WHATS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR OPINIONS; THE SUBSTANCE! SO OUR PETITION RIGHT IS BEING PETITIONED FOR IN THE US HOUSE AND SENATE.
- Feb 27
- 21 min read
ON 7/15/2026 the following petition asking the House to create a petition submission, signing and discourse forum (similar to Obamas We The People), But with a duty to respond to the petitions (similar to numerous representative governments around the world; listed later.)
Why? BECAUSE THE SUBSTANCE OF A COMMUNICATION IS WHAT MATTERS! Not its title, not the feelings the subject evokes, the only way to make an informed decision is based off of critical thinking and principles.
SO WHERE THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT WAS FIRST EARNED BY rebellion
against King John of England, In 1215 Britan a group of Barrons marched to London, the King retreated to his Castle and was demanded to sign the Magna Carta. The King went to the Pope, He declared it void, War ensued and after revisions and conflict... Later the English bill of rights (1689) similar right to petition, more battles... American rev...
..THE HISTORY IS SIMPLE PRINCIPLE!
The right to petition government is a right to a permanent public record to act as a check and balance system on government.
If your confused or question the right, keep reading
That brings us to the present, and the several failings of principle. So Congress is being petitioned..
So knowing that most emails, letters and calls to our elect dont get real responses.. This aint the first campaign I worked... I decided to contact the Clerk of the House, Because if you want to get a petition to the entire House (or Senate) its the best option...
Pressuring your local elect to submit the petition is an option, but you face the dangers of royal retaliations of social and actual damages to deter simply presenting your issues and belief, if it does not align with their party or persona stances..
[ Heres there info for the House rules: to be inserted later ]]
Its often our only option if your current ballot marks or petitioned positions dont match your congressional districts electorate... or if an election is close and the matters are not safe to ensure a continuation of their seat control..
In these instances and others, Its the only way to get the message presented and recorded.
So the current practice of the Congress is simply unacceptable, it fails the principles of checks and balances on representative government; it fails the principle of open government that a government of the people requires to make informed decisions about the country, the laws and the decisions to keep or elect new representatives.
If you don't have the info to confirm research, do independent research or perform critical thinking.. They how can you make informed decisions when voting..
So in advancing the principle and practice that Obama introduced based on the practice of numerous nations.. and based on their models, I am asking you recognize, support and help by offering your own additional thoughts and
the principles and modern practice of petitioning that has evolved over several hundred years of struggle.
Which brings us to the present and the petition to Congress,
Because i believe the current practice fails, I decided to submit this petition directly to the Clerk of the House; because I believe (and can show, and will show, but its a long article) the right to petition is every citizen having at a minimum their petitions recorded.
Not simply a title and a summary, but the entire document....
So I thought that I would allow the House Clerk to say what they believe the Constitutional duty is [The Office generally informed me that citizen petitions could be submitted directly to the clerks office for submission to the Speaker for approval in the journal, I will put a link to the Youtubes/Rumbles/?? once they have been uploaded]
So I provided the following petition; I have repeatedly contacted to confirm receipt and am awaiting to see what their reply is. [as of 7/17/2026
If they refuse to submit this to the Speakers Office; then a civil suit will be filed against the Head House clerk and all staff involved. However I believe the Clerk will do his research and see a duty to submit the petition as part of the House Journal (I could be mistaken, and I dont want to give you misguided wishing conveyances, so expect it will be pursued either way). Once the petition has been submitted to the House or denied the next step is to petition for the right to have Petitions published in their entirety [ Here is a link to that petition{{insert link}}]
While not every specific is detailed and some information is left unprovided; While an understanding of the intent is believed clearly conveyed, specifics that might cause conflict before a general agreement has been obtained, did not seem like a wise idea.
Where the creation of this right always allows for improvements to be made, a denial prevents any type of check and balance by the people who dont currently have the power (though the right is believed to exist constitutional in principle).
So without any more explanation needed (if you need further explanation, use the contact info and a further explanation will be written and linked here).
