Eleanor Finch
The right to rebel against an unjust government is a concept that has been debated for centuries. The idea that laws come before kings has been enshrined in various historical documents, such as the Charters of Sobrarbe and Magna Carta, which allowed for rebellion against a king who violated the liberties of his subjects. The right to resist tyranny is considered a founding principle of constitutional governments, including the United States Constitution, which was influenced by the Magna Carta. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution addresses rebellion, stating that those who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the government shall be disqualified from holding specific offices. However, it also provides a process for Congress to remove this disability by a two-thirds vote in each House. The right of revolution has also been included in other constitutions, such as the French Constitution of 1793, which declared the right to rebellion when the government violates the rights of the people. While the relevance of the right of revolution has been questioned in modern times, it remains a topic of discussion and interpretation.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Right to rebellion | The right to rebellion is a collective right, not an individual one |
| The right to rebellion is inferred in the third paragraph of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights | |
| The right to rebellion was included in the 1793 preface to the French Constitution of 1793 | |
| The right to rebellion was enshrined in the semi-mythical Charters of Sobrarbe, issued in the Pyrenees in the 850s | |
| The right to rebellion was enshrined in the Magna Carta, an English charter issued in 1215 | |
| The right to rebellion is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution | |
| Insurrection | No person who has taken an oath to support the US Constitution shall engage in insurrection or rebellion against the same |
| Persons who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US Constitution may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of Congress | |
| Persons who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US Constitution are ineligible to hold office | |
| The US Constitution does not assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the US |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The right to resist tyranny
The concept of the right to resist tyranny has a long history and is often associated with the idea of a right to revolution. This right has been invoked in various historical contexts, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
One of the earliest examples of this principle can be found in the semi-mythical Charters of Sobrarbe, allegedly issued in the Pyrenees in the 850s. The 6th charter of Sobrarbe, first mentioned in 1117, enshrined the right of rebellion against the king, stating that if the king "should hereafter tyrannise the kingdom against the fueros or liberties, the kingdom should be free to choose another king, even if he were a pagan." This charter was used during the High Middle Ages to challenge royal authority in the kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon.
The Magna Carta, issued in 1215, also included a "security clause" that gave a committee of barons the right to overrule the will of the king through force if needed. This document directly influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and constitutional documents such as the United States Constitution.
In the context of the United States, the phrase "the right of revolution" has been associated with the Declaration of Independence. However, some scholars argue that this phrase did not originate in the writings of John Locke or the Declaration of Independence, and that it only came into use around 1848. Instead, the idea being referred to is more accurately described as "the right of the people to alter or abolish" an unjust government. This right is distinct from the right of revolution and has played a continuing role in perpetuating limited constitutional government.
While the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding certain offices, it also provides a mechanism for Congress to remove this disability by a two-thirds vote of each House. Additionally, the Constitution recognizes the need to suppress insurrection or rebellion and prohibits the assumption of debt incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
Capital Punishment Appeals: A Constitutional Right?
You may want to see also
The right to revolution
The concept of the right to revolution has a long and complex history, with varying interpretations and applications across different legal traditions and historical contexts. While the idea of a legal right to rebel against an unjust government may seem contradictory, it has been enshrined in various constitutions and legal principles throughout history.
One notable example is the Magna Carta, an English charter issued in 1215, which required the King to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law. The Magna Carta included a "security clause" that gave a committee of barons the right to overrule the King's will through force if necessary. This charter influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and constitutional documents such as the United States Constitution.
The idea of the right to revolution was also present during the American Revolution and early post-revolutionary America. Some scholars, like Becker, argue that the phrase "the right of revolution" originated from John Locke and was connected to the Declaration of Independence. However, others refute this claim, stating that the phrase did not appear in Locke's writings or the Declaration. Nonetheless, the concept of the right to resist tyranny and overthrow a despotic government has been a fundamental principle in American political thought.
The French Constitution of 1793, during the French Revolution, explicitly included the right to rebellion in its declaration of the rights of man and citizen. Section 35 stated, "When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people, and for every portion thereof, the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties." This assertion of the inherent right to revolt has been invoked in various historical contexts, including the secession of the Confederate States of America.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also touches on the right to revolution in its preamble, stating that it is essential for human rights to be protected by the rule of law to prevent recourse to rebellion against tyranny and oppression. This idea is further supported by the legal principle found in Castilian law, "Obedezco pero no cumplo" ("I obey, but do not comply"), which justifies disobeying orders deemed unlawful, including open rebellions.
While the right to revolution has been invoked throughout history to justify significant political and social changes, it is a complex and controversial topic. The line between lawful rebellion and unlawful insurrection is often blurred, and the specific legal implications can vary depending on the constitutional framework and historical context.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Constitution's Trial Standard
You may want to see also
The right to rebel against the king
The concept of rebelling against a king or monarchical authority has been present throughout history, often driven by the belief in natural rights and the principle that "laws come before kings." One notable example is the Charters of Sobrarbe, which date back to the 850s in the Pyrenees region. The 6th charter of Sobrarbe, first mentioned in 1117, explicitly states the right of rebellion against the King, asserting that if the King "tyrannise [s] the kingdom against the fueros or liberties, the kingdom should be free to choose another king, even if he were a pagan."
