to make law for the colonies, parliament -- emboldened by the complicity of the king -- usurped the right of them, as Jefferson repeatedly inveighed, colonists’ “sovereign legislation,” reducing to a state of political ‘slavery.’ The opposite of for Jefferson, is self-government -- the right to be subject only ‘slavery,’ to political powers that one has participated in and every body of men on authoring. “Every man, earth, possesses the right of self-government… it by their single will; Individuals exercise collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the is the natural law of every majority society of And though this basic idea was endorsed in one form or another by basically all men.” of the major thinkers of his time and place (even the statist Hamilton had to acknowledge that the power of government was, in the final analysis, on loan from the people), Jefferson was the most consistent among them in mining it for its full consequences, no matter how radical the conclusions. Most notably, Jefferson was consistently aware of the perpetual tension that the idea of self-rule posited between the constituted powers of law and state, on the one hand, and the constituent power of the people, on the other. This tension stems from the fact that popular authority can never in practice be made entirely subordinate to the law. Presented in the most general of terms, Jefferson put forward two arguments throughout his writings that drew attention to key limitations on the to legitimately express the will. One law’s ability people’s argument looked to the horizon of time: a law made by one generation of people cannot legitimately bind a subsequent generation that played no part in authoring said law. This argument posed a unique dilemma for constitutional law, which is typically conceived to be a of law. The other argument drew attention ‘perpetual’ (and therefore transgenerational) species to the persistent threat of usurpation posed to the authority by their representatives. In people’s
to make law for the colonies, parliament -- emboldened by the complicity of the king -- usurped the colonists’ “sovereign right of legislation,” reducing them, as Jefferson repeatedly inveighed, to a state of political ‘slavery.’ The opposite of ‘slavery,’ for Jefferson, is self-government -- the right to be subject only to political powers that one has participated in authoring. “Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government… Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men.” And though this basic idea was endorsed in one form or another by basically all of the major thinkers of his time and place (even the statist Hamilton had to acknowledge that the power of government was, in the final analysis, on loan from the people), Jefferson was the most consistent among them in mining it for its full consequences, no matter how radical the conclusions. Most notably, Jefferson was consistently aware of the perpetual tension that the idea of self-rule posited between the constituted powers of law and state, on the one hand, and the constituent power of the people, on the other. This tension stems from the fact that popular authority can never in practice be made entirely subordinate to the law. Presented in the most general of terms, Jefferson put forward two arguments throughout his writings that drew attention to key limitations on the law’s ability to legitimately express the people’s will. One argument looked to the horizon of time: a law made by one generation of people cannot legitimately bind a subsequent generation that played no part in authoring said law. This argument posed a unique dilemma for constitutional law, which is typically conceived to be a ‘perpetual’ (and therefore transgenerational) species of law. The other argument drew attention to the persistent threat of usurpation posed to the people’s authority by their representatives. In