Does the Constitution protect the right to rebel against an unjust government?

SPC David S. — Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:35:37 -0500

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. 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 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 shown, 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 key phrase "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it". I say this as I feel our government could possibly be described as a soft despotism democracy especially considering the rhetoric from many progressives wanting to "pack the courts", do away with the electoral vote as well repeal the 2nd amendment. All of which would fundamentally change America and more importantly limit our "constitutional rights" and freedoms.

https://fee.org/articles/soft-despotism-is-the-unique-threat-to-american-liberty/

Soft Despotism Is the Unique Threat to American Liberty | Joey Clark

Contrary to partisan and doomsayer laments, the United States remains exceptional, even in regard to its unique form of despotism.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 11 at 2021 2:44 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:44:26 -0500

The Constitution does not create rights nor does it provide for all rights (which includes the natural right of people to "...to alter or abolish [their government] and to institute new Government..." That last mentioned right was exercised to "sever" [America's] ties with Great Britain and form a new government. Natural rights aren't recognized outside of America in any time of history. Indeed, it appears that the Left doesn't hold much truck with them either (although they are exercising the right to abolish our present government and the Constitution by which it was formed).

Response by MAJ Karl Swenson made Feb 11 at 2021 3:03 PM

MAJ Karl Swenson — Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:03:20 -0500

So, SPC David S., you state that "many progressives wanting to "pack the courts."" I'm wondering what you used the word progressives instead of politicians. As I remember, then-President Obama placed the name of Merrick Garland in front of the Senate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, some 300 days before the end of Obama's presidency. But Leader McConnell chose to "wait for the next president to make an appointment" and Garland's nomination died at the end of the 114th session of Congress. Then, 28 days later, we saw the onslaught of conservative justices nominated and appointed in the next 3 years. Sounds like packing to me.
And what about Trump's appointments of some 250 conservative judges across the United States? Were any of the openings filled by Democrats (I still like to refer to them by their party name instead of your "progressives")? I think not........
We should be careful what language we use so as not to create the type of situation we see taking place right now in the Senate chambers.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 11 at 2021 3:10 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:10:26 -0500

History is written by the victor, and the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter/patriot is measured in victory.
BLUF: if you rebel, and you lose, you will forever be branded traitors and terrorists in the history books.
If you win, you can write the history books and call yourselves patriots and heroes.
Whether or not a rebellion is constitutional depends on who wins, and can subsequently write the history books.

Response by SGT Mark Halmrast made Feb 11 at 2021 5:39 PM

SGT Mark Halmrast — Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:39:04 -0500

We inherently have the right to rebel against tyranny.

There is a difference between a tyrannical government and and unjust government.

As Locke wrote in his Second Treatise of Government, and as the Founders quoted in the Declaration, revolution should not be for "light and transient" causes, but only after a "long train of abuses."

Most of the Declaration is a citing of the long train of abuses visited on the Colonies by the King.

The right to rebel, to revolution, is inherent in a polity. It is best to use that right only as a last resort, or as Locke and the Founders put it, after a Long Train of Abuses.

Response by Maj John Bell made Sep 10 at 2021 7:53 PM

Maj John Bell — Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:53:21 -0400

There are Constitutional methods to redress grievances against the government

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable...."

However, when a government tramples its own Constitution, that is an unforgiveable injustice and the government has become insufferable. The Constitution in that case does not protect rebellion, but it does not mean rebellion is not justified.

Too be clear, I am speaking in the hypothetical. I cannot and will not assert that Constitutional methods of dealing with government injustice and over reach have been exhausted in the U.S.