Do you believe the American People should have the right to violently oppose their own government?

[Uncle Joe]

When I say "Right" in this context, I mean to have it enshrined in the Constitution as is "Freedom of Speech" etc. etc.

[yourout]

1. I guess we need an amendment that states...."violence is not speach"

[conspirator]

124. Do you think the french managed to convince Marie Antoinette with kind words?

Even after imprisoned, she summoned the Austrians to invade and kill the french peasants
The elites are evil.

[Uncle Joe]

200. And they got Napoleon in exchange. n/t

[Mojeoux]

132. The Hippies Tried to Levitate the Pentagon!

It didn't work but it scared the shit out of J Edger.

[drmeow]

2. I'm very mixed about this

If the right wing had stolen the last election like they stole the previous 2, there was part of me which was in support of a violent reaction.

[Uncle Joe]

5. But where does it end, if the Republicans thought a Democratic President was illegitimate, what

would prevent them from doing the same?

[Greyhound]

166. Nothing, that's the way it is supposed to be. Something to do with consent of the governed.

This fundamental premise of our government was abandoned even before the Civil War.

[Uncle Joe]

196. Consent of the governed can also mean peaceful rebellion.

Strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, petitions, protest marches etc. etc.

The problem with enshrining the rule of bullet over the rule of law, is a neutering of the state's ability to adapt in a constructive manner and to defend it self against domestic enemies; with a multitude of agendas.

The ultimate result can only be chaos and anarchy.

[Greyhound]

205. Absolutely and each time we start that way. The violence is started or forced

by the existing power. This is the history of the egalitarian movements, people saying enough is enough, followed by the authority breaking heads. People talk about Gandhi's peaceful resistance, but overlook the hundreds killed and thousands maimed in the name of resisting the established authority.

[Uncle Joe]

206. Peaceful rebellion doesn't mean people won't be killed or martyred whether

it happened to and/or under Ghandi, MLK and Nelson Mandela, but at some point a critical moral mass is reached and this overwhelming tide forces constructive change.

Nation's with great power can resist hundreds or thousands of people dying, and yet they can only resist the people en masse turning against them for so long and when change does occur, a new government becomes more mindful of the people's power as opposed to becoming enthralled by the power of the bullet.

[Greyhound]

209. Perhaps we just have differing views of what peaceful is.

It is the power of the bullet (to paraphrase Mao) that keeps governments in power and what was supposed to be different about ours. The ink wasn't dry on the Treaty of Paris, before the authoritarians started stripping power from others and consolidating to themselves.

Our government of consent lasted (charitably) less than 30 years.

[Uncle Joe]

211. Which makes my point, we came to power via the bullet as did Communist China.

The same held true for the Soviet Union, Napoleon's France and countless rises of governments throughout history coming to power because of the bullet and then in turn falling because they believed the bullet would save them.

The Soviet Union rotted from the inside out because of their overwhelming belief in the bullet over the people's well being and it was people power, ie: Solidarity which sparked their fall.

It isn't the bullet that keeps government in power, Mao was wrong about that as he was many things, governments' true power comes from the consent of the governed; and that's the people, not the bullets, governments; forgetting this lesson do so at their own peril.

[Posteritatis]

15. Being mixed about something like this is a Good Thing

There's some courses of action people should not be comfortable considering, even in the outlier situations where they'd be necessary.

[sakabatou]

198. I'm feeling mixed too.

[ProSense]

3. Who the hell is voting yes?

There are progressives who are okay with armed teabaggers rushing the WH? Who believe this is a right?

People have lost their damn minds.

[Statistical]

11. I voted Yes. It is a right. A right that founded this country.

I oppose the teabaggers but the question was open ended. It didn't mention teabaggers. It asked do you have the right to violently oppose the government and the reality is at least our founders believed so.

Not only did they do EXACTLY THAT but they wrote this

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

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

So either the right exists or the government we have now is illegitimate. It can't be both.

[ProSense]

13. There is nothing in that statement about violent overthrows. n/t

[Statistical]

16. IT IS THE DECLERATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

A war followed that Declaration. By its very definition a violent overthrow of a tyranical government (King George).

[ProSense]

25. Bullshit. There is nothing remotely resembling the teabaggers enshrined in the Constitution.

Utter revisionist idiotic bullshit.

[Uncle Joe]

38. They believe there is and that's all that counts if you believe in this right. n/t

[Hansel]

199. Actually what counts is the law of the land and its being enforced.

They can believe what ever they want and they can pay the consequences for acting on it.

[Uncle Joe]

203. Regarding the Constitution and the law, people have different interpretations.

If enough people were to believe the Constitution had been trashed, and this right to violent rebellion were enshrined in the Constitution the government's ability to adapt and defend it self on a legal and moral ground would be weakened and the prospect for civil wars, chaos and anarchy would only increase.

[On the Road]

70. Statistical Makes an Inarguable Point

It wasn't up to King George to decide whether the colonists had legitimate grievances. Thomas Jefferson thought it was self-evident.

Rights don't apply to particular groups of people -- by definition they apply to everyone. The country was founded on the right of the people as a whole to violently overturn their government.

The constitution, of course, is not the declaration of independence. There is no right of unorganized groups of people in the constitution to take up arms against the federal government. Shay's rebellion, the whiskey rebellion, and many other revolts were justifiably put down. John Adams specifically thought organized resistance against an elected government was treason punishable by death. So there may be a disconnect between Jefferson's document and the constitution, and perhaps even a bit of hypocrisy.

In this case, though, even the Declaration of Independence acknowledged that violent revolt is only justified by a long train of usurpations. That hardly fits the teabagger's situation.

[Political Heretic]

159. That is absolutely right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Maybe it is time for a little US History 101

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

Nobody claimed by the way that it was in the Constitution. But the Founders made a NATURAL LAW ARGUMENT for rebellion in that document, now you want to deny that Jefferson (the author of the Declaration) did not make an argument FOR ARMED REVOLT, it is you SIR who is engaging in revisionism, of the worst kind by the way.

[SDuderstadt]

104. Okay...

then explain why in Article 1 of the Constitution, it grants Congress the power to suppress insurrections. That seems odd if they were trying to embody citizens violently opposing their government.

Morever, when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, why wasn't it worded in a way consistent with this right to violently oppose their government.

Taking Jefferson's word directed at a tyranical monarch and trying to milk from that a right to take arms up against our democratic republic is an insane stratch.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newspeak]

107. Be careful

don't forget the business plot--I'm sure those fascist industrialists had people support for the overthrow of FDR.

[Posteritatis]

17. The British would dispute that. (nt)

[Greyhound]

167. Even for you, that is impressively dumb.

So in NonSense World, once fat george declined to grant colonial independence, we should have accepted the pragmatic reality that there is just nothing we can do about it and tried to work within the system for change...

Amazing.
:eyes:

[meeshrox]

21. Did you miss the word violent?

:yoiks:

[Statistical]

26. Did you miss this?

American Revolutionary War

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

The founders use this language later:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

To think the right to "throw off a tyrannical govt" was limited to only peaceful methods is the height of hypocrisy. This country was founded on armed rebellion. Is our government illegitimate?

[ProSense]

32. You are arguing RW BS

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

There is nothing that states that a government "instituted" by the governed is subject to violent overthrow because assholes are pissed off.

[spin]

87. You use a quote from the Declaration of Independance ...

to prove that "There is nothing that states that a government "instituted" by the governed is subject to violent overthrow because assholes are pissed off."

The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

The people who signed the Declaration of Independence were engaged in violent opposition to their government.

I would agree that the framers had not "instituted" their government as it was a monarchy, however looking at the quotes of the founding fathers, I don't believe that they would have worried much about that distinction.

For example it was Thomas Jefferson who to a large part penned the document who said,

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.EFEC

He also said,

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."Thomas Jefferson: his motto.

"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

"It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. ME 9:300

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1770.htm

[ProSense]

109. The British government

was not the United States of America:

which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states

You: "The people who signed the Declaration of Independence were engaged in violent opposition to their government."

The defeat preceded the formation of the U.S. government.

...In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak confederal government that operated until 1789.

After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States and the states' sovereignty over American territory west to the Mississippi River. A constitutional convention was organized in 1787 by those wishing to establish a strong national government, with powers of taxation. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the new republic's first Senate, House of Representatives, and president—George Washington—took office in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791.

link

[spin]

114. And who was elected the third President of the United States ...

gee, it was that rebellious character who largely wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson.

Of course, he had totally changed all his views over the years as he matured. Yeah right.

So what you are implying is that we should all bow down to our government no matter how it changes in the future. We are just peons who should willing submit to the boot of a truly tyrannical government if our current one changes dramatically.

As I've pointed out, now is not the time for ANY violent action against our government as it still works as basicaly intended by the founding fathers. We hold peaceful elections and our representatives and President pass laws which are reviewed by the judicial system.

We are going through a mild period of turmoil in our nation which is far less severe than many our country has endured in the past.

But based on the beliefs of the founding fathers, should our government change so drastically that we no longer enjoy our freedoms and rights but are subjected to the whim of a tyrant who answers to no one, we should have the right to violently oppose that dictator and his puppet government.

Americans do NOT serve the government, the government serves the people. That basic idea which was very progressive and liberal in our early days has served us well through history and still does today.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

These and other quotes by Thomas Jefferson can be found at:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html

[ProSense]

116. What does that have to do with the bogus claims about the Declaration of Independence?

"Americans do NOT serve the government, the government serves the people."

And nuts can't simply decide to overthrow a government established by the people.

People have a right to bear arms, not a right to act like terrorists.

[TheWatcher]

122. And by this logic are you implying that the American Revolution ITSELF was an illegal act of

terrorism?

Do you imply that the Colonists did THE WRONG THING by enacting an armed rebellion against their oppressors?
Let me ask you this NONSense, what should the Colonists have done?

Sent a sternly worded letter?

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. For the recrod WE DID... and one of the Founders

took it to Parliament, back in the 1760s... ah those things Franklin did for fun I guess.

[ProSense]

131. I'm implying no such thing. n/t

[Political Heretic]

160. Then what are you implying, because I see no other way to read it.

[SDuderstadt]

150. WTF?

Look at what the OP asks again, dude. It's about whether americans have a right to violently oppose their government not whether our founders were right to overthrow a despotic, NON-ELECTED, tyrannical monarch. Do you see the difference?

[hack89]

175. Do Americans have the right to depose a despotic, tyrannical elected government?

many despots operate under a fig leaf of "democratic" rule - the Soviet Union had a constitution and elections. Hitler won several elections. While I don't think America has reached that point - in fact we are far from it, in principle I think that American's do have the right to depose a government that abandons democracy. The founders would agree too - they understood how fragile democracy is in a hard world. There are too many failed democracies in history to ignore the danger.

[SDuderstadt]

195. The only election Hitler ever entered for government office...

he lost. Hitler ran for President of Germany and was defeated by Paul Von Hindenburg. He never again ran for government office.

Contrary to popular belief, Hitler was never elected Chancellor of Germany; he was appointed by Von Hindenburg, who was trying to head off a coup. The Nazis also never won a majority of either the seats in the Bundestag or the Reichstag. In fact, Hitler and the Nazis seized power through armed coercion and intimidation.

I am not arguing here that we don't have the right to depose a despotic and tyrannical government, elected or not. I'm arguing that the framers were pretty brilliant and that our system was constructed with a series of remedies embodied within the checks and balances that would make it close to impossible for anyone to establish a despotic, tyrannical government and I haven't heard anyone here propose a scenario yet that even sounds plausible.

The OP asks whether americans should have the right to VIOLENTLY oppose THEIR government, which implies that it still enjoys the consent of the governed, even as some oppose it. If any administration were to act extraconstitutionally and managed to defeat all the constitutional remedies (which I would argue is highly implausible and approaching impossible) it would, by definition, not be THEIR government any longer and would have been imposed upon them. As such, we would not only have the right to oppose it, we would have the duty to oppose it, by violence if necessary.

The problem I have with those who voted "yes" (given the way the OP is worded) is that they are giving a simplistic answer to a complex question. Yeah, you can quote Jefferson all you want and talk about being "founded by violent overthrow", but it's plain that Jefferson was addressing a despotic, tyrannical monarch that had rebuffed all negotiation from the colonists. Implicit in the establishment of our democratic republic was that the citizens did not have the right to violently oppose it AS LONG as it remained as such. This is seen in the wording of the 1st amendment and is also reflected in the power granted to Congress in Article 1 to suppress insurrections.

As I have tried to make this argument, I have gotten the predictable response from certain posters who have misrepresented what I said to imply that I am some sort of "authoritarian follower" or otherwise meek soul that would simply acquiesce to despotism. What I am most appalled by is the plurality that voted "yes", then go on to make arguments that are nearly indistinguishable from those of the teabaggers and, in fact, that of nearly any militia or anti-government group. When called on it, these posters try to mount an unsuccessful argument along the lines of, "well, of course, I am opposed to the teabaggers and they would not have the right to violently oppose our government", never once giving a convincing argument as to how that works.

How can we oppose the "right" of teabaggers to violently oppose our government, yet claim we retain that right? Frankly, that's one of the most stunning non sequiturs I've ever witnessed. I am certainly aware that many do not trust the government and, after eight years of the abuses and outright crimes of the Bush administration, it's easy to understand why. However, the argument made by the teabaggers amounts to insurrection and, sadly, that same argument is made by a number of our own. Our ability to preserve our democratic republic rests upon the recognition and of agreement of sane people on both "sides" that resorting to insurrection is not an option.

For those that choose to ignore this on either "side", my simple prediction is that you will soon be facing down the U.S military, including a federalized national guard, who have taken an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic". I sincerely hope it never happens, even to the teabaggers, whose biggest crime is being unbelievably stupid and acting upon it. However, if it does, in fact, happen, I believe the most important value is the protection and preservation of our democratic republic against all those who would take up their popguns against OUR government, even though they may be wrong for all the right reasons. To those who voted "no", I commend you. To those who voted "yes", I sincerely ask you to reconsider or, alternatively, explain to me how the "teabagger exception" works.

P.S. Even though I responded to Hack's post, my words are not directed to him.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. Speaking of history that you seem to not know

or ignore...

You do know that the British referred to the Colonials who rose up in open rebellion again King George as oh TERRORISTS?

And boy did they have grounds for that. I mean not like Colonial troops stood at all times in line of battle, or respected the sanctity of officers in combat... oh no sirree, snipers took pot shots at commanders and senior NCOs all the time, going against custom of the age.

[TheWatcher]

125. It is absolutely breathtaking to see the utter ignorance of our own history on full display.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. I know, and you know the best part

My degree is in history... and my minor area of emphasis during my MA was US Enlightenment, mostly my area of emphasis was Mexican Enlightenment.

I had to read this crap...

:-)

And this is what I did for three long years...

My other minor area of emphasis was European... you guessed it... Enlightenment.

So kind of I did a lot of work in this specific area of history.

[Political Heretic]

161. It's crazy and a little terrifying...

[SDuderstadt]

151. Dude...

the founders replaced the tyrannical rule of King George with a democratic republic. Can you see why one would have a right to violently oppose the first but not the latter? Think real hard.

[X_Digger]

152. And democratic republics never never never become tyrannical..

.. no.. it's physically impossible!! :sarcasm:

(Not that we're under tyranny, but the idea that "it can't happen in a republic" is just silly.)

[SDuderstadt]

154. Dude....let's say there was a coup....

then it would no longer be a democratic republic, would it...

I'm not sure you're grasping the distinction yet.

[X_Digger]

156. Doesn't have to be a coup..

The PRC claims to be a republic, but few outside the nation would claim that it's not tyrannical.

Conversely, the UK is a constitutional monarchy, but in practice is democratic.

At what point does a government that still claims to be a democratic republic lose that distinction? You seem to think that there's a bright line between them.

[SDuderstadt]

165. No, I understand the constitution....

read Article 1 which provides for the powers of Congress. It states specifically that Congress has the power to suppress insurrections. What many propose here is, in fact, insurrection and is essentially the same argument the teabaggers are making. To me, that's more than a little scary.

[Uncle Joe]

27. By logical deduction if you believe that's a right, it would include the tea-baggers or anyone else.

One person's freedom can be another's restriction, it's totally subjective.

[SDuderstadt]

30. What flawed thinking...

to violently oppose a duly established constitutional government is called insurrection. The constitution grants Congress the power to suppress insurrections. Our armed forces are sworn to defend the constitution.

You don't have a right to violently overthrow the Constitution.

[MoonRiver]

62. No one has a right to commit violence against another,

unless they are acting in self-defense. As flawed as the voting system is, that's the only way we can legitimately express our political preferences.

[gulliver]

80. Intelligent, informed citizens should have that right.

So no.

[Posteritatis]

12. Note there's no mention of when this right should be applied

What's going on with the teabaggers now, and what they'd like to do, is purest bullshit, but if (as extreme examples) a president decided to ignore an election or cancel it altogether, or sufficiently vile laws were passed and enforced with the peaceful means of opposing them exhausted or blocked? Those are getting into territory where the final argument of kings (or at least subjects) should be at least on the table for consideration.

Things are nowhere near that now, despite the hyperbole of the teabaggers, and I don't think they were in that neighborhood even under Bush, though.

[Statistical]

18. Once again I 100% oppose the teabaggers and if they try to overthrow the govt..

hope they end up dead or in prison.

The poll was an open ended question. There are instances where people have the right to oppose their government by violence if necessary.

[Posteritatis]

19. I agree on both your points, with a very high bar for the second. (nt)

[SDuderstadt]

34. Name one.

Did you read the part of the constitution where it grants Congress the power to suppress insurrections? Why do you think that's in there?

