Center for Teaching the Rule of Law

September 8, 1264 – The Statute of Kalisz, guaranteeing Jews safety and personal liberties and giving battei din jurisdiction over Jewish matters, is promulgated by Bolesław the Pious, Duke of Greater Poland.

9/8/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureBolesław the Pious
The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz, and as the Kalisz Privilege, was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Bolesław the Pious on September 8, 1264 in Kalisz.  The statute granted Jews unprecedented legal rights in Europe, including exclusive jurisdiction over Jewish matters to Jewish courts, and established a separate tribunal for other criminal matters involving Christians and Jews. The statute also defined rules under which Jews were allowed to engage in lending and trade, as well as norms related to their relations with Christians. It even provided for penalties for desecration of a Jewish cemetery or a synagogue. It also contained provisions concerning blood libel directed against Jews. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: Casimir III in 1334, Casimir IV in 1453, and Sigismund I in 1539.

In the 20th century, some scholars supported the view that both the original Statute of Kalisz and its authenticated copies could not be found and that the text was a 15th-century forgery done for political purposes.  Nonetheless, the statute served as a basis for Jewish privileges in Poland until 1795.

The text of the statute:

In the Name of the Lord. Amen. The deeds of humankind are fleeting, unless revived through the testimonies of witnesses, or by the testimony of documents. Therefore We,  Bolesław, by the grace of God the Duke of Wielkopolska [Greater Poland], hereby make it known to both those of the present and of the future, to whose notice this present writ shall come, that to our Jews living all across the lands of our Dominion, We have resolved to declare word-for-word the statutes and privileges that they have obtained from Us, as contained in the following series of articles.
 
1. Firstly, we hereby ordain that with respect to any case involving money, or any property whether mobile or immobile, or in a criminal case that affects the person or property of a Jew, no Christian be admitted as a witness against a Jew, unless a Jew be together with such Christian.
 
2. Likewise, if a Christian implicates a Jew by stating that the Jew mortgaged what he had pawned, and the Jew disavows this, whereupon the Christian is nonetheless unwilling to believe in the honesty of the Jew’s words, then the Jew shall under oath prove his intention to return the equivalent received by him and shall then go forth, absolved.
 
3. If a Christian has pawned something with a Jew, and then states that he pawned it for a lesser amount of money than the Jew acknowledges, the Jew shall swear an oath with respect to what was pawned to him, and what has been evidenced under oath, the Christian shall not to decline to pay out to him.
 
4. Likewise, if a Jew tells a Christian, without calling on witnesses, that he [=the Christian] has borrowed [from the former] on the basis of something pawned, and he [=the Christian] denies it, the Christian may exonerate himself by his own oath alone.
 
5. A Jew shall be permitted to receive, by way of goods pawned, everything that may be given over to him, whatever its name be, without making investigation into the same, except for vestments stained or soaked with blood, and except sacral ones, which he shall by no means accept, whatsoever.

6. Similarly, if a Christian implicates a Jew by stating that something pawned to the Jew had been robbed from him by secret plotting or by violence, the Jew shall pledge an oath with respect to the pawned good that with the receipt of the same, he was ignorant of it having been stolen or seized; and in this oath of his he shall indicate what price was charged for the good thus pawned, and when he has thereby cleansed himself, the Christian shall reimburse to him the principal and the interest that has meanwhile accrued.
 
7. If, furthermore, by fire or theft or by force a Jew has lost his property together with goods he had accepted in pawn, and this has become certain, and notwithstanding this the Christian who has pawned the same implicates him, the Jew shall absolve himself by means of his own oath.
 
8. Similarly, if Jews have indeed excited discord amidst themselves, or a struggle, the judge of our city may claim no right for himself with respect to them, as We exclusively shall exercise judgement, or our Palatine [Voivode], or else his judge. If, however, the accusation is leveled at a person [for having harmed someone], then such a case shall be reserved exclusively for Us to be adjudged.
 
9. Also, if a Christian has harmed a Jew in whatever manner, the guilty party shall have to pay the fine to Us and to our Palatine. Having delivered it to our treasury, he may come upon our grace. Moreover, he shall recompense the injured party in view of healing his wounds, and of the expenses, as required and demanded by the laws of the realm.
 
10. Similarly, if a Christian has killed a Jew, he shall be punished with the appropriate adjudication, and all his possessions whether mobile or immobile shall be transferred to our authority.
 
11. Also, if a Christian has beaten a Jew in the way, nonetheless, that no blood is shed, he ought to be pursued by the Palatine, according to the custom of our land; and, having stricken or afflicted a Jew, he shall offer reparation therefor, in the manner as is customary in our land; should he indeed be not able to provide the money, then he shall be punished in fashion fitting for what he has done.

12. Wherever a Jew should transverse our Dominion, no-one shall offer any impediment to him whatsoever, nor cause or inspire any annoyance, burden, or trouble; but if he [=such a Jew] transports any merchandise or such things with him, customs shall arise therefrom at all the customs-posts, and this same Jew shall likewise pay only such duty or toll as is payable by any citizen of the city wherein the Jew abides at that time.
 
13. In the event that Jews, according to their custom, transport anyone of their dead either from one city to another city, or from one province to another, or from one land to another, it is our will that our customs-officers extort nothing from them. Should, however, a customs-officer extort something, it is our will that he be punished as a grave-robber.
 
14. Likewise, if a Christian has in any manner devastated, or invaded, a cemetery of theirs, it is our will that, in accordance with the custom and laws of our land, he be gravely punished, and all the properties of his, by whatever name these be called, be passed to our treasury.
 
15. If anyone imprudently throws [something/stones] at schools [i.e., synagogues] of the Jews, it is our will that he pay two  talents  of pepper to our Palatine.
 
16. Likewise, if a Jew be condemned by his Judge to a pecuniary penalty, which is called vandil, the perpetrator, if he be found guilty, shall pay to the same the penalty of a talent of pepper, as since times ancient.
 
17. If a Jew is summoned to court by command of his judge, and does not appear for the first nor for the second time, he must pay the judge for both of the times, in place thereof, the penalty that is customary since times ancient. If he comes neither at the third command, he shall pay to the aforementioned Judge the penalty that follows thereafter.

18. Likewise, if a Jew has wounded a Jew, he may not refuse to pay to his Judge the penalty according to the custom of our land.
 
