The Declaration of Independence is often misunderstood, which I wrote about here. One of the most important, yet overlooked, sections of the document is the list of indictments against King George III. The indictments are further evidence that the Declaration was never meant to be a revolutionary statement. From the Magna Carta to the colonial constitutions, George III was indicted for violating existing laws. Jefferson listed a total of 27 indictments against the King. Throughout February, we’re going to look at one indictment a day, why it was levied, and why it is still relevant.
Indictment #4 reads as follows:
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, and also uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
Why was the indictment levied: This was largely a result of the Boston Tea Party. The crown’s “Boston Port Bill” was seen by Massachusetts as a vengeful measure in response. This is one of the most serious indictments and is included amongst the five “intolerable acts.” The King ordered those accused of crimes to report to Salem for trial, however all of Massachusetts’ records were kept in Boston. And it just so happened, that the Boston court houses were “protected” by the royal government. In addition to moving the court, it also closed the port of Boston to commerce.
This was a direct attack on the Massachusetts charter of 1691. The King’s unilateral measures were nullifying existing Massachusetts legal process. It was an ex post facto admission of guilt to those who rebelled in the tea incident. They had the “right” to trial in Salem, however all manner of the state’s legal processes were at a distant, unreachable location. “Fatiguing into compliance.”
Why is this important today: I wish I could point to a modern example as a turning point, but this type of abuse has been happening since the passage of the Judicial Act of 1789.
Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, we did not have a federal court system. Each state had their own courts, and Congress acted as referee where needed under the Articles of Confederation. There was concern that the Supreme Court would override the state courts, and these concerns were not unfounded.
A famous example of Supreme Court overreach is the Fletcher v. Peck decision of 1810. This case involved corrupt land deals. The “Yazoo” lands (future Alabama and Mississippi) were sold by Georgia in return for bribes. The validity of the land deeds was called into question, and the case went to the Georgia courts.
That’s what should have happened, but that’s not what actually happened. The case, clearly a Georgia issue, went to the Supreme Court. This is the first example of the Supreme Court, under John Marshall, outright overriding the state courts. “Legislative bodies at places unusual.” And John Marshall’s legacy would live on in numerous unconstitutional decisions throughout history.
Regardless of what you think about the decision of Roe v. Wade, this is a modern example of the Supreme Court acting in “places unusual.” Abortion is a state issue, nothing in the constitution gives the Federal Government the power to regulate it. This is removing judicial sovereignty from the people of the states. The Supreme Court is “distant from the depository” of the states, and the Spirit of 1776 would not stand for injustices such as these.