Stamp Act Theme of Legitimacy

The Stamp Act doesn't have much to say on the subject of legitimacy. Everyone around it has a ton to say about the matter, though.

For British Parliament, the legitimacy of both their rule and the Stamp Act was assumed. Of course they got to make laws. That's how British government has worked and will keep on working. It wasn't even a question.

For the Patriots, the idea of the Stamp Act cut right to the point of legitimacy. They believed that because they weren't represented in Parliament, the crown had no right to levy any kind of taxes against them. They had some legal standing for it, too. The Stamp Act ended up being what happens when one side assumes it has the right to do something, and the other vehemently denies it.

1. What makes a government legitimate? Representation? Power? Something else?
2. Was the British crown a legitimate government for the colonies? Why or why not? If not, what could it have done to become so? If so, were the colonists unjustified in their resistance against the Stamp Act?
3. Was the Stamp Act a legitimate piece of legislation? Was the problem taxation without representation or something else? Would it have been different if something else was taxed? If so, what?
4. If a person believes legislation to be illegitimate, what are they required to do? What about governments?

At the time of the Stamp Act, the British crown was not a legitimate government for the colonies, and this legislation made revolution a moral imperative.

At the time of the Stamp Act, the British crown was a legitimate government for the colonies, and was merely asking to be paid for services already rendered.