|
1 - STATES
James Madison said, “The Constitution, unless amended, must be interpreted according to the common meaning of the words at the time the Constitution was adopted.” We must also understand that our Constitutions were not conceived in a vacuum. They arose out of both a cultural history and a set of specific circumstances.
Culturally, increasing liberty through civil war was an almost regular event in English history. The Baronial Rebellion in 1206 resulted in the Magna Carta. The English Civil War, really a series of conflicts in the 1620s and 1630s, resulted in regular sessions of Parliament. The Glorious Revolution in 1689 (a bloodless coup) resulted in the English Bill of Rights. Consider that the English Civil War, which deposed Charles I, son of James I (King James Bible), was fought while England was first settling the Americas. The English Civil War was largely a conflict between those who ascribed to the King James Bible and those who ascribed to the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was the Bible that the settlers of America, particularly New England, brought with them. It was the bible of the Americas well into the 19th century. The chief difference between the two Bibles was that the Geneva bible supported more republican ideals of personal accountability to God including disobeying royal decrees that are contrary to the laws of God, and included extensive commentary so that the average reader could study independently. The King James Bible, which came later, was written to support the divine right of kings and eliminated the commentary.
The psychology of the Americas is excellently articulated in the preamble to the 1776 Constitution of New Hampshire. In January 1776, New Hampshire was the first free (no earthly king) government created by a written Constitution in the history of the world.
"The sudden and abrupt departure of his Excellency John Wentworth, Esq., our late Governor, and several of the Council, leaving us destitute of legislation, and no executive courts being open to punish criminal offenders; whereby the lives and properties of the honest people of this colony are liable to the machinations and evil designs of wicked men, Therefore, for the preservation of peace and good order, and for the security of the lives and properties of the inhabitants of this colony, we conceive ourselves reduced to the necessity of establishing A FORM OF GOVERNMENT to continue during the present unhappy and unnatural contest with Great Britain; PROTESTING and DECLARING that we neaver sought to throw off our dependence upon Great Britain, but felt ourselves happy under her protection, while we could enjoy our constitutional rights and privileges. And that we shall rejoice if such a reconciliation between us and our parent State can be effected as shall be approved by the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, in whose prudence and wisdom we confide."
This single paragraph sets forth several fundamental principles and perceptions. First, that the purpose of government is to punish evildoers. Second, that the reason they created an independent government was not borne so much out of a desire to remove themselves from British control, but a failure of Great Britain to execute its necessary function. Third, that they perceived themselves to have constitutional rights (English Bill of Rights). Fourth, they looked forward to a reunification with Great Britain. There is also a contextual definition of the word State. They refer to Great Britain as their parent State. This begs the question of their self perception when they referred to themselves as States in the Declaration of Independence.
A couple of years ago, I was introduced to The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law by Emmerich de Vattel written in 1758. It is hard to imagine that our founders would not have been familiar with this work. Throughout this book, de Vattel uses the words nation and state interchangeably. In the section titled "Preliminaries," his first paragraph is as follows:
“NATIONS or states are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.”
Therefore, we must believe that when our founders referred to former colonies as States, that they considered each State to have status as a nation. Just look at the language of the Declaration of Independence:
“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, and That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
Notice that the similar phraseology such as laws of nature and the articulation of the concept of a State, are those of an independent nation. It is the States, and not just as the United States, that have the powers normally attributed to nations.
|
|