The petition provided:
============================================================================================
Page 1
TO THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
A PETITION BY NICHOLAS WOODALL FOR THE CREATION OF A CONGRESSIONAL WEBSITE HOSTING PETITIONS TO CONGRESS, SIGNATURES IN SUPPORT
AND A DUTY TO RESPOND
The following petition asks you create a formal duty of petition reply for the US Congress (House) by creating:
1. A website that hosts citizen petitions;
2. Allows citizens to sign support for petitions;
3. Upon petitions meeting a signature quota congress is required to respond;
4. A higher signature count results in a Congressional hearing where the petitioners present data and perspectives.
Similar to Obamas "We the people" but with responses and formal hearing's as a binding duty of this House; to address a minimum number of petitions each year.
This type of government engagement with the people is the current petition practice of Germany, Scotland, UK, E.U. and New Zealand among others. Like all other practices of representative government and its fundamental principles, I believe the USA can do it better. That the advancement of civility is done by increasing healthy discourse (in matters of governance). That we can improve our condition and the general state of mind thru discussing barriers and paths to improvements or reaching to the roots of the issues and seeking resolution. A petition program will imbue the people with an ability to interact with and discuss the matters our nation faces beyond the current mediated form of communications. People familiar with the issues often possess knowledge, information and a collective ability and desire to present perspectives that paid personalities and restricted environments do not. This program fills a void that news, press releases, and constituent emails can not.
Not every issue will be resolved as desired, but National understanding and respect can be improved. That is where our representative governments potential is greatest, when the people are in a unanimous agreement and genuine respect. A petition program among other potentials encourages greater community understanding by addressing issues and petitioners directly. Which allows this body of representatives to lead by example, showcasing critical thinking and principles. Both strengthening and building support for good positions while exposing the flaws of bad ones. Two different programs are petitioned for, Both perceivably posses the potential to reduce the repetitive task workload of all congressional staffers and members freeing up time and resources to achieve more.
This House and its members are requested to state any positions or desired info and show of support required before devoting further time to discussion, research and drafting to create: House, Senate, Congressional rules and National Law to modernize, increase and return the petition practice to its historical colonial and early federal principles of highly responsive government and public inclusion in the law making process.
end of Page 1
============================================================================================
Page 2
THE SPECIFIC PETITION PROGRAM DETAILS STARTS ON THE TOP OF PAGE 5
APPENDIX
PAGE 3:
BRIEF HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL PETITIONING ;
THE PAST TO THE PRESENT ISSUE OF PETITIONING AND COMMUNICATING ;
CURRENT PETITIONING; WITHHOLDING INFORMATION AND REPETITIVE WORK ;
PAGE 4:
THE SOLUTION IS TO PUBLISH THE PETITIONS; ALLOW CITIZENS TO SHOW THEIR
SUPPORT AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES ;
PAGE 5:
THE TWO VERSIONS ;
COSTS ;
THE COMMITTEE ;
THE PANEL ;
ATTENDANCE ;
THE SIMPLE CORE LAW VERSION ;
PAGE 6:
THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT AND INCLUSIVE SUPPORT VERSION ;
THE GENERAL OPERATIONS OF THE SITE; PETITIONING, RESPONSES AND
HEARINGS ;
PAGE 8:
SITE OPERATION AND PETITION PRESERVATION ;
PAGE 9:
COMMUNITY FLAGGING AND SYSTEM ABUSE ;
CONCLUSION ;
PAGE 10:
PRACTICES OF OTHER NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS;
PAGE 13:
SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT WILD COST GUESTIMATE;
end of Page 2
============================================================================================
Page 3
The following pages contain brief history and general belief of what communications with congress actually consists of. The gap between what's communicated, what's desired from communications (substantive dialog) and where that desire to communicate collectively is not satisfied, but can be improved by this program.
