THE FOUNDATION OF LIBERTY
While Congress was still debating independence, Virginia was already writing it into law. On June 12, 1776, the Fifth Revolutionary Convention of Virginia adopted a Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason.
The politicians you see today love to talk about “rights,” but Mason wasn’t talking about what government doles out. He made it law that some rights are off-limits - no government, no vote, no majority can take them away.
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
Mason didn’t stop there. He drew a clear line: power doesn’t start with government - it starts and ends with the people. Politicians are just the hired help.
“That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.”
It’s the same principle that showed up in the Declaration of Independence. Any government power that isn’t rooted in the people’s consent is illegitimate - period.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
REVOLUTION MADE LEGAL
Mason didn’t leave the question of government power to theory. Section 3 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights put the right to reform, alter, or abolish government into law.
The standard is straightforward. Government is created for the benefit and security of the people. When it fails that test, the majority doesn’t have to ask for permission.
They hold an “indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right” to make the changes they see fit.
“That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”
This principle had a long pedigree. Nearly a century earlier, John Locke wrote that when government fails its purpose, the people who granted power have every right to take it back:
“for all power given with trust for the attaining an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security”
Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui drove the same point further. When a government uses its power against the public good, the right to decide what happens next returns to the people themselves:
“If the sovereign, utterly forgetful of the end for which he was entrusted with the sovereignty, applied it to a quite contrary purpose, and thus became an enemy to the state; the sovereignty returns (ipso facto) to the nation, who, in that case, can act towards the person, who was their sovereign, in the manner they think most agreeable to their security and interests.”
LIMITS ON POWER
Virginia’s Declaration of Rights also laid down essential rules to keep government power in check. Mason made clear that without strict limits, freedom cannot survive.
Section 5 of the Declaration insisted on separation of powers - the legislative and executive branches must be distinct from the judiciary.
“That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary”
This wasn’t a new idea. Montesquieu warned decades earlier that mixing legislative and executive powers kills liberty. When one body makes and enforces laws unchecked, tyranny follows.
“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.”
He also made clear that blending judicial power with either of the other two branches destroys liberty by removing any check on who makes or enforces the law:
“Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary controul; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.”
Mason continued in Section 5, asserting that term limits were essential for preventing tyranny.
“and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken,”
No comments:
Post a Comment