Something that has
interested me is the status of certain “states” as
“commonwealths”. Pennsylvania, for instance, is a
“commonwealth”. Most of the residents of Pennsylvania know this
to some extent. They are used to seeing “Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania” on insignias, logos, etc. However, few think of it
as anything special and one still hears constant references to the
“State of Pennsylvania”.
Black's Law Dictionary
defines a Commonwealth as:
The public or common weal or welfare. This cannot be regarded as a
technical term of public law, though often used in political science.
It generally designates, when so employed, a republican frame of
government – one in which the welfare and rights of the entire mass
of people are the main consideration, rather than the privileges of a
class or the will of a monarch; or it may designate the body of
citizens living under such a government.
Sometimes it may denote the corporate entity, or the government, of
a jural society (or state) possessing powers of self-government in
respect of its immediate concerns, but forming an integral part of a
larger government (or nation). In this latter sense, it is the
official title of several of the United States (as Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Virginia, and Kentucky), and would be appropriate to
them all. In the former sense, the word was used to designate the
English government during the protectorate of Cromwell.
Any of the individual States of the United States and the body of
people constituting a state or politically organized community, a
body politic, hence, a state, especially one constituted by a number
of persons united by compact or tacit agreement under one form of
government and system of laws.
Black's
Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1979.
Reading
this definition, one would think a state and a commonwealth were the
same, or at least similar enough not to matter to anyone. A strong
case can be made for this interpretation, as the federal government
treats states the same, despite their status as a commonwealth
(organized BEFORE the federal government existed in the case of
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia) or a state (whose powers
derive from the federal government and the organic statutes
authorizing and organizing the state).
But
let's think about the first part of the definition and the philosophy
that is found there. The common weal or welfare. A form of
government in which the welfare and rights of the entire mass of
people are the main consideration, rather than the privileges of a
class or the will of a monarch. These are powerful thoughts. It is
not the party, or the contributor, or even a class of citizens which
should be important: it is the common welfare of ALL people. Many
laws, create winners and losers in the marketplace. This is totally
counter to the concept of the common wealth. Many politicians cater
to the special interests which lobby them, rather than the common
interests of all people. Interestingly enough, this is logical and
actually makes some sense. People need to form together in groups or
PACs to have influence or power. However, that is antithetical to
the idea of a Commonwealth.
It
remains to be seen which fork in the road the people of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will take. This is especially true in
the areas of real property and natural resources law. The tensions
of individual property ownership versus the common interest in our
air, water, land, and even timber, coal oil and gas have been touched
upon by legislation and courts alike. Despite what some people may
wish us to think, the jury is still out. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania has laws protecting the rights and setting the
obligations of all citizens. We may still decide to raise all
citizens and work for the common weal, rather than yield to the
expedience of certain interests.
It
will be how the Commonwealth negotiates this decision process which
will set the stage for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment