Vijesti

Britanski zakon o pravima - povijest

Britanski zakon o pravima - povijest


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Britanski zakon o pravima (1689) - uspostavljena osnovna načela ustavne vlasti u Britaniji; uključujući primat Parlamenta nad monarhijom, pravo na suđenje pred porotom i zabranu prekomjerne jamčevine te okrutne i neobične kazne. Uz Peticiju prava 629) i Akt o nagodbi (1701), ovaj je zakon pomogao oblikovanju britanskog ustavnog sustava.

...

. .


Engleski i kolonijalni korijeni američke Povelje o pravima

Počinjemo u prvom stupcu sa 26 prava sadržanih u američkoj Povelji o pravima. Postoje dva glavna “root ” izvora predstavljena u ovoj tablici za američku Povelju o pravima, naime, kolonijalna baština i engleska tradicija. Pitanje koje razmatramo je u kojoj mjeri američki Zakon o pravima ovisi o engleskoj prošlosti i/ili kolonijalnoj prošlosti ili je izveden iz nje?

Odabrao sam tri engleska dokumenta na koja se redovito oslanjam kako bih potvrdio da postoji izravna i snažna veza između engleskog nasljedstva i američkog Zakona o pravima. Također je reproducirano šest kolonijalnih izvora u pokušaju da se uhvati pojava zasebnog američkog uma, iako još uvijek kolonijalnog uma. Ovo ne znači da su ovo jedini takvi izvori, međutim, vjerujem da ovih šest dokumenata najbolje govore priču koju pokušavam prenijeti.

Ono što je iznenađujuće, a suprotno uobičajenom prikazu da postoji snažna i izravna ovisnost američke povelje o pravima na engleskom naslijeđu, jest da se samo 9 od 26 prava u američkoj povelji o pravima može pratiti do Magne Karta! Slično, 7 se može pratiti u engleskoj peticiji prava, a 6 u engleskoj povelji o pravima. Kad uzmemo u obzir dupliciranje između tri izvora, najveći broj iznosi 10 od 26. Ipak, moramo se sjetiti da blizu 40% nije brojčano zanemarivo.

Ono što je neosporno, a iznenađuje i u suprotnom smjeru, jest još jači odnos između američkog Zakona o pravima i kolonijalne prošlosti. 18 od 26 ili nešto manje od 70%može se pratiti izravno u kolonijalnu tradiciju. A 15 od 26, ili blizu 60%, dolazi samo iz jednog izvora: Massachusetts Body of Liberties iz 1641.!

Što je još važnije, postoji izrazito kvalitativna razlika u kolonijalno -američkoj verziji prava u nastajanju. Jedinstven je nastanak individualnog prava na vjersko obožavanje, političkih prava tiska i okupljanja i ono što je postalo Šesti amandman u američkom Biltu o pravima koji se bavi optužbama, sukobima i savjetima. Ovo su domaći uzgoji.

Pritisnite zaglavlje stupca ili grafičke oznake u stupcima da biste pogledali taj dokument stupca##2121.

Sadržaj Povelje o pravima
Nema uspostavljene religije/favorizirane sekte
Pravo savjesti/Besplatno vježbanje
Sloboda govora
Sloboda tiska
Sloboda okupljanja
Sloboda peticije
Držite i nosite oružje/miliciju
Raspored vojnika
Double Jeopard
Samooptuživanje
Pravni postupak
Uzimanja/Prava kompenzacija
Bez prekomjerne kaucije i kazni
Bez okrutnih i/ili neobičnih kazni
Nema nerazumnih pretraživanja/zapljena
Brzo/javno suđenje u kaznenim predmetima
Priroda optužbe
Sukob optužitelja
Obvezni svjedok
Pomoć odvjetnika
Prava zadržana od strane naroda
$ Ograničenje žalbi
Opće pravo i suđenje poroti
(Lokalno) Nepristrani porota za sve zločine
Veliki žiri za gubitak života ili tijela
Rezerviranje nedelegiranih ovlasti
Zbrojevi 9 7 16 6 5 6 7 8 8 26

Koju ulogu engleska baština i kolonijalna tradicija imaju u otkrivanju korijena i razvoja Povelje o pravima Sjedinjenih Država? Jedna je teza da postoji kontinuirani razvoj od engleskih korijena kroz gotovo dvjesto godina kolonijalnog doba do Bill of Rights. Druga je teza da postoji zasebna i drugačija kolonijalna tradicija koja predviđa američku verziju Povelje o pravima.

Velika karta, 1215

Unatoč prisutnosti riječi kao što su “scutage, ” i “wapenstakes, ” koje Veliku povelju smještaju potpuno u feudalno doba, duh dokumenta govori sljedećim generacijama. Magna Carta više je od praktičnog dokumenta posebno osmišljenog za rješavanje feudalnih poteškoća. Istina, kralj John bio je prisiljen priznati postojanje tradicionalnih prava baruna, ali postoji niz načela koja informiraju šezdeset i tri poglavlja potpisana u Runnymedeu 1215. godine, a koja su potvrdili sljedeći britanski monarsi. Načela se protežu izvan često priznatog podrijetla doktrine zabrane oporezivanja bez zastupanja u poglavlju 12 i klauzule o pravičnom postupku u poglavlju 39. Koncepti suđenja pred porotom i nema okrutnih kazni prisutni su u poglavlju 21 i klauzuli o konfrontaciji Šestog amandmana predviđeno je u poglavljima 38, 40 i 44. No najvažniji doprinos Magna Carte je tvrdnja da postoji temeljni skup načela koja čak i kralj mora poštivati. Iznad svega, Magna Carta tvrdi da ljudi imaju “ pravo ” očekivati ​​“razumno ” ponašanje monarha. Ta se prava moraju osigurati načelom zastupljenosti opisanom u najdužem poglavlju.

