Jonah Patel
The right to rebel, or the right of revolution, is not a right that is defined and protected by the US Constitution. However, it is a natural right, and the Declaration of Independence of 1776, which remained the first organic law of the United States, is considered to have enshrined this right. The right to resist tyranny is also considered the founding principle of the US constitutional government. The right of revolution is not an unlimited right and should only be exercised in extreme circumstances, when a government has become destructive and engaged in a long train of abuses and usurpations.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Right to resist tyranny | Mentioned in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, a part of the Czech and Slovak Republic constitutions |
| Right to overthrow an oppressive government | As per the Declaration of Independence, it is the right and duty of the people to overthrow an oppressive government |
| Right to resist anybody who would do away with the democratic order of human rights and fundamental freedoms | Mentioned in Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms |
| Right to revolution | Mentioned in the Declaration of Independence |
| Right to rebellion against the King | Mentioned in the semi-mythical Charters of Sobrarbe |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The right to resist tyranny
The Declaration of Independence, particularly the second paragraph, has been interpreted by some as asserting the right of revolution. This interpretation suggests that the Declaration provides the people with the right to stand up to an oppressive government and alter or abolish it if necessary. The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration is often cited as evidence of this right.
John Locke, a prominent philosopher, argued that people have the right to resist intolerable tyranny. He compared an unjust government to a thief, suggesting that just as we are right to fight off a thief, we are right to resist and overthrow an oppressive government. This philosophy was also shared by the American revolutionaries, who believed they were following the commands of natural law and nature's God.
However, it is important to note that the right to resist tyranny is not unlimited. The Declaration of Independence emphasizes that revolution should only be pursued in extreme circumstances when a government has become destructive and engaged in a long train of abuses and usurpations. Plato, for instance, argued against violent insurrection, suggesting that force should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary to introduce a better constitution. Aristotle also added a precondition, stating that "men of rank" who "excel in virtue" have the best right to rebel.
The right of revolution has been a part of legal traditions worldwide. For example, the semi-mythical Charters of Sobrarbe from the Pyrenees in the 850s enshrined the right of rebellion against the king. Similarly, the Magna Carta, an English charter from 1215, included a security clause that gave a committee of barons the right to overrule the king's will if needed.
In conclusion, the right to resist tyranny is a complex and deeply rooted concept in the history of political thought. While it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it has been influenced by philosophical and historical precedents. It is important to recognize that the right to resist tyranny is not absolute and should be exercised only in dire circumstances when all other options have been exhausted.
The District Clause: DC's Constitutional Standing
You may want to see also
The right to overthrow an oppressive government
The Declaration of Independence, particularly the second paragraph, has been interpreted by some as asserting the right of revolution. The document states that when a government engages in a "long train of abuses and usurpations" and becomes "destructive" of the ends of government, it is the right and duty of the people to "throw off such government". This idea is further supported by the Declaration's statement that certain rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are inherent and unalienable.
John Locke, a philosopher, is often associated with this concept. He argued that an unjust government is no different from a thief and that people have the right to fight off oppression. This philosophy suggests that individuals have rights that no government can grant or deny. Similarly, Howard Evans Kiefer opined that it is not only the right but also the duty of the people to rebel against an oppressive government, as it demonstrates compliance with natural law.
However, it is important to note that the right to revolution is not unlimited. Aristotle, for example, suggested that only "men of rank" who "excel in virtue" have the best right to rebel. Plato argued against violent insurrection, suggesting that criticism and words should precede any revolutionary action. Additionally, the right to overthrow a government is typically reserved for extreme circumstances when all other options have been exhausted.
The Court's Undue Burden Test: Constitutional Rights Impact
You may want to see also
The right to revolution
The Declaration of Independence, influenced by the English Magna Carta of 1215, states 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". This declaration asserts the right of the people to "alter or abolish any form of government" that becomes destructive or engages in a long train of abuses. John Locke, a philosopher, argued that an unjust government is like a thief, and people have the right to fight off oppression.
The concept of the right to revolution has been a part of legal traditions worldwide, such as the Charters of Sobrarbe in the Pyrenees during the 850s, which stated that "laws come before kings". Similarly, the Castilian law concept of "Obedezco pero no cumplo" ("I obey, but do not comply") justified disobeying orders deemed unlawful.