19. We hereby ordain that no Jew shall swear an oath upon a  Rodal Torah of theirs, unless it be for a substantial cause that extends up to fifty marcas (grzywna) of silver, or unless called to our presence; for minor matters, he indeed ought to pledge before the schools [i.e., synagogues], at the entrance-door to the said schools.
 
20. In the event that a Jew has secretly been killed, and the murderer’s guilt may not be proved, and if after an investigation the Jews have captured a suspect, We shall administer to the Jews the protection of justice against the suspected killer of the Jew, by means of the law regarding such a matter.
 
21. Also, if Christians lay a violent hand against a Jew, they shall be punished according to what the law of our land requires.
 
22. Likewise, the judge of the Jews shall bring no case that has emerged amongst Jews to court, unless he be invited because of a complaint. Also the Jews ought to be judged near their schools or wherever they may elect.
 
23. Similarly, if a Christian has redeemed from a Jew what he pawned, but has not paid the interest, the interest shall become compounded if not provided within a month.
 
24. Likewise, we hereby ordain that no-one seek quarters in a Jewish house.
 
25. If a Jew has lent money upon pawned possessions or a [hypothecation] letter for goods immobile, and he to whom the things belong offers proof of whose things those are, We ordain that the Jew be deprived of the money and the pledge of the letter.

26. Likewise, if anybody, a male or a female, has abducted a Jewish boy, we order that he be prosecuted as a thief.
 
27. Also, if a Jew has received pawned goods from a Christian and held the same in his possession for a year, and if the value of the goods is not in excess of the money that has been lent, the Jew shall show the goods to his Judge; and if the pawned goods are insignificant, he shall show the same to our Palatine or his own Judge, or shall have the liberty to vend it, if the same demonstrates the pawned goods to his Judge prior to the passing of a year. If indeed such goods have remained with a Jew for a year and a day, he shall thenceforth be responsible therefor before no-one.

28. It is our will that no-one dare to coerce a Jew with respect to recouping pawned goods during his celebration of a holiday, whatsoever.

29. Similarly, if any Christian would forcefully remove his pawned good(s) from a Jew, or would exercise violence in the Jew’s house, he shall be gravely punished as a plunderer of our treasury.

30. Likewise, a Jew shall not be proceeded against in judgment, except in the schools or where all the Jews are adjudicated; saving Us and our Palatine, who may summon them to our presence.

31. According to the ordinances of the Pope, in the name of our Holy Father, we strictly prohibit that, henceforth, no Jew in our Dominion should be accused that they would make use of human blood, because according to the precept of their law, Jews in their entirety absolutely refrain from blood. Yet, if any Jew be blamed for having killed a Christian boy, he ought to be convicted by three Christians and as many Jews, and afterwards proved guilty. Accordingly, this same Jew ought to be punished with the penalty appropriate for the crime committed. If however the aforesaid witnesses and his innocence exculpate him, the Christian [accuser] shall suffer because of his calumny the penalty which the Jew would have had to suffer.
 
32. We furthermore ordain that whatever a Jew has lent, be it gold or  denarii, or silver, the same thing ought to be repaid or returned to him, together with the required interest that has accrued.

33. It is our will that Jews receive in pawn whatever horses, in general, openly and in the light of the day. If however any stolen horse has been discovered by a Christian at a Jew’s, the Jew shall exonerate himself by means of his own oath, stating that he took that same horse openly and in the day so that he could have it as a pledge pawned for a certain amount of money and did not suspect it to be stolen.

34. Similarly, we forbid lest minters established in our Dominion dare detain or seize, in whatever way, Jews with false denarii or other things, except exclusively upon our writ or that of our Palatine, or else that of respectable citizens.

35. We hereby ordain that if any Jew compelled by a dire necessity shouts aloud in the time of night and if the neighbouring Christians undertake not to offer him succour, and arrive not at the clamour, every of his neighbouring Christians shall be obligated to pay thirty  soldos.

36. We moreover order that Jews may liberally vend and purchase everything, and touch bread, similarly as Christians do. Those who would prohibit them to do so shall indeed be liable to pay a penalty to our Palatine.

And so that all of the foregoing may obtain the strength of perpetual validity, we have given them this present instrument, with the signatures of the witnesses, for security, also fortifying it by the protection of the seal of ours; the witnesses of this matter verily are: Comes Arbeldus [resp. Archambold], Palatine of Kalisz; Comes Szymon, Castellan of Gniezno; Comes Jan of Kalisz; Comes Maciej, Castellan of Ląd; Comes Cz[ec]hosław, Butler of Kalisz; Comes Dersław, Courser of Ląd; with the other numerous Barons of our Land. Done at the city of Kalisz, on the day following the day of the Assumption of the B[lessed] V[irgin] M[ary], in the Year of our Lord one-thousand two-hundred and sixty-four, on this sixteenth day of August.


0 Comments

September 3, 301 – San Marino, one of the smallest nations in the world and the world's oldest republic still in existence, is founded by Saint Marinus; or maybe its one of the newest nations at just 48 years old  . . . Wait . . . What?

9/3/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureThe Statutes, Decrees, and Ordinances of the Serene Republic and the Perpetual Freedom of the Land of San Marino -- the oldest national constitution still in effect was adopted in 1600 -- but its "Bill of Rights" did not come along for another 374 years.
There is a tendency among modern people, especially in the United States, to think of the concepts of democracy and republicanism as having developed only in the Age of Enlightenment.  While they will acknowledge that these ideas were present in Ancient Greece and Rome, they contend that "true" democracy is a relatively modern concept.  The people of the tiny nation officially know as the Most Serene Republic of San Marino would disagree, because their state, isolated in the mountains and valleys of Italy's Apennine region, has been a republic with a democratically elected for over 1,300 years, or perhaps is is about 700 years, or possibly just over 400. or maybe just over 40.  .

The country derives its name from Saint Marinus, a stonemason from the then-Roman island of Rab in present-day Croatia. Born in AD 275, Marinus participated in the rebuilding of city walls of Rimini on Italy's Adriatic coast after their destruction by Liburnian pirates. Marinus then went on to found an independently ruled monastic community on Mount Titan, about ten miles inland from Rimini, in AD 301; thus, San Marino lays claim to being the oldest extant sovereign state, as well as the oldest constitutional republic.

Uniquely, San Marino's constitution dictates that its democratically elected legislature, the Grand and General Council, must elect two heads of state every six months. Known as Captains Regent, the two heads of state serve concurrently and hold equal powers until their term expires after six months.