Engleska peticija prava, 1628

Peticija prava iz 1628. godine drugi je od tri britanska dokumenta koji su dali snažnu komponentu općeg prava razvoju američke Povelje o pravima. Autori statuta svjesno se pozivaju na sjećanje na baštinu vladavine prava Magna Carte: inzistiraju na tome da monarhija poštuje i poštuje prava na koja su Englezi stoljećima navikli. U trinaestom stoljeću, plemići su peticijom zatražili od kralja da odustane od svoje proizvoljne i tiranske politike, četiri su stoljeća kasnije obični ljudi zatražili od kralja da se pridržava načela razumne vlade ostavljene engleskom tradicijom. Pod vodstvom Sir Edwarda Cokea, pravnog znanstvenika koji se pretvorio u praktičnog političara, Parlament je zatražio od Charlesa I, sina nedavno preminulog kralja Jamesa I, da poštuje tradicionalna prava Engleza. Među uobičajenim “diverskim pravima i slobodama subjekata koji su navedeni ” bili su oporezivanje bez pristanka, “dužni sudski postupak, ” pravo na habeas corpus, bez raspodjele vojnih jedinica, poštivanje privatnog vlasništva i izricanje bez okrutne kazne.

Naravno, kralj Charles nije smatrao da je peticija obvezana, nego ju je zanemario. Ipak, bilo bi pogrešno podcijeniti važnost dokumenta. S jedne strane, potvrdilo se pravo na peticiju kao temeljno pravo na koje se može legitimno pozvati protiv monarha koji je odstupio od tradicionalnih načela. Štoviše, argument Coke -a#8217 i dalje je imao značajnu privlačnost stotinu godina kasnije s druge strane Atlantika. Tijekom 1760 -ih, američki kolonisti artikulirali su svoje pritužbe protiv kralja Georgea u smislu koji podsjeća na peticiju Coca -Cole za očuvanje prava Engleza. S druge strane, odbijanje žalbe kralja Charlesa pokazuje inherentna ograničenja prava na peticiju.

The Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641

Massachusetts Body of Liberties, usvojen u prosincu 1641., bio je prvi pokušaj u Massachusettsu da ograniči moć izabranih predstavnika pozivom na dokument u kojem su navedena prava i dužnosti ljudi. Dokument, sastavljen i raspravljan nekoliko godina, kombinira američku tradiciju sklapanja sporazuma s pozivom na tradiciju običajnog prava. Sadrži devedeset osam odjeljaka i obuhvaća pravila koja se tiču ​​sudskih postupaka (odjeljci 18-57) “slobode koje se posebnije odnose na slobodnog muškarca ” (odjeljci 58-78) i prava žena (79-80), djece (odjeljci 81-84), sluge (85-88), stranci (89-91) i životinje (92-93). Odjeljak 94 pruža biblijsko opravdanje koje podržava smrtnu kaznu u dvanaest slučajeva, a odjeljak 95 sadrži jedanaest sloboda koje je dao Gospodin Isus Crkvama. ” Najtrajniji dio Zbora slobode su preambula i prvih sedamnaest odjeljaka , koji sadrže bitna prava tradicije običajnog prava. Posebno su važne referencije na ono što je do sada bilo tradicionalno na američkoj strani Atlantika: jednak tretman svih osoba prema zakonima koje je donijelo zakonodavno tijelo, samo nadoknada za imovinu koja je uzeta u javnu upotrebu, pravo podnijeti vladi peticije za rješavanje pritužbi , pravo na suđenje pred porotom, pravo na putovanje i na kraju pravo na trgovinu.

Temeljni zakoni West New Jerseyja, 1677

“velika povelja ” iz New Jerseyja, 1677., napravljena u ime “vlasnika, slobodnih vlasnika i stanovnika navedene provincije, ” nastala je po uzoru na povelju Rhode Island. Osnivači New Jerseyja također su pokušali osigurati potencijalno sukobljene ciljeve lokalne samouprave i poštivanje trajnih načela. Prvih dvanaest poglavlja povelje od četrdeset i četiri poglavlja odnose se na izbor i dužnosti povjerenika, poticanje vlasništva nad zemljištem i odredbe za izgradnju javnih autocesta. Poglavlja 24-44 pokrivaju odnose s Indijancima, oporuke i oporuke te poreze i procjene. Kritičnih srednjih jedanaest odjeljaka pokrivaju zajedničko pravo ili temeljna prava i povlastice West New Jerseyja. ” Među pravima koja treba zaštititi su prava na slobodno ispovijedanje vjere, zakoniti sudski postupak, suđenje pred porotom i suočiti se sa svjedocima na otvorenom sudu. Konačno, vlada je dužna osigurati da svaka osoba bude oslobođena tlačenja i ropstva. ”

Okvir vlade u Pennsylvaniji, 1681

Godine 1681. kralj Charles II dodijelio je kvekeru Williamu Pennu vlasništvo nad “Princom iz Pensilvanije. ” Okvir vlade iz 1682. osmišljen je “za njegovu dobru vladu ” i uključivao je “granta ” od “ ronilaca Slobode, franšize i svojine. ” Ovaj dokument jedinstven je za američko iskustvo iz sedamnaestog stoljeća da agent koji je odobravao ili odobravao nije bio ni engleski monarh ni narod. Penn, kao usamljeni osnivač, “dao i potvrdio stanovnicima ” određena individualna prava. Pa ipak, znanstvenici su zasigurno u pravu kad su primijetili da se ovaj dokument svrstava među “najutjecajniji kolonijalni dokument koji štiti individualna prava ” protiv zlouporabe vladinih ovlasti.

