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 #26 reads as follows:
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
Why was the indictment levied: In 1775, Parliament passed acts further restricting American commerce. The Navigation Acts had already awarded Great Britain a monopoly over colonial trade. The 1775 acts expanded punishment to include foreign nations. If Dutch or French ships were caught trading with the colonies, their ships could be impressed by the British.
All passengers of these ships were subject to punishment, not just the merchants. Punishment for the crew did not include imprisonment, but slavery. The merchants and civilians on these ships were entered into a registry and considered to be in total servitude to King George III. By forcing them to serve the King’s wishes, Americans were faced with the possibility of becoming “the executioners of their friends and brethren.” Those the King enslaved would be used as soldiers against the colonists.
Why is this important now: There are massive regulations on trade and commerce today. Nearly everything you eat, buy or sell has dozens of federal agencies that regulate it. Abject slavery has long been abolished. But you can still be imprisoned for violating any aspect of “commerce.”
Marijuana has been legalized in many states. However, it is still a federal crime. Does that mean you can only be prosecuted for it if trading across state lines as interstate commerce? Maybe. But we have outlined in previous indictments that the commerce clause can mean whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean.
In the 1942 Wickard v, Filburn case, a farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was brought before the court for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1939. This unconstitutional act placed limits on how much grain a farmer could grow in an effort to regulate prices for the war. Filburn grew grain in excess of the limit but argued that he was using it for his own consumption. The Supreme Court ruled against him, arguing that the grain he grew could potentially be interstate commerce.
This is a ridiculous view of the commerce clause. By this logic, anything can be interstate commerce. No matter how minute, every resource you utilize chips away at the worldwide supply. This is basic economic law; everything is potentially commerce because every resource is limited.
In 1942, it was grain. In today’s hyperregulated environment, it could be the type of light bulb you use, the type of trees in your yard or a pest that you cleared from your pond. When the rules are flexible, only those in power decide who they target. Nearly anything can be considered illegal under the right lens. Violating laws can lead to incarceration, and a side effect of incarceration is prison labor.
Violating commerce laws today can turn you into a slave of the state. It’s a bit of a stretch, but it’s closer to the original indictment than it appears. The restrictions we have on commerce today are astronomically greater than any that King George III placed on us, and it would disgust Jefferson and the founders.