Not The Government To Govern James Wilson example essay topic

James Wilson's Trust in the People, Not the Government to Govern James Wilson, a member of Pennsylvania delegation, was a legal theorist, law lecturer and Supreme Court Justice. In 1787, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Wilson helped draft the US Constitution, leading the fight for ratification in the state of Pennsylvania. In 1790, he engineered the drafting of that state's new constitution. His lectures during that year are considered landmarks in the history of American jurisprudence. He was a believer in a completely national government and also one of the first to conclude that England legally had no power over the colonies. In 1774 Wilson published an essay Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament, Wilson asserted that because the English King chartered the colonies, the English King was the only bond between England and the colonies.

Wilson then argued, based on English Common Law that the bond did not allow English Parliament to control any activities involving the colonies, especially the act of taxation without representation. His manuscript created quite a stir. He was one of the first to voice these opinions in a sensible, well argued manner. Wilson maintained that sovereignty was vested in the people "for purposes of Union".

Wilson believed that election to the national government should be accomplished by direct vote of the people using simple majority rules. He believed that in this proportionate system, the Deanna Kurlowecz people, rather than the states would be represented. This arrangement would provide less focus on the states as individual and separate entities, and more on representation of people individually as part of a national entity. Therefore, a direct voting system would provide "equal" representation, even in view of the difference in the populations of the various states. Wilson also favored a powerful, independent executive elected by popular vote. However, he ultimately accepted the Electoral College as a compromise to direct voting in the election of the Executive.

On October 6, 1787, James Wilson addressed the Pennsylvania State Legislature to encourage ratification of the newly draft Constitution. There were many fundamental issues raised by the Constitution, including: basic sovereignty, implied vs. express powers governmental powers, class divisions and their respective representation by the newly proposed government, a bill of rights, trial by jury, a standing army and direct taxation. The lack of a Bill of Rights was of major concern to certain citizens who viewed it as a capitulation of their individual rights to the new government. In James Wilson speech in Pennsylvania, October 6, 1787 Wilson states "The power of direct taxation has likewise been treated as an improper delegation to the Federal government; but when we consider it as the duty of that body to provide for the national safety, to support the dignity of the union, and to discharge the debts contracted upon the collective faith of the States for their common benefit, it must be acknowledged, that those upon whom such important obligations are imposed, ought in justice and in policy to possess every means requisite for a faithful performance of their trust" (Paragraph 8). A dominate view of State Legislatures was that individuals were reserved certain express rights, but the Legislature held all rights not expressly reserved. Wilson argued that in the Constitution every right not expressly given was reserved for the states.

Wilson believed the Deanna Kurlowecz Constitution provide for "enumerated powers", but not "implied powers". Therefore, a lack of a Bill of Rights was not of great concern to Wilson. On the contrary, by not expressly enumerating powers in a specific field, e. g., freedom of speech, Wilson argued that all related rights were open to the people to protect. If, by enumerating one right and not another, the Constitution were to carve out specific powers in a given area it may neglect important rights. Additionally, by enumerating a right it could be construed in a way that presents a limitation that would not be present if it were not enumerated at all.

This is a powerful argument for a lack of Bill of Rights, especially while a government in its formative stage. It was evident at the time that a struggle for power was occurring. Wilson echoed Daniel DeFoe's words "Nature has formed this tincture in the blood. All men would be tyrants if they could be". When he concluded his speech by stating "It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the public good, and I do not mean to make any personal reflection when I add that it is the interest of a very numerous, powerful and respectable body to counteract and destroy the excellent work produced by the late convention".

Wilson believed in the power of the people to govern and that their will would ultimately be reflected within the government proposed by the new Constitution. Though Wilson did believe that the people could be trusted more than did the other Founders, he also believed in limiting popular power. Wilson disagreed at many points how these checks ought to be achieved and to what degree they were to be implemented. But the same can be said for most of the Founders.

Wilson is better classified along with the majority of the other Founders as a republican and a liberal a republican willing to allow the people a slightly greater role in authority, but a republican nonetheless, not a democrat. Wilson was a pragmatist, he understood that the Constitution had flaws and was the result of many compromises. However, he felt it was "the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world". I agree; sometime you have to take one step backwards to move two steps forward. The Constitution moved this country forward and set a precedent for compromise and separation of powers, both between federal and state levels as well as between branches within the government.

Wilson made a very reasoned argument for ratification and I would have supported him. I believe he saw that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts and I believe history supports his position..