Dokument ima i ustavni i legalistički ton. Prvo, preambula koja objavljuje svrhe vlade i izjavljuje da će se vladavina “dobrih zakona ” koju podržavaju mudri i čestiti ljudi izabrati umjesto “ vladavine jednog, nekoliko i mnogih ” sudaca u zemlji u kojoj žive “a opušteni i izopačeni ljudi. ” Nakon toga slijedi “Frame, ” koji sadrži dvadeset i četiri odjeljka koji jamče pravo sudjelovanja i opisuju ovlasti i odgovornosti državnih dužnosnika. Konačno, postoji opsežna stavka građanskih i kaznenih prava i očekivanja. Popis ne uključuje samo poznato pravo općeg prava na pravično suđenje od strane porote od jednog kolege, već i detaljne odredbe za pažljivo rješavanje specifičnih pitanja poput sudskih taksi, kazni i dokumenata.

Dokument također govori o američkom vjerskom paradoksu. S jedne strane, odjeljak XXXV izjavljuje da se stanovnici ni na koji način neće maltretirati ili imati predrasude zbog svojih vjerskih uvjerenja ili postupaka u pitanjima vjere i bogoslužja, niti ih u bilo kojem trenutku prisiljavati na česte ili održavati bilo koje vjersko bogoslužje, mjesto ili službu, bez obzira na sve. ” S druge strane, u Odjeljku XXXVI predviđena je posebna odredba za poštivanje Dana,#i 8217, ”, a kazne su navedene u Odjeljku XXXVII za &# 8220 uvreda protiv Boga. ” Postoji politički, ali i teološki razlog za isticanje dvanaest prekršaja “nečistoće, ” osam djela “ nasilja, ” i jedanaest djela proizvedenih od “ grubosti, okrutnost, raspuštenost i nereligioznost. ” Ova trideset i jedna “ uvreda protiv Boga ” primjeri su “ divljaštva i raspuštenosti ljudi ” koji pak izazivaju Božju ogorčenost prema jednoj zemlji . ”

Engleski pravilnik o pravima, 1689

Treći britanski doprinos razvoju američkog Zakona o pravima je engleski Bill of Rights iz 1689. godine. Sabor “Konvencije ” iz 1689. proglasio je kraj trogodišnje vladavine Jakova II., Nekadašnjeg vojvode od Yorka, i donio Zakon o osiguranju Kraljevstva od paparstva i proizvoljne moći. ” U tu svrhu , Parlament je popisao dvanaest optužnica protiv njega i izdao deklaraciju o pravima i slobodama subjekta. Nikada više, proglašen je sporazum između Parlamenta i novoustoličenih monarha — Kralj William Oranski i kraljica Marija, kći svrgnutog kralja Jakova II. “je u opasnosti da bude podriven. ” U tu svrhu ponovno je potvrđeno nekoliko drevnih prava Engleza: pravo da se vladi podnose peticije za rješavanje pritužbi, očekivanje da će vladina politika potvrditi vladavinu prava, da vojske u mirnodopsko vrijeme bez pristanka Parlamenta nezakonite su i “da se ne smije zahtijevati prekomjerna jamčevina, niti se izriču prekomjerne novčane kazne niti se izriču okrutne i neobične kazne. ” Parlament je također izjavio da će ubuduće to biti velika političkim akterima, predstavnicima naroda jamči se sloboda govora i rasprave te da su se izbori trebali često održavati. U to je uključeno i pravo ljudi da nose oružje. Međutim, deklaracija o pravima koja Englezi imaju nisu uključena u pravo na slobodno vjersko pravo i pravo na odabir oblika vladavine.

Pensilvanska povelja privilegija, 1701

Završni dokument vrijedan razmatranja je Pensilvanska povelja o privilegijama iz 1701. Ovo je bio posljednji i, možda, i najpoznatiji od svih kolonijalnih ustava. ” Ova povelja, koju je također napisao William Penn, zamijenila je izvorni dokument iz 1682. godine kao temeljni zakon kolonije. (Potrebnih “Šest dijelova Sedam slobodnih ljudi ” zatražilo je izmjenu Okvira vlade iz 1682.) Nova povelja, koja je ostala na snazi ​​sljedećih sto sedamdeset i pet godina, zamišljena je da bude više &# 8220prikladno sadašnjim okolnostima stanovnika. ” Najvažnije strukturne promjene su odredbe za godišnje izbore za jednodomnu Opću skupštinu sa sjedištem u županiji i pojačana politička uloga zakonodavnog tijela. Pojačana zaštita također se daje slobodi savjesti. Na primjer, klauzula o besplatnom vršenju vjere stavljena je na prvo mjesto, i to je nedopušteno, a vjerska kvalifikacija za obnašanje dužnosti ograničena je na vjerovanje u Isusa Krista. Štoviše, odsjeci “ protiv Boga ” u povelji iz 1682. Konačno, Penn je uključio pravo kriminalaca da imaju iste privilegije svjedoka i vijeća kao i njihovi tužitelji. ”


Britanski zakon o pravima mogao bi 'otkriti ili#x27 ustav, kažu kolege

Vladin prijedlog zakona o pravima ometat će borbu protiv kriminala, potkopati međunarodni moralni autoritet Velike Britanije i mogao bi početi "razotkrivati" ustav, upozorava međustranački parlamentarni odbor.

Kritičko izvješće pododbora za pravosuđe Europske unije Doma lordova poziva ministre da preispitaju planove za ukidanje Zakona o ljudskim pravima i ističe strahove izražene od irske vlade da bi ta politika mogla naštetiti mirovnom procesu u Sjevernoj Irskoj.

Objavljivanje nacrta zakona, kojim se namjerava zamijeniti Zakon o ljudskim pravima, u više je navrata odgađano unatoč tome što je Zakon o pravima manifestno obećanje konzervativne stranke. Sada se očekuje nakon referenduma o EU.

