Question to all Constitutional Scholars on this board.

[kbr80]

From the DOI:

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.

Above is an excerpt from the DOI, that we all know. A friend of mine and myself were discussing the AWB and other aspects that the government is trying to take away from us and that we need to do something about it. My friend stated that it is in the constitution that we, the people, can over throw the government. Now I do not know if this is true. I do remember the above mentioned excerpt about the people having the right to do soch an action. I will re read the entire Constitution to be sure, but I thought to ask of them member here: If we do have the right, where is it spelled out, and why arent we trying to do, or form some movement to effect a change on a large scale?

 

[Sam Adams]

The DOI doesn't have the force of law. It is a theoretical document which lays out the moral/rhetorical reasons for our revolution (mainly, that people have a right to be free and determine their own destiny, and to take the power of governance away from anyone or any group who abuses that power). The Constitution, which is the actual basic law of our nation, is a practical document. The only part of it that is theoretical (i.e. without force of law) is the Preamble. The Preamble states the reasons WHY the Constitution was being adopted.

Can we revolt? Theoretically, yes, but in practice, no. The last time that was tried we had a Civil War, and the revolt failed. The American People are 1 and 1. I don't care to roll the dice, since we'd literally be betting everything on that roll, and since many things can be changed for the better WITHOUT playing that "game." I might add, for the benefit of any lurkers from the wide variety of lettered federal agencies, that I do NOT advocate the violent overthrow of our government, nor the commission of any crime against any person or any property.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Lemme finish reading Barnett's "Restoring the Lost Constitution", then I'll get back with you on that one....

The theoretical "right of revolution" is sound and is mentioned in the public record on rare occassion, but as a practical matter, no government that legitimately needs overthrowing will ever give the slightest hint of approval of the validity or means of being overthrown.

 

[Frohickey]

sam adams

you need to meet up with a john hancock.

sam adams is the one that started the ball rolling, at least for the american revolution, along with his Sons of Liberty.

 

[Wiley]

For what it's worth: The Declaration of Independence is an English document, not one of the United States. Other than it's historical value it has no bearing on the US.

The writers/signers were subjects of the English crown, living in English colonies. Until the end of the Revolution, the US didn't exist. And had George been a tad smarter than a clam, the US might never have existed.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Of course we have the right to overthrow our government: it's ours.

 

[Michigander]

I think Standing Wolf summed it up in a nutshell.

 

[Destructo6]

That passage appears to have benn directly lifted from John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government." Perhaps reading that document would shed some light on your questions. Locke discusses the nature and meaning of a civil society, civil vs natural rights, and a lot of other stuff that the Founding Fathers incorporated into the US Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence is an American document. Since they were declaring themselves independent of the English crown, it doesn't seem very English.

 

[Sam Adams]

sam adams is the one that started the ball rolling, at least for the american revolution, along with his Sons of Liberty.

Sam Adams was, indeed, the rabble-rouser who is probably most responsible for implanting the idea of revolution into colonial America. Why else do you think I chose that name?

 

[tiberius]

Why else do you think I chose that name?

I thought you just liked beer.

IMHO, it does not matter what the Constitution says about overthrowing the governemt. A violent overthrow of our government would put the leaders of the revolution in charge and basically nullify the Constitution until they say otherwise.

 

[Langenator]

From Article V of the Constitution:

"...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments..."

My Constitutional Law professor back in college pointed out that were such a convention ever to be called, it could in theory, propose an entirely new Constitution (v2.0), which, subject to ratification by 3/4 of the states, would become the law of the land. Which is pretty much the legal, Constitutional way to dissolve the government and create a new one.

In futher theory, if 2/3 of the states called for said convention, and what resulted was "each state shall henceforth be a separate and independant nation" and this was ratified by 3/4 of the states, the U.S. as we know it would dissolve.

 

[labgrade]

Hmmm, let's just see what the preamble to the Bill of Rights has to say:

"(begun & held at the city of New York, on the Wednesday the fourth of March, One thousand seven hundred and eighty nine)

THE conventions of a number of states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declatory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficient ends of its institutions.

.... "

So far.

Go read the rest of it.

& so far, everything written was establsihed to make a case for the rights of every common man (woman) to be inviolate regards anything "untowards," or "unconstitutional" in every aspect.

Nothing was meant to deprive anyone from any aspect of being free from any governmental intrusion/s.

The Grand Experiment was just that & has been bastardized byt everyone since.

Too bad, too sad.