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 #8 reads as follows:
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
Why was the indictment levied: The right to a fair trial was a right that all British subjects possessed. This dates back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and is one of the inalienable rights that Jefferson recognized in the Declaration. Massachusetts was denied the right to select judges in 1774. The King appointed his own, subject to his discretion. The judges were compensated via taxation of the colonists, but they were not representative. No taxation without representation is a common theme leading up to 1776.
In many cases, the colonists were outright denied trial by jury. “Obstructed the Administration of Justice.” The King’s attack on judiciary powers applied to courts in other states as well. These judges were close with the Commissioners of Customs and acted with contempt towards the colonies. The bureaucracy played fast and loose with commerce laws such as the Sugar Act and could often seize the colonist’s ships for any reason (which will be detailed in a later grievance).
Why is this important today: The right to a fair trial has been forfeited for political reasons many times in recent years. Take for example, the 2021 trial of Officer Derek Chauvin. Regardless of your opinion, it is undeniable that extrajudicial powers overrode the courts. A clear-cut obstruction of the administration of justice.
A sitting Congresswoman urged protestors to become confrontational (not protected under the 1st Amendment) before jurors were sequestered.
The city of Minneapolis agreed to a $27 million settlement before the trial took place, an admission of guilt before due process.
A sitting president publicly calling for the right verdict, as if there can only be one. This is an impeachable offense. The executive branch cannot threaten the judicial.
These offenses are identical to what King George was indicted for. The right to a fair trial was taken away by a foreign influence. A president and a Congresswoman from California have no right to use their political power to influence a court in Minnesota. The right to fair trial should not be a partisan issue. If we still valued our principles, these types of people would not be in power.