Dok je ministar pravosuđa Michael Gove implicirao da prijedlog zakona možda nije tako radikalan kao što je prvotno predviđeno, drugi strahuju da bi glasanje o ostanku unutar EU -a 23. lipnja moglo prisiliti Downing Street da umiri razočarane Brexiters značajnijim napadom na Europu. sud za ljudska prava u Strasbourgu. Prošlog je mjeseca ministrica unutarnjih poslova, Theresa May, pobornica ostanka u EU -u, pozvala Veliku Britaniju da odustane od Europske konvencije o ljudskim pravima.

„Kad bi UK odstupila od standarda ljudskih prava koji su trenutno priznati u EU -u“, navodi se u izvješću, „sustav uzajamnog priznavanja koji podupire suradnju EU -a u pravosuđu i unutarnjim poslovima bio bi ometen pravnim argumentima oko njegove primjene u Velikoj Britaniji.

Tijekom istrage odboru je pokazano pismo koje je irska ministarka pravosuđa, Frances Fitzgerald, poslala Goveu tražeći od njega "da se maksimalno razmotri" odredbe sporazuma na Veliki petak koji zahtijeva da Europska konvencija o ljudskim pravima biti ugrađen u sjevernoirsko pravo.

U njezinu je pismu dodano: „... vanjski nadzor od strane Europskog suda za ljudska prava [u Strasbourgu] bio je bitan dio mirovnog procesa i sve što to potkopava ili se smatra da to potkopava, moglo bi imati ozbiljne posljedice na rad Dogovor za Veliki petak. ”

Dvojica bivših državnih odvjetnika-laburistički lord Goldmsith i konzervativac Dominic Grieve-rekli su odboru da bi smanjena predanost Europskoj konvenciji ugrozila ugled Velike Britanije u Vijeću Europe i diljem svijeta. "To bi također moglo dovesti u pitanje učinkovito djelovanje Europske konvencije o ljudskim pravima koja zahtijeva od svih država ugovornica da poštuju svoje obveze", zaključili su kolege.

Ako bi se Velika Britanija ipak povukla sa suda u Strasbourgu, navedeno je u izvješću, vjerojatno bi to rezultiralo time da bi se na temelju Povelje EU -a o temeljnim pravima Europski sud u Luksemburgu (ESP) podnio još mnogo slučajeva.

Odbor ima četiri člana laburista, tri konzervativca, tri zamjenika i dva liberalna demokrata. Radnička vršnjakinja, barunica Kennedy, koja predsjeda odborom, rekla je da su vladine tvrdnje da bi oružane snage trebale biti izuzete od izazova vezanih za ljudska prava bile pogrešne.

"Ne radi se o sukobu oružja [na bojnom polju]", rekla je. Radilo se o osiguravanju dobrog ponašanja u mirovnim ulogama.

Dodala je: „Mnogi su svjedoci smatrali da bi ograničavanje područja primjene Zakona o ljudskim pravima dovelo do povećanja oslanjanja na Povelju EU -a o temeljnim pravima u britanskim sudovima koja ima jače mehanizme provedbe. Činilo se da je to izopačena posljedica zakona o pravima čiji je cilj pružiti ljudskim pravima veći britanski identitet.

“Čuli smo dokaze da ovlaštene uprave imaju ozbiljnu zabrinutost zbog planova za ukidanje Zakona o ljudskim pravima. Kad bi prenijeti parlamenti uskratili pristanak na britanski zakon o pravima, to bi vrlo vjerojatno moglo završiti kao engleski zakon o pravima, a ne nešto što mislimo da bi vlada htjela vidjeti.

“Što smo više dokaza čuli o ovom pitanju, postali smo uvjereniji da bi vlada trebala ponovno razmisliti o svojim prijedlozima britanske povelje o pravima. Sada je pravi trenutak da to učini. ”


Stvaranje Trećeg amandmana

Kao rezultat tog iskustva kada je vlada koristila njihovo privatno vlasništvo bez njihovog dopuštenja, Oci utemeljitelji željeli su jamstvo da će ih nova vlada koju su stvorili u budućnosti zaštititi od ove zlouporabe.

Mnogi su ljudi bili skeptični da novi Ustav na odgovarajući način štiti njihova prava i zahtijevali su da a Povelja o pravima tome dodati. Zakon o pravima je popis prava koja se posebno spominju u koja se vlada nema pravo miješati. Dodani su zakoni o pravima kako bi se prava građana učinila vrlo jasnima, pa ne bi bilo mjesta za vladine dužnosnike koji bi im "lascirali" put u petljanje.

James Madison

Nakon što su države počele raspravljati o novo predloženom Ustavu, postalo je očito da Ustav neće proći bez promjene mišljenja njegovih kritičara. Zagovornici Ustava nazivali su se federalistima. Željeli su jaču središnju vlast jer je sadašnja vlada, uređena člancima Konfederacije, jedva funkcionirala. Federaliste su predvodili James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams i George Washington.

Anti-federalisti su se protivili Ustavu. Oni su bili protiv jake savezne ili središnje vlade jer su se bojali da će vlada postati premoćna i oduzeti prava ljudi. Muškarci poput Patrick Henry, George Mason i Elbridge Gerry bili vodeći anti-federalisti.

Federalisti su došli do kompromisne ponude poznate kao Kompromis u Massachusettsu, to bi na kraju uvjerilo dovoljno anti-federalista da glasaju za podršku Ustavu kako bi mogao stupiti na snagu. U Kompromis u Massachusettsu, federalisti su obećali da će Prvi kongres uzeti u obzir predložene izmjene država i dodati ustavnu listu ako bi protivnici samo glasali za prihvaćanje. Ovo obećanje uvjerilo je dovoljno kritičara da glasaju za prihvaćanje Ustava i postalo je zakon zemlje.

