DOCSLIB.ORG

Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights contents chap.1 chap.4 chap.7 chap.10 page 7 page 28 page 51 page 74 THE ROOTS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF THE PRESS TRIAL BY JURY CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT LIBERTY chap.2 chap.5 chap.8 chap.11 page 14 page 36 page 58 page 81 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN THE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW MODERN ERA chap.3 chap.6 chap.9 chap.12 page 20 page 44 page 66 page 88 FREEDOM OF SPEECH PRIVACY PROPERTY RIGHTS THE RIGHT TO VOTE Author: Melvin Urofsky / Executive Editor: George Clack Managing Editor: Paul Malamud / Art Director: Thaddeus A. Miksinski, Jr. Illustrator: Richard Anderson ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Melvin I. Urofsky is professor of history and public policy at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. He has written widely on constitutional rights, and is the co-author of the leading text on constitutional history, “A March of Liberty.” ABOUT THE ILLUSTRATOR: Richard Anderson, the illustrator, lives in Mamaroneck, New York. His work has appeared professionally in many formats, including magazines, posters, books, and other media. His cover art has graced national publications such as U.S. News and World Report, TV Guide, and AARP magazine. preface The Bill of Rights as Beacon n the summer of 1787, delegates from 13 new As the title “The Rights of the People: Individual American states, recently British colonies, met in Freedom and the Bill of Rights” suggests, this book is our IPhiladelphia to write a constitution for a unified nation. effort to explain how the core concepts of individual liberty By September, they had produced a document that then and individual rights have evolved under the U.S. legal began to circulate among the state legislatures for ratifica- system down the present day. tion. The new constitution provided a blueprint for how the It is intended for a great variety of readers. One obvi- national government would function, but it did not contain ous use is in secondary school or university classrooms. a section specifically outlining the rights of individual citi- To that end, we are creating an on-line Discussion Guide zens. A public debate quickly arose. Advocates of the draft with accompanying questions and background constitution argued that guarantees of individual rights references. Please look for it on the World Wide Web at: were not needed. Others, however, aware of the explicit http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/ rights guaranteed in earlier documents such as the British A non-American reader may well ask, “But what does Bill of Rights (1689) and the Virginia Declaration of all this have to do with me? In my country we have a dif- Rights in 1776, believed that some specific provision stat- ferent legal tradition and there is no bill of rights.” ing the rights of individuals was necessary. It is true that the U.S. Bill of Rights is the historical At the height of the debate, in December 1787, Thomas product of a particular time and place. It arose out of a Jefferson, then serving as ambassador to France, wrote a long British tradition of enumerated rights within the letter to his friend James Madison, one of the chief authors British legal system that governed the American colonies. of the new constitution. “A bill of rights,” Jefferson wrote, Some would say it has unique application to the “is what the people are entitled to against every government circumstances of the United States. on earth, general or particular, and what no just govern- Yet many others believe that the American Bill of Rights ment should refuse, or rest on inference.” has transcended its historical roots. The concept of individ- Jefferson’s position gained advocates, and a compro- ual rights can be seen as one of the building blocks in any mise was reached. State legislatures agreed to ratify the civil society. And in many times and many places, the Bill draft document with the understanding that the first of Rights has served as beacon to those living under tyrants. national legislature meeting under the new constitution Consider the post-1989 revolutions that ended would pass amendments guaranteeing individual liberties. Communist control of Eastern Europe. Adam Michnik, the That is precisely what occurred. By 1791, these 10 amend- Polish journalist and Solidarity leader, posed the question ments, known as the Bill of Rights, had become part of the of which revolution has been a greater inspiration for mod- supreme law of the land. ern Europeans – the French Revolution or the American Much about this controversy at the very beginning of the Revolution. American experiment in democracy prefigures later “The American Revolution,” says Michnik, “appears to developments in U.S. politics and constitutional law. embody simply an idea of freedom without utopia. Intense views on both sides were moderated by a compli- Following Thomas Paine, it is based on the natural right cated, yet highly pragmatic compromise. Also significant is of the people to determine their own fate. It consciously that Jefferson saw explicit limits on government power as relinquishes the notion of a perfect, conflict-free society in a necessity. In fact, the Bill of Rights can be read as the favor of one based on equal opportunity, equality before the definitive statement of that most American of values: the law, religious freedom, and the rule of law.” idea that the individual is prior to and takes precedence over any government. 