Throughout American history, inconsistencies in representation time and time again has been the root of drastic political changes. These changes took place because those who felt like they were not being properly represented, took actions into their own hands. An instance in history where Americans felt like their liberties were being oppressed, was during the concept of virtual representation under parliamentary command. America fought for their liberties because they felt that they needed actual representation in order to be taxed, this era in history coined the phrase “No Taxation without Representation.” In the long run this case helped justify reason for the American Revolution. What if Americans had representation the whole time; what …show more content…
In Federalist 52, Madison says “it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.” The purpose behind this statement states Madison’s knowledge, that if the representative is sympathetic with its voters then they will ensure their states needs are met. Madison follows this claim by stating, “Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.” Frequent elections will overall be better for representatives because if the representatives have recently been in the same struggle as the greater population, then they will have a tighter bond to those they are representing. John Locke argues in his Second Treatise of Government that “our legislation, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure every one's property.” By electing a legislative body directly tied to its state, it will encourage them to work for the betterment of their state and not just the individual’s beliefs
For weeks convention delegates have been argued over representation in congress, Large States want it based on population. Small states want each states to have the same number of votes. representative s shall be apportioned according to population. The number of shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representatives. This piece of evidence relates to the argument because they said that big states has more power than small states that is why big states only need one representative.
When we hear about the Revolutionary War, one of the most popular phrases to be tied to it is “no taxation without representation,” and was coined from the fact that the colonies were being directly taxed without democratic representation. The fact that the American people did not have representation in Parliament while being taxed was virtually universally disapproved and was an extremely big factor in driving the American people to protect their democratic ideals through war in the years prior to the revolution.
When the colonies were being formed, many colonists came from England to escape the restrictions placed upon them by the crown. Britain had laws for regulating trade and collecting taxes, but they were generally not enforced. The colonists had gotten used to being able to govern themselves. However, Britain sooned changed it’s colonial policy because of the piling debt due to four wars the British got into with the French and the Spanish. The most notable of these, the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years’ War), had immediate effects on the relationship between the colonies and Great Britain, leading to the concept of no taxation without representation becoming the motivating force for the American revolutionary movement and a great symbol for democracy amongst the colonies, as Britain tried to tighten their hold on the colonies through various acts and measures.
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
The U.S. was never a stranger to political controversies. An early example is the Virginia Plan, which, for example, angered the less populous states. Thus, fears of equal representation were prevalent during the writing
America’s form of representative democracy came as a result of the transgressions Britain committed against their colonies. Several hundred years of salutary neglect served well for those living an ocean away from their motherland. Realizing the prosperity that colonies had obtained through a semi-free market society, the King of England and the parliament began enacting many taxes and acts. Taking away the colonies freedom was unsettling amongst the colonists and eventually led to a revolution. This revolution secured freedom from Britain as well as founded a new nation with the first ever constitution. Although the process to achieve democracy in America was a long, laborious road the freedom, prosperity and equality of opportunity shared by those amongst the states could not be denied.
Representation: the effort of elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them
The nineteenth amendment has changed the way women were treated and looked upon.There are many ways the nineteenth Amendment has changed in a bad was, but most of them have made a positive impact. Some people went along with the 19th amendment but some people didn’t think it was a good idea. Some people don’t know what or how the 19th amendment changed positively for women. But this paper is gonna show you all the ways it has positively changed the way people view and act towards women.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
After the Great War for Empire, the British parliament began carrying out taxes on the colonists to help pay for the war. It was not long from the war that salutary neglect was brought on the colonies for an amount of time that gave the colonists a sense of independence and identity. A farmer had even wrote once: “Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world” (Doc H). They recognized themselves as different than the British, so when parliament began passing bills to tax without representation there was an outcry of mistreatment. Edmund Burke, a man from parliament, sympathized with the colonists: “Govern America as you govern an English town which happens not to be represented in Parl...
The demand for no taxation without representation was the primary force motivating the American revolutionary movement, and for many it became a symbol for democracy. Throughout the late 18th century, the British colony of America was oppressed by Parliament from "across the pond". This oppression included unequal rights compared to English citizens that lived on the mainland, unneeded taxation, and no representation in Parliament, which resulted in many laws that were unfavorable to the American colonists. It was this "taxation without representation" that was a powerful catalyst in firing up the American revolutionary movement. America was "all grown up", and no longer needed to be monitored on by Britain.
According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights given to the people by their Creator rather than by government. These rights are inseparable from us and can’t be altered, denied, nullified or taken away by any government, except in extremely rare circumstances in which the government can take action against a particular right as long as it is in favor of the people’s safety. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America mentions three examples of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I believe these rights, since they are acquired by every human being from the day they are conceived, should always be respected, but being realistic, most of the time, the government intervenes and either diminishes or
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic...
It was the Federalist’s intentions that the people’s voice would heavily influence what the constitution would inquire. It was upon these terms in which the foundation of a just constitution was based. As stated in Federalist No.43, “The State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it.”, highlighting the inclusion of consent of the governed. If the representation were to ever lack in its position, it would be the right of the governed to overthrow this government, strictly enforcing the empowerment of the people’s voice. Without the democratic appeal of the every man’s vote, power would soon begin to shift and elitism would slowly overturn the republic.