So if San Marino has been independent since 301 and self-governing, what's all thus about it being only 1,300 years old.  Therein lies the dabate about what constitutes a "national republic" that is, a nation that is independent, and a territory that is merely a self-governing polity within a nation.  From 301 to 1291, San Marino was self-governing in the sense that  was a monastic community possessed of land.  While it was recognized as not being subject to the laws of government of the Roman Empire or any of the subsequent states that rose and fell on the Italian peninsula  after Empire fell in the West, it was not a truly independent state and could rightly be regarded as the first "papal state" as the territory within Italy controlled by the Roman Catholic Church would subsequently come to be known in the 8th Century.  In 1291, however, the San Marino had from a single monastic community to include a number of nearby town whose populations were mostly free citizens who owned allegiance to  no prince or other noble.  While there was no formal separation from the governance by the Church, 1291 is generally recognized as the date of San Marino's de facto independence from the Church's overlordship.

Nonetheless, while never formally submitting to the Vatican's authority, the state continued to look to the Papal States for protection and was even at times an objective of interest to competing papal claimants.   In 1503, Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI occupied the Republic for six months until his father's successor, Pope Julius II, intervened and restored the country's independence.  On 4 June 1543 Fabiano di Monte San Savino, nephew of the later Pope Julius III, attempted to conquer the republic, but his infantry and cavalry failed as they got lost in a dense fog, which the Sammarinese attributed to Saint Quirinus, whose feast day it was.  

Although governed by some form of elected counsel, first of monks and later of citizens, the Serene Republic's existence was not formally declared in law until October 8, 1600.  It was on this date that San Marino adopted it constitution, officially called the Statuta Decreta ac Ordinamenta Illustric Reipublicae ac Perpetuae libertatis Terram Sancti Marin, or Statutes, Decrees, and Ordinances of the Serene Republic and the Perpetual Freedom of the Land of San Marino.  Curiously, while there may some doubt as to the claim to have been an independent republic from 301, this document is universally recognized as the earliest written constitution still in effect.

The country was occupied on 17 October 1739 by the legate (Papal governor) of Ravenna, Cardinal Giulio Alberoni, but independence was restored by Pope Clement XII on 5 February 1740, the feast day of Saint Agatha, after which she became a patron saint of the republic.

The advance of Napoleon's army in 1797 presented a brief threat to the independence of San Marino, but the country was saved from losing its liberty by one of its regents, Antonio Onofri, who managed to gain the respect and friendship of Napoleon. Due to Onofri's intervention, Napoleon, in a letter delivered to Gaspard Monge, scientist and commissary of the French Government for Science and Art, promised to guarantee and protect the independence of the Republic, even offering to extend its territory according to its needs. The offer was declined by the regents, fearing future retaliation from other states' revanchism.

During the later phase of the Italian unification process in the 19th century, San Marino served as a refuge for many people persecuted because of their support for unification, including Giuseppe Garibaldi and his wife Anita.

The government of San Marino made United States President Abraham Lincoln an honorary citizen. He wrote in reply, saying that the republic proved that "government founded on republican principles is capable of being so administered as to be secure and enduring."

San Marino remained officially neutral in both the First and Second World Wars.  In September 1944, it was briefly occupied by German forces, who were defeated by Allied forces in the Battle of San Marino.

San Marino had the world's first democratically elected communist government – a coalition between the Sammarinese Communist Party and the Sammarinese Socialist Party, which held office between 1945 and 1957.

At the 2020 Summer Olympics, San Marino became the smallest country to earn a medal, as Alessandra Perilli won bronze in the women’s trap shooting event. 

San Marino has the political framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic: the captains regent are both heads of state and heads of government, and there is a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the Grand and General Council. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.

Every six months, the council elects two captains regents to be the heads of state. The regents are chosen from opposing parties so that there is a balance of power. They serve a six-month term. The investiture of the captains regent takes place on 1 April and 1 October in every year. Once this term is over, citizens have three days in which to file complaints about the captains' activities. If they warrant it, judicial proceedings against the ex-head(s) of state can be initiated.

The practice of having two heads of state, like Roman consuls, chosen in frequent elections, is derived directly from the customs of the Roman Republic. The council is equivalent to the Roman Senate; the captains regent, to the consuls of ancient Rome. It is thought the inhabitants of the area came together as Roman rule collapsed to form a rudimentary government for their own protection from foreign rule.  ​San Marino has had more female heads of state than any other country: 15 as of October 2014, including three who served twice.

So, given its age and the unquestioned position as being governed by the oldest written constitution  still in effect, what this about it being a relatively new state?  This refers to the fact that until July 12, 1974, San Marino had not made provision for the rights of its citizens -- if effect, the Sammarinese had no guarantee of civil liberty.  It was on July 12, 1978 that the Serene Republic finally formally recognized the its Declaration of Citizen Rights the individual liberties that are indispensable to a democratic republic.   Containing a declaration of citizen rights and the fundamental principles of the juridical order of San Marino, the Declaration begins with a repudiation of war. It states the people are sovereign and explains how the separation of powers doctrine is applicable to San Marino. Citizens are guaranteed certain rights including equality, inviolability, freedom, and universal suffrage.  ​The Declaration was amended in 2002, providing further constitutional detail on the organization of government and establishing the Guarantors’ Panel on the Constitutionality of Rules, which is a court responsible for assessing the compliance of laws with respect to the Declaration of Rights.

0 Comments

August 31, 1798 – Irish rebels, with French assistance, establish the short-lived Republic of Connacht.

8/31/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureFlag of the Irish Republic of Connacht
The Irish Republic of 1798, more commonly known as the Republic of Connacht, was a short-lived state proclaimed during the Irish Rebellion of 1798 that resulted from the French Revolutionary Wars. A client state of the French Republic, it theoretically covered the whole island of Ireland, but its functional control was limited to only very small parts of the Province of Connacht. Opposing British forces were deployed across most of the country including the main towns such as Dublin, Belfast and Cork.

At the time of the Rebellion of 1798 a force of 1,000 French soldiers under General Humbert landed at Killala in County Mayo. General Humbert proclaimed the Irish Republic in his declaration to the people upon landing in Ireland on 22 August 1798:

LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY, UNION, After several unsuccessful attempts, behold at last Frenchmen arrived amongst you... Union, Liberty, the Irish Republic! Such is our shout. Let us march. Our hearts are devoted to you; our glory is in your happiness.