Your argument is circular and not, coincidentally, unlike the argument the teabaggers are making. You're trying to argue you have a constituional right to overthrow the Constitution.

[amborin]

68. trying to control how people vote is very un-democratic!

[xultar]

75. What about armed civil rights folks? I know if I were Japanese and they put me in a camp

I'd open a can of whoop ass.

[NashVegas]

153. People Who Understand Why We Have the Right to Bear Arms, Sewn Into the Constitution

Or did you think that was just for invasions and hunting?

[old mark]

178. Of course this is what it it for-if the government becomes a tyranny

we have the right to change it, even by violence...but just because the GOP lost the last election does not mean we are living under those conditions.

I felt much more tyrannized under the Bush regime.

mark

[NashVegas]

183. To Them, It Is

And if they get their little take-over, will you bear arms against them?

[Toasterlad]

181. Oh Please. If This Question Had Been Posted During the Bush Years...

...you'd have pushed your own grandmother down the stairs rushing to vote "yes".

The poll isn't asking if it's okay to attack your precious Obama. It's asking about the principles of protest, and how far a people should be able to go when their government is oppressive. It's abstract. I realize that such concepts make your head hurt. Seeing the world in terms of Democrat=Good!/Republican=Bad! can restrict your ability to handle complex issues.

[SDuderstadt]

197. I would still have voted "no"...

I have this unabiding distaste for double standards.

[Toasterlad]

207. I'm Sure You Do

But the poster I was responding to has absolutely no problem with double standards.

[SDuderstadt]

208. Agreed n/t

[Fresh_Start]

4. don't think so

the right course of action is to take the issue to the courts
Thats what the courts are there for.

[Statistical]

6. ... it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

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.

[ProSense]

9. "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" Note it

says nothing about using an Uzi.

There would never be a stable democracy if everytime assholes get pissed off they take up arms against the government.

[Statistical]

14. A bunch of "assholes" DID take up arms against the government.

They did so right after writing that.

To think they were talking about only peaceful means while they were preparing for armed rebellion is silly.

[ProSense]

24. Oh yes, I forgot

the lunatic spelling-challenge idiotic teabaggers are the same as the American revolutionaries

The profiteers say that the original American revolutionaries cast their tea into the Boston harbor as a simple rejection of taxation, so the modern tea party movement should similarly reject increased financial regulations, health reform, and taxes on the rich. But the history tells a different story. Boston revolutionaries rejected subservience to the East India Company, a British-run international corporation. They cast the tea into the harbor as a symbolic message to say that their taxes should go back into the American community, not subsidizing the profits of London elites and foreign corporations. Now, Republican tea party profiteers are trying to exploit the movement, pushing them to oppose policies which would actually liberate the middle class and crack down on international corporations. Despite the populist rhetoric, the profiteers see the tea party movement as a pool to extract fundraising dollars and volunteers for Republican campaigns. Indeed, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, himself a former lobbyist, has said that he has an “expectation” that tea partiers loyally toe the Republican line.

That's the problem with this country, idiots on both sides.

[Marr]

37. And they expected to be executed for it, if they lost.

Just as anyone should.

[Statistical]

39. Exactly. The right is the "opertunity" to oppose a tyranical govt.

It isn't a guarantee of success.

Had the American Rebellion failed we would still be British citizens and that page in history would make the founding fathers look like 1700s version of teabaggers.

History being written by winners and all I doubt the portrayal of the "bloodthirsty Rebel General George Washington" would be very kind.

[treestar]

46. Agreed. But the teabaggers' cause does not rise to that level.

They're just full of shit. They do have freedoms and are not getting taxed without representation, deprived of trial by jury, and anything in the list in the D of I.

[Statistical]

53. Or course they are full of shit.

The founders used the words "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

Consent of the governed doesn't mean the govt need 100% support of the people. It isn't consent of the individual.

The teabaggers are full of shit because the current govt DOES have the consent of the people. If 51% of people didn't like what Obama was doing they would vote him out and someone new would change things.

As long as they have the ability to change the govt it has the consent of the governed. They simpy don't like the outcome the majority of Americans want.

[treestar]

60. Absolutely. I saw one of them calling us the 52 per centers

who voted for Obama. Like that's a bad thing. Idiots.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. You are right

they took up arms using Kentucky Long Rifles... and fixed bayonets.

And your point?

[ProSense]

113. "And your point?"

People need history lessons.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. Agreed the people who took up arms

in 1776 did so with military grade weapons against a government that they felt was oppressive.

The argument made by the INTELLECTUALS of the age was on Natural Law principles.

That principle can basically be summarized with the concept that when a government becomes tyrannical you too can rise up and take up arms, and depose it to form one more to your liking.

Believe it or not the Declaration is one of the foundational principles of the US. You have had that one document quoted to you.

Realize that they also knew that if they lost they faced the rope, or the axe, and their property would be taken away. They also knew that they were about to unleash a nasty little civil war, and they did. But on the principle, does one have the right to rise up against Tyrannical Government? Yes. THAT IS a founding principle of the US... and it is YOU who needs a history class or two.

By the way to care to compare degrees on the matter? Or for that matter AREA OF SPECIALIZATION when getting saith degree?

Now does that mean I'd like to live through the natural law results of that foundational principle? No. But there is this right, contemplated in the foundation of this country, to rise up.

I suggest you actually use the google and READ the full Declaration... which is a DIFFERENT document than the Constitution.

[ProSense]

119. "I suggest you actually use the google and READ the full Declaration..."

in 1776 did so with military grade weapons against a government that they felt was oppressive

Right, the British government, not the U.S. government. Independence and defeat of the British preceded the formation of the U.S. government.

...In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak confederal government that operated until 1789.

After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States and the states' sovereignty over American territory west to the Mississippi River. A constitutional convention was organized in 1787 by those wishing to establish a strong national government, with powers of taxation. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the new republic's first Senate, House of Representatives, and president—George Washington—took office in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791.

link

The U.S. government is what we are dealing with.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. What part of FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT are you having so

much trouble comprehending?

Is this concept so strange to you?

Perhaps you may want to go HERE

http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm

And look down the page where you will find a LINK to the Declaration.

I mean MOST historians accept that the Declaration is part of the foundational documents of the US... you DID KNOW that, right?

[ProSense]

130. Why are you shouting? Let's see:

"What part of FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT are you having so much trouble comprehending?"

Previously: "By the way to care to compare degrees on the matter? Or for that matter AREA OF SPECIALIZATION when getting saith degree?"

Condescending, check.

Americans do not have a right to use violence to overthrow a duly elected government

Comparing the teabaggers to American revolutionaries is moronic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. The question at hand was

wehther the right is there. The right is THERE.

Now does that mean I believe the Tea Baggers should exercise it at this time? Of course not... but we are talking of theory not practice. In practice, and the founders knew this well, you only got that right if you actually well like win your revolution and shit. Otherwise, there is this noose that they knew they could and would expect.

But accepting the question asked in the OP does not mean anybody is defending these morons. Mind you, if you asked the brits the colonials who rose up were morons, terrorists and should hang as terrorists. So what does that remind me off? Oh yeah, an old saying... a freedom fighter is in the eye of the beholder.

[ProSense]

134. "The right is THERE."

"Now does that mean I believe the Tea Baggers should exercise it at this time? Of course not... but we are talking of theory not practice. In practice, and the founders knew this well, you only got that right if you actually well like win your revolution and shit. Otherwise, there is this noose that they knew they could and would expect. "

No, the right to overthrow a duly elected government isn't there. People can do whatever the hell they choose to do, but the right damn well isn't there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. US Declaration of Independence

Declaration of Independence



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. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new Guards for their future security.— Such has been the
patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which
constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of
the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a
candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate
and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation
till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he
has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of
large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish
the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right
inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into
compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for
opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the
people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to
cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers,
incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large
for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time
exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and
convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these
States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to
encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of
new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing
his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the
tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their
salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither
swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their
substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies
without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and
superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for
any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of
these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by
Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary
government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at
once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same
absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable
Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our
Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases
whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his
Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our
towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and
tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and
totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the
high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the
executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall
themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the
merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the
most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an
unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties
of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have
been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore,
acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold
them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That
these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent
States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and
that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is
and ought to be 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. And for the support of this
Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
Honor.






Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton


North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton


Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton


Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean


New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark


New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

-------

You go tell them that they didn't have a right to rise up in rebellion mkay?

[ProSense]

140. After this entire discussion, you respond by posting the Declaration? What does that mean? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. Read the preamble

This is why not just me but several of us have been trying to explain to you.

[ProSense]

145. This

preamble?

My point stands.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. And on the points of the History of Enlightnment

and Natural Law you are wrong

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

On the bright side, the Freepers of the world, like you, don't know these principles either.

For them it would involve like readying books.

[X_Digger]

135. One is reminded of geese and ganders..

.. should the US government ever become so oppressive and/or should elections become so rigged as to be meaningless.. (and no, we're nowhere close to that now).. would you still say "Oh no, we can't violently overthrow the government.. it's the US government we're dealing with."?

Violent overthrow of the legitimate (if tyrannical) authority is the principle by which this country was founded.

To assert that that was a special case, or it doesn't apply anymore because umm.. damn, can't even grok a reason from your post other than "But it's the US government!"-- is ignoring history and the principles of our own founding.

[ProSense]

139. Yeah,

if the teabaggers were right, we'd be cheering them on.

Who decides? Hypotheticals about the U.S. government becoming "oppressive and/or should elections become so rigged as to be meaningless" fits nicely into the lunacy that's driving their arguments.

Duly elected...the Constitution includes the check and balances that have worked for more than two centuries to prevent that from happening.

Again, Americans do not have a right to violently overthrow a government instituted by the people. Let's deal with the facts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. Given that the people who rose in open revolt

back in the day were a MINORITY....


Oy

[X_Digger]

146. Unconvincing Assertions aside..

.. there's no meat in your response.

if the teabaggers were right, we'd be cheering them on.

By best estimates, only 1/3 of the revolutionary-era colonists were pro-revolt. 1/3 were pro-Britain, and 1/3 didn't care and just wanted to be left alone. Our revolution wasn't a popular one. We didn't have the majority. Does that mean it was illegitimate?

Who decides?

The winners write the history. A successful insurrection becomes 'the birth of a new nation'. A failed one becomes a 'rebellion successfully put down'.

Duly elected...

And what if, like the recent SCOTUS decision, we get handed more and more reasons why our voices are not heard, our candidates face unfair elections, and the new oligarchs are Boards of Directors and CEOs? Corporacracy, the new and improved Government of the Corporation, by the Corporation, for the Corporation (TM, All Rights Reserved) (C) 2010 The New Government, Inc.

Again, Americans do not have a right to violently overthrow a government instituted by the people. Let's deal with the facts.

You've been presented with the facts- the Declaration of Independence, the letters of Jefferson, etc. It's part of the fabric that our nation is founded on. You've presented no 'facts' to substantiate your assertion, nor to dispute the facts presented by others.

Wishing won't make it so.

[ProSense]

148. "Does that mean it was illegitimate?"

Does that mean rising up against the British before the Contitution was written and before the United States government was establish is the same thing?



"The winners write the history. A successful insurrection becomes 'the birth of a new nation'. A failed one becomes a 'rebellion successfully put down'."

More power to the teabaggers?



"And what if, like the recent SCOTUS decision..."

Checks and balances, decisions get overturned. What did you have in mind: revolution?


These arguments are likely the reason these assholes feel emboldened.

[X_Digger]

149. If you aren't able to see the difference between a right (legitimate)..

.. and the assertion of that right being misapplied (tea baggers), then you need to go back to school. Hell, just think real hard.

Does that mean rising up against the British before the Contitution was written and before the United State government was establish is the same thing?

Rights aren't granted by documents. Especially not when you're talking about the 'natural rights' philosophy espoused by our founders.

The point you seem to have missed when those documents were quoted to you was that according to those whose ideology served as the basis for our government, people have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government. The documents illustrate that belief, it doesn't establish that right.

These arguments are likely the reason these assholes feel emboldened.

And racists are 'emboldened' by text from the bible. And troofers are 'emboldened' by something else. And vaxxers are 'emboldened' by something-or-other.

You don't have to deny a right exists in order to put down the stupidity of someone's actions when they use a right as justification for their actions. Please be careful when determining which is the baby and which is the bathwater.

[zipplewrath]

23. Which doesn't address the violent part

Basically the answer is that in the end on has the "right" to violently confront a government that is violently abusing their power and authority. No constitution needs any sort of article that some how legitimizes this concept. Because any government acting as such would merely ignore the article. And such an article would only incite the foolish. I've had this discussion with the 2nd amendment types that like to call the 2nd the "reset button". That's a foolish concept for it becomes necessary to violently confront ones own government, no law or amendment is going to stop them.

[Statistical]

28. The 2nd isn't the reset button the 2nd enables public to have power to push the reset button.

The 2nd isn't a guarantee that armed rebellion will be sucessful rather it is guarantee that people will have the ability to retain arms and make armed rebellion POSSIBLE.

If was the founders hope this this final and last check & balance would prevent it from ever being needed.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. " - Thomas Jefferson

[zipplewrath]

41. Yes, that's one of the intents

Unfortunately, at this point, with a professional military that's armed as they are, any weapons that the citizens currently have would be meaningless. In this day and age, weapons that wouldn't be legal to own would be needed. If anyone ever got serious about an armed insurrection, they'd probably look for someone in the military to give them access to an armory or similar facility, if not flat out try to "turn" a large contingent of folks from within.

[Statistical]

47. Expanding upon that, the military isn't made up of Robots.

In my enlistment I took an oath to defend the Constitution not the President, not Congress, not Washington.

If the govt ever got so tyrannical that it was outright destroying the Constitution then many soldiers may end up siding with the "rebels". Every militiaman in the colonies in 1700s was a citizen of British empire but a substantial number of them joined the "rebel" George Washington.

Also a substantial amount of the firepower in this country are controlled by National Guards in the states. Not just antiquated stuff either. Strike Fighters, Attack Helicopters, Main Battle Tanks. If the govt was so over the top tyranical one or some of the States could turn on the federal govt.

Of course the Teabaggers are insane to think things are that bad today. Things weren't even that bad under Bush. However it is equally insane for people to think that it could never get that bad. Germany was a Democracy. Are people saying German citizens didn't have the right to oppose the Nazis by violent means?

[SDuderstadt]

36. The Declaration of Independence does not trump...

the Constitution.

You need to take civics class. You're making the same exact argument the teabaggers are making.

[Statistical]

42. Read the 9th amendment.

Sorry you can't have it both ways.

Either the founders WERE RIGHT and govt who lose the consent of the governed (tyranical) can be opposed by violent means. That means it was legtimiate in 1700s and it is legitimate now and in another thousand years.

OR

The founders WERE WRONG and govt can never be opposed no matter how tyrannical. That means the formation of our country was never legitimate to begin with.

Our rights are not limited to first 8 amendments. The people who fought a bloody insurrection against their current govt (British Empire) believed they had a right to oppose tyrannical govt by violent means.

Rights are not derived from the Constitution. They are protected by it. The right pre-exists the Constitution and can't be abolished by government (hence term inalienable). If it existed in 1700s it exists now.

[ProSense]

49. Shed the RW argument, read the facts

Insurrection Act of 1807

§ 331. Federal aid for State governments

Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion

§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution

§ 334. Proclamation to disperse

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Stupid either-or argument...

you're totally ignoring the remedies the constitution prescribes for infringement of the constitution.

[tularetom]

7. Define "violently"

If you mean the right to physically assault governmental or elected officials and take over governmental installations of course not.

If on the other hand you are referring to indulging in loud and boisterous vocal criticism of government policies, sure. If that criticism crosses the line and calls for violence against the government, that's the gray area we are now in and the time when things need to be closely watched with the intention of taking action if it threatens to get out of hand.

[Uncle Joe]

55. I am not referring to loud or boisterous vocal criticism as being violent for

the purposes of this poll.

I am not referring to sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, legal suits or any form of passive resistance as being violent.

[HughMoran]

8. Of course we do - but only when the government is tyrannical

The ridiculous notion by the right-wingers that the current administration is tyrannical is a friggin' bad joke however.

[TheWatcher]

138. Dear GOD in Heaven, The Four Horsemen are RIDING!

The End Is Near!

The Trumpet Of Gabriel is sounded!

We actually.....

AGREE ON SOMETHING.

Mark this Historical Day.

I doubt it will ever happen again. :)

[HughMoran]

144. lol

Once in a lifetime is enough :D

[skeptical cynic]

10. Already covered by the little understood 9th Amendment

which specifically states that the rights of citizens are not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry's idea. A good one.

[CommonSensePLZ]

93. Depends, but I guess then Abraham Lincoln is EVIL! lol Oh & Waco

Lest we forget the civil war.

What about Waco and the cult in Philly, were there 9th Amendment rights violated as well? I'm not saying they weren't excessive, but no, be realistic: No one is gonna agree with everything the gov't does, even if it was totally fair and just some people would still feel entitled to more than others. If people just committed acts of violence anytime they disliked something... Well, it wouldn't be good for anyone.

I still think Bush deserves impeachment, but I don't think violent overthrow of anything is called for in this country now.

[skeptical cynic]

108. I don't understand how we got to talk of civil war and violence so fast.

The majority of the working class hasn't even turned off ESPN, put down their Budweisers, and carried protest signs yet. I doubt they're going to.

