Daily Inspiration Quote by Caleb Cushing

A constitutional argument, delivered like a dare: you can dislike the message, but you cannot lawfully refuse to hear it. Caleb Cushing is staking out a narrow-sounding procedural claim - the House must “receive the petitions” - that actually carries a broad democratic threat. Petitions are the low-tech power tool of the non-elite. To guarantee their admission is to guarantee that unpopular constituencies can force their grievances onto the national stage, even when Congress would rather seal the doors.

The phrasing is doing quiet rhetorical work. “Bound by the Constitution” frames the act of receipt not as courtesy but as duty, turning a political choice into a legal constraint. Then Cushing pivots: only “after which” may the House decide “such method” as “reason and principle” dictate. That second clause is the safety valve, a reassurance to anxious colleagues: you are not being forced to endorse the petitioners, only to acknowledge them. It’s procedural minimalism that protects maximal participation.

The likely context is the antebellum battles over petitioning, especially the flood of anti-slavery petitions and Congress’s attempts to suppress them through “gag rules.” In that fight, “receiving” became the real battlefield. If the House can refuse even to accept a petition, it can effectively disenfranchise a movement without ever voting against it.

Cushing’s subtext is institutional: Congress preserves its legitimacy by honoring inputs it intends to reject. The irony is that reason-and-principle language also flatters the House into acting like an impartial tribunal, when everyone in the room knows the decision is political. That tension - between constitutional obligation and partisan impulse - is exactly why the line works.