Držeći se obećanja, James Madison je u govoru 8. lipnja 1789. predložio popis od dvadeset amandmana na Prvi kongres. Kongres je raspravljao o tim amandmanima i na kraju ih je dvanaest poslao državama na razmatranje. Države su dogovorile deset njih.

Ovih prvih deset izmjena i dopuna koje su dogovorene, uključujući 3. amandman, konačno je postao zakon 15. prosinca 1791. i poznati su kao Povelja o pravima. Više o Povijesti Povelje o pravima možete pročitati ovdje.


Drugi amandman nakon građanskog rata

Veći dio prvih 100 godina života Amerike, Drugi amandman - ili, kako ga znamo, "individualno pravo na nošenje oružja" - imao je mali utjecaj na američki politički život.

Međutim, 1860 -ih sve se promijenilo. Nacija je uronila u građanski rat, ulazeći u novu eru.

Zanimljivo je, međutim, da su zakoni stvoreni kako bi se osigurala individualna prava novooslobođenih robova postavili pozornicu za jedinstveno tumačenje Drugog amandmana koje je pomoglo u oblikovanju rasprave koju vodimo i danas.

Lincolnovo ubojstvo

Dana 9. travnja 1865., generali Ulysses S. Grant i Robert E. Lee sastali su se u sudskoj kući Appomattox, u državi Virginia, kako bi izradili rezoluciju koja će okončati građanski rat.

Kao rezultat predaje Juga, Sjedinjene Države su ponovno bile jedna zemlja, a Proglas o emancipaciji iz 1863. - koji je oslobodio robove u pobunjenim državama tijekom rata - uvršten je u zakon usvajanjem Trinaestog amandmana 1864. godine.

S prevladavanjem ove prepreke, predsjednik Lincoln bio je odlučan pozdraviti Konfederaciju na način koji nije bio ni oštar ni disciplinski.

5. ožujka 1865. izjavio je u svojoj drugoj inauguracijskoj adresi:

"Sa zlobom prema nikome, s milosrđem za sve, s čvrstinom u pravu kad nam Bog daje da vidimo pravo, nastojmo dovršiti posao u kojem se nalazimo, vezati nacije i rane#brinuti se za njega koji će podnijeti bitku, a njegova udovica i njegovo siroče učiniti sve što može postići i njegovati pravedan i trajan mir među nama i sa svim narodima. "

[4]

Lincoln je želio pomiriti naciju, a ne kazniti Jug. A njegov plan za obnovu izgrađen je na takav način da bi upravo to učinio - "rekonstruirao" način života Juga, čiji je veliki dio uključivao pružanje jamstava za individualna prava i slobode crnaca.

To je dovelo do konačnog usvajanja Četrnaestog amandmana, a to je riješilo niz pitanja u njegovih pet odjeljaka. Neke od najvažnijih klauzula detaljno ograničavaju sposobnost bivših pobunjenika da obnašaju dužnost, kao i ovlasti Kongresa da provedu izmjenu i dopunu.

Međutim, najpoznatiji je prvi odjeljak koji slavno uključuje sljedeći jezik:

„Nijedna država neće donijeti niti provesti bilo koji zakon koji će ograničiti privilegije ili imunitete Sjedinjenih Država, niti će bilo koja država lišiti bilo koju osobu života, slobode ili imovine bez zakonitog postupka, niti uskratiti bilo kojoj osobi unutar svoje nadležnosti jednaku zaštitu zakona. "

[5]

Usvajanje ovog amandmana dovelo je do brzog rasta i napretka u razinama političkog sudjelovanja crnaca-ali to je bilo kratkog vijeka. Lincoln nije živio kako bi osigurao svoj plan, niti je svjedočio usvajanju Četrnaestog amandmana, jer je šest dana nakon Leejeve predaje, 15. travnja 1865., predsjednik ubijen.

Zapanjena zemlja - suočena s prvim političkim ubojstvom - postala je opaka.

Obnova je postala vrijeme za mnoge Sjevernjake da zarade na razbijenom Jugu i prisile ga da živi prema svojim pobjedničkim uvjerenjima.

Jug, koji se na kraju oslobodio sjevernog nadzora, nastojao je uspostaviti svoj stari način života - onaj u kojem su crnci potisnuti u rovove društvenog poretka - i naporno se borio protiv ovog uplitanja sa sjevera, koje je na kraju postignut kompromisom iz 1877.

Odatle je jedno pitanje koje je bilo u središtu američkog političkog sukoba od nastanka nacije dobilo novo gorivo: rasprava o moći država u odnosu na saveznu vladu.

Četrnaesti amandman i Drugi amandman

Tijekom Građanskog rata i obnove nakon njega, Drugi amandman nije bio pod svjetlima reflektora koji ga danas obasjavaju.

Četrnaesti amandman viđen je kao produžetak izvornih ideala Povelje o pravima, pružajući zaštitu novoosnovanim bivšim robovima. Uključivao je posebne odredbe u kojima se otvoreno navodilo da slobode koje pružaju Ustav SAD -a i Povelja o pravima sada štite Afroamerikance i sve ostale ljude koji žive u Sjedinjenim Državama.

To znači da je Četrnaesti amandman bio prvi te vrste izričito jamči prava na svi narod, a ne samo odabrana skupina ljudi koje smatra građanima. Naravno, to je ograničilo sposobnost države da se sama vlada - što se dogodilo kao kritično važno pitanje za dio zemlje koji je životno prožet idejom o „pravima države“.

