What follows is the second chapter of the book I'm working on - unedited (please forgive my errors).
The English colonists, like all humans, made certain assumptions. Concerning nationality, they assumed they were Englishmen. As a citizen of the United States, you assume you are an American. In the event our country sent you to live in a land declared to be American soil, you’d still consider yourself to be an American. Elemental.
Since the time of the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.), the rights of an Englishmen grew steadily. Initially these rights applied to lords who bailed out King John’s need for money. In exchange for their financial support, the lords of various vassals demanded codified rights. Included in their list were considerations such as the right to a trial by their peers, the expectation that there must be reliable witnesses if accused of a crime, the right to face their accuser, that property may not be taken from a person without equitable payment, and that fines imposed must be reasonable. In time, increasing numbers of Englishmen came to enjoy these rights.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 wherein King James II was ousted by William of Orange set the stage in 1689 for the English Bill of Rights. Among these rights, Englishmen were insured their right to speak freely without fear of retribution from the government, Protestants were allowed to bear arms, Parliament could not be dismissed by the king, and petitioning the government for a redress of government would be allowable. Again, over time, more and more citizens of England claimed these rights as their own. Importantly, when an Englishman emigrated to the English colonies, since he was still, technically on English soil, he did not forfeit his rights by leaving England.
Between the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, both documents addressed the raising of money by the government: taxation. Rather than taxes being arbitrarily determined by the monarch, they were to be determined by a group of prominent men who were selected from among the people. Prominent men became Parliament, and Parliament became the representative body which was selected from among the citizens.
Due to the distances between England and her colonies, it was considered impractical to directly rule from overseas. Thus, colonies were allowed to form local governments to take care of local business. As the colonists were no longer directly impacted by the day to day legislation of Parliament, it seemed inappropriate to have colonists participate in parliamentary matters back in England. Therefore, allowing distant colonies representation in Parliament appeared to be a moot point. On the other hand, government was necessary on a local colonial level. Passing needs and decisions across the Atlantic with a minimum of 12 weeks passage plus consideration of requests proved inefficient. Additionally, it quickly became apparent that those back in Mother England had limited understanding of the harsh realities faced by colonists. Practicality proved that a local government could best address local needs.
Still, the colonists prided themselves in being Englishmen - bearers of the same rights of those enjoyed in England. The values impressed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights were considered just as important in the New World as the Old. Colonists expected the right to a trial by their peers, that property could not be removed without due compensation, seeking a redress of grievances from government was allowable, representative lawmakers could not be dismissed by a higher authority, and money to be raised through taxation was to be determined by men who the colonists selected.
Colonial government differed somewhat from one colony to another, but most followed a model of a colonial assembly, a royal governor, and a council. The colonial assembly was determined by eligible voters in the colony - primarily white, landowning men. The royal governor was typically selected by the monarch of England and served as a direct representative of the king. The council was typically selected by the royal governor.
The role of the assembly was to make necessary legislation - including taxation for the needs of the colony. Again, the assembly members were selected by eligible voters. A bill being considered for law moved from the assembly to the council, which served as the upper house. Once approved, the bill slated for law was reviewed by the royal governor who could sign or veto it. Unlike today’s Senate, members of the council were not chosen by the colonists. Additionally, the council served as the high court, as well as advisors to the royal governor. While this system was fraught with snagging points, it served the colonial needs for government, largely for two reasons: 1) laws and taxation were initiated by representative colonists who had been selected by eligible voters, and 2) the colonists insisted on their right to pay the salaries of members of the council and the royal governor from their purses - thereby exercising some level of control over the actions of an otherwise detached group.
Most importantly, English colonists believed that their rights as Englishmen were intact. Despite the sting of not being included in Parliamentary participation, the reason for exclusion seemed to make some sense. And, with the allowance of implementing their rights in local government affairs which directly affected their daily existence, the colonists did not object - yet.
Jumping ahead, when America gained its independence, a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. These rights included many of the historical rights promoted by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, but also included particulars the Framers and Founders wanted codified as a result of their experience in being bullied by a tyrannical government. For instance, the First Amendment includes the right to seek a redress of grievances from one’s government; that definitely has its roots in both the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, as does freedom of speech and a jury trial. On the other hand, the Third Amendment is specific in preventing the government to require citizens to house soldiers in a time of peace, or during war unless legislated by Congress; this comes from their history with England’s occupation of the colonies.
In any event, like our colonial forefathers, we assume the rights of Americans apply to us today. (Unfortunately, I wonder how many of the ten most Americans could paraphrase.) We well know that we’re supposed to be allowed to speak freely, worship as we please, assemble with like minded people, contact our representative government and speak our minds, maintain a weapon, not have the government bust into our homes without warrant, have access to a trial of our peers, and...? Well, we know there are more - whatever they say. Most people are acutely aware of their right to freedom of speech, and due to the constant debates over gun ownership, are mindful of the Second Amendment.
To most Americans, the Bill of Rights seems to be of more importance than the Articles of the Constitution - probably the Bill of Rights covers guarantees to the people. The Articles provide the blueprint for government. Because they are somewhat tedious, we don’t pay much attention. And because we don’t pay much attention, the animals are maintaining the zoo.
Legend has it, that upon emerging from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and queried, “What form of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?” The wise, old Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” A republic is that form of government wherein people select representatives from their number who are given an appropriate amount of power to conduct the business of government. It is up to the people to select wisely and then hold the government accountable. If they don’t, our Constitution provides checks and balances to correct the abuse, but you won’t find the instructions for this in the Bill of Rights.
We can assume that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are mainstays of our country. But if we only have a vague understanding of the Rights, and next to nothing about the Articles, how can we hope to control the animals running the zoo?
In 1887, Lord Acton, a member of Parliament wrote a letter in which he penned the famous line “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Today’s members of government have the “run of the house,” so to speak. They bank on the masses not paying attention nor understanding the workings of government. Tragically, many of our elected officials are ignorant of the contents of the Constitution. Others hide behind obscure legal maneuvers to enable their actions. Still others brazenly thwart the system, Constitution be damned.
The rights of Americans are under attack. The tactics are sneaky, often tucked deeply into voluminous bills written by lobbyists and not read, nor understood by those we elected. The directive of the Declaration of Independence to form a government which protects the rights of the people has long been forgotten. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment