Posted on 10/07/2011 9:03:21 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Do the citizens of the United States have an absolute right to, by force of arms if necessary, overthrow a government which has, with malicious deliberation, become destructive of those ideals of liberty granted by God and guaranteed by instruments such as the Constitution of the Unites States?
Clearly the Founders believed in the existence of such a right. There could be no more axiomatic example than the American Revolution itself!
And though these men warned against pursuing such a course for “light and transient causes”, rightly observing that “…mankind are more disposed to suffer…than right themselves by abolishing forms to which they are accustomed,” the Declaration of Independence states without reservation that if any government should become “destructive” of its proper role, it is the right of the citizens to “…alter or abolish it and institute new government…”
The left is quick to maintain that anyone suggesting the American people have a right to reclaim country or liberty, even from those who have deliberately and with malevolent purpose represented a mortal threat to both, is little more than a wanton terrorist, his words being responsible for every act of violence from Oklahoma City to Tucson.
But if this is the case, we modern day “domestic terrorists” are in the best of company. For in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set down a number of abuses which King George had heaped upon the American colonies, among them:
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
I suspect there are many freepers that would love to respond to this but are hesitant to do so....
As for the Declaration of Independence, it asserts that when any FORM of government becomes detrimental, it can be abolished and replaced with a new FORM. That suggests to me that an American Revolution that keeps the US Constitution is not a revolution but a coup.
Just look at how Washington handled the Whiskey Rebellion as president. He personally led the troops across Pennsylvania on horseback, with Hamilton riding shotgun.
actually, yes
the bill of rights weren’t just for internet porn and hunting.
they were the specific rights needed by the founders in order to meet, organize, design and implement the over throw of the british government. they wanted to insure if the newly established govt got out of control, the people would have means to do something about it.
But I like internet porn and hunting...
There can be no freedom without the right to protect it.
Not only do we have the right, we have the duty.
We’re the direct beneficiaries of the freedoms for which our forefathers bled and sometimes died.
We owe it to successive generations of free Americans to give them the same shot at liberty we had.
I guess he didn't "welcome the competition" as so many business leaders profess today.
(don't know what happened to my previous post)
I guess he didn't "welcome the competition" as so many business leaders profess today.
(don't know what happened to my previous posts, my server, SuddenStink has been acting up today)
They also believed that under natural law, they had a natural duty to to alter or abolish the government under which they had been living.
If thou shalt honor your (fore)fathers and (fore)mothers, it shall go good for thee all the days of thine life.
Honor: respect, heed, seek to understand...
The Occupy Wall Street, Inc. bunch seems to think we do, at least that’s what they say they are doing...
CC
“Do ‘We the People’ have the right of Revolution?”
I hope so, otherwise I better start learning to speak British.
Do “We the People” have the right of Revolution?
Does a frog have a water-proof a**?
It’s only treason if you lose.
“It’s a nonsensical question. When you resort to revolution, you exist in a state of nature. What are you going to do? Go to a court run by the government you seek to overthrow and sue for your right to overthrow them? It’s a complete absurdity. Once the fighting starts, it’s a contest of power and prowess, not rights and law.”
The question is fine, your analysis is what’s nonsensical. Not that you can’t believe in Might Makes Right or be a nihilist. But the question is whether we have natural rights, and if we do it wouldn’t make any difference whether they went unfulfilled because we lost a clash of arms. For that would only mean we lost, not that we were wrong.
Again, you can say Might Makes Right, but that wouldn’t make the question (of whether we have the right to revolution) absurd. You’d just be answering it in the negative.
“As for the Declaration of Independence, it asserts that when any FORM of government becomes detrimental, it can be abolished and replaced with a new FORM”
You insist rather emphatically on the significance of “form.” Why?
Yes, we have a right to revolt.
But it would be unwise, since it would INVITE China, Russia, along with anyone else wanting a good time killing and raping to invade us.
It would be brutal, and quick.
I hope so, otherwise I better start learning to speak British.
Or Arabic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.