Blackstone condemned the execution of Algernon Sidney for high treason

“Treason, proditio, in its very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith. It therefore happens only between allies, faith the mirror [footnote] : for treason is indeed a general appellation, made use of by the law, to denote not only offences against the king and government, but also that accumulation of guilt which arises whenever a superior reposes a confidence in a subject or inferior, between whom and himself there subsists a natural, a civil, or even a spiritual relation ; and inferior so abuses that confidence, so forgets the obligations of duty, subjection, and allegiance, as to destroy the life of any such his superior or lord.”

– Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 6

Algernon Sidney

Algernon Sidney was executed some four decades before Sir William Blackstone was born

Algernon Sidney was executed some four decades before Sir William Blackstone was born. Specifically, our subject Algernon Sidney was executed in 1683, and Sir William Blackstone would not be born until 1723. (But I’m getting ahead of myself here.) Blackstone was in his forties when he wrote his “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This was a four-volume work, which gave a general overview of its chosen subject. Its fourth and final volume was published in the year 1769. This is the volume that I will be quoting from here. (Incidentally, all quotations from Blackstone’s “Commentaries” in this particular blog post will be from Book 4, Chapter 6 – a chapter entitled “Of High Treason.”)

Statue of Sir William Blackstone

The most serious crimes that anyone can commit (according to Blackstone)

“Of crimes injurious to the persons of private subjects, the most principal and important is the offence of taking away that life, which is the immediate gift of the great creator; and which therefore no man can be entitled to deprive himself or another of, but in some manner either expressly commanded in, or evidently deducible from, those laws which the creator has given us; the divine laws, I mean, of either nature or revelation. The subject therefore of the present chapter will be, the offence of homicide or destroying the life of man, in its several stages of guilt, arising from the particular circumstances of mitigation or aggravation which attend it.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 14

So I recently finished reading William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This is a four-volume work that influenced our Founding Fathers. For me, the most interesting of these volumes was the last one, which was entitled “Of Public Wrongs.” It contains a number of notable chapters, among them a chapter entitled “Of Homicide.” Like the rest of this volume, this chapter was first published in 1769.

Alexander Hamilton, a fan of Blackstone’s “Commentaries”

Some thoughts from Blackstone about punishing criminals

“I proceed in the next place to consider the general nature of punishments : which are evils or inconveniences consequent upon crimes and misdemeanors ; being devised, denounced, and inflicted by human laws, in consequence of disobedience or misbehaviour in those, to regulate whose conduct such laws were respectively made.”

– Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 1

Why do we punish small crimes differently from big ones? For that matter, why do we punish criminals at all? Many have asked these questions throughout history. There has been a great variety of answers from all kinds of people. Blackstone’s answers were not new even then, but they were solid answers, and they’re still relevant today.

Thus, I will examine some enlightening passages from his magnum opus, the “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” The fourth and final book of that work is entitled “Of Public Wrongs.” “Public wrongs” is just another way of saying “crimes.” Thus, this is Blackstone’s treatise on criminal law – and specifically, the criminal laws of England at this time. I should mention that all quotations in this particular blog post are from Book 4, Chapter 1. Thus, I will not note this every time. (Incidentally, this particular volume was first published in 1769.)

Coat of arms of Great Britain, 1714-1800

A review of “12 Angry Men” (1957 movie)

“You've listened to a long and complex case, murder in the first degree. Premeditated murder is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony, you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case. It's now your duty to sit down and try to separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead, another man's life is at stake. If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused – uh, a reasonable doubt – then you must bring me a verdict of ‘Not Guilty.’ If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused ‘Guilty.’ However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused ‘Guilty,’ the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You're faced with a grave responsibility.”

– The judge in “12 Angry Men” (1957), in one of the earliest scenes of the movie

Some comments on this movie, and how I personally prefer it to the 1997 remake …

In 1954, the screenwriter Reginald Rose wrote a teleplay that was to debut on CBS. The teleplay was “Twelve Angry Men,” and it would soon become a classic. It aired on September 20th, 1954, and was soon adapted for the stage in 1955. But the most famous adaptation of the play was the 1957 movie, starring Henry Fonda in the lead role. There was another movie that updated it somewhat in 1997, forty years after the original film came out. The remake has many positive virtues, including a more ethnically diverse cast. The original film has an all-white cast, although both films had an all-male cast (at least for the twelve jurors). Both films have superb acting, and I think the acting quality is just about neck-and-neck for these two movies. But in some ways, I still tend to prefer the earlier version, because it had much less profanity. The 1957 version had maybe two swear words in the entire movie. The 1997 version is filled with profanity, and earned a PG-13 rating for this reason. This is not really my cup of tea, and makes me want to avoid the remake for the most part.