BRIEF HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL PETITIONING
In the past US Congress has struggled with the question of their duty in regard to the petitions of Americans. Historically the practice of petitioning was a very responsive one, when the right to petition was debated [in the journals of the House] it was scarcely questioned as a duty to record, but the question was always if a duty to respond existed. This was brought up, when ability to do so seemed impossible and when Dixie Democrats didn't want to recognize the issues. House members once attempted to sort and respond to every petitioned issue they received [a review of House petition debates will show the practice was a House constant until the 1820-1830s gag rules1. a result of redirecting irrational ideology of the south. Their oppression failed and was debated again in the late 1870s (ish)1.]. But the House struggled with the founders intent to record and respond, debate or committee every petitioned matter. At the time there was a limited ability, private recorders wrote what "they could" and the petitions of veterans, widows, business entities and citizen organizations, cities and states making requests was argued as a struggle; not to address, but to simply record the petitions received.
Congress did affirm the duty to record petitions as a constitutional right, but it was never able to resolve how to uphold the practice of the founding fathers. They could not resolve how to remain as responsive as the first several congress'.
THE PAST TO THE PRESENT ISSUE OF PETITIONING AND COMMUNICATING
Where issues in the past were simpler, the first congress debated seemingly every petition, a petition title and summarized debate then may have been acceptably sufficient. But the data and theories of our modern era cover wide study areas that require transparency to properly inform the public of communications congress
receives and their responses. Now the people have no way of knowing if these communications and Congress' responses align with or understand our perspectives. This means the Nation is also limited in its ability to collectively and independently perform research and debate with the substance of the peoples communications
unknown. The power and work burden of the people is shifted to the government. The question then; is the Nations potential controlled by and limited to the direction and amount of work the government and elects can perform? Obviously it is...
CURRENT PETITIONING; WITHHOLDING INFORMATION AND REPETITIVE WORK
With computers and the Internet petitioning is now an informal part of constituent email services, But these are also now impossible to respond to. With the majority of the millions of email requests for acts of congress now being text(s) to individual members (staffers statements) this congress burdens itself with receipt and disposal of its largest source of "communications" with the people having no knowledge of them.
Congress is not giving (or seemingly capable of) summarized info about the general feelings of the people or the issues they most often mention. This by far the truest polling the nation could produce. Instead, staffers and AI sort the same issue from different districts never giving true assurance or able to talk thru the matters to understanding. When you do, its usually info to only constituents on the email list. An occasional news appearance that falls far short of a substantive conversation with the point or the opposition
[[[Footnote 1. Congressional petition debates and Colonial petitions recorded in courts dockets: An annotated bibliography with exact dates and summaries was created (for an unrelated matter) but its on a computer not currently available. Also unavailable are links to the texts in existence, But should you desire the materials in curiosity. Use the contact info.]]]
end of page 3
============================================================================================
Page 4
settled and dissuaded. Further these matters dont often (if ever) give responses and organize them in a way that answers the question as if the average voter and citizen had presented it. Even when you do address issues, town halls only address the support base. Only the district, and so despite the elect often having a similar positions.
The issues are asked repeatedly across the nations several House and Senate members. Meaning that the same work is repeated by nearly every member of Congress. The town halls, constituent emails and (local) news... But this burden of repeating your messages and constituents repeated similar questions, issues and frustrations is potentially reducible by a petitioning program. By responding to and discussing the most questioned and supported issues in a formal response or hearing. Once a petition is noticed, a Congressional member can simply add a section to their web page, then cite and state any deviation in opinions, perspectives or information. Even if the result is only a work shift away from issues emails and toward asserting positions on petitions, the latter should be a reduction in workload, a happier more informed constituent base with communications much simpler to sort and address, if needed.
When it comes to getting direct responses and have hearings regarding the petitions of the American people I think the vast majority of the nation would agree. The tool serves to better inform and educate the people and the government. The only relevant questions are feasibility (cost and ensuring the program does not hinder normal congressional operations) and; is the current petition practice inadequate and unacceptable for our modern representative government. Public petitioning by the people can and must be as accessible and transparent as is possible. Issues of great concern prioritized and publicized with easy access for the public view. Responses made as often as possible; especially when it exposes the shortcomings of our peoples and representatives. To do otherwise would be to allow ignorance and inadequacy to diminish our Nation. Reducing potential, prosperity, collective understanding and respect.
