SCOTUS does not recognize the right to rebellion against the government

http://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Second-Amendment-PRIVATE-MILITIAS.html

The far right and some cons believe in "insurrection theory," that American citizens have an intrinsic right embedded in the Constitution to rebel against a tyrannical government. SCOTUS says 'no'.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

 

there is no legal right to rebel against the government.

expecting the govt. to allow you to rebel against it is a silly idea.

 

No system of government can endorse insurrection, something the US constitution doesn't do, and could never do. Instead, it provides the people with a means to use their discretion to eject tyrannical governments from outside the system.

Of course literally any insurrection, even a well justified one, will be illegal. That's not the point.

If the government becomes murderously remote from the people, the people have the means to seriously hinder either the tyrant, or a good man and justified leader. Which is which is the purpose of giving the people the choice through the right to bear arms. Much of the founders purpose for arms in a society is taken from Machiavelli and his view of their role in ensuring a Republican form of government.

If Trump exterminated 95% of the world Muslim population with chemical weapons, started executing doctors and journalists, nationalised all journalism, euthanized the disabled, executed all members of Congress and assumed dictatorial control I'd assume there'd be some sort of serious civil war over this. At that point: do you have the ability to resist? A well armed town presents a problem to a tyrannical government. They have to walk through towns and shoot families, something likely to inspire a greater uprising.

 

SCOTUS only recognizes the right to rebel democracy is undermined by a government.

During the Revolution, England didn't allow colonist any say in the government. Therefore, they had the right to rebel because they were being denied their right to proper represenation in Parliament.

Today, we still have democratic elections, and you still have a say in the government. Your right to representation hasn't been undermined,and so you have no right to overturn the government.

You don't have the right to abolish a government just becaue you don't like a decision it made, if that decision is legal and constitutional.

 

Does one ask permission to revolt?
What a lame excuse of a thread

 

Someone should tell the moonbats in Cali

 

SCOTUS was quite clear in the 1951 opinion that "insurrection theory", if the government is holding elections and peaceful, order change, is unlawful

 

Are free elections being held?

 

oh, and a rebellion against the government is, by definition, not too overly concerned with what the government has decreed.

 

That does not make the rebellion legal. But rebels know they are not operating legally.

 

lol. again....it's a rebellion.

would the British Crown have considered the Revolutionary War "legal"

 

When it’s time to rebel against the government, it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court recognizes. That is kind of the whole point.

 

It's more a matter of whether or not other nations will consider it legal. The US would have fallen fast without french support for example, and the french had to be convinced that the colonist has legitimate reasons for declaring independence.

 

When it’s time to rebel against the government, it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court recognizes. That is kind of the whole point.

 

It would seem that you can still revolt against a democracy if that democracy is a foreign democracy not established and voted for by citizens. If the government allows illegals and immigrants to infiltrate the voting process they are giving foreign citizens to rule over American citizens.

 

It doesn't matter what SCOTUS says. Overthrowing a government is ILLEGAL but it is an unalienable right. SCOTUS cannot define rights, it can only decide if a law is constitutionally compliant or not. The unalienable right to change and/or determine government is enshrined in our founding document (see my signature).

"Everything Hitler did was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.

 

You are agreeing with me, but do not want to admit it. OK.

That won't save you in an American court of law.

Any one who states and believes such does not mean that such is true except to that individual.

 

what kind of nation passes a law stating: "The People have the right to violent revolution against the state, with no penalties"?

LOL!!!!

 

part of violent rebellion is the understanding that if you are defeated, you going to jail or the gallows.

so dont rebel unless you are willing and able to pay the price

 

The creation and ratification of the Constitution was a direct result of local rebellions in the northeast. And Washington put down one in PA.

 

as long as peaceful change is possible, violent change should be illegal.

 

The Declaration of Independence says differently.

It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 US 304 (1936)

It naturally follows that if sovereign States have inherent rights, then the People also have inherent rights, and one such right is to abolish government:

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.

 

Thankfully the Decleration is not law.

 

The DoI is not the law.

 

To steal a line from Uncle Joe, how many divisions does SCOTUS have?

On a more serious note, the right isn't imbedded in the Constitution, it's protected by the Constitution; and of course it's an unalienable right, codified as such in America's founding document.

Pretty sad when people don't even understand what the hell they're quoting.

who the hell cares