A brief overview of the plot (warning: may contain spoilers) ….

Every version of this story seems to work well as a drama – at least, for those versions that I have seen. But the movie is also philosophically interesting in many ways. It is not just about twelve characters who happen to be thrown together for a few hours of intense debate – the movie also tries to profile our jury system as a whole. The movie is an interesting character study, because the characters bounce off of each other throughout the movie, debating the complex details of this particular case. But the movie also shows that what can seem “cut-and-dried” at first is seldom quite as straightforward as it seems. (I must give a spoiler alert for this next part, for those who have not seen this film.) Testimony that seemed credible at first is thrown into serious question later on, and witnesses that seemed reliable no longer seem to be such in the end. At first, eleven of the jurors think that the boy really is guilty, and only one of them initially votes “not guilty.” But eventually, this lone juror converts all of the others to his point of view, and convinces them to vote for the defendant’s acquittal. Before the movie finishes, issues of prejudice, incompetent legal counsel, and the default presumption of innocence all come into play. The movie makes the point that the jury system was supposed to be impartial, and is not supposed to be based on charm or demographics – or any other ultimately irrelevant factor.

The Constitution itself, and the story behind it

The Constitution itself, and the story behind it

Debates over the Constitution, then and since

Debates over the Constitution, then and since

What is “corruption of blood, or forfeiture” from an attainder of treason?

“The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.”

– Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

The Constitution prevents Congress from “extending the consequences of guilt” beyond those who have actually committed the crimes …

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison once quoted a portion of the Constitution saying that the Congress shall have power “To declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained.” (Source: Federalist No. 43) He then commented upon this section, saying that “As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.” (Source: Federalist No. 43) Corruption of blood just meant impeding someone from inheriting, or passing on property to their own descendants as heirs, on account of a crime that they had committed (usually treason). It thus punished others besides the person guilty of the crime.

James Madison

The Second Amendment: Protecting the gun rights “of the people”

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

- Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791)

Does the Second Amendment apply only to the "militia," or to the whole "people"?

The Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Source: Second Amendment). Supporters of the right to "bear arms" have long pointed to this portion of the amendment as evidence for legal gun rights possessed by individuals. But gun control advocates point with equal fervor to the prior clause of this amendment, which said that "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... " (Source: Second Amendment). They argue that this mention of the phrase "militia" somehow means that the gun rights apply only to the country's armed forces, and therefore cannot be legitimately possessed by the whole "people." If this argument is to be believed, then it would seem that there couldn't have been much of a distinction between the "militia" and the "people," or this latter clause about the "right of the people" would have been a non sequitur that didn't follow from the previous clause (which was presumably supposed to support it, if this amendment's context is any clue here). But there is now a greater distinction between the two than there was then, because the term "militia" is currently understood in a very narrow sense that didn't apply at the time that this amendment was first written.

"Brown Bess" musket and bayonet, which was used in the American Revolution

What distinctions did the Founding Fathers make between the "militia" and the "people"?

Because of this, gun control advocates maintain that a constitutional right to "bear arms" applies only to a narrow portion of the country's population. Thus, they argue, it cannot be understood to apply broadly to the whole "people," as people like me would hold. Thus, it would seem appropriate to correct the record here, and to show that the term "militia" was actually understood to mean something broader when this amendment was written. Gun control advocates may be partially correct in one respect, I should acknowledge here, when they say that not everyone was always included under the term "militia." Nonetheless, this definition was much broader than contemporary interpretations would usually admit today. In the context of the amendment itself, it is clear that it was never intended to be restricted to the "militia" anyway (as I will show later). But even if it was, the concept of a "militia" can be shown to be much broader than the mere armed forces of this country. It should thus be understood broadly today, if the original intent of the amendment is to be upheld.

American infantry in the Revolutionary War

The tyrannical police state: The worst nightmare of the Founding Fathers

"A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."

- Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution

Headquarters of the United States Department of Justice, or "DOJ"

Although the president enforces the laws, they can't punish people without the courts ...

