The basic philosophical reason the American colonies fought for liberation from England centered on the concept of representation. The colonists were opposed to the idea of Parliament “representing” their interests when parliament had become a, “deliberative assembly one nation, with one interest, that of the whole, where, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason as a whole. Instructions, therefore from particular constituents to their own Members are or can be only of information, advice, and recommendation . . . but not absolutely binding upon votes and actings and conscience in Parliament” (Bailyn).
Prior to this period, the members of parliament acted as “attorneys” in the interest of their constituents. The idea of Members of Parliament acting for the good of the whole in opposition to the wishes of their particular constituents who elected them and who they represented was refuted throughout the colonies. This idea of “virtual” representation was (and is in my opinion) “too ridiculous to be regarded” as colonist James Otis wrote.
Given this, I find it absolutely un-American that our Congress continues to ignore the wishes of the people in the interest of “the country.
February 15, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“The basic philosophical reason the American colonies fought for liberation from England centered on the concept of representation.” This is only one of many reasons. Often, to simplify the argument, people like to boil things down to a single cause or reason. Rarely is it truly that simple. There were many camps of early American patriots, each with their own reasons for seeking liberation from England.
You see the same thing happen when we enter conflicts in foreign lands. You hear “The reason we went into was only because of .” Most likely, there was a list of about 10 to 15 motivators. America has very rarely acted in unison, for a single reason. Even when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, that didn’t stand as our only reason for entering WWII.
February 15, 2009 at 1:05 pm
One other thing…
At the federal level, congress and the executive are supposed to act in the interests of the country. It is at the state and local level, where our elected representatives are supposed to act on the part of “the people”. The problem occurs when we cede powers to the federal level that were never intended or authorized to it. If we had supported and defended the constitution of the U.S., we wouldn’t have been looking to the feds for solutions to local issues.
February 17, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I agree with the statement about the executive acting in the interests of the country as whole but disagree regarding congress. The House of Representatives especially is see as the voice of “the people” in the formation of federal legislation.
I didn’t write anything about ceding powers that were never authorized and intended to the federal government. I believe that powers authorized and intended for the federal government is a matter of interpretation and perspective. The establishment of the First National Bank of the United States was argued for by Hamilton and against by Jefferson. Jefferson interpreted the Constitution literally where Hamilton argued for implied powers. Jefferson stated that the Constitution didn’t expressly give the power of incorporation to the federal government so the federal government didn’t have that power. Hamilton argued that the power was implied by the necessary and proper clause. Hamilton presented a better case to Washington who signed the bill creating the bank into law after hearing both sides. Hamilton once said that if it were up to Jefferson the clause would be, “absolutely necessary and proper”. I tend to agree more with this point of view than the implied powers point of view myself. What specific powers are you most concerned about being ceded to the federal government right now? I personally think that the great elephant that has been standing in the room forever is our standing army in the form of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.