The Decleration says we have the obligation to rebel..

[kojikun]

The Decleration of Independence affirms the moral obligation of a nations citizens to rebel against government in the appropriate circumstances, and reform government to correct the problem. At what point could we consider those circumstances satisfied, in todays world, and at what point does terrorism become that morally obligated revolt? In todays world, could government conceivably be destroyed by a rebellion, or would the military be used and in doing so, effectively destroy the ability of a nations populus to effectively rebel against tyranny or injustice? The Colonies rebelled because of having too little representation in Parliament, not oppression, so is it conceivably justifiable for the nation to rebel again against the current government because of its corruption and inability to truly function according to its design and purpose?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The passage your refering to....

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.

The highlight, I beleive, answers your question......

[kojikun]

What I'm asking, tho, is what qualifies as such. For the colonies it seemed to be quite little.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Of course, without the military rebelling with us, that just isn't possible these days.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Of course, without the military rebelling with us, that just isn't possible these days.

It depends on the percent of the population that rebelled. For example, if 99% of the population rebelled (unrealistic I know), then there is no way the military could supress it.

[Dargos]

The problem with this is that the DoI has no legal meaning. It is essentially a note to the government/King of England telling them to fuck off, nothing more nothing less.

[Patrick Degan]

Of course, without the military rebelling with us, that just isn't possible these days.

It depends on the percent of the population that rebelled. For example, if 99% of the population rebelled (unrealistic I know), then there is no way the military could supress it.

Uh uh. No revolution succeeds without a significant portion of the military defecting to the rebels, or simply standing down in barracks and refusing to follow orders from the government.

[Gandalf]

As long as the football is on the TV, and the beer is in the fridge, no western nation will ever see an uprising like you're talking about.

(Does the constitution have any revolutionary verses in it?)

[HemlockGrey]

Of course, the way the military is structured, the officers and soldiers have no personal loyalty to the President, and neither do the bulk of the intelligence services, so if Bush or whoever suddenly decided that these pesky "elections" weren't necessary they would be arrested by the SS or CIA and carted off to a secure area.

[EmperorSolo51]

The only place where the Right of Revolution is legal is in the the State of New Hampshire. In fact it is in our constitution all spelled oiut for us.

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance ag ainst arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The problem with this is that the DoI has no legal meaning. It is essentially a note to the government/King of England telling them to fuck off, nothing more nothing less.

That part doesnt really matter Our entire goverment framework is built upon the idea of limited government, and is based on John Locke's political philosophy.

[Joe]

The people aren't unhappy enough to rebel.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The people aren't unhappy enough to rebel.

True, but we have an obligtion to do so if Shrubby goes insane after winning a second term

Two possibillities, both hinge on Bush not having to worry about re-election.

Either he stops pandering and does what he ACTUALLYY wants to do, and that is a good thing
Or he stops pandering and does what he wants to do... and that us a bad thing..

[Mr Bean]

The people aren't unhappy enough to rebel.

True, but we have an obligtion to do so if Shrubby goes insane after winning a second term

Two possibillities, both hinge on Bush not having to worry about re-election.

Either he stops pandering and does what he ACTUALLYY wants to do, and that is a good thing
Or he stops pandering and does what he wants to do... and that us a bad thing..

Both assuming that Congress does not Stonewall him or a single Demy sentor filbusters as they won't be able to overide it(Both due to current makeup of the Senate and the fact that several Republican senators who I shall not mention by name look on it as less than 1 man VS the entire senate as more of a that yamming guy VS me)

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document governing this state, and thus the Smith Acts render this illegal.

[frigidmagi]

Minor thing. If you win, it doesn't really matter if it was a legal revolt or not.

The US military takes it oath to defend the US Constitution against all enemies forgein and domestic. So any Pres that declares himself Emperior for life will be shot by his Marine Guards unless he can buy them off or get away from them first.

Since they're all over the White House with loaded rifles...

Of course the Sercert Service is closer and would most likey get him first unless they threw in with him.

[Beowulf]

Minor thing. If you win, it doesn't really matter if it was a legal revolt or not.