In our Constitution, it says that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States" (Source: Article 2, Section 3). This includes prosecutors and police officers. Many of these laws to be "faithfully executed" authorize particular punishments for various actions, from fines to imprisonment to being executed (depending on the seriousness of the offense, as perceived by the Congress). If the president had carte blanche to enforce these laws passed by Congress, with no limits to this power, he could carry out these punishments anytime that he said these laws were violated - or even at times when they were not. (If, that is, there were no judicial branch to check this power, and require him to prove that these violations actually happened as he claimed they did.) Thus the Constitution created a judicial branch that was as independent as possible from the President and the Congress, so that no one group would possess the power to enforce these laws at their own whim or fancy. This is one of the real bulwarks of our Constitution, and is one of the true guarantees of our liberties. Thus, I wish to spend some time on it in this post, and educate us all about our constitutional rights as American citizens - particularly those found in the Bill of Rights.

Supreme Court of the United States

... so the very existence of the court system is itself a check on the presidency

Specifically, the Constitution said that "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." (Source: Article 3, Section 1) The courts have a certain power to strike down laws passed by the Congress, which is another important power that I should note (at least in passing) before moving on to my main topic, which is judicial restraints on the president and the police force. (I discuss striking down laws in some detail in one of my other blog posts, if you're interested in that subject. This post, by contrast, will be more focused on the Bill of Rights, and on the judicial checks on the executive branch.)

U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (an influential appeals court) - Pasadena, California

Actually, the death penalty IS constitutional (as the Fifth Amendment makes clear)

"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."

- Coffin et al v. United States (1895), the Supreme Court case which codified the presumption of innocence for people accused of crimes

People are innocent until proven guilty, and do not have to "prove" their innocence

There's a saying in America that is often quoted in these contexts, which is that people are "innocent until proven guilty." This saying is so familiar to Americans that we often take it for granted, I think. We may not always realize how rare it is in the world to have this kind of default assumption. In this country, the burden of proof is on the prosecution - or in civil cases, the "plaintiff" - rather than the defendant. The defendant is not even required to open his or her mouth to "prove" his or her own innocence. This is not written explicitly into our Constitution, but it is implied by a number of amendments, and was codified by the Supreme Court case quoted above. Moreover, a jurist from a previous century named Sir William Blackstone - a man who is quoted in the Federalist Papers - proclaimed that "the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." (Source: Blackstone's "Commentaries," Book IV, Chapter 27) This doctrine is sometimes known as "Blackstone's formulation" or "Blackstone's Ratio."

William Blackstone

William Blackstone thought it "better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"

John Adams expounded on "Blackstone's Ratio" in the "Boston Massacre" trial, when he said that "We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever." (Source: Adams' Argument for the Defense, 3-4 December 1770) When a person really is guilty of a crime (as sometimes happens), this can still make it somewhat difficult to bring criminals to justice, of course. Thus, the police force and prosecutors have to possess a high degree of skill to provide the necessary proof of these actions. But if these protections are not in place (and many countries don't have them), then innocent people are vulnerable to an arbitrary tyranny that can punish them at will; and there are few things that Americans fear more than an absolute government with unlimited power. Thus, there must be a balancing act in any free country between individual protections and criminal justice, where the people are protected against both unlimited government and violent criminals. Thus, it might be helpful to go over some of these constitutional protections from our Bill of Rights.

John Adams, the defense attorney in the "Boston Massacre" trial

The First Amendment: Protecting religion from government (and not the other way around)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

- Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, on January 1, 1802

The most hotly debated sentence in American history

The Constitution has many passages in it that are hotly debated today, and these debates will likely continue for years to come. But if I were asked what is the most hotly debated sentence in American history, my vote might well go to this one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Source: First Amendment) This is the Constitution's famous First Amendment, and it is indeed the first of the ten amendments that make up our modern "Bill of Rights." It would also seem to be the first thing that the people of that time wanted to include when they endeavored to list various "rights" in the Constitution via the Bill of Rights, and so one might surmise that these rights need to be understood today by the people who live here.

Thomas Jefferson

Establishment of religion, or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The very first thing that this amendment mentions, I should acknowledge here, is respecting an "establishment of religion." This clause has been sometimes associated with a famous phrase by the American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, which is "a wall of separation between Church and State." This is a phrase that rings loudly in the ears of atheists today, because of the persecution that they see from the Christian majority surrounding them. Indeed, atheists love to remind society that so many Founding Fathers were actually Deists (rather than Christians), and that they were thus somewhat different from the "Christian majority" surrounding them (which they delight in pointing out often). But between the "establishment of religion" clause and the amendment's first semicolon is one other important phrase - and only one other phrase - which is the part forbidding government from "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religion. This clause has long been associated with the phrase "freedom of religion," which is a phrase that rings loudly in the ears of unabashedly-religious people in the same way; and which is similarly revered as sacred.

