[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

There were other forms of taxes besides property and poll taxes in the early U.S. republic. Excise taxes and tariffs were both commonly used to generate federal revenue, and both were unpopular enough to spur rebellion (the Whiskey Rebellion in the case of the former) and talk of secession (South Carolina and the Nullification Crisis).

I wish that one of our British members would chime in regarding "methods of redress" in British government, especially during the time period in question (c. 1754-1776). I suppose I will have to dig in and do the research myself but, IIRC, there were checks and balances in the British government. But then again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "methods of redress". Are you referring to the ability to amend the Constitution, or are you referring to the federal judiciary?

I could be misunderstanding what you deem "methods of redress", but at times you seem to be referring to the federal judiciary. Keep in mind that its powers evolved after the ratification of the Constitution. A federal judiciary was established under Washington, by Congress, with the Judiciary Act of 1789, after the ratification of the constitution. Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's greatest power, that of judicial review (i.e. the power to declare legislation unconstitutional). That didn't happen until 1803, over a decade after ratification of the USC. Only the Supreme Court, as an entity, is explicitly written into the Constitution. It's powers, and the rest of the federal judiciary, were established by law.

In terms of the franchise/suffrage, acts of Congress (i.e. laws) were the prime mover in enacting change. The judiciary didn't play much of a role in that. In fact, at times, it worked against expanding suffrage, both upholding slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford) and, later, segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson).

So that's what I don't understand. There were checks and balances in the British government, and Parliament, which, in part, was an elected legislative body, with the power to create, annul, and amend laws. To me, that's one major "method of redress".

As I said earlier, perhaps I'm just not understanding your points. I hope that I'm not coming across as oppositional or confrontational.

No, you don't sound Confrontational. I actually enjoy your posts in this discussion. When I refer to "Redress," I'm referring to an individual's right; not the creation of a law. The original power for "Redress" came from the articles that created The Supreme Court as established by our Constitution. The creation of the Federal courts was an "oversight" of our Constitution that was addressed in the stated act. My point about "Redress" in the US is that if an individual or group feels "slighted" by a law made by our Government; They can "sue" the Government to force a change in the law and/or seek "damages" for the improper law. If a law is found "Unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court, it is immediately rendered void by that ruling. Any similar laws would also be void as well. Could an individual (say a farmer) in the 1700's "sue" The King of England to get compensation from him, or to cause the removal of a law by legal action? That's my point about the Constitution verses the English Bill of Rights. Under the English Bill of rights, The King couldn't interfere with a trial; But there is nothing that enabled a singular individual or an unprotected class (Catholics) from "suing" the King or the Government to change a law or to receive "Redress" for the King's/Government's conduct. This is the difference I have been trying to point out. The Constitution is written to empower individuals, not just a class of people. That is the primary "evolution" of the Constitution verses earlier documents.