1 introduction We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed. —United States Declaration of Independence hese words from the Declaration of Independence have always had a special meaning for the people of America. It is one of our charters of freedom, recited at countless gatherings every Fourth of July, memorized by generations of schoolchildren, invoked by politicians of every party, and frequently cited by the courts in their decisions. Its message, which resonates as forcefully today as it did over two cen- Tturies ago, is that protection of the rights of the people is the antecedent, the justification, for establishing civil government. The people do not exist to serve the government, as is the case in tyrannical societies, but rather the government exists to protect the people and their rights. It was a revolutionary idea when first propounded in 1776; it still is today. John, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom and Other Essays (1907) Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. In the essays that follow, I have tried to explain what some of the more important of those rights are, how they are integrally connected to one another, and how as a matter of necessity their definition changes over time. We do not live in the world of the 18th century, but of the 21st, and while the spirit of the Founders still informs our understanding of constitutionally protected rights, every generation of Americans must recapture that spirit for themselves, and interpret it so that they too may enjoy its blessings. In 1787, shortly after the Philadelphia convention adjourned, James Madison sent a copy of the new U.S. Constitution to his friend and mentor, Thomas Jefferson, then American ambassador to France. On the whole, Jefferson replied, he liked the document, but he found one major defect—it lacked a bill of rights. Such a listing, Jefferson explained, “is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” Jefferson’s comment surprised some of the men who had drafted the Constitution; in their minds, the entire document comprised a bill of rights, since it strictly limited the powers of the new government. There was no need, for instance, of any spe- cific assurance that Congress would not establish a church, since Congress had been given no power to do so. But Jefferson, the chief architect of the Declaration of Independence, believed otherwise. Too often, in the past, gov- ernments had gone into areas where supposedly they had no power to act, and no authority to be, and the result had been a diminishing or loss of individual rights. Do not trust assumed restraints, Jefferson urged, make the rights of the people explicit, so that no government could ever lay hands on them. Many people agreed with Jefferson’s sentiments, and several states made the addition of a bill of rights a condition of approval of the new Constitution. At the very first Congress, Madison took the lead in drafting such a bill, and by 1791 the states had ratified the 2 first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, commonly called the Bill of Rights. But they are not the only rights listed in the document, and many of the amendments since then have done much to expand the constitutional pro- tection of the rights of the people. s we shall see in the essays following, many of the rights in those amendments grew out of the experience of both the British and the American colonists during the period of British rule. All of them reflect the Founding generation’s understanding of the close ties between personal freedom and democracy. The First Amendment Speech Clause, for example, is universally recognized as a Afoundation stone for free government; in Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s phrase, written in 1938, it “is the matrix, the indispensable condition, for nearly every other form of freedom.” The various rights accorded persons accused of crime, all tied together by the notion of due process of law, acknowledge not only that the state has superior resources by which to prosecute people, but that in the hands of authoritarian regimes the government’s power to try people could be a weapon of political despotism.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dr. Austin Harrington Max-Weber-Kolleg Für Kultur- Und Sozialwissenschaftliche Studien University of Erfurt, Germany 1945: a New Order of Centuries 79