United States Bill of Rights

The Constitution keeps our elected officials on a short leash

"Before he [the president] enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

- Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 7 of the Constitution

Politicians: The problem of every society ...

Virtually every nation in the world resents politicians, I think, even if they don't have the freedom to say so openly. The ones who can, do so often, as a group; and they are filled with resentment of incompetence and corrupt leadership. They tend to care deeply about who can hold political office, about the laws that they are required to follow, and even about when the people can vote on the next batch of them in elections. They watch their legislatures carefully, and are suspicious of all attempts to keep something secret from the public. They pay close attention to how many tax dollars go to supporting the bureaucracy, and monitor the public records of these things that the Constitution requires. Americans may pay especially close attention to how much money goes to supporting the only federal institution that can determine its own salary - Congress. These issues are often touchy ones for Americans, and can bring more than one sharp word from many a suspicious American. Thus, some comments might be appropriate here about what the Constitution says on these subjects. There are a number of solutions therein for these kinds of problems.

Constitution of the United States

The First Amendment: Protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in a statement often misattributed to Voltaire (although the author rightly viewed this as an accurate paraphrase of Voltaire's sentiments)

The first thing many people think of about the Constitution

The Constitution is filled with passages that are of the utmost importance to this country, from separation of powers in the original Constitution to the Bill of Rights in the amendments. But if I were asked which passage may be the most important to the majority of Americans, my vote might well go to this part of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Source: First Amendment) This is the Constitution's famous First Amendment, and it is indeed the first of the ten amendments that make up our modern "Bill of Rights." It is also the first thing that most people think of when they talk about what's important to them in the Constitution, since the rights that we have are easier to visualize than abstract concepts of separation of powers and checks & balances. (Although these things are vitally important, too, as I detail in another post that I wrote elsewhere.)

United States Bill of Rights

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the right to "petition the government"

The bedrock of American political life today may be the parts about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These are both forms of a larger concept called "freedom of expression" - one in the spoken form, and the other in the written form. (Although I'm sure that sign language and other gestures would also be considered to be "freedom of speech" under this constitutional definition, and free expression on the Internet has long been held to be included under this amendment as well.) The right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" is another specific form of this freedom of expression, which is usually written down on paper and other hardcopy material. But it is also sometimes found in the Internet form that I have mentioned as well; and it is well that this freedom of expression (in all of these forms) is protected by the First Amendment. It has been codified as a general principle in all political communication throughout this country - and other communication, for that matter.

Martin Luther King giving his "I Have A Dream" speech, 1963

Even presidents are not above the law in the United States

"Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office."

- President Richard Nixon, in the Oval Office at the White House, on August 8, 1974

The executive and judicial branches can have conflicts of interest at times ...

If the government makes the laws, is the government itself above those laws? Or in other words, can the laws be made not to apply to the people in those governments? In the United States, the answer to this question is a resounding "no," because there are mechanisms in place to punish officials who break the laws. These laws apply to everyone universally, including the President of the United States himself (or herself). This is not so much a problem for members of Congress, because when members of Congress break the laws, they can be prosecuted by the executive branch in the courts of the judicial branch (with certain exceptions for when the legislature is in session) just like anyone else can. When lesser judges break the law, they can be prosecuted by the executive branch in courts presided over by higher-ranking judges; so there are mechanisms in place to prevent this as well.

White House

... so all branches of the government are subject to impeachment and removal from office

But if the judges of the Supreme Court break the laws, there is a conflict of interest coming from the ability to be the judges in their own cases, which allows them to avoid negative judgments against themselves even when they're guilty. A similar situation applies when the President of the United States breaks the law, because the President can refuse to allow himself (or herself) to be prosecuted. (With control over federal prosecutions, they would thus also have a conflict of interest in their own cases.) Thus, all members of the government are subject to impeachment and removal from office, and that includes members of the executive branch. Most importantly, it includes the President of the United States himself (or herself); so a review of constitutional impeachment procedures would seem appropriate here. I will first show how the process of impeachment works in this country, and then talk about particular instances of attempts at removal.

Supreme Court of the United States

States' rights: The ongoing debate

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

- Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution

States' rights was a major issue in the Civil War

In the 1860's, the United States fought a bloody civil war with itself, where 624,000 Americans (more than half a million people) died in a major rebellion. Slavery may have been the root cause of the Southern states' desire for secession, but the "states' rights" arguments were the ones that they used to try and prove their legal right to do so. This was, of course, a "right" that they believed that they were entitled to. Regardless of whether they were right or not (and I believe they weren't myself), they were symptoms of a deep-rooted debate within American society over states' rights, which had roots going back far before the Civil War and into the Constitutional Convention - perhaps even to the Declaration of Independence. States thought that they had the right to nullify federal laws, and considered themselves as independent nations bound into a mere league of nations, rather than mere provinces of a larger nation. They saw the "United States of America" much like we see the "United Nations" - a collection of independent nations that work together when convenient, and which would never surrender their sovereignty when they work together.

