Do citizens have the right to overthrow their govenrment?

[mspeake]

It's scary man! You have people carrying guns to Town Hall Meetings, Tea Party, and a growing venomous sentiment against this administartion form both the media and general public. Even when people strongly disagreed with Bush II, the sentiment never border on being violents, or this level of disent. Is Obama that bad? I mean is he really that bad? Before any answer put this whole situation in persepctive.

I don't think anyone actually said that we "should" revolt because of current circumstances. Most people simply seem to think we still have the "right" to if things did really get out of control. I originally asked the question is the spirit of Independence Day to see how people here still felt about the process our founding fathers followed to become self governed.

[CommanderDOOM]

you have the right to do whatever the government says you can.

[Enter Apotheosis]

According to one of the main points in our Declaration of Independence....... no.

Others would disagree with them. Again, it's relative and the OP wasn't specific about what perspective we should be taking in the discussion.

Hmmm, OK then, this seems to be a popular request...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

That was a rhetorical question. :doh:

[boobiemiles]

I don't think anyone actually said that we "should" revolt because of current circumstances. Most people simply seem to think we still have the "right" to if things did really get out of control. I originally asked the question is the spirit of Independence Day to see how people here still felt about the process our founding fathers followed to become self governed.

Ok, I see where you are coming from.

[polywog999]

Others would disagree with them. Again, it's relative and the OP wasn't specific about what perspective we should be taking in the discussion.

That was a rhetorical question. :doh:

You don't really seem to know the answer, so how could it be rhetorical?

[wysknz1]

Yes we have the right.. also have the right to vote them in/out. Problem is the sheep of this country vote name recognition and incumbant instead of what the person stands for. Big money gets a person elected too often.

[HailGreen28]

Others would disagree with them. Again, it's relative and the OP wasn't specific about what perspective we should be taking in the discussion.

I disagree. Here's the relevant discussion:

Isn't the entire notion of "rights" completely relative and subject to interpretation?

According to one of the main points in our Declaration of Independence....... no.

Underlined the relevant parts:

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.

[Enter Apotheosis]

You don't really seem to know the answer, so how could it be rhetorical?

I was making an assertion more than I was asking for assistance. Sorry you didn't pick up on that one.

[polywog999]

I was making an assertion more than I was asking for assistance. Sorry you didn't pick up on that one.

Enough with the back and forth already this tread is not about you or I, It's about the right of citizens to overthrow the government, If you want to fight, pick one with someone else.

Meanwhile, I don't know what this inclusion to the constitution is for. It seems to be something that if you were going to do, that you would not need permission for.

I don't see how it would effect the way you approached it.

[Bliz]

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

Closest post in the thread to my feelings.

I don't think citizens have the right to "overthrow" a democratically elected government that has free and fair elections.

If you don't like it you can vote the bums out and replace them with...different bums.

[Burgold]

It's interesting. I've seen this thread a number of times, posted in it a number of times, but failed to notice that government was misspelled in the title until now. Was it a conscious or unconscious choice to change the spelling of government in a thread about overthrowing it?

[elkabong82]

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."

Wow, thanks for explaining to me what type of government they formed like I don't know.

Perhaps you're ticked cuz you think I'm in favor of an overthrow. If so, read more assume less. I said it was a right, not that it is necessary.

And it doesn't matter if the founders were attempting to create a gov't where overthrow wasn't necessary, it still stands that in their minds their revolt was justified under the Declaration of Independence using Enlightenment principles. I highly doubt they all ok'd the sending of the Declaration to the King of England if they didn't agree with it.

I hate it when people can't see past whatever agenda they are on and think clearly. Jefferson spelled it out right there that in given circumstances people have the right, and duty, to overthrow their gov't. We still have that right today, WHEN the circumstances exist which necesitate and justify an overthrow. And given that the document was used to declare America's independence from Britain, umm yeah, I feel it is very safe to say that the fellow founders involved were in agreement.

[twa]

Was it a conscious or unconscious choice to change the spelling of government in a thread about overthrowing it?

A futile attempt at avoiding the data mining?:shhh::paranoid:

[mspeake]

A futile attempt at avoiding the data mining?:shhh::paranoid:

I'm pretty sure they already have me on a list(s) somewhere. This one was just a simple typo.

[Predicto]

Wow, thanks for explaining to me what type of government they formed like I don't know.

Perhaps you're ticked cuz you think I'm in favor of an overthrow. If so, read more assume less. I said it was a right, not that it is necessary.

I wasn't ticked off at all. I was just making conversation. Sorry if I gave a stronger impression than I intended.

And it doesn't matter if the founders were attempting to create a gov't where overthrow wasn't necessary, it still stands that in their minds their revolt was justified under the Declaration of Independence using Enlightenment principles. I highly doubt they all ok'd the sending of the Declaration to the King of England if they didn't agree with it.