A few thousand mindless teabaggers and their Right Wing political pundit sheep herders do not a revolution make.

[Joe the Revelator]

20. I'll vote yes..but only under very certain parameters...like the calling off of elections

As long as the government is elected per the constitution, and the people have the option of voting those people out in future elections, then the answer is "no".

[spin]

22. Yes I do believe that we should have that right ...

and we should have the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Having said that, we are nowhere near a point where we should consider violent opposition which I interpret as a revolution. Further note that I do not support the right of one individual to "violently oppose" his government because he has a personal grudge or has mental problems. Flying planes into an IRS building as some fool did recently is not appropriate or intelligent.

Our country was founded because of a revolution. Sometimes revolutions are necessary. When a government turns into a corrupt, dictatorial tyranny with no concern for its citizens or their rights, then a revolution may be required.

[Uncle Joe]

31. If you believe there should be a violent right, who decides

"when the point" is reached, liberals, progressives, socialists, moderates, Independents, Conservatives, Populists, Libertarians, neo-cons and wouldn't each have legitimate claim to violent overthrow?

[spin]

69. When you reach the point for a successful revolution ...

all these groups would have to be angry. A revolution launched by conservatives and neocons would fail.

Revolution is a serious matter as is war. The turmoil, disruption and loss of live are not something to be taken lightly.

Our own American Revolution was very lucky to succeed.

Historians have estimated that approximately 40–45% of the colonists actively supported the rebellion while 15–20% of the population of the thirteen colonies remained loyal to the British Crown. The remaining 35–45% attempted to remain neutral.<5>

At least 25,000 Loyalists fought on the side of the British. Thousands served in the Royal Navy. On land, Loyalist forces fought alongside the British in most battles in North America. Many Loyalists fought in partisan units, especially in the Southern theater.<6>

***snip***

In 1778, the war over the rebellion in North America became international, spreading not only to Europe but to European colonies in the West Indies and in India. From 1776 France had informally been involved, with French admiral Latouche Tréville having provided supplies, ammunition and guns from France to the United States after Thomas Jefferson had encouraged a French alliance, and guns such as de Valliere type were used, playing an important role in such battles as the Battle of Saratoga.<33> George Washington wrote about the French supplies and guns in a letter to General Heath on 2 May 1777. After learning of the American victory at Saratoga, France signed the Treaty of Alliance with the United States on February 6, 1778, formalizing the Franco-American alliance negotiated by Benjamin Franklin. Spain entered the war as an ally of France in June 1779, a renewal of the Bourbon Family Compact. Unlike France, Spain initially refused to recognize the independence of the United States, because Spain was not keen on encouraging similar anti-colonial rebellions in the Spanish Empire. Both countries had quietly provided assistance to the Americans since the beginning of the war, hoping to dilute British power. So too had the Dutch Republic, which was formally brought into the war at the end of 1780.

In London King George III gave up hope of subduing America by more armies while Britain had a European war to fight. "It was a joke," he said, "to think of keeping Pennsylvania." There was no hope of recovering New England. But the King was determined "never to acknowledge the independence of the Americans, and to punish their contumacy by the indefinite prolongation of a war which promised to be eternal."<34> His plan was to keep the 30,000 men garrisoned in New York, Rhode Island, Quebec, and Florida; other forces would attack the French and Spanish in the West Indies. To punish the Americans the King planned to destroy their coasting-trade, bombard their ports; sack and burn towns along the coast (as Benedict Arnold did to New London, Connecticut in 1781), and turn loose the Native Americans to attack civilians in frontier settlements. These operations, the King felt, would inspire the Loyalists; would splinter the Congress; and "would keep the rebels harassed, anxious, and poor, until the day when, by a natural and inevitable process, discontent and disappointment were converted into penitence and remorse" and they would beg to return to his authority.<35> The plan meant destruction for the Loyalists and loyal Native Americans, an indefinite prolongation of a costly war, and the risk of disaster as the French and Spanish assembled an armada to invade the British Isles. The British planned to re-subjugate the rebellious colonies after dealing with the Americans' European allies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

[Uncle Joe]

73. But if it's a Right as in the Constitution, the government would have either no or reduced

legal ground to defend itself by calling up the military to put down the insurrection.

So a revolution wouldn't need a majority of the people to succeed, perhaps just the best armed and financed.

A few oligarchs and their private armies would have great power.

Ironically a government most likely to defend it self should violence be a Right in the Constitution, would be a corrupt and authoritarian one; not all that concerned about the welfare of the people.

[spin]

78. Very true ...

but if such a group of "oligarchs and their private armies" were successful in overthrowing a legal government which followed the rules, then they could be overthrown by a revolution launched by the overwhelming majority of the remaining citizens.

In such a case, the American people should have the right to violently oppose their new illegitimate government.

[Uncle Joe]

190. I believe if this were a right the meaning of an overwhelming majority would be reduced, because

it would be easily splintered by competing interests, lusting for power, wealth, their own competing agendas or just following a charismatic leader.

One oligarch against another, even if a non-oligarch comes to power the dynamics of the dog eat dog political mechanizations would never end, and the nation would fracture in to multiple pieces, armed camps perpetually pitted against one another.

As I posted elsewhere Afghanistan and Somalia would have nothing on us.

The rule of law is on the only logical way to go.

[treestar]

48. They just don't like what the representative government decided

But they still have the right to trial by jury, an elected legislature with representatives that represent them, the right to counsel, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Figures they are ignorant and don't realize the colonists did not have that. They probably couldn't recite anything about the British abuses, the general search warrants, the quartering of soldiers, etc.

[SDuderstadt]

51. You guys seriously need to study the concept of...

"checks and balances". The whole idea of the Constitution is to erect barriers against a government becoming tyrannical.

Let's say that an administration did, in fact, cancel elections (even though I'm not sure how they would do that, since that would fall naturally under the legislative branch, subject to review by the judicial branch). Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the House would immediately impeach both the President and the Vice-President, the Senate would expeditiously convict and remove them and the Speaker of the House (now having ascended to the Presidency) would immediately restore the elections.

To argue that one has a right to circumvent constitutional processes at the point of a gun is not only silly, it's anti-democratic. I am appalled that anywhere near the number of people voting yes on this question actually did so as it reveals highly emotional and deeply flawed thinking.

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone the right to subvert or overthrow the Consitution which is precisely what some of you are trying to argue and precisely why the constitution grants Congress the power to suppress insurrections, which is precisely what a number of you are advocating.

I don't know about you guys, but I kind of like the idea of an orderly transfer of power. I like our system of government, even though there are times when I do not like the outcome.

[spin]

74. Revolution is only for a time when ...

the whole idea of the "checks and balances" in the Constitution has been bypassed by a dictatorial and tyrannical government.

As you, I like our system of government. It works rather well and has been amazingly stable over the long run.

For some reason you seem to be accusing me of advocating revolution. Perhaps you missed the statement in my post in which I said, "Having said that, we are nowhere near a point where we should consider violent opposition which I interpret as a revolution."

There was an orderly transfer of power and some conservatives and the extreme right wing are very pissed. Obama and the Democrats gained control of the White House and Congress because Bush Junior and the Republicans had deserted their parties basic principles, engaged in a mad spending spree and got us involved in a unnecessary war in Iraq. The economy collapsed on their watch and they got their asses booted out of power.

The result is that now we have the beginnings of something that might actually turn out to be a good healthcare system. The Republicans are trying to get back into office by crying socialism but they did nothing to solve the heathcare problem while they held power. Politics is a dirty game at best, but they are fanning flames by throwing gasoline. Instead of realizing that they lost and the country is looking for a bipartisan effort to solve problems, they are playing the fear card in hopes of winning at the midterm election.

This is nothing unusual in our history. Politics has always been a rough and tumble game with name calling and dirty tricks, lies and deceit.

Revolution is only for when we are faced by a true dictator in the White House who has the power to totally ignore the Constitution and owns Congress and the judicial system.

In other words, revolution is for a time when there is no hope and no other choice to preserve the freedoms we obtained from our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Could you explain how there could be a true dictator...

in the WH?

How could they own Congress and the judicial branch? Could you please give a concrete example of how that would come to pass? Couldn't the teabaggers argue that's what we have now (in their eyes)? If that's the case, are you saying you would deny them the "right" to violently oppose the government? On what grounds?

Your argument is going around in circles.

[spin]

81. Legitimate Democratic governments have been taken over by dictators ...

many times in history.

And the United States has been responsible for some of these takeovers.

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the United States Central Intelligence Agency; <1> The crushing of Iran's first democratic government launched 25 years of dictatorship under Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, who relied heavily on U.S. aid and arms until he was overthrown in February 1979.<2> For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhanded methods to overthrow a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests.<3>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Yes a few tea baggars might argue that now is the time for revolution. If they were to launch a revolution they would be squashed as they would lack the support of the majority of rational Americans.

Still, if by some hard to imagine chance that they were successful in their effort, shouldn't Americans have the right to take violent action and launch a counter revolution against them to restore power to the overthrown legitimate government?

