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 #13 reads as follows:
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
Why was the indictment levied: In the leadup to the Declaration of Independence, more and more power was taken from the colonies and given to military governors. In 1767, King George III created a Board of Trade and used the military to enforce their revenue laws. The colonists did not have representation in this Board of Trade.
The colonies had legislative processes outlined in their own state constitutions. By creating new agencies and forcing these laws on the colonies, the King was acting “foreign to our constitution” and the acts passed were “pretended legislation.”
Why is this important today: When extra-governmental agencies are set up via executive fiat, this is a great modern example of indictment #13. The National Security Agency (NSA) constantly violates the Constitution by collecting bulk phone records of millions of American citizens. Under the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The NSA’s activities were illegal under an originalist understanding of the constitution and were challenged in court. The agency can attempt to get around the Constitution by giving some wiggle room to clauses in the (also unconstitutional) Patriot Act. There are a bevy of Federal agencies that operate “foreign to our constitution.” If they are “inconvenienced” by the Constitution and the laws of the states, they can work in tandem with other agencies to give “assent to their acts of pretended legislation.”