Jug se ogorčeno opirao onome što je smatrao kršenjem prava na upravljanje sobom radom pojedinih država. Uslijedila je nasilna reakcija koja je uzrokovala organizaciju skupina poput Ku Klux Klana, koje su se promicale kao milicije zaštićene prema Drugom amandmanu, ali su u stvarnosti bile sličnije terorističkim udrugama na temelju njihovih akcija - spaljivanje križeva i ponoćni linč samo dva načina demonstracije moći. Glavna točka Klana bila je prisvojiti bijelu dominaciju i nametnuti kontinuiranu dominaciju bivših robovlasnika nad bivšim robovima.

S fokusom na to da se savezna vlada okrenula od ideala obnove, život na jugu postupno se vratio u običaje Antebelluma.

Do kraja 1860 -ih, ukidanje ropstva doista je značilo samo uspostavljanje nominalno slobodne zajednice crnaca. No, te su zajednice bile ekonomski, obrazovno i politički neprivilegirane - naravno, građanima je dano pravo glasa, ali kakva je korist bila to što su ih u tome spriječili nedostatak osobne imovine, sposobnost čitanja glasačkog listića ili znanje vladinih funkcija?

To je, dakle, bilo stanje u Sjedinjenim Državama nakon građanskog rata. Kad je Vrhovni sud prvi put razmatrao Drugi amandman, to nije učinio zbog zabrinutosti oko prava na oružje. Umjesto toga, raspravljalo se o slučaju koji se fokusirao na prava Četrnaestog amandmana, posebno se baveći afroameričkom sigurnošću.

Drugi amandman privukao je ozbiljnu sudsku pozornost slučajem iz doba obnove Sjedinjene Države protiv Cruikshanka (1876) koji je presudio da klauzula o privilegijima ili imunitetu Četrnaestog amandmana nije uzrokovala da Bill zakona o pravima, uključujući i drugi amandman, ograniči ovlasti državnih vlada, navodeći da drugi amandman “ nema nikakav učinak osim da ograničiti ovlasti nacionalne vlade. ”

Sjedinjene Američke Države protiv Cruikshanka: Drugi amandman ulazi u javnu raspravu

Na Uskrsnu nedjelju 1873. - ironično, dvije godine nakon formiranja Nacionalne streljačke udruge (čija će važnost uskoro postati jasna ovoj priči) - bijela milicija sastavljena od članova dviju skupina bijelih suprematista, vitezova Bijele kamelije i Ku Klux Klan, ubio je više od sto pedeset Afroafrikanaca u gradu Colfax, Louisiana [6].

Kao odgovor na ono što je postalo poznato kao "masakr u Colfaxu", tri bijelca su osuđena.

Budući da se to dogodilo nakon državnih izbora 1872. u Louisiani, a motivirano je njegovim rezultatom (budući da je to bio jedan od prvih izbora na kojima je bilo široko rasprostranjeno glasovanje crnaca, nešto nezamislivo na jugu), savezne vlasti tumačile su postupke ovih pojedinaca kao kršenje Ovršnog zakona iz 1870. godine - zakona koji je saveznoj vladi dao pravo na provedbu Petnaestog amandmana, garantujući građanima individualno pravo glasa bez obzira na “rasu, boju kože ili prethodno stanje službenosti”.

Tužiteljstvo je tako postupilo u skladu s tim.

Dva suđenja održana su 1874. godine, a u drugom su tri čovjeka osuđena iako je predsjedavajući sudac odmah odbacio optužbe. Savezna vlada je zatim iznijela to pitanje Vrhovnom sudu u slučaju poznatom kao Sjedinjene Američke Države protiv Cruikshanka.

U njemu je Vrhovni sud presudio da se Ovršni zakon iz 1870. primjenjuje samo na države, a ne i na pojedince, te da savezna vlada nema nadležnost nad pokušajima pojedinaca da povrijede prava drugih pojedinaca.

Umjesto toga, oni koji su smatrali da su im druga individualna prava ograničena morali bi se obratiti državama i općinama radi zaštite, a ne saveznoj vladi.

The Supreme Court extended this interpretation to both the First and Second Amendment, essentially saying that both represented inherent rights granted to people and that their existence in the U.S Constitution was solely to prevent the federalni government from limiting them. The exact text from the ruling in regards to the Second Amendment reads:

“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.”

[7]

However, the Fourteenth Amendment seems to contradict this notion by saying that the states cannot limit the rights of any citizen that are afforded by the U.S Constitution.

Ali u United States vs. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court circumvents this idea by stating that these rights were not explicitly granted by the document but rather protected against infringement by the federal government [8].

Why is United States vs. Cruikshank Važno?

This is an incredibly narrow interpretation of the U.S Constitution — one that essentially says the states can more or less do as they please when it comes to the individual rights of people.

It gave individual states the power to choose whether or not to prosecute events such as the Colfax Massacre, opening the door for legally-sanctioned segregation as well as even more violent intimidation of newly-freed Blacks trying to integrate into American society.

This decision — as many Supreme Court decisions are — was politically motivated, and it had a dramatic impact on US history, particularly in terms of race relations.

As for the Second Amendment, this case is historic because it marked the first instance in the history of the United States in which the Supreme Court offered a direct opinion about the right to bear arms.

That opinion — that it only served to protect citizens against overreach from the national government that the states were free to address it and other rights written in the U.S Constitution as they pleased — would pave the way for state and local gun laws and would shape the debate about this issue in the 20th century.

Presser vs. Illinois

The Second Amendment received a second review a few years later, when Presser vs. Illinois was heard by the Supreme Court in 1886.

