OT: Seriously????

[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.

[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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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'm not a Brit, sorry But I would point you in the direction of the Magna Carta (the 1215 version and it's many amended versions), that was an important early document in the evolution of English Common Law. Of particular interest in this discussion is the section in the above wiki article titled Use in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States.

Also worth a look is the Bill of Rights 1689.

[stormlion1]

There were a few attempts on the part of parliament to address issues in the American Colonys, most of which were window dressing on huge bleeding sores and actually would of done nothing so were shot down by the representatives sent. Other representatives that were sent (The Colonys had no permanent representation, they had the right though to send a embassy to petition parliament though.) actually had orders to shoot down any concessions Parliament made because they wanted to paint the Brits in a bad light.

Just so you know, most of these representatives were from New England.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

There were a few attempts on the part of parliament to address issues in the American Colonys, most of which were window dressing on huge bleeding sores and actually would of done nothing so were shot down by the representatives sent. Other representatives that were sent (The Colonys had no permanent representation, they had the right though to send a embassy to petition parliament though.) actually had orders to shoot down any concessions Parliament made because they wanted to paint the Brits in a bad light.

Just so you know, most of these representatives were from New England.

This wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure we did our fair share of "agitating."

[unkated]

Here you hit upon a main problem about redress:

Originally Posted by stormlion1

The Colonies had no permanent representation, they had the right though to send a embassy to petition parliament though.

This is the center of that "no taxation without representation" stuff. There was no seat for the "Borough of Boston", Massachusetts Bay colony, New York, Virginia, etc.

There was no one who could stand in the midst of legislative body (Parliament) and speak for and VOTE for the interests of those British citizens living in the colonies.

So, at least from the view of those living in the colonies, they certainly were not served by a British republic.

I will remind our readership that particularly at the time, who actually got to vote for their Member of Parliament varied widely across England; in many (non-urban) districts, a few wealthy landholders selected among themselves; in more urban settings, the vote was still rather limited.

I'll suggest that at the time, England considered herself a Monarchy, with the King wielding some actual power, and the Prime Minister performing the bulk of the heavy lifting.

However, the American Revolution gets sticky for other reasons. Recall that initially, it was a confederation of states (the former colonies) with only weak
central ties. The problems with that led to the Constitution; it's initial shortcomings led to the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment...

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - W. Churchill, House of Commons, 1947

Uncle Ted

[stormlion1]

One of the biggest loyalist for the crown had been Benjamin Franklin. He had also been a good friend to many in parliament who did speak up on occasion for the colony's. The issue is the King (who Franklin expected to be given a reward for his service) had no interest in the Colony's as anything other than a tax base and Parliament only wanted the minimal effort in the colony's so they could be a tax base. Ben Franklin hadn't been to thrilled about his lack of reward from the Crown and did a one-eighty on his views. To the detriment of the British. Because the French loved him.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

The issue is the King (who Franklin expected to be given a reward for his service) had no interest in the Colony's as anything other than a tax base and Parliament only wanted the minimal effort in the colony's so they could be a tax base.

And for all of the other reasons European powers wanted overseas colonies- cheap/free raw materials, mercantilism, and to counter the imperial expansion of continental rivals. That's quite a long list.

-

[simonmark6]

Hoping not to offend our American posters, please dial irony meters up as far as they go.

I haven't weighed in on this so far as I am really no expert whatsoever but I have always been of the opinion that the American Revolution was totally and utterly legal and justified by British Law. I know that probably makes you feel less guilty about it all so I'm happy to say that...Like you needed permission to take your own country.

However, I'm referring to Article 61 of the Magna Carta. The article refers to the right of redress enshrined in our Laws since that time. I'm paraphrasing horribly here: it refers to the fact that any person who feels that the authority of the King or Government is infringing on their personal right to freedom of liberty, property, religious freedom or freedom of thought has the right to redress: an effective sueing of the state for said redress. It also enshrines the right to rebel against the Crown or said authority if the individual deems that their request for redress have been ignored. This includes seizing the Crown's property and armed rebellion. The only thing proscribed is physical harm to the Monarch or their immediate family.

This seems similar to the Fifth ? Amendment and indeed may be a lift from the original article in the Magna Carta.

Therefore, the Founding Fathers exercised their right to redress by declaring "No taxation without representation" and when these concerns were ignored or insufficiently redressed, they were practically required by law to revolt against the tyranny and establish a state where they were allowed to be free in the way they considered right.

Most of the time though, it never gets this far because Common Law relies on precedence and interpretation of an independent Judiciary which whilst it isn't perfect, tends to work on the principal that it is better to let an unlimited number of guilty people free rather than oppress a single innocent one. Most of the time this muddling along seems to work, and for those times when they aren't, Article 61 is whipped out.

Whether this works or not is a matter of opinion. I think it does but it is only as strong as the people in the system. There again, show me a system, even the American one, that isn't.

As to the Question if anyone ever sued King George for redress I'd give you this example: A group of colonists sought redress for taxation that they felt was unfair and believed that they were not given this redress, they therefore took up their right enshrined in English Law to rebel against the Crown until that redress either came or they freed themselves from tyranny. These people were rebels but rebellion is enshrined in English Law so the system was working as planned.
Hope that this helps somewhat and that it isn't too controversial.