27 Grievances
More than you knew about the Declaration of Independence
On July 4, 2014, I opened the New York Times (read the hard copy then) and saw the full page text of the Declaration of Independence. Until that day, I did not know that there was a list of grievances appended to the Declaration of Independence—27 complaints that the Second Continental Congress’s Committee of Five had drafted. They were, of course, mostly directed to King George III for nefarious behavior such as abolishing legislatures or messing around with immigration laws.
Grievance 8 and Grievance 9 struck me the strongest because they dealt with the courts and the judiciary. Grievance 8 reads: He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers, while Grievance 9 says: He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
In 2014, those grievances gave me comfort when I thought about how we had established a nation of laws by which we all agreed to live. Today, July 4, 2024, these Grievances underscore the terrifying state of affairs in the federal courts, and especially in the United States Supreme Court. I’ve written before about respect for the courts—those who seek to tear apart the judicial system by false allegations and threats are refusing to assent to judicial powers that we have all agreed upon, whether we agree or not—but now I’m not so sure.
It seems as if a King has appointed the members of the United States Supreme Court to sympathize with his platform and to rule in his favor, or in favor of those who constitute his base. The recent decision granting near universal immunity for Presidential acts and establishing the presumption of immunity as to those acts seems to have been drafted by the very lawyers for the King himself. While it is true that some presidential acts should be immune from criminal prosecution, it is absurd to believe that all presidential acts come with a presumption that they are immune from criminal prosecution.
This particular King once said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, ok?” Now the lower courts must weigh whether particular acts are “official acts” or not. With this King, we will need an entire new court system to address only those issues. Each claim will require what is in essence a trial, and courts will be required to weigh evidence. The end game is that no matter what a trial court’s ruling, the cases will end up in the appellate courts. It’s a permanent game of judicial ping pong.
Like Justice Sotomayor, I fear the end of democracy when the leader of country has both the unfettered legal ability to engage in criminal activity and the immoral will to so do. When the courts are beholden to the King, the people should get nervous.
On this Independence Day when we celebrate getting rid of a mentally unstable
overreaching King remember your contract of citizenship. Become engaged, study the issues and plan to vote. Spread the word!