    78 SOCIOLOGISK ForsKNING 2008 Dr. Austin Harrington Max-Weber-Kolleg für kultur- und sozialwissenschaftliche Studien University of Erfurt, Germany 1945: A NEW ORDER OF CENturIES 79 Austin Harrington 1945: A New Order of Centuries? Hannah Arendt and Hermann Broch’s “The Death of Virgil” In On Revolution (1963) Hannah Arendt heads one of her chapters with the three La- tin words inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States of America: novus ordo se- clorum, modified from magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo in line 5 of Virgil’s fourth Eclogue.1 The men of the American revolution, Arendt famously argued, suc- ceeded in founding the political community in a sovereign act of inaugural legislation that instituted a “new order of the centuries” between the “no-longer” of old Euro- pean political and religious precedent and the “not-yet” of salvation on earth for all. In contrast to the French revolution, which failed to distinguish political power from a pre-political natural violence of the multitude, the American statesmen discerned that a revolution carried its authority neither from belief in an immortal legislator nor from the promises of a future state of reward but rather from a pure act of the foun- ding and constituting of freedom itself. The Founding Fathers in this sense “solved the problem of the beginning, of an unconnected, new event breaking into the con- tinuous sequence of historical time”. In altering Virgil’s “the great cycle of periods is born anew” to the “new order of the ages”, the American revolutionaries felt
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Privilege
    Patterns of change – parliamentary privilege How do the privilege provisions applying to Australia’s national parliament compare internationally? Has the curtailment of traditional provisions weakened the Parliament’s position? Bernard Wright Deputy Clerk, House of Representatives December 2007 PATTERNS OF CHANGE – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE 2 1. Summary 1.1 The law of parliamentary privilege applying to Australia’s national parliament has undergone significant change, as has the way matters of privilege and contempt are dealt with. This paper examines the law in Australia in comparison to the provisions in other parliaments. It does so by summarising three key provisions and commenting on the law of privilege in the wider legal context. It refers to two models for the privileges and immunities which apply in contemporary parliaments, and notes the way key provisions are dealt with in each model. The paper refers to adaptations in this area of law in other parliaments and to assessments that have been made of the needs of modern legislatures. It suggests that, paradoxically, the processes that involved significant reductions in traditional provisions applying to Australia’s national parliament have strengthened the parliament. The paper ends by speculating about some of the issues that may arise in this area in the future1. 1 I am most grateful to Professor Geoff Lindell, who read through a draft of this paper and made very helpful suggestions for improvement - BW PATTERNS OF CHANGE – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE 3 2. Privilege in the national Parliament – three key features Freedom of speech 2.1 Members of the national Parliament enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech2.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Privilege, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and Admissibility: What Use Can Be Made of Parliamentary Materials in Litigation?
    Parliamentary privilege, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and admissibility: What use can be made of Parliamentary materials in litigation? I. INTRODUCTION 1. As the Court of Appeal observed recently, “…it has become relatively commonplace in public law proceedings for every last word spoken or written in Parliament to be placed before the court. In particular, debates are relied upon extensively when they should not be and, furthermore, the conclusions of select committees are prayed in aid with the court being asked to “approve” them. For the reasons summarised by Stanley Burnton J in his judgment in Office of Government Commerce v Information Comr (Attorney General intervening) [2010] QB 98, paras 46–48, that should not happen”: R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] QB 657 at ¶109. 2. The reason that Parliamentary materials should not be used in this way is, of course, Parliamentary privilege. There are two distinct aspects to this: Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689; and a wider principle known as the “exclusive cognisance” privilege. The former is statutory, whereas the latter is a feature of the common law. Article 9 cannot be waived even by Parliamentary resolution, but the exclusive cognisance principle can be: R v Chaytor [2011] 1 AC 684 at ¶¶61, 63, 68 per Lord Phillips and ¶130-131 per Lord Clarke. 3. This paper summarises the law in relation to both aspects of Parliamentary privilege (Sections II and III), and then discusses the resulting practical constraints in relying upon Parliamentary material in judicial review and other public law proceedings (Section IV).