I hate it when people can't see past whatever agenda they are on and think clearly. Jefferson spelled it out right there that in given circumstances people have the right, and duty, to overthrow their gov't. We still have that right today, WHEN the circumstances exist which necesitate and justify an overthrow. And given that the document was used to declare America's independence from Britain, umm yeah, I feel it is very safe to say that the fellow founders involved were in agreement.

Some scholars might suggest that the Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence. After all, the Constitition came later and is our supreme law, whereas the Declaration was just a general statement of intent to secede from England. A propoganda shot across the bow, so to speak. I don't think you will ever see a court analyzing the Declaration to determine what rights we have.

Some people might also suggest that the Civil War demonstrated that there are concrete limits on whatever it is that the Declaration stands for.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just discussing the issue raised in the original post.

[HailGreen28]

I'm pretty sure they already have me on a list(s) somewhere. This one was just a simple typo.

"As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, _Mr._Ander_- I mean _Mr._Mspeake_. It seems you have been living..two lives. In one life, you're Mr. Mspeake....you have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you...help your landlady carry out her _garbage_. The other life is lived in Extremeskins.com, where you go by the hacker alias 'Mspeake', and are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future....the other does _not_... I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can, _Mr._Mspeake_.

You're here because we need your help. We know that you've been contacted by a certain individual, a man who calls himself... Jumbo. Now whatever you _think_ you know about this man is irrelevant. He is considered by many authorities to be the most dangerous man alive. My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you, but I believe you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start, and all that we're asking in return is your co-operation in bringing a known terrorist to justice....

[Thiebear]

It's scary man! You have people carrying guns to Town Hall Meetings, Tea Party, and a growing venomous sentiment against this administartion form both the media and general public. Even when people strongly disagreed with Bush II, the sentiment never border on being violents, or this level of disent. Is Obama that bad? I mean is he really that bad? Before any answer put this whole situation in persepctive.

Technically if you want to put it into perspective:

The Guns and Town Hall were exactly that and they were carrying legally to show that the right to carry legally 'where they were standing' was good.

The reason that didnt happen with ex.Pres Bush was because there was never a threat to arms. The only threat was to people wanting to talk back at a town hall with their specific people picked out all others escorted 500yds away.

[Predicto]

Technically if you want to put it into perspective:

The Guns and Town Hall were exactly that and they were carrying legally to show that the right to carry legally 'where they were standing' was good.

The reason that didnt happen with ex.Pres Bush was because there was never a threat to arms. The only threat was to people wanting to talk back at a town hall with their specific people picked out all others escorted 500yds away.

Or to put it more humorously:

[polywog999]

Or to put it more humorously:<>

I am still LOL 5 mins after reading this!

Freedom fries anyone?

[Commander PK]

If we voted out a large majority of the Federal and State governments, but they refused to secede power, than YES we have the absolute right to remove them from office. If those we elect refuse to abide by what the large majority of the country wants, then again YES we have the right to remove them from power. Ours is a government by the people, and for the people. When it isn't that anymore, we have the right to remove said government.

God help the people that live under a government that thinks it can do what it wants with impunity. To an extent, I think we already do. Special interests and big money run this country.

[brianm23]

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

If our government keeps up the path it's on, that's exactly what will happen.

Currently, our country is being led by corporations, not the people. Politicians (for the most part) don't give a rat's ass about the American people, they care about what's good for themselves. As long as lobbyists are allowed to get in the ear (and pockets) of our congress, America will continue to serve the will of Corporate America.

[brianm23]

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.

It's funny, the forefathers of this country would have been labeled as "terrorists" today. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

[HailGreen28]

It's funny, the forefathers of this country would have been labeled as "terrorists" today. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

That comparison always fails when considering neither the Continental Army, nor the militias, practiced what we would call "terrorism" today. "Treason" might be a more accurate word instead.

Agree with you about corporations. To a lesser extent unions and lots of special interest groups that also have A LOT more control than they should have.

[Stadium-Armory]

The problem is defining "we". Do "we" have the right? Sure, I suppose, but how do you get concensus from 300MM people? Show of hands? No, elections. Codified in law, and at an interval that is transparent with rules that are transparent (in theory ).

So yea, but we've already got the only civilized way to do it already written in to law.

[Baculus]

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 must play an opposition role in this discussion. Here is what Jefferson had to say:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

I am not sure if that sounds much like a right-winger. :-)

Jefferson was also a Deist and a rationalist, and he wouldn't agree with some of the modern right-wing, anti-rationalist theocratic views. After all, this is also what Jefferson had to say:

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. "

He would be branded a commie-Nazi-socialist terrorist if he were alive today and making these statements.

You have to remember that Jefferson was a classical liberal, influenced by Age of Enlightenment thinking. Here is the hypocrisy of some right-wingers: They attack liberalism while trying to coopt some of its great thinkers (in Jefferson) and elements of its ideology. It's like Glenn Beck trying to "take back" the Civil Rights movement and figures such as MLK, when King himself had progressive views.

Jefferson was a complex man, but I don't see the American Right as necessarily being his political heirs.