In reality, I believe that rational minds will prevail despite the level of rhetoric.

I do worry that a few nut jobs will do something truly stupid that might spark a new drive for draconian gun laws.

Of course, total gun confiscation could also lead to a revolution as many Americans distrust government.

[SDuderstadt]

82. I asked for a concrete example of how that would happen...

here.

[spin]

92. Hopefully it will never happen here, but you ask how it could ..

perhaps if I had a crystal ball or the supposed ability for prophecy like Nostradamus I could give you a good answer.

Strange events that I could have never predicted have occurred during my lifetime. For example the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union's dissolution into independent nations began early in 1985. After years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth was at a standstill. Failed attempts at reform, a stagnant economy, and war in Afghanistan led to a general feeling of discontent, especially in the Baltic republics and Eastern Europe. Greater political and social freedoms, instituted by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, created an atmosphere of open criticism of the Moscow regime. The dramatic drop of the price of oil in 1985 and 1986, and consequent lack of foreign exchange reserves in following years to purchase grain profoundly influenced actions of the Soviet leadership.<1>

Several Soviet Socialist Republics began resisting central control, and increasing democratization led to a weakening of the central government. The USSR's trade gap progressively emptied the coffers of the union, leading to eventual bankruptcy. The Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991 when Boris Yeltsin seized power in the aftermath of a failed coup that had attempted to topple reform-minded Gorbachev.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union_%281985%E2%80%931991%29

[spoony]

162. Well put!

And a particularly spot on last paragraph.

[Bluebear]

29. In what respect, Charlie?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

33. You mean the right to vandalize Reps' offices? Sure

We could call it Night of Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht. It has a certain ring to it.

Express yourself.

:hi:

[Marr]

35. You have that right, sure-- as a human being.

It's not a legal right, and you should expect the full weight of the law to come down on you if you choose to take that tack.

[Bonhomme Richard]

40. Clinically sane Americans have the right.

I get to decide who is sane.

[G_j]

43. well it is very much against the law

:think:

and if if the gov was overthrown through violence, it really wouldn't matter if it was a right or not.

[newspeak]

44. only if a dictatorship or coup against an elected government took place

The Constitution has already been tattered by a certain previous administration

[Statistical]

50. Rights pre-exist governments.

The way our founding fathers so the world is that today even the citizens of China have rights.

They have right to freedom of speech, religion, press, etc.

The govt of China simply oppreses those inalienable rights. Thus it is tyrannical and the citizens of China have the right to oppose it. Even by violent means if necessary.

Now that doesn't mean any citizen uprising in China will be successful. Tyrannical or not govt tend to try to cling to power and will use all the power and force they have to keep it.

Right simply exist. They are not derived from government. The legitimacy of rule for any government is derivied from the people. If the govt allows you to do something it is privilege and not a right.

[SDuderstadt]

59. How are rights enforced?

Hint: through government. That's why we have a Constitution that lays out remedies for precisely the kind of contingencies you're projecting. Whether you know it or not, you're foolishly arguing we have a right to circumvent the constitution when, in fact, it is the constitution that safeguards against a tyrannical government.

Your argument is deeply flawed and, frankly, every bit as arbitrary and silly as the arguments the teabaggers are making.

[Uncle Joe]

64. If the legitimacy of rule for any government is derived from the people.

Which people are you referring to, do you mean all the people under the rule of that government?

The citizens of China do have rights and it was civil war; violence which gave them their current government.

The corrupt government which was overthrown and escaped to what is now Taiwan, peacefully evolved in to a tolerable representative government, kind of ironic isn't it?

[treestar]

45. This is a thing there is a "natural right" to do

But there will never be enough people to do it. It's not 1776. This country is very comfortable.

And all in all, it's a pretty good place with a good government. Not perfect, but what is.

Anyone who wants to do that is a nut. Now if McPalin had won and were continuing down the Bush path I might have a different opinion. But that's because that ilk really wanted to undermine our freedoms in the name of protecting them.

[Phoonzang]

52. I voted no just because you put in the qualifier about it being enshrined

in the Constitution. But as for the concept of violently opposing a government....Nazi Germany?

[SDuderstadt]

61. Nazi Germany was a fascist dictatorship...

that's a far cry from our democratic republic. In that case, the people are not "volently opposing THEIR government" because THEY did not establish that government...it was imposed upon them. It was Hitler's government. Do you see the difference?

[Phoonzang]

85. The point I'm making is that at some point in the future "our" governent

could change. Just like the Weimar Republic morphed into Nazi Germany.

[SDuderstadt]

88. The Weimar Republic didn't "morph" into...

Nazi Germany. Hitler and the Nazis seized power.

[Phoonzang]

101. Yes, after Hitler was appointed Chancellor of the Weimar Republic.

The country was still "Germany" before the takeover and afterward. Once again...my point was that a similar change in the nature of our government is possible. One that might warrant taking up arms. Likely? No. But possible.

[SDuderstadt]

117. It still did not "morph" into

Nazi Germany, unless you claim, as Chancellor, Hitler outranked Von Hindenberg. You're leaving out a few details, like how armed Nazi thugs surrounded members of the Reichstag and forced them to enact the Enabling Act.

It's beyond silly to claim the Weimar Republic "morphed" into the Third Reich. Do you really deny that Hitler and the Nazis seized power through coercion and intimidation? How is that "morphing"?

Maybe you should read "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" by Alan Bullock or William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".

Edited to correct "Bundestag" to "Reichstag"

[newspeak]

102. well Germany had a parliamentary government

and as the propaganda machine revved up for Hitler, and after the fire---it seems whipping up some of the populace through fear gave Hitler authority to do what he did. Hell, he murdered his own brownshirts and what did the people do? He murdered his opposition-unionists, socialists. Germany was a country with parliamentary rule that allowed Hitler and his goons to gain control. Those who attempted to go against him were killed.

Now you ask how can that happen in this country? I'd say all you need is an event to declare martial law and give the executive branch full powers while dismissing congress. Oh you'd keep the supremes (especially if they were mostly on your side), to interpret and condone your new draconian, anti-constitutional laws. You say it couldn't happen? What would have happened on 9/11 if Flight 93 was heading for congress. What would have happened if most of the congress was present and that plane had crashed into the building?

You don't think that a power driven, tyrannical warmongering, greedy administration wouldn't have declared martial law?

[SDuderstadt]

120. Umm, no, I don't....n/(

[newspeak]

127. When we are talking about checks and balances

and one of the three are missing or weakened, and the other is in line with the executive branch--you really don't think a coup could happen? Hmmm, interesting.

And, I'm sure the German people never believed that their democratically elected, parliamentary form of government would be threatened.

And, I remember during the Patriot act vote what happened--anthrax sent to two of our congressmen. I know it was just some nut attempting to show the congressmen what could happen if they didn't pass that bill. Right?

[SDuderstadt]

141. Y'know....

you really ought to educate yourself on the rise of the Third Reich. If you don't have time to read Bullock or Shirer, you should find time to go here before you make more grossly inaccurate statements.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.html

[newspeak]

212. ya know dude

Not only did I excel in history in college, I have Shirer's volumes as well as, They Thought They Were Free, Trading with the Enemy, and the Nuremburg Interviews. I also know the environment that allowed Hitler to gain power, and those who monetarily backed him.

[SDuderstadt]

213. And you leave out important details...

maybe you should actually read Shirer's works.

[newspeak]

214. you want me to give you the full details starting with WWI

and the Versailles Treaty? Forget it. Don't bother to respond.

[SDuderstadt]

215. What a stupid response...

go ahead, run away.

[moondust]

56. Get serious.

No government is ever going to grant a "right" to anybody to use violence against it. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. It doesn't matter whether I believe it or not.

Government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Absent that consent, "rights" have no meaning.

The answer to your question is no. Once the people exercise that perogative, law is irrelevant.

[rcrush]

58. Yes but it doesn't need to be violent. See Iceland.

I'm not saying it probably wont be violent but the people of Iceland overthrew their government without violence recently. The people just have to be united for it. Which probably isnt going to happen here.

[newspeak]

106. It is why we are supposed to have safeguards within the Constitution

why we have checks and balances, not some unitary executive branch--that's why the Supremes are supposed (supposed to) be non-partisan. Congress, especially the House of Representatives, is supposed to represent, we, the people. Not to follow lock-step to the executive branch, but to have open intelligent debate, and that which is debated maintains the rule of law and upholds the Constitution.

[ecstatic]

63. Only in self defense, i.e., gov't imposed genocide, slavery etc

Otherwise, we are all free to leave the country if we want to.

[JackRiddler]

65. Obviously, but in the modern context it would never result in a better government.

Fifty million people in a general strike demanding health education and living wages for all and an end to foreign wars and corporate oligarchy is a revolution that's long overdue.