After the nascent Republic's victory at the Battle of Castlebar which took place on 27 August 1798, General Humbert, on 31 August 1798, issued the following decree, which inter alia appointed John Moore as the President of the Government of the Province of Connacht:

Army Of Ireland
Liberty, Equality
Head quarters at Castlebar, 14th Fructidor, sixth Year of the French Republic, One and Indivisible.
General Humbert, Commander in Chief of the Army of Ireland, desirous of organising with the least possible delay, an administrative power for the Province of Connaught, decrees as follows:
  1. The Government of the Province of Connaught shall reside at Castlebar till further orders.
  2. The Government shall be composed of twelve members, who shall be named by the General-in-chief of the French Army.
  3. Citizen JOHN MOORE is named President of the Government of the Province of Connaught, he is specially entrusted with the nomination and reunion of the members of the Government.
  4. The Government shall occupy itself immediately in organising the Military power of the Province of Connaught, and with providing subsistence for the French and Irish Armies.
  5. There shall be organised eight regiments of infantry, each of twelve hundred men, and four regiments of cavalry, each of six hundred men.
  6. The Government shall declare rebels and traitors to the country all those who having received clothing and arms, shall not join the army within four and twenty hours.
  7. Every individual from sixteen years of age to forty, inclusive, is REQUIRED in the name of the Irish Republic, to betake himself instantly to the French Camp, to march in a mass against the common enemy, the Tyrant of ANGLICIZED IRELAND, whose destruction alone can establish the independence and happiness of ANCIENT HIBERNIA.
    — General Humbert, Commanding-in-Chief

​On 8 September 1798, just over a week after its proclamation, the progress of the new Republic was ended at the Battle of Ballinamuck. President Moore was captured by the British in Castlebar under Lieut.-Col. Crawford. He died while in custody the following year. General Humbert and his men were taken by canal to Dublin and repatriated. The British army then slowly spread out into the rebel held Province of Connacht in a brutal campaign of killing and house burning which reached its climax on 23 September 1798 when Killala was stormed and retaken with much slaughter. Members of the Irish Republic such as George Blake were hunted down and hanged with many other suspected insurgents including Fr Andrew Conroy who led French and Irish forces to Castlebar through the bogs west of Lough Conn.[

0 Comments

August 26, 1789 – The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is approved by the National Constituent Assembly of France.

8/26/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789), set by France's National Constituent Assembly in 1789, is a human civil rights document from the French Revolution.

The Declaration was originally drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette, in consultation with Thomas Jefferson. Influenced by the doctrine of "natural right", the rights of man are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place. It became the basis for a nation of free individuals protected equally by the law. It is included in the beginning of the constitutions of both the Fourth French Republic (1946) and Fifth Republic (1958) and is still current. Inspired by Enlightenment philosophers, the Declaration was a core statement of the values of the French Revolution and had a major impact on the development of popular conceptions of individual liberty and democracy in Europe and worldwide.

The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, together with the 1215 Magna Carta, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, and the 1789 United States Bill of Rights, inspired, in large part, the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The content of the document emerged largely from the ideals of the Enlightenment. The principal drafts were prepared by Lafayette, working at times with his close friend Thomas Jefferson. In August 1789, the Abbé Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès and Honoré Mirabeau played a central role in conceptualizing and drafting the final Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

The last article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was adopted on the 26 of August 1789 by the National Constituent Assembly, during the period of the French Revolution, as the first step toward writing a constitution for France. Inspired by the Enlightenment, the original version of the Declaration was discussed by the representatives on the basis of a 24 article draft proposed by the sixth bureau led by Jérôme Champion de Cicé. The draft was later modified during the debates. A second and lengthier declaration, known as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1793, was written in 1793 but never formally adopted.

The concepts in the Declaration come from the philosophical and political duties of the Enlightenment, such as individualism, the social contract as theorized by the Genevan philosopher Rousseau, and the separation of powers espoused by the Baron de Montesquieu. As can be seen in the texts, the French declaration was heavily influenced by the political philosophy of the Enlightenment and principles of human rights as was the U.S. Declaration of Independence which preceded it.

The declaration defines a single set of individual and collective rights for all men. Influenced by the doctrine of natural rights, these rights are held to be universal and valid in all times and places. For example, "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good." They have certain natural rights to property, to liberty, and to life. According to this theory, the role of government is to recognize and secure these rights. Furthermore, the government should be carried on by elected representatives.

At the time it was written, the rights contained in the declaration were only awarded to men. Furthermore, the declaration was a statement of vision rather than reality. The declaration was not deeply rooted in either the practice of the West or even France at the time. The declaration emerged in the late 18th century out of war and revolution. It encountered opposition as democracy and individual rights were frequently regarded as synonymous with anarchy and subversion. This declaration embodies ideals and aspirations towards which France pledged to struggle in the future.

The text, translated into English, of the Declaration:

The representatives of the French People, formed into a National Assembly, considering ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man to be the only causes of public misfortunes and the corruption of Governments, have resolved to set forth, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, unalienable and sacred rights of man, to the end that this Declaration, constantly present to all members of the body politic, may remind them unceasingly of their rights and their duties; to the end that the acts of the legislative power and those of the executive power, since they may be continually compared with the aim of every political institution, may thereby be the more respected; to the end that the demands of the citizens, founded henceforth on simple and incontestable principles, may always be directed toward the maintenance of the Constitution and the happiness of all.

