Thomas Jefferson, George Washington's secretary of state wrote an opinion piece in 1792, that the United States needed to define what were 'offenses against the laws of Nations'. In his letter, he described a recent offense against France. "The minister of France has complained that the master of an American vessel, while lying within a harbor of St. Domingo, having enticed some negroes on board his vessel, under pretext of employment, brought them off and sold them in Georgia as slaves." Thomas Jefferson raised two questions. First, could this case be tried in a U.S. court. And, second what existing laws could be used to prosecute offenses such as this. In his opinion piece, Jefferson attempted to answer the question. First he considered the power to lay taxes and provide for the general welfare. If this could be extended to cover such a case as this, then it would provide unlimited power to congress. In Jefferson's works, "To suppose that it was meant to give them a distinct and substantive power, to do any act which might tend to the General welfare, is to render all the enumerations useless, and to make their powers unlimited." This could not be, so the power to punish the offenses must lie elsewhere in the constitution. Jefferson noted, that Congress also had the power to “to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations”. But this was not on the high seas. So it must be defined as an offense against the laws of nations. There in lied the problem. It was Jefferson's opinion, that the U.S. Constitution had not defined what was 'an offense against the Laws of Nations', and therefore could not try these individuals in court. Without such list of offenses, there was nothing to stop an individual from committing an act that would endanger our peace with other nations.
Two days later, Edmund Jennings Randolph, Washington's Attorney General wrote an answer to Jefferson's opinion. Mr. Randolph stated that the case could not be tried within U.S. Courts because it occurred in St. Domingo, not within the U.S. Randolph added that there was currently no power in the U.S. that could be used to force the surrender of individuals who committed crimes against the laws of a foreign nation. However, Randolph explained that damages could be recovered in the U.S. courts under judicial law if both the plaintiff and the defendant's were citizens. Randolph continued that the federal judiciary already has the power to try individuals in court for "offenses against the laws of nations" without express adoption of it.
While both of these opinions were written after President George Washington's final state of the union address, there is no doubt that these two men who were part of Washington's cabinet had already shared there opinions with the president. In his final state of the union address, Washington gave his own opinion on the matter.
"I can not forbear to bring again into the view of the Legislature the subject of a revision of the judiciary system. A representation from the judges of the Supreme Court, which will be laid before you, points out some of the inconveniences that are experienced. In the course of the execution of the laws considerations arise out of the structure of the system which in some cases tend to relax their efficacy. As connected with this subject, provisions to facilitate the taking of bail upon processes out of the courts of the United States and a supplementary definition of offenses against the Constitution and laws of the Union and of the punishment for such offenses will, it is presumed, be found worthy of particular attention.
Observations on the value of peace with other nations are unnecessary. It would be wise, however, by timely provisions to guard against those acts of our own citizens which might tend to disturb it, and to put ourselves in a condition to give that satisfaction to foreign nations which we may sometimes have occasion to require from them. I particularly recommend to your consideration the means of preventing those aggressions by our citizens on the territory of other nations, and other infractions of the law of nations, which, furnishing just subject of complaint, might endanger our peace with them; and, in general, the maintenance of a friendly intercourse with foreign powers will be presented to your attention by the expiration of the law for that purpose, which takes place, if not renewed, at the close of the present session."
First, Washington addressed the need to revise the judiciary system. Federal judges were overtaxed not only by the number of cases they had to hear, but also by tasks such as processing bail payments. But then, Washington transitioned into the subject of defining offenses against the Constitution and laws of the union. Washington seems to be siding with Jefferson, stating that Congress needs to define what are offenses against the constitution. An owners manual if you will for the judiciary system. It would define not only how the could punish individuals who put the peace with other nations in danger, but also how to prevent it. Washington felt that Congress needed to act and pass a bill that clearly defined that the judiciary system had the power to prosecute 'offenses against the law of nations'. It was on December 3rd, about three weeks later that Jefferson wrote his opinion piece and then drafted the following clause for Bill on Offenses against the Law of Nations.
Be it enacted &c.Jefferson did not take further action on this clause, perhaps because of disagreement within the cabinet and perhaps due to the opinion of the Attorney General, Edmund Randolph.
that wherever any offence against the law of Nations, for which no act of Congress hath yet presented specific punishment, shall be committed by a citizen of the U.S. the same shall be cognisable before the Circuit courts on presentment or information and indictment, shall be tried by a jury of the district where he is apprehended or to which he shall be first brought, and shall be punished at the discretion of the court, by imprisonment not exceeding months, or by fine not exceeding the double of the damages done, or by both: but if the offence be murder then he shall be punished by death.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29434
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-24-02-0681
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-24-02-0689
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-24-02-0680
http://www.adisgruntledrepublican.com/2011/01/reading-constituion.html
No comments:
Post a Comment