Constitutional-Literacy-23

=**Section 23: Religious Views and the Revolution**=

A clergyman from California had said that the American Revolution was ungodly violating Romans 13 of the Bible. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but from God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Whoever, therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the institute of God. And they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment.” What is ordained by God? Power is ordained by God. The clergyman making this argument said the colonists fighting the British were the ones resisting power even if for a noble reason. However, we must obey authority when acting in the scope of authority. Did the Founding Fathers violate their duty of obedience to authority?

In order to understand our duty of obedience, let's look at two examples - one real and one hypothetical to make the point. In Spokane, Washington there was an effort to stop the opening of a tavern in the middle of Spokane park (this is the real example). This park was a very big park in the town. One person was getting signatures for a petition to stop the tavern by getting signatures in front of the opera house on the edge of the park. Police officers came to stop this man from getting signatures, even though the law allowed this person to be getting a petition (it's a first amendment right). This man told the police they would be violating his constitutional rights as well as his civil rights for denying him the ability to get signatures for a petition (he did not need a permit where he was) and suggested they contact their superiors and ask what to do because he's willing to sue them for constitutional and civil rights violations (this man was actually a constitutional expert). The officers got back in their car, got on the phone, then drove off. The person gathering the signatures was not the law breaker in this instance. This person didn't have a duty in this case to obey the police officers because in this situation the police didn't have the authority to ask him to stop (don't take this as being okay to not obey police or those in authority - this man is a nationally known expert on the Constitution). It wasn't a violation of Romans 13 as discussed above to gather signatures and stand for his rights just like the Apostle Paul did in the book of Acts. Biblically, in the book of Acts 25 it says “Christians have no duty to obey the illegal demands of government officials.” They have the duty to obey AUTHORITY.

Hypothetical: Let's say China passed a law saying all American tax payers had to pay a new tax to support the expansion of the Chinese navy. Would any clergy in America believe it was American citizens' duty to obey such a law? We would hope not because duty to obey authority means when a ruler is acting in the proper scope of their authority. No other nation's leader is in the scope of his/her authority in making laws for another nation.

As for the American Revolution, who was acting in the scope of their authority and who was violating the law? It was the British Parliament and King George III that were breaking the law. They weren't authorities within the meaning of Romans 13. Didn't Britain rule over us? Weren't the colonies supposed to obey the laws of the British? No, not at least by the definitions of the argument put forth by the above mentioned clergyman. Today, Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, but is not subject to British laws today. The British king/queen is also king/queen of Canada, not just England, even though England holds no government power over Canada. Below is Queen Elizabeth II speaking in which she refers to herself also as queen of Canada showing the point. media type="youtube" key="f8QoVlsGhQc" height="315" width="420"

This same concept should be thought of when looking at 1776 as King George III was the king of Britain as well as America, just like today the monarch is king/queen of England and Canada. In 1776, London had not authority to make domestic policy for the colonies. Britain has a constitution, but has never had a written constitution. When Britain speaks of their constitution, they mean their practices and traditions over time. It's the obligation of all segments of the British government to remain in the confines of time-honored practices and traditions. No part of the British government is to act outside its constitutional, that is traditional, powers. Again, the British constitution is the acts and traditions of its agencies over time. So, was it against the British constitution to pass their various acts - Sugar Act, Stamp Act, etc? The question is what were the accumulated acts and practices over time relevant to the authority to pass such tax laws? media type="custom" key="21961026"
 * We have to begin with the Virginia colonial assembly in 1623-24. The assembly passed acts that contained a decree that the government could not levy taxes on the colony without approval of the assembly. This decree was approved by the governor - the royal governor. This was the method of obtaining approval by the king (since great distance separated Britain and America). Thus, the Virginia assembly had the king's approved authority to tax the citizens of Virginia. This set the precedent followed in the other colonies. Self-government was clearly established and agree to be the colonies and the king, through the royal governors, and would be in every colony.
 * So, based on the British constitution, or the traditions and practices of British authority, only the colonial legislatures had the power to tax the colonies. Therefore, when the problems began in the 1760s, the colonists weren't necessarily rebels, but it was the English Parliament and King George that were violating the British constitution, just like if Britain tried to pass laws for Canada today. This was a dispute between who has the authority to tax - a dispute between governments (obviously the king and parliament believed they had power over the colonies regardless). Romans 13 doesn't talk about when two authorities are in conflict over jurisdiction. The duty of Christians is to obey authority - the colonial legislatures had the authority in question.
 * The English Bill of Rights passed in 1689 also recognized the right to self-government in taxation. There's a provision in this document that held that no Englishman could be taxed without having representation. Since the colonies had no representation in Parliament, it was a violation of the English Bill of Rights for Parliament to impose taxes on the colonies.


 * Comprehension Question: What was (and is) the British Constitution? How is the British Constitution different than our Constitution?**


 * Comprehension Question: What was the rule of the British Constitution regarding the taxation of the American colonies prior to the disputes over such measures as the Stamp Act?**

It wasn't the colonists that began to break the law, but rather the British Parliament. In 1765, Parliament passed the American Revenue Act, a.k.a. the Sugar Act. It was a direct tax on the colonies. There were protests by the colonists over this violation of rights. John Dickinson in his //Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer// said “There is another late act of Parliament, which appears to me to be unconstitutional and as destructive to the liberty of the colonies, as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, etc.” He was pointing out that the 1765 law was unconstitutional since it violated the legal traditions and practices since 1623. Dickinson wasn’t a rebel. He wasn’t disobeying a duly constituted authority. He was absolutely correct in his assessment of the law and constitution of Britain.


 * Comprehension Question: When the English Parliament began imposing taxes on the colonists in the 1760s, why were such taxes unconstitutional (against the British Constitution)?**

When the colonial legislatures got together in the Continental Congress, they weren't rebels in terms of violating authority. The Declaration of Independence is clear when listing the reasons for separation:
 * “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.” The others is the Parliament and the King went along with the Parliament. But it was no more lawful than if today a president would go along with a law passed by China to tax the American people.
 * “For imposing taxes on us without our consent.” Remember, the legal practices and traditions – the British constitution – gave the colonial legislatures the authority to tax in each colony.

It was the British more than Americans would violated Romans 13. Our Founding Fathers were not in violation. They were merely standing up for their rights as Englishmen (which is why the Continental Congress formed in 1774 but didn’t declare independence until after the British fired at Lexington and Concord in 1775…the colonists didn’t immediately want independence until they saw the British were intending to be oppressive).


 * Comprehension Question: There's no question that the overwhelming majority of the founding generation held Judeo-Christian principles. How were, then, the colonists NOT in violation of the Romans chapter in the Bible that says to obey authority?**


 * Discussion Question: Why is it important for Americans to understand the foundation of our country?**

**Overall: Summarize the main idea of this section and why it's important.**

Back to the Constitutional Literacy main page