THE SOLUTION IS TO PUBLISH THE PETITIONS; ALLOW CITIZENS TO SHOW THEIR
SUPPORT AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES
So below your provided two framings for petitioning practices. One similar to the UK parliaments, the other to Germany's. Both create an on-line petitioning platform to ensure the congress (if you believe the program should be larger than the House) is responsive and transparent enough to inform the American people of their fellow
citizens needs, desires, recognize and discuss them in an open forum that serves to inform and educate the Nation as a whole. That alone should be reason for this congress in unanimous decision to support an online petition platform. //
end of page 4
============================================================================================
page 5
THE TWO VERISONS:
1. A simple core law version of an Online petition and signature submission site similar to the programs and sites of [UK, Welsh, Scotland, E.U., Canada, Finland, and New Zealand, etc. are linked on pages 10-12];
AND
2. A Substantive content version, an inclusive information and discussion focused model similar to [Germany's is linked on page 11]
=============================================================================
COSTS
The white house operation of "we the people" may inform you of operations costs, and the governments operating similar programs [pages 10-12 ] may have further info. But I imagine the largest costs to be site and hardware operation, with staff overlap from congressional site operations... Cost per American is likely under a dime for the simple version (See UK cost on page 10; under a quarter for the substantive (see hardware and staff guestimates on page 13), with potential to reduce every offices work load.
THE COMMITTEE
The House shall create a committee to oversee the site, rules and operations of the petitioning; For each petition reaching a signature quota, the committee shall select a panel by random drawing; [6] members of the House and [2] random members from the committees the petitions matter is most relevant to.
THE PANEL
(a)This panel shall produce either joint, group or individual responses (written or video) to a petition or schedule a hearing and notify the petitioner(s) and relevant parties. (b) The panel may perform any desired research using staff and willing members and staff. If research must be done, petitioner will be notified.
ATTENDANCE BY HOUSE MEMBERS
Any member of the congress may chose to decline panel participation (but a decline will be publicly recorded) Any member may join the panel in responses and hearings; but failure to attend without prompt notification for replacement and a valid reason of absence will result in a per member fine of [$1000] paid to the petitioner.
===============================================================================
THE SIMPLE CORE LAW VERSION:
A. The House shall maintain and operate a website that allows submission of citizen petitions to congress;
B. The site shall allow electronic anonymous submission of citizen signatures in support;
C. Upon the petition reaching a determined amount of signatures [50k? in 100 days] and [100k in 365days] the committee is notified and the petitioner is replied to by the house committee panel. If it reaches [500k? in 365 days] the panel performs and desired research and schedules a hearing consisting of the petitioner; the panel and any congressional members who wish to join. The House can limit the number of responses to [50] and hearings to [20] per year. A petitioner may wait to see if the petition qualifies for a hearing or request a response once the initial quota is met. If an unsatisfactory response is received the petitioner may elect for a hearing if the petition receives [1 m] signatures in a following 365 days. A matter petitioned must be responded to and/or
heard regardless of if the matter has passed to the senate. Matters believed to be outside the scope of legislative authority will not be required to be addressed, but may be disputed, and will not count towards the yearly quota.
=============================================================================== 5
end of Page 5
============================================================================================
Page 6
THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT AND INCLUSIVE SUPPORT VERSION:
The following is a much more inclusive discussion forum similar to Germany's petition website(s). In the event the House desires to attempt more. This version would come with higher costs, but the benefits of being aware of the needs, desires and perspectives of the American people serves to be more reliable and valuable than any of the polling provided to or performed by the members on their own.
This version would truly give every American an opportunity to present their perspective to the government and the people.