    [Show full text]
  • 19 03 BR Tomkins.Pdf
    THE REPUBLICAN MONARCHY REVISITED THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. By Walter Bagehot.1 Edited by Paul Smith.2 Cambridge University Press. 2001. Pp. xxxii, 253. $21.00 Adam Tomkins3 Of all the works of nineteenth-century British constitutional scholarship that have come down to us, two stand out. Among lawyers it is Dicel that continues to be revered above all others. But among communities of political scientists and journalists it is Bagehot who has that honor. The centenary of Bagehot's English Constitution was marked in 1967 with the publication of a new edition, edited by Richard Crossman. Crossman was a leading minister in the gov­ ernment of Harold Wilson, who was Prime Minister from 1964- 1970 and again from 1974-1976. Crossman's famous introduction to his edition of Bagehot was a masterpiece of reading the politi­ cal concerns and preoccupations of 1960s government into the work that Bagehot had written a century earlier, and as a result his introduction now looks very dated-indeed, it has withstood the test of time rather less impressively than have the far older words it introduced.5 Now the brilliant Cambridge University Press series of Texts in the History of Political Thought6 has added a new edition of Bagehot to its formidable list, this new edition edited and introduced by historian Paul Smith.7 To have the new scholarly edition alongside Crossman's more familiar one is welcome. A professional and historical (as opposed to popular and political) appraisal of Bagehot has been long com­ ing. It has been worth the wait. I. 1826-1877; English essayist, economist and journalist; editor of The Economist, 1860-1877.
    [Show full text]
  • Magna Carta and the Development of the British Constitution
    Magna Carta and the development of the British constitution Robert Blackburn explains why, 800 years on, Magna Carta still has relevance and meaning to us in Britain today. agna Carta established the crucial idea that our rulers may not do whatever they like, but are subject to the law as agreed with the society over which Mthey govern. In establishing this point, the Charter laid the foundations for modern constitutionalism and provided the core principles on which all forms of governments should be based, whether monarchies, republics or democracies. Above all, the Charter affirmed some of the most important fundamental freedoms which were later to be embodied in written constitutions and international treaties all over the world. In a sense the Charter may be seen as ‘the first great act’ of the nation, by its guarantee of liberties ‘to all free men of the realm’ pointing the direction of travel towards the development of our representative institutions today. The content and intention of the Charter were naturally the product of time and circumstance. Included in the 63 clauses of the original 1215 version were a number that dealt with immediate political grievances, among them the release of hostages (clause 49) and the removal of King John’s foreign- born officials (clause 50). A primary concern of the Charter’s draftsmen was to remedy the king’s abuse of his feudal rights, by regulating, for example, payments in lieu of military service and control over the property of widows, minorities and intestate estates. At the same time, however, the Charter asserted some fundamental liberties, for example the freedom of the Church (clause 1: the English church shall be free ..) and freedom of movement abroad (clause 42: it shall be lawful for An illustration from the Wriothesley Garter Book of any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and the Parliament of England assembled at Blackfriars in without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, the year 1523.
    [Show full text]
  • California Cadet Corps Curriculum on Citizenship
    California Cadet Corps Curriculum on Citizenship “What We Stand For” C8C: Symbols of American Pride Updated 30 JAN 2021 Symbols of American Pride • C1. The Washington Monument • C2. The Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials • C3. The US Capitol • C4. The White House • C5. The Statue of Liberty • C6. The Liberty Bell • C7. Mount Rushmore • C8. US and California Seals • C9. Patriotic Holidays • C10. The Medal of Honor • C11. Arlington Cemetery and Tomb of the Unknown Soldier • C12. The World War II Memorial • C13. The US Marine Corps Memorial • C14. The Korean War Memorial • C15. The Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial • C16. Significant American Accomplishments The National Mall THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT OBJECTIVES DESIRED OUTCOME (Leadership) At the conclusion of this training, Cadets will be familiar with the major symbols of American pride that represent American people, history, and national