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 #19 reads as follows:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
Why was the indictment levied: In 1774, Lord North introduced the Administration of Justice Act to Parliament. This would give the Governor, or Lieutenant Governor, the power to remove any person charged with a crime from the colonies to face trial in another colony, or Great Britain. This was one of the “Intolerable Acts” and was aimed towards Massachusetts Bay and New England.
The colonists could be extradited to face trial for severe crimes such as murder, but also for rioting, disobeying revenue laws or resisting King George’s government in any way. Americans saw this as an act of retribution, not necessity. Even some members of Parliament denounced the bill as unjust and cruel.
The bill passed both houses of Parliament by an overwhelming majority. The colonists could now be sent to lands alien to them to face trial by a jury of enemies. This was another indictment that resulted from denying the right to fair trial.
Why is this important today: United States citizens can face trial in a foreign nation if they commit crimes on their soil, but we do not extradite citizens to face trial in a foreign state. However, some of the cases the Supreme Court hears tread similar territory to what Jefferson indicted King George III for.
The Supreme Court was never intended to override state courts however it’s been doing this since its inception in 1789. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no Supreme Court. The Congress acted as a referee between states, and the Supreme Court, “to form a more perfect union” was created as an outgrowth of that.
The Supreme Court was meant to handle cases that involved disputes between states, just as Congress did under the Articles. They would also hear cases that applied strictly to the Federal government, such as cases involving ambassadors, treaties and maritime law (as these are outside of state law). But today, the Supreme Court can hear almost any case based on how they choose to interpret “interstate commerce.” The grain that a farmer grows for their own use, insects that fall under an endangered species class, almost anything today can be interpreted as “interstate commerce” by the Supreme Court.
The states have their own judicial processes in place, and when the Supreme Court hears a case that should be handled in a state court, if at all, that is similar to “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried.”