The idea that no one is above the law is a long-held and repeated precept of American constitutionalism. Its roots go back to the philosophical and historical foundations of western political thought. Holding a prominent place in this history is the thirteenth-century English Magna Carta. Although it does not explicitly use the phrase, the document—a 1297 copy of which is on display in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom at the National Archives Museum in Washington, D.C.—is often cited for codifying limits to a king’s exercise of powers. As the following ten quotes show, Americans were keenly aware of the principle and the necessity of enshrining it in republican charters. Original spelling and grammar as cited has been retained.
1. John Adams
There is no good government but what is Republican . . . the very definition of a Republic, is an Empire of Laws, and not of men.”[1]
2. George Mason
All power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.[2]
3. James Madison
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control of the government; but experience has taught the necessity of auxiliary precautions.[3]
4. Benjamin Franklin
I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.[4]
5. Thomas Paine
But where, say some, is the king of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.[5]
6. Abigail Adams
I long to hear that you have declared an independency – and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.[6]
7. Alexander Hamilton
A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought of course to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[7]
8. William Lenoir (Antifederalist)
The president may be as good a man as any in existence, but he is but a man. He may be corrupt. He has an opportunity of forming plans dangerous to the community at large. I shall not enter into the minutiae of this system [the Constitution], but I conceive that whatever may have been the intention of its framers, that it leads to the most dangerous aristocracy.[8]
9. Thomas Jefferson
The executive in our governments is not the sole, it is scarcely the principal object of my jealousy. The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come in it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period. I know there are some among us who would now establish a monarchy. But they are inconsiderable in number and weight of character. The rising race are all republicans. We were educated in royalism: no wonder if some of us retain that idolatry still. Our young people are educated in republicanism. An apostacy from that to royalism is unprecedented and impossible. I am much pleased with the prospect that a declaration of rights [Bill of Rights] will be added [to the Constitution]: and hope it will be done in that way which will not endanger the whole frame of the government, or any essential part of it.[9]
10. George Washington
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.[10]
[1] Jett B. Conner, John Adams vs Thomas Paine: Rival Plans for the Early Republic (Yardley, PA: Westholme), 32.
[2] George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, Article 7, 1776, constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-library/classroom/5.3-primary-source-and-activity-guide-virginia-declaration-of-rights-and-the-bill-of-rights.
[3] Garry Wills, ed., The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (New York: Bantam Books, 1982), 262.
[4] Rob Crotty, “What Franklin Thought of the Constitution,” prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2010/09/17/what-franklin-thought-of-the-constitution/.
[5] Thomas Paine, The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine, 2 vols., ed. Philip S. Foner (New York: Citadel Press, 1969), 1:29.
[6] Abigail Adams to John Adams, March 31 – April 5, 1776, Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive, Massachusetts Historical Society, www.masshist.org/digitaladams/.
[7] Wills, The Federalist Papers, 395.
[8] Alpheus Thomas Mason and Gordon E. Baker, Free Government in the Making, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 244.
[9] Ibid., 290.
[10] George Washington, “Farewell Address, 1796,” constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/george-washington-farewell-address-1796.
10 Comments
Excellent list. I would like to point out, you included Mrs. Adams, who wanted women included in the Constitution. I wish to mention, women or their pronouns are not in the constitution, as example, Amendment XIX, states, “on account of sex” and male pronouns are specified over fifteen times.
Women are included in the people group.
Maybe its time for an update?
Thank you, Dennis for the comment. The “Code of Laws” mentioned by Abigail Adams in her letter to her husband, was of course first adopted as the Articles of Confederation after the Declaration of Independence. John Dickinson’s draft of the Articles did provide equality of religious liberty between men and women, using “his or her” pronouns in the draft. That language never made it into the Articles and as you note, the U.S. Constitution is silent about women. Dickinson’s draft was too radical!
