Do citizens have the right to overthrow their govenrment?

[mspeake]

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...

[Bang]

I think you need to define overthrow.

In truth, we have the power to overthrow our government ever 4-6 years.

Or are you talking about armed revolt?

~Bang

[Thiebear]

I'd be happy with just taking the restriction they put on third parties out of each state to make it a little easier.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— 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.

Seems to right at the top of the document though.

Term limits would be nice also.

[mspeake]

Not just new elections but rather:

"all political connection...totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."

Is armed revolt a right if all other courses of action have been exhausted?

[Bang]

Well, I guess if within that 4 to 6 year period of seeing how who we elected goes horribly, and I mean HORRIBLY wrong, then yes.

But it better be really REALLY bad, and not just some sour grapes partisan whining that sets it off.

In the US, i doubt it's possible for either to happen.. I doubt the government can go so far as to require removal by force, and I doubt that we could if they did.

As far as it being a right.. if and ever you take up arms against a government you have already decided you have the right, and since you decided that, you've also decided you don't require anyone else's definition of this right.. Once that level is reached, the dickering over whether or not it is a legal action becomes rather pointless.

~Bang

[Burgold]

Well, we certainly have a right to try. I doubt the government would take to it kindly and I don't see armed revolt being a necessary or practical tactic right now, but we certainly still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[HailGreen28]

It would take extreme measures to get as far as civil insurrection. Unless you count short-lived stuff like LA. riots in the 90's as activist instead of criminal.

Yes, government officials still get away with a lot. From illegal searches and seizures, "eminent domain", local bosses like Chicago Mayor Daly.

But, balance of power between different branches of government is a great limiter on most individuals going nuts. State government still has quite a bit of sovereignty. The Federal government and the judiciary step in to compete with other governmental organizations. Then competing branches of the federal government limit each other. Should things get crazy due to some crisis, the military is indoctrinated to refuse unconstitutional orders. Having the people able to stand up for themselves, to the extent it would take the authorities having the military involved to enforce extremely un-Constitutional means, should still be a limit on the power of the government.

Without mass popular support, any insurrection won't get far. So as long as the government is truly formed to be representative of the people, chances of such a rebellion are slim. But it's good the people still have a right to. Ultimately Washington isn't the boss. The People are.

Otherwise, like Bang said, we have the power to "overthrow" our government each election cycle. Though we need to open the entry process to allow more "third party" participation. Green party, libertarians, whatever. Let all of the electorate speak! Let the people be more independent, instead of being "pigeon holed" into one of two corporate parties. Even if you think they're crazy, just because you don't agree with them.

[thebluefood]

Absolutely, but only when the people have legitimate reason to revolt. Revolutions can't be taken lightly. You can't just have an angry mob take over a nation. These things must be dealt with carefully and an armed revolt must be a last ditch effort.

That's one of the reasons why I don't believe a true communist society can exist. It requires a spontaneous uprising from the proletariat and that's not only HIGHLY unlikely, the chances of it working out are slim to none.

[MEANDWARF]

I believe you have the right to do so. After all we kick the Brits out some 240 yrs ago.

But for me personally, I prefer to do it the non-violent way every 4 and 6 years.

[elkabong82]

It was considered not only a right, but a duty under Enlightenment principles to overthrow a government which does not provide and protect the inalienable rights of man once it became clear that attempts to amend the current gov't were no longer possible.

so yes, in the founding fathers' eyes it was a right and therefore still is today.

[sjinhan]

Yes as long as u are successful doing so otherwise it's treason.

[Predicto]

It was considered not only a right, but a duty under Enlightenment principles to overthrow a government which does not provide and protect the inalienable rights of man once it became clear that attempts to amend the current gov't were no longer possible.

so yes, in the founding fathers' eyes it was a right and therefore still is today.

Perhaps.

or maybe they thought that they were creating a form of government applying Enlightenment principles, one with fixed terms, elections, and separation of powers, and that this idea of overthrowing the government would no longer apply.

There is no way to be sure, because the Fonders have all been dead for 200 years and even if they were alive, they would have 50 different opinions. We know what Thomas Jefferson thought, but he hardly represents all of "the Founders" - many of the founders actually considered him a dangerous radical.

I hate it when people make blanket claims about "what the Founders wanted."

[polywog999]

It may be our "right," but just go ahead and over-throw our government. It would never happen. Like many of our other rights, they are not to be taken seriously. The constitution is for window dressing, folks.

