Constitution Part 3

U.S. Constitution 3

The Founding Fathers’ Monumental Task Part 3

Structuring a Government with all the Power to the People

The Founders Note the Similarities between Anglo-Saxon Common Law and the People’s Law of Ancient Israel

As the Founders studied the record of the ancient Israelites they were intrigued by the fact that they also operated under a system of laws remarkably similar to those of the Anglo-Saxons. The two systems were similar both in precept and operational structure.

Here are the principal characteristics of the People’s Law in ancient Israel which were almost identical with those of the Anglo-Saxons:

1.      They were set up as a commonwealth of freeman. A basic tenet was: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” (Leviticus 25:10) This inscription appears on the American Liberty Bell. (Don’t see separation of church and state here)

2.      All the people were organized into small manageable units where the representative of each family had a voice and a vote. This organizing process was launched after Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, saw him trying to govern the people under Ruler’s Law. (See Exodus 18:13-26)

3.      There was specific emphasis on strong, local self-government. Problems were solved to the greatest possible extent on the level where they originated. (They didn’t need the government to solve their problems) The record says:  “The hard cases they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.” (Exodus 18:26)

4.      The entire code of justice was based on primarily on reparation to the victim rather than fines and punishment by the commonwealth. (Reference to this procedure will be found in Exodus, Chapters 21 & 22) The one crime which no “satisfaction” could be given was first-degree murder. The penalty was death. (See Numbers 35:31)

5.      Leaders were elected and new laws were approved by the common consent of the people. (See 2 Samuel 2:4, 1 Chronicles 29:22 for the rejection of a leader, see 2 Chronicles 10:16, for the approval of new laws,  see Exodus 19:8)

6.      Accused persons were presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Evidence had to be strong enough to remove any question of doubt as to guilt. Borderline cases were decided in favor of the accused and he was released. It was felt that if he were actually guilty, his punishment could be left to the judgment of God in the future life.

Memorializing These Two Examples of People’s Law on the U. S. Seal

It was the original intent of the Founders to have both the ancient Israelites and the Anglo-Saxons represented on the official seal of the United States. The members of the committee were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.

They recommended that one side of the seal show the profiles of two Anglo-Saxons representing Hengist and Horsa. These brothers were the first Anglo-Saxons to bring their people to England around A.D. 450 and introduce the institutes of People’s Law into the British Isles. On the other side of the seal this committee recommended that there be a portrayal of ancient Israel going through the wilderness led by God’s pillar of fire. (Once again it doesn’t sound like separation of church and state) In this way the Founders hoped to memorialize the two ancient peoples who had acquired many of their basic ideas for their new commonwealth of freedom.

As it turned out, all of this was a little complicated for a small seal, and therefore a more simple design was utilized.

The Balance Center

This was the polemic process by which the Founders struggled to get the American eagle firmly planted in the balanced center of the political spectrum. The fixing of the American eagle in the center of the spectrum was designed to maintain this political equilibrium between the people in the states and the federal government. The idea was to keep the power base close to the people. The emphasis was on strong local self-government. The states would be responsible for internal affairs and the federal government would confine itself to those areas which could not be fairly or effectively handled by the individual states.