It is interesting that AI Overview, a new AI feature of Google Search, addresses but garbles its answer when asked: Are women mentioned in the Articles of Confederation? Here’s Google’s response:
Yes, women are mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, which were the precursor to the U.S. Constitution. The draft Articles of Confederation, prepared by a committee led by Delaware statesman John Dickinson, included Article IV, which granted women equal status to men in terms of religious liberty. The clause states, “No person in any Colony living peaceably under the Civil Government, shall be molested or prejudiced in his or her person or Estate for his or her religious persuasion, Profession, or Practice”.
The clause didn’t make it into the final Articles. More work to be done…
The input by Dickinson was part of the first law passed in Pennsylvania in 1683. The then “legislature” passed the law Chapter 1, Number 1 as a law of religious liberty. This is one of the few laws in history and Pennsylvania where men and women were equal.
The law can be referenced on the Pennsylvania Legislature website. Maybe Google AI can look it up.
Great list, but one wonders at just how Washington reconciles his remarks with his role as the military leader of an illegal armed rebellion perpetrated by a minority of citizens.
Thanks for your comment, David. While “democracy for the few” is certainly a legitimate concern, then and today, it is unlikely that Washington, as president of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, would have felt the need to reconcile anything. He would have seen the ratification process as a fulfillment of his idea that constitutions can be changed anytime by the people (as they were defined in his times). Of course, the Convention’s actions can be seen as illegal, given that they essentially bypassed the Articles of Confederation’s constitutional amendment process by adopting their own. But the successful ratification of a new constitution, including its new amendment process, ended for most of the founders that concern, if not for all of the people.
Hello Jett, and thanks for the reply. Once again, great piece, but I really wasn’t referring to Washington in his capacity as president of the Convention or even his role during the transition from the Aoc to the Constitution. Instead, I was essentially commenting on the Revolution itself and this remark in particular: “But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” Had Washington and the Founders followed this directive, or sentiment, the Revolution would not have been possible, specifically because the Revolution was both unconstitutional (under the Constitution then existing) and it was not an act of the whole people.
Amen, David. I am so glad to see others recognizing and making this important point. For a people so steeped in the law to jettison their British constitution (i.e., the existing well-established body of law, not a single document) makes a mockery of Washington’s statement.
The so-called “revolution” was not a revolution in its truest sense, meaning an attempt to overthrow the seat of British government to replace it with something else. Instead, the period between 1775-1783 constituted an illegal civil war among equals, instigated by a few hotheads unable to sway the majority of their fellow British subjects to rebel. That the “rebels” won in the end does not make their efforts legitimate. They, simply, were not.
I agree Gary. As I mentioned in my comments to Jett, I see a pronounced inconsistency in Washington’s conduct as a revolutionary, and his subsequent admonishment to the citizens that an existing constitution is sacredly obligatory on all until it is altered by an authentic act of the whole people.
Hi again, David. I do see the thrust of your point more clearly after your second post. In my mind, a revolution overturns the old order (and its principles); a rebellion falls short of that by aiming primarily at regime change. So, the question of illegality of the Revolution does not, in my view, present much of a problem. If successful, a revolution establishes new legal principles and precepts, retaining some, tossing out others from the old system. A constitution created on those new principles, codifies them and establishes a new basis for what’s legal. Of course, who approves of the new constitution matters.
Washington joined Jefferson, Paine and others in believing that constitutional change was up to the people. So the English constitution of King, Lords and Commons, divine right, heredity and other constitutional principles were overturned by the success of the American Revolution. From that point of view, only if a new revolution in America were to replace the current constitution would Washington have to rethink his remarks. Short of that, he said, Americans needed to abide by the current Constitution and laws. He did not worry about the people so much as he worried about associations, or what Madison called factions, bent on destroying the constitutional order without the people’s authorization. Of course, who the “people” are is critical. Interestingly, Madison worried most in Federalist #10 about an overbearing majority. Washington was more concerned with minority associations that might challenge the majoritarian scheme. In their worries, both founders were prescient.
I do agree with you completely on one point. At no time, prior to the American Revolution, or during it, did “the whole people” act in unison to achieve a new constitution. That phrase in Washington’s address is rhetorical. At best, more people participated in creating America’s constitutions than possible in the British system. But nothing came close to equating to the “whole people.”
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Jett. It seems that we agree on one point and disagree on the other.