petitioning any and all members of Congress remains an inconvenient, neglected right. While it is unequivocally affirmed in our Constitution (as a “cognate” right, promoting democracy) and unambiguously protected by federal law, the scope of petitioning has been greatly reduced: out of 535 members of the legislative branch, you and I have access only to three—our two Senators and one member of the House. (Groups can still send petitions to all legislators: it’s only individuals who are so limited.) As far as I know, over the past 30 years, not a single member of Congress has argued that this residency requirement is unconstitutional, let alone proposing to get rid of it. (When you hear a lawmaker suggest “Write to your Congressman,” he is really telling you that your opinion doesn’t matter to him.) Meanwhile, lobbyists, special-interest groups, and—of course—donors face no such barriers. Money and powerful influence can flow uninterrupted across district and state lines, while ordinary citizen mail cannot.

What is to be done about this unlawful practice that is so inimical to engaging ordinary Americans with the legislative process? (Public opinion polls indicate that the perceived indifference of lawmakers to public interests is making Congress increasingly unpopular.) If members of the House and Senate violate the Constitution, we, logically, might seek a remedy in the courts, but there’s no sympathetic ear there either. Recently, a case that I had brought in Connecticut, challenging petition restrictions, was dismissed by a district court judge on the grounds that Congressional communications are a “legislative activity,” and, as such, enjoy “absolute immunity” from judicial review. And Congress, well…that’s the door that’s already tightly shut.

It seems that our best hope lies with technology. In the age of AI, arguments about Congressional offices being overwhelmed by mass mailings no longer hold any water. They can no longer justify limitations on restricting public access. To drive home this point and convince Congress to change its ways, citizens will need to make use of the petition itself—by organizing a massive grassroots campaign to advocate for the restoration of this once sacred, inviolable, and unrestricted right. Petitioning is as important nowadays as the Founders intended it to be, not as George III wanted it to be.

John V. H. Dippel, an independent historian, has written several books on various topics in modern American and European history. In the late 1960s, he successfully petitioned several Senators to take up the cause of increasing First Amendment rights for members of the U.S. military. He welcomes the chance to lay out the case for doing so now through The Fulcrum.

Read More

The Department of Education must stay: Knowledge is for all

A teacher helping students with schoolwork.

Getty Images, LWA/Dann Tardif

The Department of Education must stay: Knowledge is for all

The U.S. Congress recently confirmed Linda McMahon as Secretary of the Department of Education (DOE), on the same day that teacher unions across the country initiated “clap ins” at the start of the school day to applaud students and protest budget cuts President Donald Trump has made to the DOE.

With more than $1 billion in cuts of contracts, layoffs, and recent offers to pay DOE employees approximately $25,000 to quit, the efforts to dismantle the department, which sets policies, manages programs, and coordinates federal assistance for schooling is devastating.

Keep ReadingShow less
American Democracy Has Been Caught in the Partisan Crossfire

Red and blue strings knotted up.

Getty Images, MirageC

American Democracy Has Been Caught in the Partisan Crossfire

As democracy advocates and concerned citizens resist the erosion of norms and institutions during a second Trump administration, we must remember that our democracy is already in a state of crisis! This crisis has seen our Freedom House rating drop more than 10 points in the last decade. According to this measure of political rights and civil liberties, our peers were once countries like France and Germany, but now we find ourselves ranked just below Argentina and Mongolia.

Mass Partisanship and Elite Power-Seeking: A Dangerous Combination

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Ukraine-Russia Ceasefire

Ukraine map and Russian and Ukrainian flags

Getty Images/chibosaigon

Just the Facts: Ukraine-Russia Ceasefire

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What is the status of the March 11, 2025 Ukraine-Russia ceasefire proposal?

As of March 11, 2025, Ukraine has officially accepted a U.S.-proposed, immediate 30-day ceasefire in its conflict with Russia, contingent upon Russia's reciprocal agreement. The United States has lifted previous restrictions on military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine that were imposed eight days ago.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the 2024 Election: A Call to Action for Inclusive Democracy
Charles F. Kettering Foundation

Understanding the 2024 Election: A Call to Action for Inclusive Democracy

As a Black American woman and an educator, I am compelled to examine the forces that led to Donald Trump’s 2024 victory and its impact on our increasingly multiracial democracy. Democracy—derived from the Greek word demokratia, meaning “rule by the people”—is now under attack. With a deep sense of historical awareness, moral clarity, and an unwavering commitment to justice, I must underscore that democracy, as we have long understood it, is not just a system of governance. Democracy is a promise: a promise that every voice matters, that justice is not reserved for the “few” or the privileged, and that freedom is not a selective right. In this moment, the promise is being rewritten and redefined in ways that exclude rather than include and that silence rather than empower.

Attacks on Diversity and Inclusion

Keep ReadingShow less