OT: Seriously????

[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.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The first thing that struck me as I was reading this, is this is probably the way New America was born.

How interesting that New America came up! New America was in the back of my mind, too. They are the penultimate so-called Constitutional militia. (Going forward, I’m going to abbreviate “so-called Constitutional militia” as CONMIL.) Although New America is fictional, they provide us with a window on the problem of CONMIL in particular and the idea that the government is obliged to guarantee access to military grade small arms so that citizenry can make up their own minds how to employ violence without any reference to the body politic.


New America uses their Second Amendment rights (as commonly interpreted) to purchase military grade small arms. Once things fall apart, they use their firearms to rebuild the United States in their own image. And there’s the problem. New America deliberately does not recreate the Constitution-based federal republic within their own sphere. If they conquer the whole country, the previous republic is a dead letter. Racism run amok will be the order of the day. The law will serve an elite handful. Slavery will return, albeit in the form of the Elsies.

So one has to ask if the Second Amendment is serving its intended purpose if the Amendment is equipping a private army which exists to create a racist autocracy. New America is fictional, but CONMIL are not. Whatever ideas the CONMIL may have about the republic or individual liberties, they are contrary to the spirit of the republic if the CONMIL operates independently of the electorate.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Webstral

How interesting that New America came up! New America was in the back of my mind, too. They are the penultimate so-called Constitutional militia. (Going forward, I’m going to abbreviate “so-called Constitutional militia” as CONMIL.) Although New America is fictional, they provide us with a window on the problem of CONMIL in particular and the idea that the government is obliged to guarantee access to military grade small arms so that citizenry can make up their own minds how to employ violence without any reference to the body politic.


New America uses their Second Amendment rights (as commonly interpreted) to purchase military grade small arms. Once things fall apart, they use their firearms to rebuild the United States in their own image. And there’s the problem. New America deliberately does not recreate the Constitution-based federal republic within their own sphere. If they conquer the whole country, the previous republic is a dead letter. Racism run amok will be the order of the day. The law will serve an elite handful. Slavery will return, albeit in the form of the Elsies.

So one has to ask if the Second Amendment is serving its intended purpose if the Amendment is equipping a private army which exists to create a racist autocracy. New America is fictional, but CONMIL are not. Whatever ideas the CONMIL may have about the republic or individual liberties, they are contrary to the spirit of the republic if the CONMIL operates independently of the electorate.

The singularly most dangerous group I personally ever dealt with during my career were a group known as The Sovereign Citizens. They were known for attacking members of Law Enforcement at the drop of a hat. The problem was that they "invited" interaction with us by putting HAND WRITTEN license plates on their vehicles, driving without licenses, and doing other things to "demonstrate" their status as a "Sovereign State unto themselves." If these guys were the basis for New America; The post war future would be bloody indeed.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very nice post. I have learned more than a couple of things during this "swerve" in the basic thread. This History lesson has pushed my Political Science (law/civics) education to the limits. My professors would "touch on some of these arguments" but most were fairly loose with history. They tended to focus more on modern law (probably because most of us were also attending the Police Academy at that time).

[unkated]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

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.

<snip>

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.

The problem, of course, is that while English Law may grant the right to rebel as a form of redress (and the philosophy of using a 'well-ordered' militia as a counter-weight to the military might of a tyrannical central government in the United States), it does not preclude punishment for those who rebel, rightly or wrongly.

From Watt Tyler forward, rebels against the Crown, once caught, are treated as criminals - imprisoned, transported, and/or executed, with their goods and property forfeit to the Crown (or to Parliament during the Interregnum).

So, rebellion against the Crown, or against the US Government (or any sovereign governing body I have heard of, from Pharaoh forward), is only unpunished if you win. :-)

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

Magna Carta Article 61

Hmmm. Actually, (and please correct me if I am wrong), it seems to say that you need to take your complaint to a body of some 25 Barons, and if they say your reasons are legitimate, and the Crown or its Justiciary has not offered redress within 40 days, then you may rebel - but only under the leadership of these Barons, or a subset of at least 4 of them.

Hmm But if you don't convince these Barons that your cause is just enough to require redress, you appear to be scrod (a New England past tense form).

Oh, and you have to give all crown property back after the rebellion, once the grievances have been redressed.

