Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.
One of the reasons the American colonists rebelled is because they believed- rightly so- that their constitutional rights as Englishmen were being violated. The main reason was that, unlike other Englishmen, they had no direct representation in Parliament, hence the rallying cry "no taxation without representation". The idea that the colonists came up with democracy out of thin air is, unfortunately, a myth.
The rebellious colonists focused their criticism of this system on the king, since monarchy during and after the Enlightenment was associated with tyranny. This was a canny political move designed to garner the support of the Whigs in the British Parliament, while not alienating their English brethren in the Isles.
Once again, the whole "democratic colonists rebelling against British monarchical tyranny" is not entirely the case. The Founders had a much more recent (than classical Athens and early Rome) example of constitutional government to look at: their mother country, Great Britain.
|
You do not have a Republic until all of your leaders are elected. This is not an indictment of the British Empire. It simply explains my earlier statement about Republics. The Founding Fathers could not go to "Country X" and ask them; "How's that Republic thing working out for you?" Reading about or imagining something is VERY different from doing it. The British EMPIRE was not yet a "Republic." It was an evolving Oligarchy (which is an unusual and interesting event in and of itself). I agree that the Founding Fathers probably did use British Documents to write the Constitution. There were a couple of big differences between your documents and the Constitution. In your English bill of rights; you secured your rights from the Monarchy like you would with a contract. The Constitution outlines rights which are "The Natural Rights" of all men, and do not "derive" from an agreement with Government. If Government were to violate an individuals right's; the individual can go to the Judiciary for redress. I cannot even envision someone in England suing King George III. This is important in so much as it allowed certain classes of people (African-Americans and Women) to "seek redress" for a violation of those rights later in our country's history (over the VEHEMENT objections of certain people both in and out of Government). English rights did not include certain classes of people (Catholics) and there really was no mechanism in your Bill of Rights for the "affected Parties" to seek redress. In the Constitution, The Judiciary was conceived as a mechanism for individuals to seek "redress" against the Government or each other. It is this aspect (and other mechanisms in the various articles) that make The Constitution a "living document." A living document is one that can be changed or modified over time without changing it's fundamental meaning. Most rule books are living documents. The English documents are not entirely living documents because they include no mechanism for modifying the document without a complete "rewrite" possibly bringing the new document into conflict with existing law. While you could write new documents with more refined rights (thus leaving the older document intact); This newer document could then come into conflict with the older document in accordance with your national laws. This is one of the most important features of the Constitution. When a law comes into conflict with it, the Judiciary hears a case and either rules that law "Unconstitutional," or the Constitution becomes "modified" by the newer law without changing a significant amount of its original intent. A "nonliving document" (a closed or unmodifiable document like a contract) may be rendered "void" if it is found to be "in violation" of a law.
However, a "living document" can only be created by a consensus and can be "undone" by either excessive physical force against the document's founders (the reason Great Britain was not a Republic-King George HAD to sign all laws) or by "apathy" from the governed. Unfortunately, I don't believe that we could write as elegant a document today. To give fair credit where it is in fact due; the English Documents were elegantly written "contracts" between the populace and the monarchy. I just don't see them as "living documents" because they didn't include a proper mechanism for redress against the monarchy in their writings.
My writings about The Second Amendment were general in nature. They were not "aimed" at anyone in this forum and used to illustrate why I believe The Supreme Court ruled it to be an individual right in the recent court cases. This also shows the "power" of the check that the Judiciary wields. Hundreds of laws were rendered "Unconstitutional" with a single ruling. This is also an example of a living document and how it can affect a Government.
Unfortunately; I see our Republic quickly becoming an Oligarchy controlled by individuals who "buy votes" not in the best interest of the Republic from corrupt Government officials. The power of "Public Opinion" which opposed this power is slowly being replaced by public apathy. This could easily come back to haunt us if those individual "power brokers" inadvertently start us down the road to WWIII.