Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. But when the majority of the governed demand other than what government forces upon them, what recourse?
The British Parliament regulated colonial trade and taxed America's imports and exports since roughly 1660. Then, the English Bill of Rights 1689 recognized a number of natural rights of English subjects. Among these rights were the rights of representation in Parliament and the protection against taxation by prerogative. These fundamental rights laid part of the foundation for American revolt against control by Parliament, but the boiling point was not reached until the middle part of the 18th century, nearly 70 years later.
Tolerance of British control without representation in Parliament neared its end with the passage of the Stamp Act of 1765. The Stamp Act required British America to utilize paper printed in London and marked with an embossed revenue stamp. Colonists viewed the Stamp Act as a violation of their right to be taxed only with their consent. Protests intimidated paper distributors into abandoning their commissions. The tax was effectively nullified in this manner.
Public opposition to taxation with representation culminated, symbolically, in the Boston Tea Party, when protesters elected to destroy tea that the Royal Governor would not return to England. Better the destruction of that tea than the literal and figurative consumption of that tax. Parliament retaliated with the Coercive Acts. Colonists, in turn, escalated their protests and formed the First Continental Congress. Often overlooked is the fact that the taxes that precipitated revolt were modest; the first protests were about the principle of unrepresented governance.
In 1775, the American Revolutionary War began near Boston.
235 years later, the Colonists are the victims of a new brand of tyranny. Believing that their duly elected representatives would espouse their will, they now watch helplessly as the the cornerstone of American democracy, the Constitution, is disregarded with a contempt worth of monarchs, not elected officials accountable to the people.
What recourse? Apparently, none. The plaintiffs' bar should be the first to raise hue and cry at the infringement of our constitutionally protected rights, by likely unconstitutional processes. I hear nothing. Taxation without representation indeed.
My thoughts and prayers go out to our democratic republic.
By a vote of 63-37, the Senate today confirmed Elena Kagan as the newest Supreme Court Justice. Predicting what will come of this is pointless, but several observations suggest that little will change immediately from this confirmation. Kagan is believed to be liberal, but she replaces John Paul Stevens, the Justice viewed as the leader of the liberal segment of the Court. Thus, she isn't likely to have an immediate impact on the idealogical balance of the Court unless she proves to be one of the occasional wildcard Supreme Court Justices that come along every so often. In the long term, her age makes it likely that the seat will remain a liberal seat for many decades.