This idea of rebellion against tyranny is further explored by philosophers such as Locke, who argues that when a king becomes a tyrant and uses force unjustly against the people, he effectively "de-thrones" himself. Locke's perspective aligns with the concept presented in the Old Testament story of Hezekiah's rebellion against the King of Assyria, suggesting that God supports people rebelling against unrighteous rule. John Stuart Mill also contributes to this discussion, advocating for a morally justifiable right to revolution against tyranny.
The right to rebel against a king or monarch has been invoked in various historical contexts. For instance, during the High Middle Ages, the Charters of Sobrarbe were employed in the kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon to challenge royal authority. Similarly, the legal principle "Obedezco pero no cumplo" (I obey, but do not comply) from Castilian law was used to justify disobeying the King's orders that contradicted the law, including open rebellions. Hernán Cortés, for example, used this principle to justify his invasion of Mexico, which went against the King of Castile's orders.
The right of revolution and rebellion has also been incorporated into constitutional documents. The French Constitution of 1793, during the French Revolution, included a declaration of the rights of man and citizen, stating that insurrection is the most sacred right and indispensable duty of the people when the government violates their rights. The influence of this idea can also be seen in the development of parliamentary democracy and the United States Constitution, which was shaped by the Magna Carta's principles.
Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights implies the right to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, stating that it is essential to protect human rights by upholding the rule of law. This notion is supported by the argument that democratic governments can be overthrown by popular vote, indicating that the right to remove a government is inherent in the political system.
Counties in North Carolina's 9th District Explained
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$15.86 $29.95
The right to resist oppression
The Charters of Sobrarbe, allegedly issued in the Pyrenees in the 850s, enshrined the Iberian legal principle that "laws come before kings." The 6th charter of Sobrarbe, first mentioned in 1117, specified that if the King "tyrannise[d] the kingdom against the fueros or liberties," the kingdom had the right to choose another leader. This charter was used during the High Middle Ages to curb royal authority and uphold the rights and liberties of the people.
Similarly, the legal principle "Obedezco pero no cumplo" (I obey but do not comply) found in Castilian law, justified disobeying orders from the King that were deemed unlawful. This principle was exploited by Hernán Cortés to justify his invasion of Mexico, which was against the explicit orders of the King of Castile. The Magna Carta, issued in 1215, also required the King of England to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law, giving a committee of barons the right to overrule the King's will through force if necessary.
While the right to resist oppression and rebellion has been recognised throughout history, it is important to note that the specific legal implications of such actions may vary depending on the constitutional framework and political theory of a particular nation. For example, in the United States, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the government from holding certain offices. However, it also provides a mechanism for Congress to remove such disabilities by a two-thirds vote in each House.
In conclusion, the right to resist oppression and rebellion against tyranny is a fundamental principle of constitutional governments. It recognises that citizens have the right to defend their human rights and freedoms when they are threatened. While the legal implications of rebellion may vary, the historical recognition of this right underscores its importance in ensuring that governments remain accountable to the people they serve.
Founding Fathers' Guide: The Constitution's Roots
You may want to see also
The right to resist and the US constitution
The concept of the right to resist or revolution has a long history, with various interpretations and manifestations throughout the world. The United States Constitution, while influenced by these ideas, does not explicitly address the right to rebel or revolution. Instead, it focuses on establishing a framework for governance, protecting individual rights, and outlining the functions of the federal government.
The US Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits individuals who have taken an oath to support the Constitution from engaging in insurrection or rebellion against it. This amendment also addresses the representation in Congress, stating that participation in rebellion or other crimes may result in a reduced basis of representation.
While the US Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to rebel, it protects free speech and political expression through the First Amendment. This tolerance for free speech provides a certain level of protection for exaggerated statements or claims made in political speech, as long as they are not accompanied by illegal acts. However, rebellion and insurrection are considered serious crimes under federal law, and charges related to these offences carry significant penalties.
The right to resist tyranny or oppression is a fundamental principle of constitutional government. This right is inferred in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises that recourse to rebellion may be necessary as a last resort to protect human rights from tyranny and oppression. This interpretation aligns with the historical context of the American Revolution, where the United States was established through an act of rebellion against the British Crown.
The Declaration of Independence, a foundational document in American history, expresses the idea that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. It asserts the right of the people to "alter or abolish" a government that becomes destructive of the ends of government, such as securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, it is important to distinguish between the right to resist and revolution. While the right to resist tyranny is a founding principle, the phrase "right of revolution" is not present in the Declaration of Independence or the writings of John Locke, as some scholars have suggested.
Bernie Sanders' Take on the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The right to rebel against an oppressive regime is a concept that has been enshrined in various historical and modern legal documents, such as the Magna Carta, the French Constitution of 1793, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, the legality of rebellion is a complex issue that is often influenced by political, social, and cultural factors unique to each context.
The US Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, addresses rebellion and insurrection. It states that any person who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and subsequently engages in rebellion or insurrection against the United States shall be barred from holding specific public offices. Additionally, it mentions that states cannot assume or pay debts incurred in aiding insurrection or rebellion against the US.
While the US Constitution does not explicitly mention a "right of revolution," some scholars argue that the right to resist tyranny is an implicit founding principle of the US constitutional government. This right is derived from the Declaration of Independence, which states that governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, and if they become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them.