[mbws]

"You have the right to...as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it." -Joe Strummer, The Clash

[Prosperity]

very complicated question, but i will say a loony minority has no right to overthrow everyone else's government

[polywog999]

very complicated question, but i will say a loony minority has no right to overthrow everyone else's government

It starts out as the loony minority...

Edit: I do not even feel safe talking about this subject. What does that tell you?

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Without a doubt....

[GhostofSparta]

Honestly, it depends severly on the situation. You're not gonna get a lot of support for a revolution in America, England, or France. On the other hand, if we saw a revolution taking place in North Korea, Iran, or the Sudan, I'd bet a vast majority of people in this country would support the idea of revolution. I believe it's a right to rebel against an unjust government, but there are very specific circumstances required to enact that right justly. Must like you can carry a shotgun down Pennsylvania Avenue shouting "I'm going to murder the President!" despite your 2nd and 1st amendment rights repsectively.

[Teller]

Perhaps.

or maybe they thought that they were creating a form of government applying Enlightenment principles, one with fixed terms, elections, and separation of powers, and that this idea of overthrowing the government would no longer apply.

There is no way to be sure, because the Fonders have all been dead for 200 years and even if they were alive, they would have 50 different opinions. We know what Thomas Jefferson thought, but he hardly represents all of "the Founders" - many of the founders actually considered him a dangerous radical.

I hate it when people make blanket claims about "what the Founders wanted."

A dangerous radical who was chosen to pen the document that created this nation. They must've been at least a little comfortable with him.

Course, seeing as he was one of the more right-leaning founders, I can understand why some want to apply the "dangerous radical" label.

[Predicto]

It starts out as the loony minority...

Edit: I do not even feel safe talking about this subject. What does that tell you?

That you are paranoid? :whoknows:

[Predicto]

A dangerous radical who was chosen to pen the document that created this nation. They must've been at least a little comfortable with him.

Course, seeing as he was one of the more right-leaning founders, I can understand why some want to apply the "dangerous radical" label.

Jefferson was right leaning?

Err, ok. I forgot about the ever flexible "right-left" definitions you guys use. To you guys, right is "anyone popular" and left is "anyone that you want to dump on the other side."

That was how George Bush became "left" and Martin Luther King, Jr., became a Republican. :laugh:

[polywog999]

That you are paranoid? :whoknows:

Maybe I would not be so paranoid if it was really a proper thing to do and there was this black and white understanding of the constitution that prevailed over all-else. Yes, we have the right to do it, just like the right to bare arms, but I live in a country that forgot the meaning of It's creed. Well, you asked... yes, I am paranoid. Thank you for your concern.

[polywog999]

Jefferson was right leaning?

Err, ok. I forgot about the ever flexible "right-left" definitions you guys use. To you guys, right is "anyone popular" and left is "anyone that you want to dump on the other side."

That was how George Bush became "left" and Martin Luther King, Jr., became a Republican. :laugh:

Lumping us all together by saying we pick and chose people to be who they are, is kind of ironic... do you always do that?

[DjTj]

A dangerous radical who was chosen to pen the document that created this nation. They must've been at least a little comfortable with him.

Course, seeing as he was one of the more right-leaning founders, I can understand why some want to apply the "dangerous radical" label.

I always looked at Jefferson as more of a radical leftist. He strongly influenced the French Revolution, which was the first real left-wing rebellion (it's where the terms "left" and "right" come from).

It's the Democratic Party that holds Jefferson-Jackson dinners every year.

http://www.vademocrats.org/pages/jjweekend2010

And it's the Republicans who are trying to cut Jefferson out of the Texas school curriculum.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/19397481

As far as a right to revolution goes; of course we have a right to overthrow the government. But what are the practical implications of that? It certainly doesn't mean that you have an unlimited right to form an army and organize a rebellion without the government trying to stop you. There's nothing in the Constitution that would support that (the Constitution outlaws treason). The Founders created a pretty radical idea at the time, which was that elections would be held for every major office on a regular basis - that's how they intended to refresh the tree of liberty from time to time; not the regular bloodshed that Jefferson may have advocated for in moments of rhetorical flourish.

[Predicto]

Lumping us all together by saying we pick and chose people to be who they are, is kind of ironic... do you always do that?

Hey, if I can't poke a friendly finger in Honorary_Hog's eye after he pokes one in mine, what the heck is the point of this board?