identity. Plan of Action: 1. Describe the Washington Monument, its key features, and why it is a symbol of American pride. Essential Question: What is the Washington Monument and why is it a symbol of American pride? Washington Monument • Stone obelisk • Opened in 1888 • Western end of the National Mall • Commemorates George Washington – First President – Father of our Country – Commander of Continental Army National Mall Washington DC Details • 555 feet high – tallest building in Washington DC; one of tallest in the world • 50 state flags circle the monument • Stairs (now unused) & elevator to Observation Room at the top – windows on each side • 4 walls are 55 feet long, 15 feet thick at base • Top is called a pyramidion – small capped pyramid • Two shades of stone, changing at about 100 feet up – Break in construction; original quarry wasn’t available Check on Learning 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary Rising: Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom
    Copyright 2014 by Erin F. Delaney Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 108, No. 2 JUDICIARY RISING: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Erin F. Delaney ABSTRACT—Britain is experiencing a period of dramatic change that challenges centuries-old understandings of British constitutionalism. In the past fifteen years, the British Parliament enacted a quasi-constitutional bill of rights; devolved legislative power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; and created a new Supreme Court. British academics debate how each element of this transformation can be best understood: is it consistent with political constitutionalism and historic notions of parliamentary sovereignty, or does it usher in a new regime that places external, rule-of- law-based limits on Parliament? Much of this commentary examines these changes in a piecemeal fashion, failing to account for the systemic factors at play in the British system. This Article assesses the cumulative force of the many recent constitutional changes, shedding new light on the changing nature of the British constitution. Drawing on the U.S. literature on federalism and judicial power, the Article illuminates the role of human rights and devolution in the growing influence of the U.K. Supreme Court. Whether a rising judiciary will truly challenge British notions of parliamentary sovereignty is as yet unknown, but scholars and politicians should pay close attention to the groundwork being laid. AUTHOR—Assistant Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. For helpful conversations during a transatlantic visit at a very early stage of this project, I am grateful to Trevor Allan, Lord Hope, Charlie Jeffery, Lord Collins, and Stephen Tierney.
    [Show full text]
  • Unenumerated Rights
    OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 62 WINTER 2010 NUMBER 2 BLACKSTONE’S NINTH AMENDMENT: A HISTORICAL COMMON LAW BASELINE FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF UNENUMERATED RIGHTS JEFFREY D. JACKSON* Table of Contents Introduction .............................................. 167 I. Historically Construing the Ninth Amendment: Whose Views Are Important? ............................................ 172 II. The Ninth Amendment in Context: Whose Rights? . 175 A. The English Constitution and the Rule of Law . 176 B. The Influence of Natural Law ............................ 179 C. The Framing ......................................... 185 D. The Ratification....................................... 188 III. Whose Common Law? ................................... 200 IV. What Does It Mean?..................................... 212 A. Some Conclusions..................................... 214 B. And Some Criticisms................................ 220 Conclusion ............................................... 222 Introduction The Ninth Amendment explicitly states that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”1 This seems to clearly indicate that there are * Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law. I would like to thank Bill Rich, Bill Merkel, John Bickers, Linda Elrod, Aida Alaka, and Joe McKinney for their helpful comments and input on this article. Thanks also to Washburn University School of Law for its research support, and to Angela Carlon, J.D., 2009, and Karl Wenger, J.D., 2008, for their research and input. 1. U.S. CONST. amend. IX. 167 168 OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62:167 rights other than those in the text of the Constitution that should be recognized as constitutional. Further, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a number of unenumerated rights under a variety of rationales.2 Nevertheless, the question of how to identify and give form to these rights still continues to pose problems for judges, lawyers, and legal scholars alike.