The US military takes it oath to defend the US Constitution against all enemies forgein and domestic. So any Pres that declares himself Emperior for life will be shot by his Marine Guards unless he can buy them off or get away from them first.

Since they're all over the White House with loaded rifles...

Of course the Sercert Service is closer and would most likey get him first unless they threw in with him.

I would consider the order in which the oath of enlistment has the duties of being in the armed services, to provide a good clue as to what order in which to apply priorities. For reference:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice — so help me God"

A president who sets himself up such that it directly contradicts the constitution would likely find himself without any authority over the military.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

In todays world, could government conceivably be destroyed by a rebellion, or would the military be used and in doing so, effectively destroy the ability of a nations populus to effectively rebel against tyranny or injustice?

If the military supports the populace, there is little the government officials can do about it. IF the goverment IS as bad as you say it would hypothetically be, the military is made up ofcitizens too, so they would have the same responsibility if the situation were that bad. Even if it were legal, and if the rebellion failed, there would be some hell to pay.

I doub't a takeover or a rebellion would ever happen, but it's not impossible. It probably just needs the right sentiment, atmosphere (conditions), and leaders.


Maybe if the situation is right, the might TRY to elect some type of dictator on the old phrase : desperate times call for desperate measures, but I doub't it.

Although, just because the nation is protected by the constitution, doesn't necessarily mean it is invulnerable from internal corruption. Just look at the Patriot Act. If something even worse happened to the United States, I doubt that Patriot Act would be as far as the government would go.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Isn't armed rebellion/military action of a state against the Federal Government illegal anyway? So how would anyone ever rebel legally with the military. I don't think it would be.

I don't think you could get individual states to rise up in action against the government.

[Saurencaerthai]

Of course, without the military rebelling with us, that just isn't possible these days.

It depends on the percent of the population that rebelled. For example, if 99% of the population rebelled (unrealistic I know), then there is no way the military could supress it.

Uh uh. No revolution succeeds without a significant portion of the military defecting to the rebels, or simply standing down in barracks and refusing to follow orders from the government.

This reminded me of what one of my history professor's said in regard to revolutions: "In the case of most of the revolutions that succeed, the institution rebelled against is already a teetering house of cards."

[Jeremy]

We don't have to rebel, we have the ability (garunteed to the States) to secede--unless someone from Illinois is in office.

[SirNitram]

We don't have to rebel, we have the ability (garunteed to the States) to secede--unless someone from Illinois is in office.

Where's that written? I've never seen any part of the Constitution allowign such, and I've read the whole thing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We don't have to rebel, we have the ability (garunteed to the States) to secede--unless someone from Illinois is in office.

I have read the constitution over 15 times, where the hell does it say that?

[Cairber]

[quote="kojikun"] In todays world, could government conceivably be destroyed by a rebellion, or would the military be used and in doing so, effectively destroy the ability of a nations populus to effectively rebel against tyranny or injustice? quote]


could "government" be destroyed by rebellion...well, yeah, I guess, there are "governments" out there that are sitting ducks for a rebellion (COUGH Colombia, COUGH)

Could our government? Well, people were a lot more POed in the 60s and 70s than they are today (hard to believe, but true) but the government prevailed. Furthermore, the military is under civilian control in this country for a reason, its worked so far. I guess a better question would be how POed would we have to be to get to the point of thinking about this. Gotta remember using the "rebellion" example of the colonies is rather fruitless since they rebelled against an outside, overseas power while we would be rebelling against an at-home problem.

200 years is a long time for one government to stand, I think people have a lot of reverence for this fact...I think they really know that they have the power to change things without picking up arms against their own leaders.

[Elfdart]

The Constitution mentions armed rebellion. It states that those who try it are eligible for execution as traitors.

If you're going to try to overthrow the government (which could send you to the gibbet if you fail), isn't it kind of dumb to seek that government's approval or endorsement?

As a wise man once said "Treason must always fail, for if it succeed none dare call it treason." In other words, win or lose -there's no recourse to the law. If you win it doesn't matter; if you lose, you die.

C'mon folks, quit being such pussies and commit treason like REAL men! *