The right to rebel.

D

Danzig

New member
This thought struck me a couple of weeks ago, that if we have the right to oust a tyrannical government then any laws against insurrection, while they obviously have the force of government behind them are morally void and so "should" be unenforceable.

Some will argue that the right to secede or rebel is not found in our Constitution but I do not think that it right. As it is clearly a right stated in the Declaration of Independence, then I argue that the right must be one of those "other" rights reserved to us and mentioned specifically in the 9th Amendment.

Yes, I understand that this thread is all about the theoretical but I am curious to know how others understand this...the contradiction between a Constitution that should allow rebellion and at the same time...allows the government to suppress it..
 
So basically we need to start an armed insurrection kill hundreds of thousands, destroy infrastruture and govenment. I think we did that during the Civil War. it didnt turn out to hot...

I will do my rebellion at the ballot box and wherever the Constitution permits me to do so.
 
At that point, it's not about what the government is allowed to do but what they can pull off and get away with it. If the feds abide by the Constitution there's little to no need to overthrow them in the first place, so upon the need for revolt it is obvious the contract has been violated by said party so their use of it to justify themselves is void and all bets are off. At that point it's a question of which party prevails by force, not by debate. If they win, they can (and did) say whatever they want--see reference 1865. To borrow a phrase from Einstein (AFAIK) war with the government doesn't determine who's right, but who is left.

The ONLY rule of revolution is don't lose. Otherwise you're just a rebellion--a dead one. 90% of the difference between George Washington and Robert E. Lee is the former won and the latter lost.
 
Those signing the Declaration of Independence knew what they were doing would be considered treason and knew they would be put to death if they failed. Benjamin Franklin was not joking when he said, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." Therefore, any theoretical discussion of rebellion must recognize that death is a real possibility. As far as the right to secede goes, that was answered in the Civil War and any further discussion is a waste of time.
 
States do have the right to secede. The U.S. Government was in the wrong starting the Civil War. I know I just opened a can of worms.:D
 
Point of historical importance:

Many legal authorities and textbooks taught that secession was legal under the US Constitution up until the early part of the twentieth century.

The Civil War pretty much settled the question.

For good or bad, most legal authorities now state secession is not a basic state right.

The one state that tried to exercise such a "right" during the civil war, Texas, had its statehood revoked along with all the other losers. Contrary to public opinion, Texas does not have the right of secession written into its modern constitution.
 
Of course States have a right to secede. The most fundamental principle of free government is that it is consentual, and that means that there is a right to expatriation i.e. a right of a citizen to leave his State and a right of a State to leave its Union.
 
What we have to realize here is that this "right" to secession or rebellion isn't really covered in the Constitution. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence but as someone noted in this thread or another recently, the DOI isn't law, it's only a declaration.

Whatever right we may have regarding the forceful changing of our form of government existed long before any documents were written. Like the right to defend yourself, the right to choose your government is a natural right. Whether or not the existing government sees things as you do is another matter. History records very few instances where a sitting government, faced with insurrection, simply lowered its flag and turned things over to the new guys.
 
Eghad,

I don't like the tone of your post. I did not advocate secession or rebellion. I only seek viewpoints on how to reconcile the Constitution's provision for the government to call up the militia to put down rebellions with the 9th Amendment's essential protection of our right to rebel.

I am not calling for a rebellion. A legal analysis of the question would be most helpful if any of you have enough legal training to give such.
 
I think the reality is more online with the opinion that the contract is already void. The point is the government does not limit our right to the tools necessary to rebel if the situation got so bad that it warranted it. The people in Washington have to know before they cross the line that there are several million American Rifleman out there who are capable and equipped at least as well as Al Quaeda in Iraq.
Traditionally the big question in every revolution has been "will the Army pull the trigger or will they stand down and join the citizens when it comes down to it." Our constitution attempts to leave the people with the ability to fight the army. Obviously the situation would have to be dire before all but a few extreme radicals would go for this option. Just having it there keeps Washington in check to some degree. I don't think the Constitution's intent is to limit the governments power in coercing individual states or citizens not to secede, rather to guarantee that if a large portion of Americans are willing to go to war with the government they are able. I have read that only about 20% of the American population supported the Revolutionary War at the beginning.
I am a pretty strong Libertarian and at 23 probably more foolish and hotheaded than the average citizen, but things are going to have to get a hell of a lot worse before I consider picking up a rifle and going to war with the US Government.
 
