Essay on Matters of the Law and the Constitution, the Perspective of the English

Government and that of the colonies were certainly in collision, particularly on matters such as taxation. The institutionalization of taxation by the colonial government served to aggravate the already bad situation. Public figures such as John Morin Scott pointed out that the Stamp Act of 1765 was illegal and unconstitutional since it permitted the government to tax the Americans citizens without their consent. The advocates for the rights and liberties of the colonies decried the lack of the natives input in the arbitrary application of the law, thereby opposing the Stamp Act. The Crown did not only commit illegal acts by imposing taxation, but it arbitrarily used the army to enforce such barbaric laws. The commission of illegal and unconstitutional acts by the Crown Government, such as the enactment and the subsequent imposition of the Stamp Act, led the patriots to advocate for independence and the creation of the Lockean society within the confines of the law.

Illegality and the unconstitutionality of Taxation of the Colonies

The illegality of the Stamp Act of 1765 drew opposition from a group called the Sons of Liberty, of which John Morin Scott was a member, it was deemed unconstitutional and infringing into the rights and privileges of the natives. It is worth noting that the Stamp Act sought to improve the mandate of the Sugar Act of 1764, which was a revenue act by the British Government. The terms of the two mentioned acts were the basis of legal concern since they sought to enslave, impoverish the colonies while enriching the colony. For example, the Sugar Act accorded the British Parliament the authority to forcefully tax the colonists. Moreover, the same act compelled the colonists to forfeit the right to trial by jury. Essentially, the taxation imposed was intolerable and kept rising, yet they did not reflect the levels of service delivery.

The Sugar Act placed taxation on molasses into the US from placed located outside the British Empire. The law did replace an almost similar one called the Molasses Act of 1733, which the government did not enforce. In a case when the government fails to enforce laws people tend ignore it, and that is why many resorted to smuggling in order to avoid taxation. When the British Government decided to enforce the law, they used unconventional and unconstitutional means such as using the royal inspectors and naval patrols even in private residences. The use of informants further aggravated the situation, as such was unconstitutional since the informants had no approved mandate.

The Currency Act 1764, which succeeded the Sugar Act, was enacted, and further plunged the colony into serious financial depression. It is worth noting that before the enactment of that law the economy of the colony was thriving, as they even began to print their own money. The Currency Act ensured that the colonies depended on British money for transaction and outlawed the native currency as a way of exerting control. Illegalization of the colonial scrip brought forth a lot disharmony since it impugned or belittled the existing currency by reducing its value and then permitting notes from the Bank of England. Therefore, the circulating medium of exchange had been reduced by half. In a sense, the Currency Act reduced the value of the American goods and services by half the price. On the other hand, the Americans had to pay twice the price for the British products. Cutting the money supply to the colonies by the British government did cause profound financial suffering.

Evidently, the laws passed were quite inflammatory and such led to unrest. The government at times resorted to lethal force and unscrupulous means to actualize the seemingly barbaric legislations. The law the proved detrimental and openly offensive was the Quartering Act (1765) that allowed the colonies to provide supplies and barracks to quarter o house British troops that were stationed in America at the time. It is imperative to note that most Americans a deep belief that the British army mainly existed to keep them in line or to serve the interest of the British government. To this end, most of the natives resented the British troops since they rarely provided the much-needed security to the locals (Bailyn, 327). Enacting laws that ensured that the locals availed provisions to such troops was insensitive and visibly offensive. Finally, the passage of the Stamp Act (1765) that taxed the college diplomas, licenses, newspaper, mortgages, and lands led to further financial depression.

The above grievances forced patriots like John Marin Scott to found a military outfit that represented the interests of the natives. However, it became increasingly difficult to pay the native military outfit since the use of the Sterling Pounds reduced the value of the Dollar by almost half. To this end, the patriots advocated for the use of paper money denoted in dollars, which had the ability of inspiring confidence since it meant that the economy would survive without the British. The patriots supported independence for all the British colonies with the focus being in New York in particular due t it economic significance (Grey, 843).

The Crown Government generally used the courts in New York to propagate their economic and political agenda. The patriots were ardent followers of the law and that is why they advocated for the reopening of the courts under New York not Royal authority, which meant that Provincial Congress would appoint the Chief Judge and the Assistant Judges, and not the Royal Governor as it was initially. The patriots saw the reopening of the courts as a symbol of propriety and stability and meant that the rebellion was not marred with lawlessness. Essentially, the courts laid the foundation for the Lockean civil society (Dunn, 103).

Conclusion

As demonstrated, the Crown or the British government enacted various taxation acts as a way for maintaining control over the colonies. The acts served to minimize the economic power of the Americans while improving that of the British government. In other words, they were exploitative and mostly spurred resistance. The British army used the army to actualize the laws and as a way of quelling any ensuing rebellion. The use of the army and the taxations were illegal and unconstitutional since there was little or no representation of the Americans. The exploitative nature of the acts and the discriminative use of the army and the British forces eventually led to the American Revolution.

Work Cited

Bailyn, Bernard. The ideological origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press, (2017): 278-622

Dunn, John. "The contemporary political significance of John Locke's conception of civil society. The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly (1996): 103-124.

Grey, Thomas C. "Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought." Stanford Law Review (1978): 843-893.