Was America’s Founding the Birth of Democracy?
Yes--in a new, radical form
The Declaration of Independence (1776) and the U.S. Constitution (1787) marked the first time a large nation-state was deliberately built without a king, on the principle that power comes from the people.
The U.S. introduced systems of elected representation, separation of powers, checks and balances, and a written constitution that could be amended by the people.
There was no inherited aristocracy, no crown, and a growing idea of universal (eventually) suffrage.
It influenced movements worldwide--from the French Revolution to Irish independence, and later Latin American republics.
So yes, the United States offered the world a blueprint for constitutional, republican democracy--modern, scalable, and intentional.
But--it wasn’t the first democracy, nor a complete one
Ancient Athens (5th century BCE) had direct democracy--but only free male citizens could vote.
Medieval Iceland, Swiss cantons, and some Italian city-states (like Venice) had elements of representative self-rule.
Even England, by the 17th century, had a Parliament, and thinkers like John Locke were already articulating ideas of consent and liberty.
And the U.S. at its founding excluded many:
Enslaved people had no rights.
Women couldn’t vote.
Native Americans were seen as outside the civic structure.Even many white men without property were barred from voting.
So it was democracy, yes--but partial, aspirational, and evolving.
#Current Affairs
The 27 grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence (1776)
The list of wrongs that gave birth to a Nation. The American colonies’ formal list of complaints against King George III that justified the break from British rule by detailing how the King had violated the colonists' rights.
Violations of Law and Representation
1. He has refused his Assent to Laws -- The King wouldn’t approve laws needed for the public good.
2. He has forbidden Governors to pass laws -- Governors couldn’t pass laws without royal approval, which was rarely given.
3, He has refused to pass laws unless the people gave up representation -- Trying to force colonists to surrender legislative power.
4, He has called together legislative bodies in inconvenient places --To tire and discourage lawmakers from opposing him.
5, He has dissolved Representative Houses --He shut down colonial legislatures for resisting his abuses.
6, He has refused to allow new elections -- Left colonies without legislative power, vulnerable to royal rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Obstruction of Justice and Judicial Power
7. He has obstructed justice -- Refused to establish fair judiciary powers.
8, He has made judges dependent on him -- Judges’ salaries and jobs were controlled by the King.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standing Armies and Military Power
9. He has kept standing armies in peacetime -- Without consent of colonial legislatures.
10. He has made the military superior to civil power -- Undermining civilian government.
11. He has combined with others to subject us to foreign laws -- Referring to Parliament’s interference.
12. He has quartered troops among us -- Forced colonists to house British soldiers.
13. He has protected soldiers from punishment -- British troops who committed crimes were immune from justice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trade and Economy
14. He has cut off our trade -- Closed ports and restricted commerce with the rest of the world.
15. He has imposed taxes without our consent-- The famous grievance leading to "No taxation without representation."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Rights and Due Process
16. He has deprived us of trial by jury -- Especially in admiralty (naval) courts for trade violations.
17. He has transported us overseas for trial -- Accused persons sent to Britain for trial, far from home and fair jury.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Boundaries and Self-Government
18. He has abolished colonial laws and charters -- Altered established systems of self-government.
19. He has suspended our legislatures --Took over governance directly by the Crown.
20. He has declared us out of his protection and waged war against us-- The King labeled colonists as enemies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts of War and Violence
21. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts -- Direct acts of war.
22. He has sent large armies of foreign mercenaries -- Referring to the use of Hessian troops.
23. He has excited domestic insurrections -- Encouraged rebellion among enslaved people and Native Americans.
24. He has caused Native American attacks-- Inciting violence on the frontier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attempts to Reconcile Rejected
25. We have petitioned humbly; he has answered with repeated injury -- All peaceful appeals were ignored.
26. We have warned and reminded our British brethren-- Britain also ignored pleas for justice and reason.
27. We are therefore forced to separate -- A final justification for declaring independence.
Grievance 1
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
Context:
King George III blocked colonial laws--even ones passed by elected local assemblies that addressed pressing local needs. He had absolute veto power, and he often refused to even consider the laws, let alone approve them.
________________________________________
Constitutional Response:
Article I, Section 7 -- Congress makes the laws.
• Laws are created by a bicameral legislature: the House of Representatives (representing the people) and the Senate (representing the states).
• The President can veto a bill--but this veto is not absolute. Congress can override it with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.
• This created a balanced system--no one person could permanently block the “wholesome and necessary--laws of the land.
Where the King silenced legislation, the Constitution allowed disagreement--but not paralysis.
Yes--Grievance 1 is directly answered in Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
Here’s the text that matters:
Article I, Section 7
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President... If he approves he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it... If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill... it shall become a Law.--
This section:
• Establishes how laws are made.
• Gives the President a veto, but allows Congress to override that veto.
• Creates a system of checks and balances, ensuring that no one branch can permanently block necessary legislation.
________________________________________
How it contrasts with the King's behavior:
• The King: Had absolute power to refuse laws--no appeal, no override.
• The Constitution: Requires collaboration, not obedience. If one branch refuses, the others can still act.
Grievance 1 -- Refused Assent to Laws
Answered in 1787 Constitution (Article I, Section 7)
No amendment needed, but practice and court rulings continue to shape how far presidential veto power goes.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clarifying the Two-Thirds Confusion (My Own Confusion)
For readers who’ve heard it tossed around like confetti.
When we say “two-thirds of Congress" is needed for a bill--that’s only if the President vetoes it.
The normal process is simpler:
A bill becomes law with a simple majority in both the House and the Senate.
Then the President signs it. That’s it. Done.
The two-thirds rule only kicks in if the President says no, and Congress decides to override him. That’s rare, and very hard to do--it requires unity that American politics hardly ever offers.
So no--two-thirds isn’t the standard.
It’s not what Trump used. It’s not what Obama used. It’s not even what Jefferson imagined.
It’s the emergency exit, not the front door.
If a President gets their bill through Congress the first time, it just needs regular votes. The two-thirds? That’s smoke from a fire that never caught.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So to reiterate:
How a Bill Becomes Law: Article I, Section 7 Simplified
A bill must pass both the House and the Senate by a simple majority (50% + 1).
It then goes to the President, who can either:
Sign it --It becomes law.
Veto it -- It goes back to Congress.
If vetoed, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.
So-- a two-thirds majority is only required if the president vetoes the bill.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section7
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance..."
Imagine a fire spreading, and the person holding the hose says, "Let's wait for further instructions."
That was the King’s approach--he blocked colonial leaders from responding quickly to crises. Local autonomy was crushed under distant approval.
In every system where urgency meets delay, we find this grievance again. Whether it's environmental policy, housing, health, or civil rights--he question is:
🕰️ Who’s holding up the response, and why?
________________________________________
What it Meant:
The King required colonial governors to get his personal approval before allowing urgent local laws to take effect. But then he’d ignore the request or delay for months or years. This choked local governance and made colonies helpless in emergencies.
________________________________________
🏛️ Constitutional Response:
Article I, Section 10 -- Limits on State power--but with their own legislatures
Tenth Amendment -- Reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.
While the federal Constitution did restrict states from certain powers (like making treaties), it gave states the ability to govern themselves through their own constitutions and legislatures, without needing federal “assent" for every decision.
There’s no monarch or federal official with veto power over state legislation, unless a state law violates the Constitution, in which case it may be challenged in federal courts.
________________________________________
.
States were freed from external interference. Their laws no longer had to be suspended and sent off to a monarch overseas. The people could legislate through their own assemblies--and no king could "neglect to attend" to their business.
The new system respected urgency--and trusted the people to govern their local needs.
Article I, Section 10 -- Limits what states cannot do, but confirms their legislative role
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section10
Tenth Amendment --Reinforces that powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-t
Grievance 2 Recap:
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them."
This grievance was addressed through the Constitution’s structure of federalism--giving states their own legislative power and protecting local autonomy.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Article I, Section 10 – Limits what states cannot do, but confirms their legislative role