The English who in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries inhabited those colonies that would later become the United States shared a common political vocabulary with the English in England. Steeped as they were in the English political language, these colonials failed to observe that their experience in America had given the words more loyal to the English political tradition than were the English in England.
In many respects the political institutions of England were reproduced in these American colonies. By the middle of the eighteenth century, all of these colonies except four were headed by Royal Governors appointed by the King and perceived as bearing a relation to the people of the colony similar to that of the English Parliament. In both England and these colonies, only property holders could vote.
Nevertheless, though English and colonial institutions were structurally similar, attitudes toward those institutions differed. For example, English legal development from the early seventeenth century had been moving steadily toward the absolute power of Parliament. The most unmistakable sign of this tendency was the legal assertion that the King was subject to the century the English had accepted the idea that the parliamentary representatives of the people were omnipotent.
The citizens of these colonies did not look upon the English Parliament with such fond eyes, nor did they concede that their own assemblies possessed such wide powers. There were good historical reasons for this. To the English the word “constitution” meant the whole body of law and legal custom formulated since of protecting their liberties against governmental encroachment by explicitly defining all governmental powers in a document.
What this question is testing
Topic
The author is explaining a quiet but important misunderstanding: the American colonists thought they were arguing in the same political language as the English in England, but they were actually using key words to mean very different things.
Framework
Highlight Noteworthy.
Main Point
Here's the simpler version: the institutions in colonial America looked a lot like the English ones — a Royal Governor, an assembly modeled on Parliament, voting based on property. But the colonists had been governed under written charters, and that experience changed how they understood basic terms. By the 18th century, the English thought Parliament could basically do anything — even rewrite the constitution by ordinary lawmaking. The colonists weren't comfortable with that idea, and "constitution" to them meant a specific written document, not a body of custom and law. Same words, different meanings — and the difference would matter.
P1: Shared vocabulary, divergent meanings
The colonists shared English political vocabulary but didn't notice that experience in America had given the words different meanings. They even thought they were the more authentic heirs of the English tradition.
P2: The institutions were similar
By the mid-18th century, almost all the colonies had Royal Governors and representative assemblies built on the English model. Only property owners voted in both places.
P3: English views of Parliament had drifted toward unlimited power
English legal development through the 17th and 18th centuries kept reinforcing one idea: the King is subject to the law, and Parliament's power has no limit. Parliament could even change the constitution through normal lawmaking. The English came to see their parliamentary representatives as essentially omnipotent.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.