British Colonies Asserted And Proved: An Analysis

In the years of Salutary Neglect, the government failed to do their job of protecting its people and trade. The colonists did not want to separate from Britain, but with statements such as the Declaratory Act, which stated that the colonies are supposed to serve Britain and must comply with any rule, it would have been natural to be outraged. It was only after the Parliament needed funds after the French and Indian war did they take control of the colonies. According to the English Bill of Rights, armies should not be raised during peacetime, and members of society have freedom of speech in
One way that Parliament was being unconstitutional was the violation of rule of law. As Britain did not have one constitution, rule of law was not directly written into British policies, but was an expected norm. In the colonists case, people from Britain did not consider the colonists as equals. Their views were based on the system of hierarchy that Britain boasted, which set the colonists below those of mainland Britain. Subordinates of Parliament were able to prevent justice in court. …show more content…
In Seymane’s case of 1604, it was ruled that authorities had to have reasons for intrusions and arrests. This was not applied in the American colonies, as writs of assistance only needed a light suspicion to be issued. It was in the 1765 case of Entick v. Carrington that problems regarding unwarranted searches were addressed. These cases showed that their were unjust policies in place that allowed government to infringe upon people’s rights without just

Show More

British Colonies Asserted And Proved: An Analysis

Related Documents: British Colonies Asserted And Proved: An Analysis

Struggle For The Middle Se The Battle Of Dina Leso II-1940