[bracketed numbers will generally need to be assessed based on information only congress has to determine proper signature amounts to prevent hindering congressional member normal workload]
THE GENERAL OPERATIONS OF THE SITE; PETITIONING, RESPONSES AND HEARINGS:
1. Creation of a US Congress web page that;
2. Verifies U.S. citizenship and allows submission and signing of petitions requesting acts by congress;
3. Citizens can submit three types of text's, (a) Original petitions; and
Attachment documents of two kinds; (b) A similar petition; and (c) An argument for or against;
4. (a) Petitioners will check the site for similars and note if they are filing an original or an attachment; (b) Site staff shall review all original petitions, perform a check for similars and notify petitioners of a duty to attach them to an original, Or approve the petition as an original for posting and deny any containing private identifiers or other banned or illegal content such as harassment, etc.; (decisions maybe appealed)
//
//
//
end of Page 6
============================================================================================
Page 7
5. (a) Attachment postings will not be reviewed by site staff, but a citizen review system will be used where attachments are (a1) voted up by signature showing argument support and allowing system sorting; and (a2) flagged for removal by site staff for site violations or illegal content;
6. The petitions and their attached will be considered pending for a period of [365] days from the originals posting date;
7. During the [365] days the petitions and attachments can be digitally signed;
Signatures to attachments in favor of an original; will be added to the original petitions signature count, a signer who signs an attachment will be counted as signing the original, but not be counted twice if they sign both;
8. (a) Once a petition including any attachments reaches [100k] signatures the petitioner will be notified and may opt to wait to see if the petition reaches hearing quota or request it be scheduled for response within [4 months] (responses can be from individual or groups of members or as a committee); (b) If a petition reaches [500k] signatures, the panel will notify the parties of any research being performed and upon
completion the petitioner(s) and any attachers will be scheduled for a hearing with the panel within [4 months], the panel members must attend the hearing and be responsive to questions asked a refusal to answer non privileged questions will result in the member being considered inexcusably absent and fined; (c) The petitioner(s) may bring up to 5 legal counsels, advocates, and witness attendees. They will be given
20 minutes to present; any attacher(s) petitioners receiving [100k] and opposition(s) petitioners receiving [200k] signatures may bring the same number of attendees and will be given 20 minutes to present support and 20 minutes to opposition; the times divided among the total number of parties to present [If the total number of parties in support or opposition exceed 10 an additional 2 minutes will be provided per party]; the
petitioners then given 10 minutes to address any attachers presentations, then congress shall respond and the petitioners given another 10 minutes to reply and close the hearing if congress has nothing further to add; [congress may submit all info and data they have based their positions on 30 days before the hearing and parties will submit all info and data they additionally obtain to support and inform of their positions within
15 days of the hearing; these are requests, not binding rules.]//
end of Page 7
============================================================================================
Page 8
9. (a)Any petition not reaching the response signature amount in a year can be renewed. (b) Any petition responded to but not acted on favorably with research and drafting can be re-newed and revised for a hearing if it reaches [750k] signatures in an additional [365] days from the date of denial, (c) Any matter heard but not acted on favorably can be re-newed and revised upon date of denial, but the signature amounts for renewed hearing will be an additional signature total count of [2] million signatures in the following 365 days, attachment requirements increased at the same rates, (d) petition signers and attachers will be notified by email when petitions are renewed and revised; (e) renewed petitions will not count towards the yearly quota, but may be caped at [5].
10. Petitioned matters not responded to and not renewed can be resubmitted at the close of the original. (b) Petitioned matters responded to can be resubmitted or submitted as a new matter every 730 days. (c) Petitioned matters heard can be resubmitted or submitted every 913 days. (d) These petitions will be treated as original
petitions;
SITE OPERATION AND PETITION PRESERVATION:
11. At the end of the petitions consideration period, all petitions and any similars and oppositions receiving [50k] signatures will be published in an official congressional pdf. secured using quantum resistant hash and submitted to the library of congress and national archives for safe keeping.