Forty thousand yahoos fighting for their imagined Jesus and their right to have assault rifles and personal nukes if they feel like it and claiming they're fighting "socialism" is a mob that provides the pretext for the very tyranny they purport to oppose.

[RedCloud]

66. It says right there in the constitution, it's really a ok to have a revolution

And A Blinkin had some more stuff to say about that. What we don't want is atavism starting the revolution backwards.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Could you point to where in the Constitution...

it says that?

[Uncle Joe]

72. What part of the Constitution says that, you're not reading Boehner's copy are you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. In the DECLARATION of Independence

not the Constitution.

They are separted by a few years.

The first was put into place, as it were, in 1776. The second in 1789...

[tekisui]

76. The point is moot. The US government DOES have the right

to suppress insurrection. Whether the people have a right to overthrow the government is immaterial. The people don't have the means. And, if they did succeed in an effort, it would no longer be the US.

[The Magistrate]

79. No Such Right Is Granted In the Constitution, Sir

Such a right is claimed in the Declaration of Independence, but that has no true legal standing.

As a matter of practical fact, the only people who have a right to oppose a government with violence are those who do so to the point of succes in overthrowing it....

"If we win, we're the loyal army; if we lose, we're the rebel army."

[bemildred]

94. You have any right that you can enforce, is the way I see it.

"But to live outside the law, you must be honest, I know you always say that you agree" -- B. Dylan

[The Magistrate]

164. A Pleasure To See You, My Friend

We are in complete agreement here. There is a phrase at common law, ''there is no right without a remedy', that has stated the view for a long time.

"Courage is the form every virtue must take at the sticking point."

[Dr Morbius]

112. Rights are not granted, sir. Not ever.

Rights are inherent.

Rights are based on ability. If you have the ability to speak, you have the right to speak. If you have the ability to earn money, you have the right to property. If you have the ability to make friends, you have the right to assemble. Rights are not "granted" or "given" by government. If you lack the ability to speak, government cannot give you that ability, cannot "award" you this freedom. Privileges are granted, rights are inherent. Of course, exercising one's rights presents one with the responsibility for the consequences of that exercise, and society has every right to interfere before your exercise does harm to someone else.

The question in the original post is a good one. I voted "no." In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and his fellow "founding fathers" argued, persuasively I think, that man has a natural right to a government which serves his interests. That when government fails in this regard, man has a right to change it. That's fine. A protection of this right has been written into the Constitution itself. We have the legal means to change the Constitution itself; we can amend it or abolish it at our pleasure. Now, since this right - this ability - is protected, we do not need to resort to arms.

It is not justifiable to employ the use of violence when peaceful means are available. Period, end of topic, that's it. No one has a right to choose violence when viable alternatives exist. The right to a government that serves your needs is not the same as a right to violent rebellion; the prior is defensible, the second only defensible when no alternative is available.

[The Magistrate]

163. Fair Enough, Doctor

A more precise expression would have employed 'stated' or 'recognized' in place of 'granted'.

Whether one agrees rights are inherent or not, there is little room to question that, as a matter of practical fact, governments frequently do not recognize, and even actively disregard and suppress, various things some might believe inherent rights. People are often not at liberty to exercise rghts, or exercise them in safety.

No government, and no founding charter of any government, will ever recognize a right inheres to the population to violently over-throw its government.

[Dr Morbius]

174. Well...

...any government that did do so surely wouldn't last very long!

I offer to debate anyone who believes rights are not inherent. That's a discussion I'd like to have, because I think I can handle all comers. You are correct in your statement that governments do not recognize all rights; for example, one of the precepts upon which America is based is an unwritten right to justice. Governments cannot guarantee justice, but a moment's thought should convince that freedom is impossible without justice; the unwritten right of justice pervades the whole Bill of Rights but is not specifically enumerated.

I think people have more freedom to exercise their rights than they believe. But perhaps they confuse some rights with entitlements; for instance, each American is entitled to a basic education but we don't have a right to an education. This entitlement government provides with self-interest; the nation can better compete internationally with a well-educated workforce, and our particular variety of government works best when the people are well-informed (which, sadly, they are not today despite amazing technological advances). Entitlements come from government; entitlements have a down arrow. Rights come from people and are either recognized or not; rights have an up arrow.

If you want to do something and there's a law against it, you probably don't have a real right to do that something. Because no one has a right to do harm, harm being the antithesis of justice. Which brings me back to the topic: you did not reply (though I am not saying you must or should) about my larger point: the right to a truly representational government (which I hold IS a right because I believe justice is a right, and justice is impossible without government) does not equate to a right to violent rebellion. No one has a right to do harm except to prevent a greater harm (or harm directed at the innocent). No one ever had that right. Had the founding fathers been provided with a legal, non-violent means to change their government, the American revolution would not have been justifiable.

[sl8]

83. I think that you should be asking two separate questions,

If you meant, "Is this a right?", you should drop "as enshrined ..." part.

If you meant, "Should this right be enumerated ("enshrined"?) in the US Constitution?", that would be a completely separate issue. People have a lot of rights, most of which aren't enumerated in the Constitution.

I think that you're asking two separate questions. By including the "as enshrined ..." disclaimer, you imply that a right isn't a right unless it's "enshrined". The Constitution itself declaims that implication.

[ClassWarrior]

84. Not violently. NOBODY should have the right to violently oppose my country. I love my country.

NGU.

[Edweird]

86. The way I understand it, you have the right as long as you succeed.

[bemildred]

89. Exactly.

And the government has the right to prevent you. If you are not up for argument on those premises, best stick with conventional political methods.

[reflection]

91. This answer makes more sense than any other. n/t

[Bonobo]

96. First correct answer I have seen. NT

[Canuckistanian]

90. You mean either expressed or implied violence?

No sane writer of a Constitution would EVER put that in - even by accident.

[Bonobo]

95. Dumb question.

If it is to be violence, you don't "NEED" the "right". You just do it.

Violence = Power. You do what you are able to do and do not ask permission.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. The Preamble of the Delcaration is quite clear on this

now whether I'd like to see it carried to it's logical extent is a different thing, but the preamble is quite clear...

When in the course of human affairs... and all that

This said, the Tea baggers don't know, like most Muricans what that is if it does not have like coloring lines and shit.

[varelse]

100. That is a right that people everywhere have

I don't believe it has become necessary here, but that could still happen.

[X_Digger]

103. Absolutely.

If you'd asked the founders whether or not they thought they had that right, I'm sure they'd say yes. (Having just fought violent opposition to their own previous government.)

[lunatica]

105. If they had that 'right' then the government would have to support them

Should they go all the way to the Supreme Court to get permission (or not) to be violent towards the government? And if they have that right shouldn't government just step down?

This doesn't make a lick of sense.

[spanone]

110. 'violently' ? hell no. that's treason in my book.

[RainDog]

111. "violently" puts someone outside of the law

I don't know of any right to violence.

[unkachuck]

137. other....

....it depends....if it's a government I like, then 'no'....if it's a government I dislike, then 'yes'....

[guitar man]

155. I voted yes, but

I believe only under extraordinary circumstances. IMO , the circumstances required to justify violent revolution would be essentially a breakdown of the government as we know it. Elections suspended, revocation of due process, a total disregard for the seperation of powers etc etc.

For example, if the president has congress lined up and shot, or locked in the slammer and says " we don't need them anymore, I'm in charge" , then it's time to throw down. At that point,our govt is gone anyway and we'd need to fight to restore it.

But the fact that a black Democrat has been elected by a majority of the people and the Democratic majority congress has enacted some legislation that is unpopular with a bunch of old white racists...shit, they just need to chill and get the hell over it.

[eridani]

157. Other. When voting stops working n/t

[Political Heretic]

158. We DO have that right, and it wasn't "granted" by any constructed "authority."

Do I want violence? No.

In fact I'll go further and I say I can hardly imagine any contemporary scenario in which I think violence would be justified or required.

But if push comes to shove and other recourses have been exhausted, then that doesn't mean its time to just sit down an accept oppressive, tyrannical or unjust rule. If other options have been exhausted, then standing up for the right to resist forms of tyranny results in violence that would be regrettable, but necessary.

[gleaner]

168. Correct me if I am wrong ...

but doesn't the First Amendment say that the people shall have the right to assemble "peaceably" and petition Congress for the redress of their grievances? Has anyone ever heard of a peaceable threat? Also, threatening to overthrow the government by force or subversion used to be considered treason. Under the law, I believe it still is.

[howard112211]

169. I have to go with "yes".

In the event that a government (elected or not) tries to overturn the democratic order of the republic, then yes, citizens have a right to an armed
uprising. Note that such conditions have never existed in the history of the United States. The closest we ever came was after the supreme court appointed Bush. However, this was still a gray area, where the conditions were not clearly fulfilled. Had Bush called off the elections in 2008, then it would have been a definite yes. And personally, I'm not certain that he would have been able to pull it off. There would have been factions
of the military who would have stood against him, if his intentions of abolishing the republica would have been so glass clear. However he did't do
that. He didn't abolish the republic, just horribly abuse it and shit all over it.