In consequence whereof, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

  1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good.
  2. The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression.
  3. The principle of any Sovereignty lies primarily in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it.
  4. Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law.
  5. The Law has the right to forbid only those actions that are injurious to society. Nothing that is not forbidden by Law may be hindered, and no one may be compelled to do what the Law does not ordain.
  6. The Law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to take part, personally or through their representatives, in its making. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.
  7. No man may be accused, arrested or detained except in the cases determined by the Law, and following the procedure that it has prescribed. Those who solicit, expedite, carry out, or cause to be carried out arbitrary orders must be punished; but any citizen summoned or apprehended by virtue of the Law, must give instant obedience; resistance makes him guilty.
  8. The Law must prescribe only the punishments that are strictly and evidently necessary; and no one may be punished except by virtue of a Law drawn up and promulgated before the offense is committed, and legally applied.
  9. As every man is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any undue harshness that is not required to secure his person must be severely curbed by Law.
  10. No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.
  11. The free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.
  12. To guarantee the Rights of Man and of the Citizen a public force is necessary; this force is therefore established for the benefit of all, and not for the particular use of those to whom it is entrusted.
  13. For the maintenance of the public force, and for administrative expenses, a general tax is indispensable; it must be equally distributed among all citizens, in proportion to their ability to pay.
  14. All citizens have the right to ascertain, by themselves, or through their representatives, the need for a public tax, to consent to it freely, to watch over its use, and to determine its proportion, basis, collection and duration.
  15. Society has the right to ask a public official for an accounting of his administration.
  16. Any society in which no provision is made for guaranteeing rights or for the separation of powers, has no Constitution.
  17. Since the right to Property is inviolable and sacred, no one may be deprived thereof, unless public necessity, legally ascertained, obviously requires it, and just and prior indemnity has been paid
​

0 Comments

August 24, 1215 – Magna Carta is ruled to be invalid  . . .  Wait . . . What?

8/24/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Magna Carta (not "The" Magna Carta, as the translation of Magna Carta form the Latin includes the definitive article "The Great Charter") is universally recognized as the foundation of English, and by extension, American, constitution government.  Except, of course, that it isn't. 

Although many of the ideas expressed in Magna Carta are similar or identical to modern concepts of liberal democracy - trial by jury, no taxation without consent of the governed, the government is subject to the law, etc. - the fact is that Magna Carta was imposed on King John by the English barons at Runnymede  under duress.  As soon as the barons had returned to their estates and, more importantly, most, but not all, had disbanded their retinues of knights and men-at-arms, John set about undoing what had been done.


​His first act was to send an emissary to the Vatican, seeking to have Pope Clement III declare Magna Carta to be contrary to God's will. John had good reason to hope that the Pope would respond positively to this entreaty.

Magna Carta had not appeared full born on June 15, 2025, but was the process of a years long  process of negotiation during which John sought to delay having to make any concessions to the barons while gather international support.  During these negotiations, it was John's hope that the Pope would give him valuable legal and moral support, and accordingly John played for time; the King had declared himself to be a papal vassal in 1213 and correctly believed he could count on the Pope for help. John also began recruiting mercenary forces from France, although some were later sent back to avoid giving the impression that the King was escalating the conflict. In a further move to shore up his support, John took an oath to become a crusader, a move which gave him additional political protection under church law, even though many felt the promise was insincere.

Letters backing John arrived from the Pope in April 2015, but by then the rebel barons had organized into a military faction. They congregated at Northampton in May and renounced their feudal ties to John, marching on London, Lincoln, and Exeter. John's efforts to appear moderate and conciliatory had been largely successful, but once the rebels held London, they attracted a fresh wave of defectors from the royalists. The King offered to submit the problem to a committee of arbitration with the Pope as the supreme arbiter, but this was not attractive to the rebels. Stephen Langton, the archbishop of Canterbury, had been working with the rebel barons on their demands, and after the suggestion of papal arbitration failed, John instructed Langton to organize peace talks.  The result was the great gathering at Runnymede and the sealing (not signing, as is often incorrectly stated) of Magna Carta.

Having failed at obtaining Papal arbitration, John simply requested that the Pope declare the charter to be null and void.  Clement, who viewed any surrender of power by a temporal ruler to be a challenge to the Church's own power, obliged.  In fact, Clement had dispatched commissioners even before John's request was received who arrived in England and promptly excommunicated the barons who had refused to disband their forces.  Once aware of the charter, the Pope responded in detail: in a letter dated 24 August and arriving in late September, he declared the charter to be "not only shameful and demeaning but also illegal and unjust" since John had been "forced to accept" it, and accordingly the charter was "null, and void of all validity for ever"; under threat of excommunication, the King was not to observe the charter, nor the barons try to enforce it.

By then, however,  violence had broken out between the two sides; less than three months after it had been agreed, John and the loyalist barons firmly repudiated the failed charter: the First Barons' War erupted. The rebel barons concluded that peace with John was impossible, and turned to Philip II's son, the future Louis VIII, for help, offering him the English throne. The war soon settled into a stalemate. The King became ill and died on the night of 18 October 1216, leaving the nine-year-old Henry III as his heir.

Although the Charter of 1215 was a failure as a peace treaty, it was resurrected under the new government of the young Henry III as a way of drawing support away from the rebel faction. On his deathbed, King John appointed a council of thirteen executors to help Henry reclaim the kingdom, and requested that his son be placed into the guardianship of William Marshal, one of the most famous knights in England.  William knighted the boy, and Cardinal Guala Bicchieri, the papal legate to England, then oversaw his coronation at Gloucester Cathedral on 28 October.

It would not be until 1217 that peace was nominally restored in England with Henry confirmed on the throne and a modified version of the Charter adopted (but only occasionally and inconsistently adhered to).  The primary reason the conflict ended was the real concern that  Louis would gain the throne of England and, in effect, incorporate the nation into a larger French state once he succeeded to that throne, without any guarantee concessions.  The rebel barons began to defect to Henry when they realized that they might have to face a powerful, perhaps indomitable, French monarch rather than a relatively weak English one still in his minority.

Thus, while many of the principles set out in Magna Carta were subsequently repeated and enhanced in subsequent documents and eventually adopted as formal laws, the Great Charter was, essentially, a failure in that it neither produced the hoped for peace nor resulted in more than a token acceptance by King John.  The Pope's declaration that the Charter was null and void was never "reversed" by any authority - Magna Carta effectively ceased to be enforceable on August 24, 2015, two months and nine days after it was sealed.


0 Comments

August 1, 1291 – The Old Swiss Confederacy is formed with the signature of the Federal Charter.

8/1/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Federal Charter or Letter of Alliance is one of the earliest constitutional documents of Switzerland. A treaty of alliance from 1291 between the cantons of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden, the Charter is one of a series of alliances from which the Old Swiss Confederacy emerged. In the 19th and 20th century, after the establishment of the Swiss federal state, the Charter became the founding document of Switzerland in the popular imagination.

The Charter documents the Eternal Alliance of the League of the Three Forest Cantons, the union of three cantons in what is now central Switzerland. It is dated to early August 1291, which in the 20th century inspired the date of Swiss National Day, 1 August. Written in Latin, the Charter makes reference to a previous (lost or unwritten) pact. 

