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 #18 reads as follows:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Jury trial:
Why was the indictment levied: Great Britain formed a Court of Admiralty in 1768 to enforce provisions of the Vice Admiralty Court Act. This was largely done as a result of tax revolts that were becoming increasingly common.
Normally, a colonist would be tried by a jury of his peers. The Admiralty Courts acted as a branch of the Commissioner of Customs and had an interest in protecting Great Britain’s trade. This created a conflict of interest as the judicial and legislative were one and the same.
The courts were used specifically to enforce various trade laws such as embargos and tariffs that they themselves passed. If the colonists disobeyed trade laws that they had no legislative say in, they were placed in front of a jury operating under that legislative body that they also had no say in.
Why is this important today: Several of Jefferson’s indictments were a result of the denial of due process, however this one specifically relates to a judiciary acting on behalf of a non-representative legislature. The CARES Act was passed in March of 2020 and included a 120-day ban on evicting tenants from federally subsidized housing. While dubious constitutionally, this act did go through the legislative process.
When this expired, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) expanded the eviction ban through the end of the year. The CDC is not a legislative body. The landlords impacted by this cannot affect political consequences on the agency, however they can face legal consequences if they attempt to reclaim their private property rights.
The acts affect small landlords the most. These individuals often do not outright own the properties they rent and use rental income from tenants to pay the mortgage for the rental property. Not having access to that income for over a year can have catastrophic financial consequences. This a direct violation of property rights by an agency that does not have legislative powers.
The Supreme Court did strike the moratorium down as unconstitutional (eviction moratorium powers returned to the states); however, this did not happen until August of 2021. The landlords, like the colonists, were at the mercy of an unconstitutional agency and a judicial system that did not represent them. While the Supreme Court made the right decision, for many, irreversible damage had already been done by that point.