Individuals do not have the right to violently oppose an elected government, for the people by the people.

[SDuderstadt]

170. It's amazing to me how many people are...

simply uneducated about contitutional remedies and think the "people" just need to swing into action with their popguns. It's truly comical.

Simple question: how would this, for lack of a better word, "citizen force" be accountable to the rest of us?

I think many are posting in this thread without the most remote idea what they are talking about.

[howard112211]

176. We are arguing as a matter of principle here.

The documents guaranteeing these rights exist. Whether something like this could ever work in practice is another question. We are talking about
the breakdown of the republic here.

But let me give you an example: Let's say Bush had called off the election and declared himself president for life. And now some small group of people that somehow had access to him decided to assassinate him and are successfully able to do so. They could later have argued in front of a court that they were defending the republic. A judge with any sense of democratic order would have had to set them free. Moreover, by their oath to the constitution any member of the
military would have been required to support such an effort.

These are hypothetical discussions, which are of little practical relevance within our system. That any single person is able to overturn the democratic order of the republic is very unlikely. However, as far as i know, many democratic systems have a clause in their constitution somewhere, guaranteeing
that the people have the right to dissolve the government, if it happpens to abandon the democratic principle. That this is mostly an academic exercise is another question. But in theory, this right exists.

[mmonk]

171. Not a right granted. Governments don't grant rights to be overthrown.

However, the founders inferred a duty if the government goes against its own constitution by taking away the rights of the people and becomes tyranny. But no government "grants" the right and rights given the people are granted by the constitution of which the government is to insure. A fool can misinterpret tyranny where there is none.

[B Calm]

172. Violently oppose our government? We the People are the government!

[baldguy]

173. You don't have the right to shoot you neighbor, you don't have the right to shoot your mayor.

You don't have the right to shoot the President.

[Prism]

177. Painful, painful thread

Yes, the people hold the right to violently oppose a government when it has become tyrannical. (The contemporary radical Right's grievances do not, however, come within a hemisphere of the kind of heavy justification needed, IMO).

There is one strain of argument in this thread that betrays an appalling lack of knowledge about how America was founded and how are very rights are conceived.

The argument against goes "Well, there's no constitutional right . . ."

Of course there isn't a constitutional right, but the government doesn't grant rights - it's empowered to protect them. People have self-evident, inherent, natural rights no matter what the Constitution may say on the matter. The Constitution could be amended tomorrow to abridge speech or forbid religion, but that doesn't mean we do not possess those rights by virtue of our being sovereign human beings.

"But the constitution doesn't say . . ." is the authoritarian approach to Rights. That approach was rejected by our founding fathers and practically the entire Enlightenment concept of natural rights. As liberals, we have rejected that very argument by screaming down the halls of history that equality is a natural right the Constitution was not guaranteeing. By working towards equality, by guaranteeing greater freedom, by progressing, we are engaged in continuously confirming the idea that the Constitution is by no means the final arbiter of the rights we possess.

People have an inherent, natural right to throw off the existing government if it is in violation of their natural rights. If a Constitution or any other government instrument deprives the People of their rights, they have the natural, inherent right to tear that document up and start over.

Rights rise above the Constitution.

This is one of the most basic concepts of our republic. Very surprised to see such deep misunderstanding of it here.

And supporting our natural rights as granted by our mere existence isn't "on the side of tea-baggers", it's on the side of the idea that human liberty is not subject to the approval of any government if the people no longer give that government their express consent.

[old mark]

179. Yes. Rec - it is in the constitution in the bill of rights - as a part of the 2nd amendment. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

180. Not the American People, but just People. It's an important difference.

The US Constitution does not enshrine insurrection against itself.

Insurrection against the United States is not a Constitutional right.

Insurrection against tyrants was held by the founders to be a human right.

In the eyes of the founders anything worthy of insurrection would no longer be the United States, which was designed to be non-tyrannical.

And thus any insurrection against the United States cannot look to the United States for its rationale.

The argument would be that the US no longer existed,having become a tyranny.

And if the US no longer existed then US rights would have little meaning. We would be reverting to the same divinely granted set of rights the founders invoked long before the Constitution existed.

[Toasterlad]

182. Exactly Right.

[L0oniX]

184. Agent Mike is collecting all the i.p numbers of those who checked "yes".

[spin]

185. Agent Mike collects a lot of info ...

it could explain why we haven't had a major attack in our country since 9/11.

But of course such data could be misused.

Stunning New Report on Domestic NSA Dragnet Spying Confirms ACLU Surveillance Warnings

March 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 675-2312 or [e-mail]

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union responded today to a stunning new report that the NSA has effectively revived the Orwellian "Total Information Awareness" domestic-spying program that was banned by Congress in 2003. In response, the ACLU said that it was filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for more information about the spying. And, the group announced that it was moving its "Surveillance Clock" one minute closer to midnight.

"Congress shut down TIA because it represented a massive and unjustified governmental intrusion into the personal lives of Americans," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU. "Now we find out that the security agencies are pushing ahead with the program anyway, despite that clear congressional prohibition. The program described by current and former intelligence officials in Monday's Wall Street Journal could be modeled on Orwell’s Big Brother."

The ACLU said the new report confirmed its past warnings that the NSA was engaging in extremely broad-based data mining that was violating the privacy of vast numbers of Americans.

The Total Information Awareness (TIA) program was a mammoth data mining program that envisioned programming computers to trawl through an extensive list of databases containing personal information about Americans – including communications, medical, travel, education and financial data – in an attempt to detect supposedly "suspicious" patterns. Congress shut down the program amid bipartisan objections that it was the most far-reaching domestic surveillance proposal that had ever been offered.

"Year after year, we have warned that our great nation is turning into a surveillance society where our every move is tracked and monitored," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. "Now we have before us a program that appears to do that very thing. It brings together numerous programs that we and many others have fought for years, and it confirms what the ACLU has been saying the NSA is up to: mass surveillance of Americans."
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/stunning-new-report-domestic-nsa-dragnet-spying-confirms-aclu-surveillance-wa

Of course there is a good possibility that Agent Mike would also vote "Yes" on the poll.

[Chemical Bill]

186. Why? The government isn't in charge.

Wall St is in charge. The government is their tool.

Bill

[Odin2005]

187. there is a natural right to rebellion, that doesn't mean one will succeed.

Remember what gave birth to the US, a rebellion. Had the founders lost history would label them as traitors.

[Uncle Joe]

191. That's true Odin, but even a successful rebellion doesn't insure an improvement in government.

A rebellion also gave France to Napoleon, Russia to Lenin/Stalin and China to the Communists.

If successful peaceful rebellions had taken place in those nations, would their resulting governments been more representative of their people's best interests and less concerned about expanding power or control?

[Xenotime]

188. violence leads to hatred and death.

[Warren Stupidity]

189. It depends.

I could certainly imagine a scenario where armed insurrection was the only legitimate practical option remaining against despotic rule. However within the bounds of a constitutional government not engaged in crimes against humanity, the answer is no.

[rucky]

192. If the judicial system fails us.

and only then.

[saltpoint]

193. LIncoln believed that the people have a

"revolutionary right" to overthrow their government, but deeply believed also that government is of, for, and by those people, and therefore the people of which the government is comprised may be expected to retaliate should some defiant yahoo fire on Fort Sumter.

[LanternWaste]

194. All things being equal.... no

All things being equal.... no.

If the government is both lawful and democratically elected, violent opposition is by definition unnecessary. If that government is neither lawful nor democratically elected, then that right (along with all others) are not being granted and are thus not rights at all.


This is of course, accepting that is no more, nor no less than an enumerated right.

[Old Troop]

201. How would that work?

The logical end result of such a right would be for anyone who felt that a law passed or about to be passed was deeply wrong would have the right to attack those who supported the law.

[Uncle Joe]

204. It wouldn't' work, the long term result can only be anarchy and chaos as the nation

descends in to multiple armed camps and as the government becomes weakened to the point of non-existence.

[Blue_In_AK]

202. I guess they have the right to try it if they want,

and the government has the right to arrest them and throw them in jail. That's what happened to the Weathermen and so on during Vietnam.

If things truly got bad enough -- and I mean VERY VERY BAD -- violent revolution might be the only answer.

[Orsino]

210. The Constitution cannot possibly sanction its own overthrow.

Such things would always be illegal.

[Unvanguard]

216. Of course not; such a legal right would be a contradiction in terms.

The entire premise of civil society is that no one is a judge in his or her own case: we do not decide for ourselves whether or not laws are legitimate. Otherwise law is meaningless.

We do, in some circumstances, have a moral right to violently oppose the government, but that can never be enshrined in law.

[goclark]

217. So is Spitting on someone that does not agree with another's

point of view OK?

To me, Freedom of Speech does not include Spit. :shrug: