There truly is nothing new under the sun.
Charles I's contempt for Parliament, and for the basic civil liberties guaranteed by the Magna Carta, knew no bounds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_EnglandHe dismissed Parliaments when it suited him, raising taxes for his ill-conceived religious wars through "personal rule":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England#Tyranny_or_personal_rule.3FIn fact, commentators in the UK and elsewhere have peppered the Internet with some rather eerie comparisons:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22charles+i%22+bushThe genius of the Founders is that they realized that there would be more would-be Charles I's, and they deliberately took the lessons learned from the English Civil War and applied them to the intricate machinery that is the Constitution.
The notion of the "power of the purse" derives almost directly from the lessons learned during the struggle between Charles I and his various Parliaments.
So is the idea of regular sessions of Congress that are not dependent upon the summoning of the executive.
Mindful of the terrible upheaval caused by the violent removal of Charles I, the Founders even created a non-violent means of removal: impeachment would serve to provide for an orderly removal and transition, with no Cromwells installing their overzealous agenda to fill the void left by a headless crown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England#Trial_and_executionIt may seem a bit esoteric, but if Democratic leaders began mentioning Charles I in their comments, that would resonate - strongly - in the upcoming UK elections (where just about every voter knows the story and its significance).
For example, one mention of Charles I by Senator Clinton would have the BBC abuzz.
; )
- Dave