The founders of the United States objected to certain practices by the British government and declared independence to be rid of them. They didn’t entirely succeed, though. The eight essays in the Cato Institute’s A History of Repeated Injuries show that many of them have come back in new forms, harming us and infringing on our rights. Thus, the title applies in two senses: first in the sense the Declaration used, but also that they have been “repeated” many times since the Revolution supposedly brought them to an end.

The first article, “The Purpose and Limits of Government” by Roger Pilon, is different from the others. It presents an overview of libertarian ideas rather than addressing a specific problem. It makes some good points but attempts too much in too short a space. Pilon addresses some of the more difficult issues facing libertarians and offers answers, but it takes a longer essay, if not a whole book, to properly cover some of the matters raised.

The other pieces each focus on a specific concern of America’s founders and show how the nation has fallen short in addressing it. “How Plea-Driven Mass Adjudication Undermines Americans’ Right to a Jury Trial,” by Clark Neily, compares the guarantees in the Bill of Rights to the present state of affairs. The Sixth Amendment says, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Today, most criminal cases don’t go to a jury trial. They’re resolved by plea bargaining, which in practice means you plead guilty to a lesser charge under the threat of having heavier charges brought against you. That leaves defendants, whether guilty or not, having to decide whether they should accept a shorter sentence or risk a much longer one if they demand a jury trial. The question becomes not one of guilt or innocence but of risk assessment.

“The Seventh Amendment Civil Jury Right and Agency Adjudication,” a short article by Thomas A. Berry, deals with another aspect of trial without a jury. Many legal penalties are levied by government agencies rather than courts. The administrative panels are tied to their parent agencies, so they’re prone to bias in their favor.

“A Revolt Against Discriminatory Taxation,” by Adam M. Michel and Joshua Loucks, is mostly about the history of taxation in the colonial period and the first few decades of the US government. It notes that the colonial complaints weren’t just about “taxation without representation” but also about unfair levying. For instance, the Boston Tea Party wasn’t just about the imposition of a tax by Parliament; the tax was set up to give a monopoly to the East India Company, which had an exclusive exemption. The article goes on to discuss early tax revolts, such as Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, and the motives behind them.

David Bier’s “The Founders’ Policy of Free Immigration,” deals with a topic that’s especially relevant today. The founders of the US positively encouraged immigration; one of the complaints in the Declaration was about “obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners.” The article covers the history of immigration law. Until the 1880s, there were no significant restrictions. The first limitations were on Chinese immigration, largely motivated by racial stereotypes held by white Californians (and non-Chinese immigrants competing for jobs). It was only in the 1920s that strong limits on immigration became the default under US law.

“The Withering of the Old Republic — The Decline of Anti-Militarism in American Politics,” by Brandan P. Buck, deals with the growing militarization of the US through its history. The Founders strongly distrusted standing armies and involvement in foreign wars, and the Constitution has a sunset requirement for all military appropriations. There was strong opposition to the US entry into World War I, but such opposition as there was to World War II involvement collapsed. Perhaps Hitler was a special case, but even after that the US fought many more foreign wars than before — without declaring war even once. Truman personally dragged the US into Korea’s civil war, forcing many Americans into it, and Vietnam followed. Congress has increasingly let presidents conduct military action in foreign countries with open-ended authorizations of military force.

Douglas A. Irwin’s “The Founders’ Trade Grievances — and Today’s” overlaps with the prior article on taxation, but with a focus on trade restrictions. The relevant objection in the Declaration is “for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.” The US imposed tariffs aimed at revenue from an early time, and they were a subject of controversy among many economic factions. Only one paragraph deals with the current tariff controversy.

“A History of Government by Executive Order,” by Brent Skorup, looks at the expanding scope and questionable constitutionality of executive orders by the president. Lincoln made unprecedented use of them during the Civil War, but it was only with Theodore Roosevelt that their use in normal times began to expand seriously. The president has been given broad power to act in an emergency, but “emergencies” are often loosely defined and become permanent conditions. Among the most notorious is Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which sent Japanese-Americans not accused of any crime to concentration camps.

These articles are interesting, informative, and often alarming. The main problem is that they’re brief for what they aim to cover. A reader can use the book as a starting point for learning about these issues. It shows that many of the abuses of power we face today didn’t start with Trump. They’ve grown over many years, often getting little attention. The perspectives we get here should be more widely known.