SCOTUS does not recognize the right to rebellion against the government

Your flawed assumption is that democratic elections allow for the people to have a say in Gov't.

The first problem with this assumption is there is no such thing as a legitimate democratic process without a fair and free media.

The second problem is that we do not elect SCOTUS and these folks remain for life. We do not have control over this branch of Gov't in any realistic way and so we cannot then realistically challenge oppressive laws.

You mention the Constitution but, it is the DOI that sets out the boundaries by which a Gov't can be declared illegitimate and thus - gotten rid of.

This is not saying that immediately that people are justified in taking up arms against the state but ... it does put some boundaries on the discussion. That discussion is what constitutes legitimate authority of Gov't.

The principle on which this nation was founded is

1) Individual rights and freedoms/Liberty is "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

This means that Gov't, of its own volition, has no legitimate authority to make any law that messes with individual liberty.

2) The authority of Gov't comes from "we the people/consent of the Governed" - as opposed to divine right/God or some other thing as was the case in the past.

If Gov't want to make a law that messes with individual liberty it must appeal for a change to the social contract - the construct that defines what the legitimate authority of Gov't is. The Gov't was given power to punish (make law) for the purposes of protection from direct harm.

Simply put .. rights end where the nose of another begins ... direct harm (murder, rape, theft and so on).

If Gov't wants to make law messing with individual liberty that is outside its legitimate authority it must appeal to we the people. The bar is not however 50+1 or simple majority mandate. The bar is overwhelming majority (at least 2/3rds).

Obviously if simple majority mandate was enough there would be no point in putting individual liberty above the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism refer to 50+1 as "tyranny of the majority".

So then ... by this standard, every sitting member of SCOTUS should be dismissed on the basis of failure to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the founding principle.

 

if it got so bad the people rebelled... it would not mater what the SCOTUS said, let's hope that doesn't happen in our lifetimes

 

How it works is not the point. How it worked in Nazi Germany is that people were exterminated for being Jewish, Communist, Gypsy, Gay, mentally ill, etc. If the US government decided to suspend the Constitution and arrest and execute those it deemed "undesirable" and The People could not overthrow their government peacefully, what other means would they then have to overthrow their government? Would it be "illegal"? Why would that matter?

"I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees." - Emiliano Zapata

While the rule of law is crucial to the doctrine of due process and order within a free civilization, it isn't the answer when the law itself crosses the line into tyranny.

 

While the rule of law is crucial to the doctrine of due process and order within a free civilization, it isn't the answer when the law itself crosses the line into tyranny.

Where does one draw that line exactly?

The police shoot unarmed citizens in the streets with impunity. The economic system is controlled by a cartel of corporate and Wall Street banksters who create “wealth” via the issuance of debt. The political system is controlled by a ruling aristocratic collective. The police have been militarized. The entire population is under constant corporate state surveillance. The legal system and incarceration are a corporate for profit business with stocks traded on Wall Street and a vested interest in higher societal rates of crime, poverty, violence, homelessness, recidivism, mental illness, drug use and anything else that provides a steady and growing inmate population to force into the legalized enslavement of convict labor leasing in a post-industrial society. Citizens have been stripped of the right of Habeas Corpus. A president can order the assassination of any citizen. And now the people clamor for this power structure to wall them in.

You really think americans can recognize tyranny?

 

You and I apparently can. I don't know about you but I'm an American and I read quite a bit from many Americans who can. IMO the line was crossed long ago. There is still a chance and hope for peaceful revolution but that chance is not going to last forever.

 

Will do, proudly.

 

and the distinction in your mind is......?????

 

Great so California is committing Treason.

 

A better question is why you believe people would rebel if it did that. Reading this board I often get the sense a lot would be delighted in the wrong sort were killed. Hitler remained popular through most of his tenure.

 

I never said it was, but I did notice you couldn't refute my claim that the People have an inherent right to abolish government, just as sovereign States have inherent rights.

 

How can you refute an assumption like that. It is like rejecting any moral belief. You either agree philosophically or you don't. You certainly can't factually address it.

 

Jefferson thought they did. He said so in the indictment of the DoI. And? As to his moral standing, the British laughed and would have hung him.

 

Why do you care what Jefferson thought...

 

so you think rebellion should be decriminalized?

if the Black Panthers or BLM or Antifa go to war with the US Govt, it should be a non-criminal act?

 

Or the Weather Underground

 

That isn't even 1% of what matters. What does matter is that 2A codifies an unalienable RKBA, whether SCOTUS deigns to find accordingly or not.

This is how you tell. You're welcome.

Lincoln put down a rebellion that found no justification in the DoI.

You understand neither the Constitution nor rights.

More to the point, the Constitution is not subject to SCOTUS' opinion.

Jews always had the right to life, but that was illegal in Nazi Germany. You're welcome.

Exactly, just as it wasn't a right under British law circa 1776; but happily for the untold millions who might otherwise have died like dogs in the German or Japanese empires, it's definitely a right under God's law.

 

The Constitution, per Art III original jurisdiction, does indeed the playing field for SCOTUS.

 

if we decriminalize violent revolution, that means violent insurrection by BLM, Antifa, the New Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, would be legal.

 

That doesn't answer my question. However, an even better question is why do you believe I believe that? Where did I say that?

Yeah or else.

 

I know perfectly well that rebelling to overthrow tyranny is against the law.

 

People, generally, do not have a right to insurrection, i.e. just randomly deciding to take up arms and go start shooting at politicians with a free government. The government can call forth the militia (i.e. the general population in possession of arms) to help put down such an event even, because insurrections can be attempted by some nasty people, for example Communists often did them in the 20th century.

THAT SAID, the people DO have a right to overthrow a tyranny, in which case, such action is not an insurrection. The tyranny will try to label it as such, but resistance by force to an actual tyranny is not an insurrection. This is pretty much explained by Jefferson right in the Declaration of Independence, when he says that prudence dictates that governments long-established should not be overthrown for light and transient causes. Generally, historically, such attempts just lead to outright anarchy and mass violence and basically to a dictatorship forming as dictatorship is usually the outcome of revolution. So you only resort to force if absolutely needed.

I do, personally, believe that limited force can be utilized however in certain instances, for example if the government tried to use the police and military forces to go around mass confiscating people's guns, I do believe the people would be right in standing up to said forces with their own guns with the threat of counter-force being used. But even then, you always want to try peaceful civil resistance first.

Peaceful civil resistance has a great history of working, but for cases where it does not work, where force is needed, then people have a right to use force.

 

Of course not.