The Alliance was concluded between the people of the alpine areas of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden (homines vallis Uranie universitasque vallis de Switz ac communitas hominum Intramontanorum Vallis Inferioris). The participants are referred to as conspirati and (synonymously) coniurati, traditionally translated in German as "Eidgenossen" (and in English as "Confederates").

The Charter was probably intended to ensure legal certainty after the death of Rudolf I of Habsburg on 15 July 1291. The first two paragraphs commit all three communities to the joint defense of the three valleys. The remainder of the Charter concerns judicial matters: It calls for arbitration in the case of conflicts, rejects foreign judges, establishes the death penalty for murderers and exile for arsonists, and commands obedience to judges and judicial verdicts.

Here is the complete text translated to English:

IN THE NAME OF GOD - AMEN. Honor and the public weal are promoted when leagues are concluded for the proper establishment of quiet and peace.

Therefore, know all men, that the people of the valley of Uri, the democracy of the valley of Schwyz, and the community of the Lower Valley of Unterwalden, seeing the malice of the age, in order that they may better defend themselves, and their own, and better preserve them in proper condition, have promised in good faith to assist each other with aid, with every counsel and every favor, with person and goods, within the valley and without, with might and main, against one and all, who may inflict upon any one of them any violence, molestation or injury, or may plot any evil against their persons or goods. And in every case each community has promised to succor the other when necessary, at its own expense, as far as needed in order to withstand the attacks of evil-doers, and to avenge injuries; to this end they have sworn a solemn oath to keep this without guile, and to renew by these presents the ancient form of the league, also confirmed by an oath.

Yet in such a manner that every man, according to his rank, shall obey and serve his overlord as it behooves him.

We have also vowed, decreed and ordained in common council and by unanimous consent, that we will accept or receive no judge in the aforesaid valleys, who shall have obtained his office for any price, or for money in any way whatever, or one who shall not be a native or a resident with us. But if dissension shall arise between any of the Eidgenossen (confederates; Eid = oath, Genosse = fellow, comrade), the most prudent amongst the confederates shall come forth to settle the difficulty between the parties, as shall seem right to them; and whichever party rejects their verdict shall be held an adversary by the other confederates.

Furthermore it has been established between them that he who deliberately kills another without provocation, shall, if caught, lose his life, as his wicked guilt requires, unless he be able to prove his innocence of said crime; and if perchance he escape, let him never return. Those who conceal and protect said criminal shall be banished from the valley, until they be expressly recalled by the confederates.

But if any one of the confederates, by day, or in the silence of the night, shall maliciously injure another by fire, he shall never again be considered a fellow-countryman. If any man protect and defend the said evil-doer, he shall render satisfaction to the one who has suffered damage.

Furthermore, if any one of the confederates shall spoil another of his goods, or injure him in any way, the goods of the guilty one, if recovered within the valleys, shall be seized in order to pay damages to the injured person, according to justice.

Furthermore, no man shall seize another's goods for debt, unless he be evidently his debtor or surety, and this shall only be done with the special permission of his judge.

Moreover, every man shall obey his judge, and if necessary, must himself indicate the judge in the valley, before whom he ought properly to appear. And if any one rebels against a verdict, and, in consequence of his obstinacy, any one of the confederates is injured, all the confederates are bound to compel the culprit to give satisfaction.

But if war or discord arise amongst any of the confederates and one party of the disputants refuse to accept the verdict of the judge or to give satisfaction, the confederates are bound to defend the other party.

The above-written statutes, decreed for the common welfare and benefit, shall endure forever, God willing. In testimony of which, at the request of the aforesaid parties, the present charter has been drawn up and confirmed with the seals of the aforesaid three communities and valleys.

So done in the year of the Lord 1291 at the beginning of the month of August.



0 Comments

July 30, 1676 - Nathaniel Bacon issues the "Declaration of the People of Virginia", beginning Bacon's Rebellion against the rule of Governor William Berkeley.

7/30/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureThis 1905 depiction of the Burning of Jamestown by Nathaniel Bacon and his followers by Howard Pyle is far from an accurate portrayal of the actual event. Bacon's "Army" was more akin to a mob and was able only to defeat Governor Berkeley's forces because the Governor chose to retreat rather than cause bloodshed. In fact, the only death that resulted from Bacon's Rebellion were the 23 rebels who were hung after Bacon died of natural causes.
The Declaration of the People of Virginia, or simply the Declaration of the People, was a list of complaints issued by Nathaniel Bacon on July 30, 1676, in which he proclaimed Virginia's colonial governor, William Berkeley, to be corrupt and expressed his displeasure at what his followers regarded as unjust taxation and the government's failure to provide colonists protection from some tribes of American Indians. The presumed grievances brought about the uprising known as Bacon's Rebellion. 

One hundred years afterwards, Bacon's Rebellion was cited by many of the Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, especially -- as the first stirrings of democratic revolt against the monarchy, and to the extent that the event is remembered at all nearly 350 years later, that is how it has been framed.  Except that, as with much of history, the popular version is at odds with the facts.

Bacon is usually portrayed as a "man of the people" who led an "army" of tenant farmers, European indentured servants, and  free and enslaved Africans against Berkeley's tyrannical rule.  While his "army," which is better characterized as a "mob" was indeed made up of the laboring and servant classes, Bacon was a member of the colonial aristocracy and plantation owner. 

His father was a wealthy member of the landed gentry, a lawyer, and member of parliament.  As a young man, Bacon had studied at Cambridge, travelled extensively in Europe, and been accepted into chambers at Gray's Inn to read the law in 1664.  He married well, also, his wife Elizabeth Duke was the daughter of Sir Edward Duke of Benhall, another prominent politician.  By all appearances, Nathaniel, the only son of the Bacon family, was set to assume his father's role as a country squire and politician.

The twist of fate that sent Bacon across the Atlantic was a scandal , or rather his father's desire to avoid one.  The younger Bacon was accused of having cheated another man out of an inheritance.  The precise details have been lost to time, but before the matter could become widely known,  the father packed the son off to the Virginia colony, providing him with 1,800 pounds (more that $500,000 in modern terms), which Bacon used to purchase two plantations and set himself up in Jamestown, where he soon became a member of Governor Berkeley's council.  Berkeley was considerably older than Bacon and they were distantly related through the Governor's wife.