12. Petition submitters and signers may do so anonymously and the petitioners personal information (excluding necessary contact info) shall only be shared with the panel and congress on petitioner approval and never be shared with any other government agency or entity absent a criminal act and valid warrant. Any member of congress may obtain contact info for a petitioner or attacher.
13. The site will allow petitioners to submit up to 15k characters; attachers 2.5k characters but only text will be permitted. (meaning that links to data and support ideas should be perma linked); The site petitions and attachments will be searchable and sortable by number of signatures, support or oppose, date and have an option
to hide attachments flagged as irrelevant;
end of Page 8
============================================================================================
Page 9
COMMUNITY FLAGGING AND SYSTEM ABUSE
16. Excessive postings that do not offer a data or idea relevant to the petition may be citizen flagged. attachers attachments being moved to the bottom of search results; Attachers shall note if they are submitting data or/ and ideas relevant to the petitioned matter by checking a box; statements of support or opposition are not allowed and may be flagged as not an argument;
17. Abuse of the petition site by posting or performing illegal acts such as threats, harassment, intimidation, etc. can be greatly reduced by requiring every citizen use a user name and remain anonymous in the online process (choice to disclose offline, being personal choice). This should prevent the scenarios that elected officials are forced to deal with and reduce retaliation, safety and law enforcement issues.
CONCLUSION
There are unlimited variations that can be tried, starting small and testing whats possible. Just as there are unlimited responses that I can consider you giving. Without response, I can only imagine what they are.
So thank you for your time and if you can summarily respond with any concerns or requests you require to move forward. It would be appreciated.
Nicholas Woodall
771-241-4590
Po Boxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7/15/2026
Sometimes its as important to understand what a persons motives are; as it is to understand what they want. In that we can better understand each others intentions.
The following pages are links and citing's from other governments operating an online petition program.
end of Page 9
============================================================================================
Page 10
PRACTICES OF OTHER NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTS
Germany; The EU; The UK; Finland, Scotland, Australia, New Zeland; and others employee similar publicly transparent and entitled petition rights. Where all of these have three core practices.
1. A petition is submitted to government in public view
2. The public signs the petition in support.
3. The government has a duty to reply.
Costs for these programs are known only for the UK; The sites and their general rules are below.
THE FOLLOWING ARE LINKS TO THE NATIONS PETITION SITES AND RULES
UNITED KINGDOM
The home of the petitions (in English generally simple to navigate) https://petition.parliament.uk/
At 10k signatures parliament responds; 100k and the matter is debated...
The general rules of submissions: https://petition.parliament.uk/standards
THE COSTS are cited on the below links [The UK is approximately 1/5th our population, our cost likely 4 or 5x their cost of $532,420.50 per year at 5x would be aprox. $2,660,000.00]
2/24/2015 PARLIAMENT DEBATE PREEMPTING THEIR " petition.parliament.uk" WEBSITE CREATION
The costs are cited as initial setup and operation as:
"Let me return to the vexed issue of cost. The cost of the new system we are proposing is set out at the back of our report, but we estimate the one-off start-up cost at £188,000, with an annual running cost of around £115,000. Those costs will be shared between the House and the Government. There could also be an additional cost of £39,000 to enable data from the site to be made available through data.parliament.uk. That cost will be borne by the House, if approved by the Finance and Services Committee. In addition to the cost of setting up and maintaining an electronic petition system, we estimate that the staffing cost will be about £200,000 per year, equating to a team of four full-time equivalent people—Officers of the House. The cost of those House staff will be borne entirely by the House. Finally, the running cost of the Petitions Committee, depending on its practices, is expected to be around £50,000 per annum. If anybody is doing a running total, I believe that those numbers add up to about £395,000"
end of page 10
============================================================================================
Page 11
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
"enable people to interact directly and collectively with their Parliament on issues that matter to them. There is a very rich history of petitioning Parliament."; " I think it will rapidly become a very meaningful part of our new reformed relationship between the public and Parliament." " The Deputy Leader of the House and I visited the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We saw, in the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament in particular, a lot of good practice, which we were very keen to bring back here."