Confederate dead at Antietam, 1862

People were willing to fight and die for their views on the subject

When the United States was no longer perceived to be useful to the Southern states, they believed they had the right to secede from it, and win that secession by bloodshed. The Northern states believed with equal fervor that they had no such right to secede, and were willing to suppress this by bloodshed. Thus both sides were willing to fight and die for their own view of states' rights, and a bitter civil war was fought partially over that divisive issue about the role of states. (Although I should acknowledge that there were other factors at work here, and there are other root causes of this war.) The debate continues in full force today (although without the "bloodshed" part), as we continue to define the role of states in the Union. Thus, a closer look at how "states' rights" works might be useful here; answering what responsibilities states have to each other, what rights they still retain at this time, and what advantages they derive from the Union in the 21st century.

So what exactly are the “Federalist Papers,” anyway?

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

- Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1)

Frequently Asked Questions about the “Federalist Papers”

The United States Constitution: The secret of America’s success

Great Seal of the United States

As I set out to write a general post about the Constitution of my country, I have the problem of any writer who speaks to a general audience: I speak to those familiar with my culture (including many fellow Americans), and those who know it not at all (since the Internet knows no political boundaries). Even when speaking to fellow Americans, I write to fellow adults who have the power to vote, to a rising generation not yet blessed with the opportunity to participate, and perhaps even to those yet unborn, who will run the country in a distant future. I speak to those who know these things now, to those who once knew these things (but have since forgotten), and to those who never learned them at all - often because the educational system failed to teach them the things it should have; and who, through no fault of their own, have never had the opportunity to hear the message of the Constitution.

A replica of Independence Hall, which is not surrounded by
high-rise buildings (that don't belong in the period) the way the real one is today

In talking about it, I would be remiss to leave out that it is the greatest success story of the United States; and may well be the greatest secret of its more than two centuries of uninterrupted democratic success - the reason for its current greatness. I will try to be (at least somewhat) brief, that I might not burden the audience with an excess of words and analysis; but I will try to be thorough as well, that I might not leave out anything that is essential to why it has worked as well as it has.

Interior of Independence Hall

An overview of the American federal courts

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

- Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution

The part here about "good behaviour" is effectively a lifetime appointment, since it means that the judges can hold their offices for life unless convicted of a crime (which is fairly rare for American judges, possibly because of their being subject to removal in this way). Just as the executive branch is subject to impeachment, so is the judicial branch; and judges can be removed by the exercise of this power. (More about that here.)

Alexander Hamilton

De facto lifetime appointment

The de facto lifetime appointment here is among the most criticized parts of the Constitution, but was defended by the Founding Fathers as making them independent of having too much influence from the other branches (which could erode the separation of powers). It also makes them independent of the popular prejudices of the people, who might otherwise have the power to retaliate against those who enforce laws against them - even when those laws are just and have actually been broken by the people who were judged against. In the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments" (Source: Federalist No. 78) This is why Hamilton correctly quoted Montesquieu as saying that "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing." (Quoted in footnote to Federalist No. 78) Hence, the radical mechanism of a de facto lifetime appointment, to protect against the improper influence of the other branches.

Supreme Court of the United States

The Bill of Rights: historical context and strict construction

"The enumeration [or "listing"] in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

- Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791), a sometimes-forgotten amendment in the Bill of Rights

It's the most familiar part of the Constitution - the one that the most people can quote. It's the most disputed part of the Constitution - the one whose meaning is most debated. And it's the most tangible part of the Constitution - the one that writes into stone the rights we use every day, and which is thus easiest to apply to everyday life.

The Constitutional Convention

The original Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights

The portion is, of course, the Bill of Rights; but it was not a part of the original Constitution at all. The United States Bill of Rights was the first ten amendments to the Constitution. For those who don't know, an amendment is just another word for a change. The Constitution has been amended (or changed) 27 times since its adoption, and the first ten amendments written into it were the ones we today call our "Bill of Rights." They can today be seen in the context of the ratification debates, or the debates over whether or not to ratify the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land". The Constitution did not become law until it was approved by nine of the original thirteen states, and the states fiercely debated about whether or not we should have this Constitution.