States don't have rights, only powers. Specifically, state governments (or any other government) does not have rights, only powers. Individuals have rights.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is saying that the Virginia Government has a right to secede. In this context, the word "State" refers to the body of people, not to their government. It seems nonsensical to say that States have a power to secede but no right ... I believe it is the other way around, that States have a right to secede, but not the power.


I don't think the Constitution's intent is to limit the governments power in coercing individual states or citizens not to secede, rather to guarantee that if a large portion of Americans are willing to go to war with the government they are able.
Click to expand...

But the people of the whole US do not have a right to rise up as one and take over the US.

"Were [the US] wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government ... The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on [this principle]." -Federalist #39
 
Danzig
..Some will argue that the right to secede or rebel is not found in our Constitution but I do not think that it right. As it is clearly a right stated in the Declaration of Independence, then I argue that the right must be one of those "other" rights reserved to us and mentioned specifically in the 9th Amendment.
Click to expand...

First, our founding fathers were against tyranny and oppression. Do you think they would give us a founding document that demanded that we stay under a tyrannical government in the future. Of course not.

That is why the founding fathers included the "Right of Revolution" in the Declaration. This right clearly defines the moral obligation of a people to throw off a tryrannical government and replace it with another, if they so choose.


~~~ From the Declaration of Independence ~~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
But We the People have the ability to alter the goverment, by means of election and changing of officals who carry out our will, if not find ones who will. The founding fathers were primarily protesting "taxation without representation" or to put it another way, power over us without consent.
If the colonies had been represented in the house of commons (I think that is the correct name) would the Revolution have ever occured.

The power to "rebel" legally would have to be totatlly exhausted before most would act.
 
A government will never "allow" a rebellion aginst the same said government. Any government that does is not really a government. Do not take that statement to mean that I think rebellion is a negative thing. I'm just saying a government will not willingly allow itself to be destroyed if it feels it has the ability to prevent it.
 
What are you really trying to say when you talk about a "right to rebel"? If you rebel and win, everything will be just fine for you, and you can say that you had a right to rebel. If you lose, you will be hanged or shot or otherwise disposed or; and any talk of a right to rebel would be moot.

If we had not defeated the British in the Revolutionary War, Washington, et al, would have wound up wearing hemp neckties notwithstanding the Declaration of Independence. You have a right to rebel if you win. If you lose, you're just a traitor.
 
I only seek viewpoints on how to reconcile the Constitution's provision for the government to call up the militia to put down rebellions with the 9th Amendment's essential protection of our right to rebel.
Click to expand...

First, let's establish that not all "rebellion" consists of one or more States - and their people - telling Washington D.C. to go pound sand. A rebellion could occur only within one state or a single county. For instance, let's suppose that some California court holds that before gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. can get "married" they must register with the state 30 days in advance and that the state could prohibit said marriage if one partner was HIV positive. You might see riots and possibly rebellion against the state over that (and more later when it is upheld).

In the sense that States have the power to remove themselves from the union, there is probably a legal method of permitting such to be accomplished. A statewide vote and ratification by 2/3rds or more of the state legislature to indicate that [our state] withdraws from the union. Such is not rebellion, per se, but a democratic and "lawful" way to establish a new soverignty.

I think it's quite clear from the founder's attitudes and the writings of the times that there is a clear, basic, fundamental right of humans to alter or abolish a government that is abusive and tyrannical over them. That would include the people of a particular state or the people in general.

If you have noticed, in many other countries when things start heading to warm places in a handbasket, a president, monarch or dictator's will suddenly "dissolve parliament" or other legislative body. In the USA no such power exists in any branch of government. When things get tough here, we can elect a new president and/or new legislature. And keep recalling and re-electing people until we muddle our way out of the mess.

I hope and pray we never see such a national rebellion. For that would mean the federal government has trampled on enough various parts of the constitution that life would be miserable already. It would take far overreaching laws by Congress and a judiciary refusing to enforce the constitution. By that time, I fear things would already be pretty bleak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top