Bacon quickly learned that despite his connections with the Governor, he was not easily accepted  by the established members of Virginia's colonial elite.  The colony was entering its third generation, and those who could trace their lines back to the early days of the settlement were suspicious of newcomers like Bacon who purchase their positions, rather than having earned them.  It soon became clear that despite their connection, Berkeley was not inclined to show any favoritism to Bacon, who in turn found the Governor to be tedious and an impediment to Bacon's plans to expand his holdings by encroaching on the lands of allied Indian tribes.

Bacon was not alone in his desire for more land.  Many of the landless European settlers had come to the colony as indentured servants with the expectation that, like those who had come before, they would be rewarded with a land grant at the end of the contracts of indenture.  However, as land close into the Tidewater region became scarce, the colonial authorities opposed the expansion of settlement further up the James and into the Northern Neck, which by treaty belonged to tribes of natives who Berkeley viewed as creating a buffer between the colonials and the hostile tribe further inland.  Nonetheless, squatters moved into the allied tribes territories and sometimes further in to the interior, creating friction with both friendly and hostile tribes alike.

Bacon soon found himself attracted to the cause of those who wanted to, in his words, "ruin and extirpate all Indians in General."  Bacon also so an opportunity to use the popular support of this faction to gain more power, being elected to the House of Burgesses .  The first act of violence occurred a large number of colonists marched on Jamestown, forcing Berkeley to flee and setting fire to the settlement.  Order was quickly restored when the captains of the armed merchant vessels in the Hampton Roads lent their support to Berkeley.  Peace was maintained for several years.

After an overseer at one of his plantations was alleged to have been killed by two Indians, Bacon sought Berkeley's permission to lead the militia on a retaliatory raid.  Berkeley refused to authorize the action, doubting that the killing had been the result of an Indian attack, but was more likely committed by the slaves of the plantation who used the tale of an Indian raid to cover their crime.

When a rumor spread that another Indian raid was being planned, Berkeley again refused to call of the militia and denied Bacon's request to be granted a Colonel's commission.  Nonetheless, Bacon went out to a makeshift camp of farmers and others with a quantity of brandy; after it was distributed, he was elected leader. Against Berkeley's orders, the group struck south until they came to the Occaneechi people. After convincing the Occaneechi warriors to leave and attack the Susquehannock, Bacon and his men murdered most of the Occaneechi men, women, and children remaining at the village. Upon their return, Bacon's faction discovered that Berkeley had called for new elections to the burgesses to better address the Native American raids.

The recomposed House of Burgesses enacted a number of sweeping reforms, subsequently known as Bacon's Laws, although Bacon was not actually sitting but was at his plantation.  The new laws limited the powers of the governor and restored suffrage to landless freemen.

After passage of these laws, Nathaniel Bacon arrived with 500 followers in Jamestown to once again demand a commission to lead militia against the Native Americans. The governor, however, refused to yield to the pressure. When Bacon had his men take aim at Berkeley, he responded by "baring his breast" to Bacon and told Bacon to shoot him. Seeing that the governor would not be moved, Bacon then had his men take aim at the assembled burgesses, who quickly granted Bacon his commission. When it was reported that their had been a raid by Indians in Henrico (now Richmond) that had killed 8 settlers, Bacon blamed Berkeley, arguing that had the militia not been in Jamestown seeking to force the Governor to act, it could have defended the frontier.

On July 30, 1676, Bacon and his army issued the "Declaration of the People". The declaration criticized Berkeley's administration in detail. It leveled several accusations against Berkeley:
  1. that "upon specious pretense of public works [he] raised great unjust taxes upon the commonality";
  2. that he advanced favorites to high public offices;
  3. that he monopolized the beaver trade with the Native Americans;
  4. that he was pro-Native American.

After months of conflict, Bacon's forces, numbering 300–500 men, moved on Jamestown, which was occupied by Berkeley's forces, besieging the town. Bacon's men captured and burned to the ground the colonial capital on September 19.  Outnumbered, Berkeley retreated across the river. His group encamped at Warner Hall, home of the speaker of the House of Burgesses, Augustine Warner Jr., who had sided with the rebels.  

Although word of the rebellion had been sent to England and a Royal Navy squadron had been dispatched, before it arrived at Jamestown, Bacon suddenly died.  Although John Ingram, one of the indentured servants who had been denied his land grant attempted to assume command on the rebel forces, he lacked Bacon's ability to stir populist sentiment.  Supported by the merchant ships, Berkeley launched a series of counterattacks against the disorganized rebels.

The news of the rebellion being quelled did not soften King Charles II's frustration with Berkeley for having failed to prevent it in the first place.  Berkeley was recalled to England, but died en route back.  Going forward, the new administration of the colony adopted a policy favoring the expropriation of Indian land for European (but not African) freedmen.




0 Comments

July 29, 1805 – Alexis de Tocqueville, French historian and philosopher, is born in Paris

7/29/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Alexis Charles Henri Clérel, comte de Tocqueville (29 July 1805 – 16 April 1859), colloquially known as de Tocqueville, was a French aristocrat, diplomat, political scientist, political philosopher and historian. He is best known for his works Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes, 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856). In both, he analyzed the improved living standards and social conditions of individuals as well as their relationship to the market and state in Western societies. Democracy in America was published after Tocqueville's travels in the United States and is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.

Tocqueville was active in French politics, first under the July Monarchy (1830–1848) and then during the Second Republic (1849–1851) which succeeded the February 1848 Revolution. He retired from political life after Louis Napoléon Bonaparte's 2 December 1851 coup and thereafter began work on The Old Regime and the Revolution. Tocqueville argued the importance of the French Revolution was to continue the process of modernizing and centralizing the French state which had begun under King Louis XIV. The failure of the Revolution came from the inexperience of the deputies who were too wedded to abstract Enlightenment ideals.

Tocqueville was a classical liberal who advocated parliamentary government and was skeptical of the extremes of democracy. During his time in parliament, he sat on the centre-left, but the complex and restless nature of his liberalism has led to contrasting interpretations and admirers across the political spectrum. Regarding his political position, Tocqueville wrote "the word 'left' is [. . .] the word I wanted to attach to my name so that it would remain attached to it forever".