It could make for an interesting alt-fiction 18th century court-room drama:

Peoples of the United Colonies vs. King George & Prime Minister Lord North, tried before the House of Lords (at least 25 Barons attending...)

• subplots involving trying to remove some of the Barons from London on one pretext or another by the Crown
• the colonists are trying various offerings moral or immoral on various barons ('this is called "corn whiskey"...'; 'well, this stuff grows like tobacco, but tastes a bit different. has a remarkable effect on one's mind...'; 'how about 10,000 acres of land granted in Kentucky?')
• months of argument about the various other titles vs "Baron"
• John Adams as an extremely combative attorney representing the United Colonies (Franklin: "No, John, I don't think you should deliver our closing statement. You're obnoxious and disliked at this juncture. Perhaps Mr. Lee of Virginia could read it out to them...")

Hmmm. Perhaps I should not stay up to watch 1776 at 1 in the morning...

Uncle Ted

[simonmark6]

By the time of the Revolution, the Barons had been replaced by the Courts. That didn't preclude the Courts from being corrupt of course and much of the development of civil liberties in the UK came from principled men and women who refused to bend to said corruption.

In this way, the Magna Carta has become a series of guiding principles rather than specific laws. gain, that doesn't mean that English Law id right and American wrong or that I have an opinion that one is intrinsically better than another. There was however a specific method of gaining redress through the courts and Parliament. Whether it worked or not was another matter but that would be the same in any country where the method of redress is held in the hands of the power brokers.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by unkated

Hmm But if you don't convince these Barons that your cause is just enough to require redress, you appear to be scrod (a New England past tense form).

But the same holds true of the United States' federal court system. Just ask Dred Scott and Homer Plessy. In the case of the former, the Supreme Court ruled that he couldn't sue or even testify in court because he wasn't a citizen (by virtue of his status as a slave). They compounded this by declaring him to be the personal property of his owner, thereby upholding slavery, on principle and in practice, not only in the states, but in the territories as well. Yeah, so just having a system of redress doesn't guarantee that justice will be done.

[simonmark6]

I would agree with that wholeheartedly. When researching my post I read teh following leture. It is dated and for me too self-congratulatory, but one of its conclusions I thinks sums British Justice up (or what it used to be, don't get me started on what it is today)

https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/..._the_Law_1.pdf

In making these comparisons, we no doubt think
our system is better but we ought always to remember
that it is the system which suits the temperament of
our people. It would not necessarily be the best
system for other peoples. Remember that the jury
system has proved a failure in France. But one thing
is quite clear.
The system which has been built up
by our forefathers over the last 1000 years suits our
people because it is the best guarantee of our freedoms.
The fundamental safeguards have been established,
not so much by lawyers as by the common people of
England, by the unknown juryman who in 1367 said
he would rather die in prison than give a verdict
against his conscience, by Richard Chambers who in
1629 declared that never till death would he
acknowledge the sentence of the Star Chamber, by
Edmund Bushell and his eleven fellow-jurors who in
1670 went to prison rather than find the Quakers
guilty, by the jurors who acquitted the printer of the
Letters of Junius, and by a host of others. These
are the men who have bequeathed to us the heritage
of freedom. It is their spirit which William
Wordsworth interpreted so finely when he wrote :—
' We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spake ; the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held : In everything we are sprung
of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.'

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yeah, so just having a system of redress doesn't guarantee that justice will be done.

That wasn't the point. The question was the legality of rebellion against the English Crown in the event of the failure of redress from the Crown.

Simon held up Article 61, that said you could seize Crown property and hold it until the King or his bailiffs provide redress. However, you cannot seize Crown property unless (and only under the leadership of) a body of Barons.

Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) said that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Political systems that allow the population to own weapons are those that trust that they are creating a happy enough society that the population that they will not rebel, and well-off (or policed) enough that banditry will not flourish.

Attempts in the United States to impose controls on weaponry - usually in an attempt to control banditry (armed crime) - are pushed back by political movements from the population decrying it as an attempt at tighter political control. Whether these are legitimate efforts against tighter political controls or disguised efforts to increase access to arms for criminal purposes is another question.

With a disorganized but armed population, it is in the interest of a government to satisfy the population that it has no need to from an organized opposition.

Uncle Ted

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by unkated

Magna Carta Article 61

The Canadian Army View on the Magna Carta