Asked by nunya
From the Massachusetts Government Act (one of the so-called Intolerable or Coercive Acts), 1774 An act for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts’s Bay, in New England. I. ...Be it therefore enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty ... That from and after the first day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-four, so much of the charter, granted ... to the inhabitants of the said province of the Massachusetts’s Bay... be revoked, and is hereby revoked and made void and of none effect; ...And that ... the council, or court of assistants of the said province ... shall be thereunto nominated and appointed by his Majesty, II. And it is hereby further enacted, That the said assistants or counsellors, so to be appointed as aforesaid, shall hold their offices respectively, for and during the pleasure of his Majesty ... III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, ... it shall and may be lawful f or his Majesty’s governor ... to nominate and appoint, ... and also to remove, without the consent of the council, all judges of the inferior courts of common pleas, commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, the attorney general, provosts, marshals, justices of the peace, and other officers to the council or courts of justice belonging; ... VIII. And whereas the method at present used in the province of Massachusetts’s Bay in America, of electing persons to serve on grand juries, and other juries, by the freeholders and inhabitants of the several towns, affords occasion for many evil practices, and tends to pervert the free and impartial administration of justice: for remedy whereof ... the jurors to serve at the superior courts of judicature, courts of assize, general jail delivery, general sessions of the peace, and inferior court of common pleas, in the several counties within the said province ... shall be summoned and returned by the sheriffs of the respective counties ...
1. In your own words, explain sections I, II, III, and VIII based on the information provided.
2. How would the future United States work to prohibit some of the injustices outlined by the Act?
use simple words
1. In your own words, explain sections I, II, III, and VIII based on the information provided.
2. How would the future United States work to prohibit some of the injustices outlined by the Act?
use simple words
Answers
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
1) Plain‑language (simple) explanations of the sections you listed
- Section I:
The old Massachusetts charter (the colony’s basic rules and rights) was cancelled starting August 1, 1774. The colonists lost the self-rule that had been promised by that charter.
- Section II:
The group called the council (also called the court of assistants) would no longer be chosen locally. Instead, the king would pick the people who served on that council, and they would keep their jobs only as long as the king wanted.
- Section III:
The governor (the king’s representative) would have the power to pick and fire many important officials — like judges, the attorney general, marshals, and justices of the peace — without needing approval from the council. In other words, the governor could control the people who ran the courts and enforced the law.
- Section VIII:
The law changed how juries were picked. Instead of townspeople choosing jurors in each town, the sheriffs would now summon and return jurors for the courts. The act says the old town-based way led to corruption and unfairness, so the sheriffs were given the job of selecting jurors.
2) How the future United States worked to stop these kinds of injustices (simple words)
- Power comes from the people:
The U.S. set up government by elected officials so leaders are chosen by voters, not appointed by a king. This stops one person from making all the choices.
- Separation of powers and checks and balances:
The U.S. divided government into branches (legislative, executive, judicial) so no one branch could control everything. Each branch checks the others to prevent abuse.
- An independent judiciary:
Federal judges serve “during good behavior” (basically life terms unless removed by impeachment). This makes judges less likely to be fired for unpopular decisions and helps keep courts fair and independent.
- Shared appointment power:
The President can nominate judges and officials, but the Senate must approve. That keeps one person from picking everyone alone.
- Rights to fair trials and juries:
The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal cases (6th Amendment) and in many civil cases (7th Amendment). Federal rules and later state rules set fair ways to pick jurors so juries are chosen more impartially, not controlled by a single local official.
- Local self-government and elections:
States and towns keep the right to run local government and elect many local officers. That prevents remote officials from replacing local control without consent.
- Due process and legal protections:
The Constitution and Bill of Rights protect people from arbitrary removal of rights and from unfair legal processes. Laws must follow rules and cannot be changed to punish people without fair trials.
Together, these changes made it harder for one ruler or one official to cancel charters, appoint or fire judges at will, or control who sits on juries — the same problems the Massachusetts Government Act created.
- Section I:
The old Massachusetts charter (the colony’s basic rules and rights) was cancelled starting August 1, 1774. The colonists lost the self-rule that had been promised by that charter.
- Section II:
The group called the council (also called the court of assistants) would no longer be chosen locally. Instead, the king would pick the people who served on that council, and they would keep their jobs only as long as the king wanted.
- Section III:
The governor (the king’s representative) would have the power to pick and fire many important officials — like judges, the attorney general, marshals, and justices of the peace — without needing approval from the council. In other words, the governor could control the people who ran the courts and enforced the law.
- Section VIII:
The law changed how juries were picked. Instead of townspeople choosing jurors in each town, the sheriffs would now summon and return jurors for the courts. The act says the old town-based way led to corruption and unfairness, so the sheriffs were given the job of selecting jurors.
2) How the future United States worked to stop these kinds of injustices (simple words)
- Power comes from the people:
The U.S. set up government by elected officials so leaders are chosen by voters, not appointed by a king. This stops one person from making all the choices.
- Separation of powers and checks and balances:
The U.S. divided government into branches (legislative, executive, judicial) so no one branch could control everything. Each branch checks the others to prevent abuse.
- An independent judiciary:
Federal judges serve “during good behavior” (basically life terms unless removed by impeachment). This makes judges less likely to be fired for unpopular decisions and helps keep courts fair and independent.
- Shared appointment power:
The President can nominate judges and officials, but the Senate must approve. That keeps one person from picking everyone alone.
- Rights to fair trials and juries:
The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal cases (6th Amendment) and in many civil cases (7th Amendment). Federal rules and later state rules set fair ways to pick jurors so juries are chosen more impartially, not controlled by a single local official.
- Local self-government and elections:
States and towns keep the right to run local government and elect many local officers. That prevents remote officials from replacing local control without consent.
- Due process and legal protections:
The Constitution and Bill of Rights protect people from arbitrary removal of rights and from unfair legal processes. Laws must follow rules and cannot be changed to punish people without fair trials.
Together, these changes made it harder for one ruler or one official to cancel charters, appoint or fire judges at will, or control who sits on juries — the same problems the Massachusetts Government Act created.
There are no human answers yet. A form for humans to post answers is coming very soon!