While the right to revolution is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, it is important to note that the Constitution did not supplant the Declaration of Independence, which remains a fundamental document in American political thought. The right to revolution serves as a check on government power and a reminder that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed.
Emancipation Proclamation: A Constitutional Amendment?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The right to resist anybody who would do away with the democratic order
The right to resist any entity that threatens the democratic order is a fundamental principle of constitutional government. This right, known as the "right of revolution," is not explicitly defined or protected by the Constitution but is inherently recognized as a natural right. The Declaration of Independence, which remains the first organic law of the United States, asserts this right, stating that it is the duty of the people to "throw off" an oppressive government that engages in a "long train of abuses and usurpations."
The right of revolution is not unlimited and should only be exercised in extreme circumstances when a government becomes destructive and engages in consistent abuses of power. This right is inferred in the third paragraph of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the necessity of protecting human rights through the rule of law to prevent the need for rebellion against tyranny and oppression.
The concept of resisting tyranny is deeply rooted in history, with examples such as the Magna Carta in 1215, which required the King to renounce certain rights and accept the rule of law, and the Charters of Sobrarbe from the 850s, which enshrined the Iberian legal principle that "laws come before kings." These historical documents laid the foundation for the modern understanding of the right to resist anyone or any system that threatens democratic values and human rights.
The right to resist is not just a theoretical concept but has been put into practice throughout history. For instance, Hernán Cortés exploited the legal principle of "obedezco pero no cumplo" (I obey, but do not comply) to justify his invasion of Mexico, which went against the King of Castile's orders. Additionally, the American Revolutionaries of 1776 believed in their duty to rebel against absolute despotism, as they felt they were complying with the commands of natural law.
While the right to resist anyone threatening the democratic order is widely recognized, it is important to note that it comes with significant responsibility. Thinkers like Aristotle and Plato emphasized the weight of this right, with Plato cautioning against violent insurrection unless absolutely necessary. The right to resist is intended as a safeguard against tyranny and the preservation of freedom, justice, and democratic values.
American Shutdown: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
The right to criticise one's nation's policies
The philosophical basis for the right to criticise one's nation's policies can be traced back to ancient thinkers such as Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle suggested that "men of rank" with virtue have a strong claim to rebel. Meanwhile, Plato argued that individuals should be able to openly criticise their nation's policies as long as their words are not ignored or lead to self-harm. This highlights the responsibility that comes with the right to criticise and the potential consequences that may arise.
Historical documents, such as the Magna Carta (1215) and the Charters of Sobrarbe (first mentioned in 1117), also provide a basis for this right. The Magna Carta, an English charter, required the King to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It included a security clause that gave a committee of barons the authority to overrule the King's will if necessary. Similarly, the Charters of Sobrarbe enshrined the Iberian legal principle that "laws come before kings", providing a framework for justifying rebellion against the King if he violated the liberties of his kingdom.
The Declaration of Independence, particularly in the United States, is often cited as a key document affirming the right to criticise and resist oppressive governments. John Locke, a philosopher, influenced the Declaration's assertion that "all men are created equal" and possess unalienable rights, including "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". According to Locke, an unjust government is akin to a thief, and people have the right to stand up against it. This idea of a "right to revolution" is further supported by the works of Howard Evans Kiefer and Morton White, who emphasise the duty to rebel against oppressive governments.
While the right to criticise and resist is important, it should be exercised with caution and only in extreme circumstances. Plato, for instance, cautioned against violent insurrection, recognising the potential consequences of exile or death. Similarly, the Declaration of Independence notes that established governments should not be changed for minor reasons, indicating that revolution is not always desirable.
The Department of Justice: Who Are Its Key Members?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The right of revolution is the right of the people to rebel against an oppressive government and establish a new government.
The US Constitution does not explicitly mention the right of revolution. However, it acknowledges the right to resist tyranny and protect the natural rights of citizens.
The Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, and the Charters of Sobrarbe are all historical examples of the right of revolution being exercised or advocated.
Philosophers such as John Locke and Aristotle have argued that it is the right and duty of the people to resist intolerable tyranny and stand up for their natural rights.
Yes, the right of revolution is typically seen as a last resort, to be exercised only in extreme circumstances when all other options have been exhausted. It is not an unlimited right and should be approached with prudence.