A year or so earlier, the state of Illinois had ratified a law restricting public parades where participants carried firearms Dave Koppel of the Independence Institute notes that:

“One prong of the governmental effort to suppress organized labor was a ban on armed parades in public Illinois was one of the states that enacted such a ban, making it a crime for ‘bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law…’ ”

[9]

The plaintiff — a man by the name of Herman Presser — had marched in a parade carrying a firearm the Chicago court noted that he “did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill, with arms… without having a license from the Governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, ‘the regular organized volunteer militia’ of the State of Illinois.” [10]

Presser appealed the conviction, claiming that the Second Amendment afforded him the right to act as he had. The Supreme Court disagreed in affirming Presser’s conviction and fine, it noted that the Second Amendment protected state militias attempting to defend against federal encroachment and that the states had the power to regulate this right as they saw fit, a decision in line with the opinion given in United States vs. Cruikshank.

In both cases, the Supreme Court argued that the Second Amendment was written as a balance between federal and state power rather than as a protection of individual rights, which effectively made gun control perfectly legal at the state level.

These cases were not directed at gun ownership per se, but on the uses of guns by organized groups.

At this point in history, during the late 1880s, today’s typical argument that the “right to bear arms” is more an issue of individual firearm ownership was more than a century away from entering the public sphere.


The Cyrus Cylinder (539 B.C.)

In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spread of Human Rights

From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. There the concept of “natural law” arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things.

Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents.

The Magna Carta (1215)

In 1215, after King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs by which England had been governed, his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which enumerates what later came to be thought of as human rights. Among them was the right of the church to be free from governmental interference, the rights of all free citizens to own and inherit property and to be protected from excessive taxes. It established the right of widows who owned property to choose not to remarry, and established principles of due process and equality before the law. It also contained provisions forbidding bribery and official misconduct.

Widely viewed as one of the most important legal documents in the development of modern democracy, the Magna Carta was a crucial turning point in the struggle to establish freedom.

Petition of Right (1628)

United States Declaration of Independence (1776)

On July 4, 1776, the United States Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. Its primary author, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the Declaration as a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, and as a statement announcing that the thirteen American Colonies were no longer a part of the British Empire. Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as a printed broadsheet that was widely distributed and read to the public.

Philosophically, the Declaration stressed two themes: individual rights and the right of revolution. These ideas became widely held by Americans and spread internationally as well, influencing in particular the French Revolution.

The Constitution of the United States of America (1787) and Bill of Rights (1791)

Written during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, the Constitution of the United States of America is the fundamental law of the US federal system of government and the landmark document of the Western world. It is the oldest written national constitution in use and defines the principal organs of government and their jurisdictions and the basic rights of citizens.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution—the Bill of Rights—came into effect on December 15, 1791, limiting the powers of the federal government of the United States and protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors in American territory.

The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment and compelled self-incrimination. Among the legal protections it affords, the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In federal criminal cases it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital offense, or infamous crime, guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury in the district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)

In 1789 the people of France brought about the abolishment of the absolute monarchy and set the stage for the establishment of the first French Republic. Just six weeks after the storming of the Bastille, and barely three weeks after the abolition of feudalism, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: La Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen) was adopted by the National Constituent Assembly as the first step toward writing a constitution for the Republic of France.

The Declaration proclaims that all citizens are to be guaranteed the rights of “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” It argues that the need for law derives from the fact that “. the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights.” Thus, the Declaration sees law as an “expression of the general will,“ intended to promote this equality of rights and to forbid “only actions harmful to the society.”

The First Geneva Convention (1864)

The main principles laid down in the Convention and maintained by the later Geneva Conventions provided for the obligation to extend care without discrimination to wounded and sick military personnel and respect for and marking of medical personnel transports and equipment with the distinctive sign of the red cross on a white background.


The Bill of Rights: How Did it Happen?

The amendments James Madison proposed were designed to win support in both houses of Congress and the states. He focused on rights-related amendments, ignoring suggestions that would have structurally changed the government.

Opposition to the Constitution

Many Americans, persuaded by a pamphlet written by George Mason, opposed the new government. Mason was one of three delegates present on the final day of the convention who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights.

James Madison and other supporters of the Constitution argued that a bill of rights wasn't necessary because - “the government can only exert the powers specified by the Constitution.” But they agreed to consider adding amendments when ratification was in danger in the key state of Massachusetts.

Introducing the Bill of Rights in the First Congress

Few members of the First Congress wanted to make amending the new Constitution a priority. But James Madison, once the most vocal opponent of the Bill of Rights, introduced a list of amendments to the Constitution on June 8, 1789, and “hounded his colleagues relentlessly” to secure its passage. Madison had come to appreciate the importance voters attached to these protections, the role that enshrining them in the Constitution could have in educating people about their rights, and the chance that adding them might prevent its opponents from making more drastic changes to it.

Ratifying the Bill of Rights

The House passed a joint resolution containing 17 amendments based on Madison’s proposal. The Senate changed the joint resolution to consist of 12 amendments. A joint House and Senate Conference Committee settled remaining disagreements in September. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent copies of the 12 amendments adopted by Congress to the states. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified 10 of these, now known as the “Bill of Rights.”

The Federal Pillars, 1789

The Massachusetts Compromise, in which the states agreed to ratify the Constitution provided the First Congress consider the rights and other amendments it proposed, secured ratification and paved the way for the passage of the Bill of Rights. Courtesy of the Library of Congress

Federal Hall, Seat of Congress 1790, by Amos Doolittle

Federal Hall, originally New York’s city hall, served as the first capitol building of the United States. The Bill of Rights was introduced there. Courtesy of the Library of CongressCourtesy of the Library of Congress

Senate Revisions to House Proposed Amendments, 1789

This printed document shows 17 amendments passed by the House with handwritten revisions by the Senate. Nacionalni arhiv


2010: Gun Owners Win Another Victory in McDonald v. Chicago

Gun rights supporters won their second major Supreme Court victory in 2010 when the high court affirmed an individual's right to own guns in McDonald v. Chicago. The ruling was an inevitable follow-up to D.C. v. Heller and marked the first time that the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of the Second Amendment extend to the states. The ruling overturned an earlier decision by a lower court in a legal challenge to Chicago’s ordinance banning the possession of handguns by its citizens.