...
SCOTLAND (cited by UK )
Welsh Government (cited by UK )
...
CANADA
A chrome browser right click SHOULD allow translation of the following sites to English.
COSTS ARE UNKNOWN, BUT THE SYSTEM OPERATIONS CAN BE VIEWED
GERMANY discourse petition system
Federal: https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/ state equivalent: https://petitionsportal.de/
The procedural principles (the legal generalities)
The petition Public Petitions Directive (general rules of petitioning)
THE EUROPEAN UNION
FINLAND
AUSTRAILIA
NEW ZELAND
end of Page 11
============================================================================================
Page 12
FURTHER NOTABLE QUOTES FROM THE UK DEBATE ON PETITION SYSTEM CREATION
In his evidence to us, the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), said:
“I think it is important to have a committee in some form to highlight to the public that Parliament treats this seriously, to make sure that Government departments respond properly and fully, and to be able to recommend debates where necessary.”
...
The Petitions Committee will seek to improve engagement with petitioners. Often, those submitting and supporting a petition will not get the exact outcome they want, but they will hopefully feel that their concerns have been appreciated and heard through constructive engagement...
It is also our intention for the e-petition system to contain a facility that allows our constituents to alert us when they have signed a petition—after all, we all greatly enjoy and love hearing from our constituents.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
"In this work the modern world intercepts with our traditions, and the Chair of the Procedure Committee has spelt out clearly why the proposals in the report are the right way to take the issue forward in a way that recognises public interest."
...
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
"enable people to interact directly and collectively with their Parliament on issues that matter to them. There is a very rich history of petitioning Parliament.";
" I think it will rapidly become a very meaningful part of our new reformed relationship between the public and Parliament."
" The Deputy Leader of the House and I visited the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We saw, in the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament in particular, a lot of good practice, which we were very keen to bring back here."
"What I think will become a significant part of our practice here will be the opportunity to bring petitioners before the Select Committee on Petitions to present their case. People will literally have their day in the court of Parliament. They will be able not just to present but explain their petition."
"I think that that will be a dramatic improvement in accountability."
end of Page 12
============================================================================================
Page 13
THE SUBSTANTIVE COST VERSION ESTIMATE
The following is a cost estimate created by chat AI. But the specifics of how the numbers break out are generally unknown and may be reduced by IT staff overlap and where permanent staff are unnecessary ( free interns and volunteers happy get a congressional award for service and some odd incentives... may reduce costs further)
General budget searches did not produce any real results, but the numbers are here and with some clever workings likely to come in on the low side. At 40 million thats approximately 24 cents per tax payer (161 million), for a program that potentially reduces congressional staff workloads and frees the time of the US Congress members allowing an increase in productivity. The governments listed may be willing to provide some info, but if correct that alone makes the program worth the costs.
Category Annual Cost
Staff $15–40 million
Hardware replacement $3–10 million
Software licenses $5–30 million
This should be a one time purchase or donation.
Cybersecurity $5–20 million
Data center/cloud/networking $5–25 million
Maintenance & support contracts $5–20 million
Total annual operations $40–145+ million
end of Page 13
============================================================================================
End of Petition
minor wording and formatting differs this from the original submitted. but no more than 4 words have been changed...
Is that a problem? feel like your not getting the true story.. feel like you cant make an informed decision. Thats exactly the point, The original will be part of a civil suit against the non immune members of the Clerks office in the event the original is not submitted to the House Journal; and if the original is submitted; this article will be edited with a notice at the top and the original pdf. and docx. documents uploaded to an article asking for support.
Thank you and consider.. how deprived you feel from a person who is offering you something telling you that less than 5 words in this document have been changed. So can you accept a member of Congress who would keep the peoples issues hidden from you? Who would deprive you the right to control your government by being educated about the issues. Hope your mad, now calmly explain it to a local state legislator and demand they assist you in contacting your federal congress to ask for this right.
Have a great tomorrow!
Comments