    [Show full text]
  • PRIMARY SOURCE from the English Bill of Rights
    wh10a-IDR-0521_P13 11/25/2003 10:24 AM Page 13 Name Date CHAPTER PRIMARY SOURCE from the English Bill of Rights 21 After the Glorious Revolution in 1688 in which James II was overthrown, England’s absolute monarchy became a constitutional monarchy where laws lim- Section 5 ited royal power. In 1689, Parliament drafted a Bill of Rights, stating the rights of Parliament and of individuals. As you read a portion of the English Bill of Rights, think about what England’s monarchs could not do. The English Bill of Rights, 1689 of parliament, for longer time or in other man- ner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal. hereas the said late King James II having 5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition Wabdicated the government, and the throne the king, and all commitments and prosecutions being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of for such petitioning are illegal. Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to 6. That the raising or keeping a standing army make the glorious instrument of delivering this within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by be with consent of parliament, is against law. the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal, and 7. That the subjects which are Protestants may diverse principal persons of the Commons) caused have arms for their defense suitable to their letters to be written to the lords spiritual and tem- conditions, and as allowed by law. poral, being Protestants . to meet and sit at 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill C-53: Succession to the Throne Act, 2013
    Bill C-53: Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 Publication No. 41-1-C53-E 30 August 2013 Michel Bédard Legal and Social Affairs Division Parliamentary Information and Research Service Library of Parliament Legislative Summaries summarize government bills currently before Parliament and provide background about them in an objective and impartial manner. They are prepared by the Parliamentary Information and Research Service, which carries out research for and provides information and analysis to parliamentarians and Senate and House of Commons committees and parliamentary associations. Legislative Summaries are revised as needed to reflect amendments made to bills as they move through the legislative process. Notice: For clarity of exposition, the legislative proposals set out in the bill described in this Legislative Summary are stated as if they had already been adopted or were in force. It is important to note, however, that bills may be amended during their consideration by the House of Commons and Senate, and have no force or effect unless and until they are passed by both houses of Parliament, receive Royal Assent, and come into force. Any substantive changes in this Legislative Summary that have been made since the preceding issue are indicated in bold print. © Library of Parliament, Ottawa, Canada, 2013 Legislative Summary of Bill C-53 (Legislative Summary) Publication No. 41-1-C53-E Ce document est également publié en français. CONTENTS 1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Matter of Privilege: a Discussion Paper on Canadian Parliamentary Privilege in the 21St Century
    A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: A DISCUSSION PAPER ON CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN THE 21ST CENTURY Interim report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures, and the Rights of Parliament Chair The Honourable Vernon White Deputy Chair The Honourable David P. Smith, PC. June 2015 MEMBERSHIP The Honourable Vernon White, Chair The Honourable David P. Smith, P.C., Deputy Chair The Honourable Denise Batters The Honourable Claude Carignan, P.C.* The Honourable Anne C. Cools The Honourable James S. Cowan* The Honourable Norman E. Doyle The Honourable Joan Fraser* The Honourable Linda Frum The Honourable George Furey The Honourable Leo Housakos The Honourable Mobina S.B. Jaffer The Honourable Serge Joyal, P.C. The Honourable Yonah Martin The Honourable Elaine McCoy The Honourable Paul E. McIntyre The Honourable David Tkachuk The Honourable David M. Wells *Ex officio members In addition, the Honourable Senators Selma Ataullahjan, Douglas Black, Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, Nancy Ruth, Richard Neufeld and Pierre Claude Nolin were members of the committee or participated in its work on this report. Clerk of the Committee: Charles Robert Analyst from the Library of Parliament: Dara Lithwick TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND RENEW PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN CANADA ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Development of the Interim Report ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Liberty, Order, and Justice
    Liberty, Order, and Justice James McClellan Liberty, Order, and Justice An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government third edition James McClellan liberty fund Indianapolis This book is published by Liberty Fund, Inc., a foundation established to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. The cuneiform inscription that serves as our logo and as the design motif for our endpapers is the earliest-known written appearance of the word ‘‘freedom’’ (amagi), or ‘‘liberty.’’ It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 b.c. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash. Third edition copyright ᭧ 2000 by Liberty Fund, Inc. First and second editions (1989, 1991) published by James River Press for the Center for Judicial Studies Cover art courtesy of the Library of Congress 04 03 02 01 00 c 54321 04 03 02 01 00 p 54321 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data McClellan, James, 1937– Liberty, order, and justice: an introduction to the constitutional principles of American government/James McClellan. p. cm. Originally published: Cumberland, Va.: James River Press, c1989. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 0-86597-255-9 (hc: alk. paper)—isbn 0-86597-256-7 (pb. alk. paper) 1. United States—Politics and government. 2. Constitutional history—United States. I. Title. jk274.m513 2000 342.73Ј029—dc21 99-046334 liberty fund, inc. 8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300 Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684 ‘‘Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands.—What has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again.
    [Show full text]