18a. Bill of Rights


Although James Madison was the youngest member of the Continental Congress, his leadership was a critical factor in the development of American government. Madison proposed the Virginia Plan, he authored some of the Federalist Papers, and he wrote the Bill of Rights.

The first national election occurred in 1789. Along with President Washington, voters elected a large number of supporters of the Constitution. In fact, almost half of the ninety-one members of the first Congress had helped to write or ratify the Constitution.

Not surprisingly, given Anti-Federalists' opposition to the strong new central government, only eight opponents of the Constitution were sent to the House of Representatives. Most Anti-Federalists concentrated their efforts in state politics.

Protection of Individual Rights

An immediate issue that the new Congress took up was how to modify the Constitution. Representatives were responding to calls for amendments that had emerged as a chief issue during the ratification process. Crucial states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York (among others) had all ultimately supported the Constitution &mdash but only with the expectation that explicit protections for individual rights would be added to the highest law of the land. Now that supporters of the Constitution controlled the federal government, what would they do?

The legal tradition of having a precise statement of individual rights had deep roots in Anglo-American custom. So it's not surprising that the first Congress amended the Constitution by adding what became known as the Bill of Rights.


Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

James Madison, now a member of Congress from Virginia, once again took the leading role crafting proposed amendments that would be sent to the states for approval. Madison skillfully reviewed numerous proposals and examples from state constitutions and ultimately selected nineteen potential amendments to the Constitution.

As one might expect, the nationalist Madison took care to make sure that none of the proposed amendments would fundamentally weaken the new central government. In the end, ten amendments were ratified in 1791.

Ten Amendments

These first ten amendments to the Constitution became known as the Bill of Rights and still stand as both the symbol and foundation of American ideals of individual liberty, limited government , and the rule of law. Most of the Bill of Rights concerns legal protections for those accused of crimes.

Rights and Protections Guaranteed in the Bill of Rights

  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom of the press
  • Freedom of religion
  • Freedom of assembly
  • Right to petition the government
  • Right to bear arms
  • Protection against housing soldiers in civilian homes
  • Protection against unreasonable search and seizure
  • Protection against the issuing of warrants without probable cause
  • Protection against
    • trial without indictment
    • double jeopardy
    • self-incrimination
    • property seizure
    • Right to a speedy trial
    • Right to be informed of charges
    • Right to be confronted by witnesses
    • Right to call witnesses
    • Right to a legal counsel
    • Right to trial by jury
    • Protection against
      • excessive bail
      • excessive fines
      • cruel and unusual punishment
      • Rights granted in the Constitution shall not infringe on other rights.
      • Powers not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution belong to the states or the people.

      For instance, the fourth through eighth amendments provide protection from unreasonable search and seizure , the privilege against self-incrimination , and the right to a fair and speedy jury trial that will be free from unusual punishments.

      The First Amendment , perhaps the broadest and most famous of the Bill of Rights, establishes a range of political and civil rights including those of free speech , assembly, press, and religion.

      The last two amendments, respectively, spell out that this list of individual protections is not meant to exclude other ones, and, by contrast, set forth that all powers claimed by the federal government had to be expressly stated in the Constitution.

      The Full Text of the Bill of Rights

      Amendment I 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.

      Amendment II 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.

      Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

      Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

      Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

      Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      While the Bill of Rights created no deep challenge to federal authority, it did respond to the central Anti-Federalist fear that the Constitution would unleash an oppressive central government too distant from the people to be controlled.

      By responding to this opposition and following through on the broadly expressed desire for amendments that emerged during the ratification process, the Bill of Rights helped to secure broad political support for the new national government. A first major domestic issue had been successfully resolved.

      Understanding the Bill of Rights

      The Bill of Rights remains an active force in contemporary American life as a major element of Constitutional law . The meaning of its protections remains hotly debated. For example, the privilege to bear arms to support a militia, which appears in the second amendment, produces significant political controversy today.

      More sweepingly, the extension of the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from abuse not only by the federal government, but also from state and local governments remains an unsettled aspect of Constitutional interpretation.

      Originally, the protections were solely meant to limit the federal government, but with the fourteenth amendment's guarantee in 1868 that no state could deprive its citizens of the protections in the Bill of Rights this original view began to be expanded. To this day the Supreme Court has not definitively decided if the entire Bill of Rights should always be applied to all levels of government.


      British Bill of Rights - History

      Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

      , by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom

      By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament

      By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power

      By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes

      By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament

      By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law

      By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law

      By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament

      By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses

      And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders

      And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects

      And excessive fines have been imposed

      And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted

      And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied

      All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm

      And whereas the said late King

      having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made

      And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

      That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal

      That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal

      That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious

      That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal

      That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal

      That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law

      That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

      That election of members of Parliament ought to be free

      That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

      That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

      That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders

      That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

      And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

      And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that

      , prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

      And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

      I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King

      I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

      Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, _An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament._ But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

      II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

      III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.



Komentari:

  1. Khenan

    Ja se pridružujem. Dakle, to se događa. We will examine this question.

  2. Shaan

    bravo,odgovor je odličan.

  3. Tojarisar

    Niste u pravu. Uđite da ćemo razgovarati o tome.

  4. Kanelingres

    možete susjed!)))

  5. Chayce

    I'm sorry, but I think you are making a mistake. Predlažem da se o tome raspravlja. Email me at PM, we'll talk.



Napišite poruku