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

A review of PBS's “Citizen King” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

– Martin Luther King's “I Have A Dream” speech (August 28, 1963)

This program about Martin Luther King doesn't do justice to the great civil rights leader …

This program has many of the ingredients needed for a great film about the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. It has photographs, newspaper headlines, and even actual footage of the period being depicted. It interviews people who knew him, and many others who lived through these times. These interviews are compelling, and have a great potential to tell the story. But this film is also missing some essential elements needed for a good documentary. Most importantly, it is missing any kind of narration; and thus has no narrative to hold the story together. They have to make some awkward transitions from one interview clip into another, without any narrations to ease these transitions. This is a major weakness in a documentary about history, and it is more the sort of thing that I would expect from a news network than from an educational network like PBS. Indeed, this program feels more journalistic than historical; and lacks the epic scale needed in a history film.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

How fractions are used in the United States Constitution

One of the most well-known clauses in the original Constitution was known as the “Three-Fifths Clause.” This name comes from a fraction in the clause, which is no longer in effect. But there are other fractions in the Constitution which are still in effect.

For example, you can find the fractions “one-fifth,” “one-third,” “two-thirds,” and “three-fourths” in various parts of the Constitution that are still in effect. Even the concept of a “majority” is something of a fractional concept – that is, more than one-half.

With 50 states, 100 Senators, and 435 Representatives …

Thus, if you really want to understand the Constitution, you have to know your fractions. Some examples are available below, along with sources to back them up:

United States Capitol

Funny Congress quotes and jokes

You wanna hear a joke? The Senate.

"We hang the petty thieves, and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop

United States Capitol, the building where the Congress meets

A review of “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine”

“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

- The New Testament, “The Acts of the Apostles,” Chapter 11, Verse 26 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Constantine was the first Roman emperor to become a Christian. Thus, “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine” is really a history of the early Christian faith, from its beginning with Christ to its flourishing under Constantine. After his conversion, Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Today, it is the world's largest religion; and it is doubtful that it would have ever become that way otherwise.

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

Actually, William Blackstone DID mention the 1689 Bill of Rights (sorry Wikipedia)

Note: There is a difference between the old and new styles of calendar, which will become relevant to our discussion.

Some Wikipedia articles are reliable, while others are not (and others are somewhere in between)

So I've often enjoyed reading articles from Wikipedia, and have linked to a number of these articles from my own blog over the years. Some of these articles are reliable, while others are not. Many of them are somewhere in between. Possibly one of these articles to be somewhere in between is the article about William Blackstone, which contained some good information about William Blackstone, and some bad information. For example, the "Criticism" section of that page said that “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories.[132] Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” (Source: "William Blackstone" page, "Criticism" section)

Jeremy Bentham

According to Wikipedia, some have claimed that Blackstone “omitted” the 1689 Bill of Rights

The part about how “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories” is properly sourced at the “[132]”. While I don't agree with Bentham's criticisms (indeed, I find them wildly inaccurate), I do agree that he was “a critic of Blackstone's theories” – this much is pretty well-established, and that is all that the source claims here. But the second sentence has no source, which makes me wonder who exactly is making these criticisms. The sentence in question says that “Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” Blackstone did mention both the “Constitutions of Clarendon” and the “Tractatus of Glanville” in his magnum opus, the "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (as I show in another blog post). And most relevantly, he also mentioned the “1689 Bill of Rights,” which these critics would know if they had bothered to read the very first chapter of the very first book of the “Commentaries.”

Jeremy Bentham