What Is Rule of Law and Why Was It Important to the Colonists in Creating a Constitution

During the ratification process, which lasted about 10 months (the Constitution went into effect when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify in late June 1788; the 13th state, Rhode Island, did not join the Union until May 1790), numerous state ratification conventions proposed amendments that established the rights Jefferson had recognized in the Declaration and protected them in their own State constitutions. James Madison and other supporters of the Constitution initially opposed the need for a bill of rights, deeming it unnecessary (because the federal government did not have the power to restrict individual liberty) or dangerous (since it implied that the federal government had the power to violate liberty in the first place). Faced with a wave of public demands for a Bill of Rights, Madison changed his mind and introduced a Bill of Rights in Congress on June 8, 1789. The United States of America did not import this particular power plan directly from Britain, although British constitutionalism was indispensable to our thinking on this issue. King George III inherited a monarchy limited by the constitutional revolution, the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89, which shifted the place of sovereignty to Britain: the King was no longer the divine-legal, absolute and arbitrary source of law and justice of the past, but Parliament – the House of Commons and the House of Lords – when cooperating with the King. formed the supreme authority in Britain and its empire. This constitutional revolution made us North American settlers incredibly proud to be freedom-loving Englishmen, until, of course, taxes, parliamentary declarations of intent, the cantonment of troops in private homes and snacks changed our minds. No country can defend a society based on the rule of law if its people do not respect the law. Everyone must commit to respecting laws, judicial authorities, legal signage and courts. Imagine if everyone in your community decided they didn`t want to be bothered by traffic rules and signals, for example. The streets of your community would quickly become a chaotic and less safe place.

Police officers may be overwhelmed trying to improve the situation or ignored altogether. That the British turned their backs on their own tradition and respect for the rule of law was the main accusation of American colonial rulers. In his famous pamphlet The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proven (1764), James Otis wrote: In this letter, written in 1787 on the eve of the Federal Constitutional Convention, James Madison warned George Washington of the dangers of temporarians and radicals. Madison also outlined her plans for a new federal government and a new constitution to be formulated in Philadelphia. Proportional representation and a national legislative veto against state laws were just two of Madison`s most important proposals. The America of 1787 inherited from medieval England the concept of the rule of law, sometimes expressed as “a government of laws, not men.” The rise of this principle in English history dates back to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, when King John found it necessary to guarantee his obedience to English laws. By the way, medieval English legal authors derived their understanding of the rule of law from ancient Roman jurisprudence. Third, the Constitution was based on the assumption that any constitutional government is, by definition, a limited government. A constitution is a legal, not just political, restriction of government; It is considered by many to be the antithesis of arbitrary rule; Its opposite is a despotic government, the government of will instead of law. Parliamentary supremacy, which equates all law with legislation, is therefore hostile to the US Constitution, which declares that the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land. Man`s natural freedom is to be free from any higher power on earth and not to be under man`s will or legislative authority, but only to have the natural law for his reign.

To ensure that future generations would have a clear picture of the original statement, William Stone made copies of the document before it disappeared completely. Historians discuss how Stone reproduced facsimiles. He kept the original statement in his workshop for up to three years, perhaps using a process where he took a damp cloth, placed it on top of the original document and made a perfect copy by removing half the ink. He then allegedly placed the ink on a copper plate to perform the engraving (although instead he traced the entire document by hand without making a press copy). Stone used the copper plate to print 200 engravings of the first edition, as well as a copy for himself in 1823, and sold the plate and engravings to the State Department.