Giving Congress the power to coin money was a break with British precedents

“The coining of money is in all states the act of the sovereign power; for the reason just mentioned, that it's value may be known on inspection.”

– William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 7

You might expect that in the Founding Fathers' time, the British Constitution would place the power of coining money into the Parliament. If so, you'd be wrong – in their time, it was the British monarchy that had this power, and the related power to regulate “weights and measures” as well. By contrast, the Constitution of the United States said that the Congress shall have the power to “coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” (Source: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5). The Constitution thus vests these powers in the legislative branch, rather than the executive branch. This was a major break with British tradition.

To illustrate this, I will quote from a source that was used by a number of our Founding Fathers. This source is William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (better known as Blackstone's “Commentaries”), which was used specifically by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. (All quotations from Blackstone's “Commentaries” in this particular post are from Book 1, Chapter 7, so I will not note this every time.) Everything in the first volume, including this chapter, was written in 1765.

Sir William Blackstone

The British Parliament was the main model for the United States Congress

“It will be the business of this chapter to consider the British parliament; in which the legislative power, and (of course) the supreme and absolute authority of the state, is vested by our constitution.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 2

The “supreme and absolute authority of the state” was in the legislature

William Blackstone once said that the British Constitution vests the “supreme and absolute authority of the state” in the Parliament. Like Montesquieu before him, Blackstone was a believer in separation of powers (more on that subject here). He believed that the Parliament should be a separate branch of government from the executive authority – which, at that time, was the monarchy. “In all tyrannical governments,” Blackstone also said, “the supreme magistracy, or the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Wherever these two powers are united together, he said, “there can be no public liberty … [for] The magistrate may enact tyrannical laws, and execute them in a tyrannical manner.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) The magistrate “is possessed, in quality of dispenser of justice, with all the power which he as legislator thinks proper to give himself. But, where the legislative and executive authority are in distinct hands,” he continued, “the former will take care not to entrust the latter with so large a power, as may tend to the subversion of its own independence, and therewith of the liberty of the subject.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) This, he believed, would happen if there were not a Parliament to check the power of the king.

Sir William Blackstone

5 surprising ways that the Congress was modeled on the British Parliament

“... in the main the constitution of parliament, as it now stands, was marked out so long ago as the seventeenth year of king John, A. D. 1215, in the great charter granted by that prince … And this constitution has subsisted in fact at least from the year 1266, 49 Hen. III : there being still extant writs of that date, to summon knights, citizens, and burgesses to parliament.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 2

There's more similarity between the Congress and the Parliament than meets the eye …

In both big and small ways, the Congress was modeled on the Parliament of Great Britain. In bigger ways, it is a legislative body that is kept separate from the other branches. It is even divided into two houses, with only the lower house having the ability to “originate” taxing bills. And originally, only the lower house was elected – although both houses of our Congress are now directly elected by the people. But it is not just these ways in which these two legislative bodies are similar – they are also similar in many smaller ways, and in many finer details. You might be surprised at what some of these “details” actually are, so it might be helpful to look at a few of them here. I will be using Sir William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” as a source throughout, since Alexander Hamilton used it as a source in the Federalist Papers. (All quotations from Blackstone's “Commentaries” in this particular post are from Book 1, Chapter 2. Therefore, I will not note this every time.)

Sir William Blackstone

The Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights influenced our Constitution

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

– Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

It might come as a surprise to say this, but the British have a real “Constitution,” even if it isn't all written down in one document like ours might seem to be. Rather, it would seem to be a constitution built out of multiple documents, such as the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right (both of which I have covered in prior posts). No less important are the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights, which were foundational for the rights of English-speaking countries. Like the other documents mentioned here, they would both have an enormous influence on the United States Constitution. I have covered the other documents mentioned here in some other posts of this series, so I will instead focus my attention here on the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights (both vitally important).

Parliament of England

When King John signed the Magna Carta, it was like signing a surrender document …

“No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

– The original Magna Carta (1215), Section 39 – using the translation (from the Latin into English) that was offered by Yale Law School's “Avalon Project”

When King John of England signed the Magna Carta in 1215, it was tantamount to signing a surrender document, and was just as humiliating for him. Before, the authority of the king had been almost (if not completely) absolute. Now, it was limited, and his nobles had the king's signature to prove it. Why did the king agree to sign this document in the first place? If he wanted to continue to have absolute power (and he did), why would he agree to such limits upon his power?

King John of England

The short answer for this is that he had no choice – he was forced to sign this document by angry men wielding a sword at him. But how did these noblemen manage to force him to do this at sword-point? How is it that King John lost his grip on absolute power at this time, with his descendants having very little chance of recovering it later on?

The Magna Carta

The Petition of Right influenced the United States Bill of Rights

“The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them.”

– John Jay, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 5)

It sounds ironic to say it now, but a number of the Founding Fathers of the United States were actually against including a “Bill of Rights” within our Constitution. Some of them thought that it would be dangerous to do so, because they argued that any right not listed there would be construed “not to be protected” by the Constitution. They were partially wrong on this score, of course, and it would fall to other Founding Fathers to make sure that a “Bill of Rights” was later passed. But this early objection to the “Bill of Rights” may have been the reason that it eventually included a Ninth Amendment when it was passed, which said that “The enumeration [or “listing”] in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (In other words, rights may not be withheld merely because they aren't listed in the Constitution.) This addressed the concern of those Founding Fathers who had objected to a bill of rights because of this.

Parliament of England

Some Founding Fathers were against having a “bill of rights” in the Constitution …

Nonetheless, when Alexander Hamilton listed examples of a “bill of rights” in one of the Federalist Papers, he was not endorsing them, but slamming them. He was holding them up as bad examples which should be avoided to avert danger from having a “comprehensive” list. Specifically, Hamilton said that “It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.” (Source: Federalist No. 84)

Alexander Hamilton

… while others were for it

Other Founding Fathers disagreed, and held them up as models of good laws that should be emulated to protect rights. Because of their well-deserved popularity, these laws had a great influence on the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the amendments that later became known as our “Bill of Rights”). They are thus deserving of our attention despite Hamilton's objections to them, and were positive influences on our Constitution once the “Bill of Rights” was passed. I plan to cover all of these documents in this series (plus a few others); but in this post, I shall focus exclusively on the “Petition of Right,” written by Sir Edward Coke. Two decades before King Charles the First was beheaded in the English Civil War, he was forced to sign this document. (And he wasn't too happy about signing it … )

Petition of Right, 1628

Cromwell: The movie that brings the English Civil War to life

The English Civil War was a war over ideas, much like the American Revolution ...

The British historian Simon Schama once said that the American Declaration of Independence was "like a chapter from a British history book." He compared the American Revolution to the English Civil War of a century before, even going so far as to say that the American Revolution was really "round two" of the British civil wars. There is truth in this statement, and the events of the English Civil War are eerily familiar to students of the American Revolution. They both were political wars, they both were wars over ideas, and they both began as wars over taxes; which soon transformed into conflicts about much broader issues.

Battle of Naseby, 1645 (during English Civil War)