In 1831, Tocqueville obtained from the July Monarchy a mission to examine prisons and penitentiaries in the United States and proceeded there with his lifelong friend Gustave de Beaumont. While he did visit some prisons, Tocqueville traveled widely in the United States and took extensive notes about his observations and reflections.He returned within nine months and published a report, but the real result of his tour was De la démocratie en Amérique, which appeared in 1835. Beaumont also wrote an account of their travels in Jacksonian America: Marie or Slavery in the United States (1835).

In Democracy in America I, published in 1835, Tocqueville wrote of the New World and its burgeoning democratic order. Observing from the perspective of a detached social scientist, Tocqueville wrote of his travels through the United States in the early 19th century when the Market Revolution, Western expansion and Jacksonian democracy were radically transforming the fabric of American life.

As emphasized in Introduction to Book I, the purpose of the work is somewhat beyond the American democracy itself, which was rather an illustration to the philosophical claim that democracy is an effect of industrialization. In a sense, Tocqueville anticipated Marx’s viewpoint that history is determined by development and changes of socio-economic conditions — the so-called formations that are described by specific productive forces and relations of production. This focus on the philosophy of history justifies a certain ambiguity in using the word 'democracy' and explains why Tocqueville even ignores the intents of the Founding Fathers of the United States regarding the American political system.

Tocqueville was an ardent supporter of liberty. "I have a passionate love for liberty, law, and respect for rights", he wrote. "I am neither of the revolutionary party nor of the conservative. [. . .] Liberty is my foremost passion". He wrote of "Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans" by saying: "But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom".

His view on government reflects his belief in liberty and the need for individuals to be able to act freely while respecting others' rights. Of centralized government, he wrote that it "excels in preventing, not doing".

Tocqueville continues to comment on equality by saying: "Furthermore, when citizens are all almost equal, it becomes difficult for them to defend their independence against the aggressions of power. As none of them is strong enough to fight alone with advantage, the only guarantee of liberty is for everyone to combine forces. But such a combination is not always in evidence".


0 Comments

July 9, 1868 – The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is ratified, guaranteeing African Americans full citizenship and all persons in the United States due process of law.

7/9/2021

0 Comments

 
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Often considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do very little.

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion, or other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fourth section was held, in Perry v. United States (1935), to prohibit a current Congress from abrogating a contract of debt incurred by a prior Congress. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation"; however, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), this power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court decision interpreting the amendment.
0 Comments

July 5, 1775 – The Second Continental Congress adopts the Olive Branch Petition.

7/5/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureSignature page of the Olive Branch Petition, with John Hancock's signature as President of the Congress at the top easily recognizable.
One day short of a year before the publication of the the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress sent the "Olive Branch Petition" to the English Parliament and Crown.  Although hostilities between the English and the Colonials had already begun, the colonies had not yet been declared to be in rebellion, and a faction in Congress held out the hope that peace could still be obtained if each side was willing to make concessions.

The Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775, and most delegates followed John Dickinson in his quest to reconcile with King George. However, a rather small group of delegates led by John Adams believed that war was inevitable, and they decided that the wisest course of action was to remain quiet and wait for the opportune time to rally the people. This allowed Dickinson and his followers to pursue their own course for reconciliation.

Dickinson was the primary author of the petition, though Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Rutledge, and Thomas Johnson also served on the drafting committee. Dickinson claimed that the colonies did not want independence but wanted more equitable trade and tax regulations. He asked that the King establish a lasting settlement between the Mother Country and the colonies "upon so firm a basis as to perpetuate its blessings, uninterrupted by any future dissensions, to succeeding generations in both countries", beginning with the repeal of the Intolerable Acts. The introductory paragraph of the letter named twelve of the thirteen colonies, all except Georgia. The letter was approved on July 5 and signed by John Hancock, President of the Second Congress, and by representatives of the named twelve colonies. It was sent to London on July 8, 1775, in the care of Richard Penn and Arthur Lee. Dickinson hoped that news of the Battles of Lexington and Concord combined with the "humble petition" would persuade the King to respond with a counter-proposal or open negotiations.

Adams wrote to a friend that the petition served no purpose, that war was inevitable, and that the colonies should have already raised a navy and taken British officials prisoner. The letter was intercepted by British officials and news of its contents reached Great Britain at about the same time as the petition itself. British advocates of a military response used Adams' letter to claim that the petition itself was insincere.

Penn and Lee provided a copy of the petition to colonial secretary Lord Dartmouth on August 21, followed with the original on September 1. They reported back on September 2: "we were told that as his Majesty did not receive it on the throne," meaning that the King refused to read the petition or forward it to Parliament, "no answer would be given." The King had already issued the Proclamation of Rebellion on August 23 in response to news of the Battle of Bunker Hill, declaring the American colonies to be in a state of rebellion and ordering "all Our officers… and all Our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion". The hostilities which Adams had foreseen undercut the petition, and the King had answered it before it even reached him.

The King's refusal to consider the petition gave Adams and others the opportunity to push for independence, viewing the King as intransigent and uninterested in addressing the colonists' grievances. It polarized the issue in the minds of many colonists, who realized that the choice from that point forward was between complete independence and complete submission to British rule, a realization crystallized a few months later in Thomas Paine's widely read pamphlet Common Sense.


0 Comments
<<Previous

    CTROL Blog

    This blog will be used by Center Staff to post articles addressing issues concerning the Rule of Law and how it is taught and understood in our communities, nation, and world.

    Categories

    All
    American Revolution
    Capital Punishment
    Civil Disobedience
    Civil Law
    Civil Rights Movement
    Colonialism
    Criminal Law
    Death Penalty
    Economic Equltiy
    Economics
    Editorials
    Educators
    Fractured History
    Freedom Of Religion
    Freedom Of Speech
    Gender Equality
    Government
    Historical Sources For The Rule Of Law
    Immigration
    Indigenous People
    International
    Jim Crow
    Labor
    Laws
    Literature
    Miscarriage Of Justice
    Nativism
    Property Rights
    Race Relations
    Riots
    Slavery
    Taxation
    The Holocaust
    Today In The History Of The Rule Of Law
    Trials
    United States Supreme Court
    US Constitution
    Vigilantism
    Voting Rights
    Women Of Note
    World War II

    RSS Feed

About

Vision
Rule of Law Project
Rule of Law Blog
​Site Map
Navigation Help

Offerings

Educator Resources
Student Resources
Attorney Engagement
Community Engagement

Contact and Support CTROL

Contact
Support
Privacy Policy
​Contact the Webmaster
© COPYRIGHT 2009-2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.