What is meant by the claim that the people have a “right of revolution”? What arguments can you make to support the claim that either a right does OR does not exist? Defend your answer and challenge others
I believe that a "right to revolution" clause is essential to any constitution. It provides a escape route if the goverment set in place by the so called "founding fathers" grows stagnent or opresses it's people. The right to revolution allows the people to rise up in arms against the government and porvided that they are succesful, change the government to better suit there needs. After all, isn't the point of a government to protect the rights of it's people?
The "right to revolution", in theory, does give citizens the right to overthrow a corrupt government. This right really is just for show. Do you honestly believe that if a modern day minute men group started shooting bullets at a government building, that people would stop and say "Oh, it's their right"? Yea, they'd either get gunned down or imprissoned almost imediately. I believe that this is a very hipicritical right to have.
the "right to revolution" is, like johnny kronick said is essensial to a constitution. it is taken most of the time to mean violence, but it doesn't nessasarily mean violence and war. it should only mean that the people may overthrow the government and replace it. this can be done peacefully or violently, and will probably always be violent. and this is because nobody with power is willing to remain in power.
A revolution can take many forms like Slappy said. The modern day one is a bit more civilized because instead of one king with all the power, there is a legislative branch that has the power over the president. The people won't have to take up their rifles and attack the White House because the president doesn't have the authority to fight back without the approval of the senate. Proof of this right can be seen in the form of protesters. Once a legitimate, political protest gains tons of support then the elected officials in congress will take action.
I totally agree with what Lizzy says, the right to revolution is mostly just for show. It simply says, "look how forward thinking we are, we invite revolution for the betterment of the people!" but in reality, I think that it would be very rare for a government to go "ahh what the hell, maybe we are wrong" and allow a revolution to succeed. And anyway, if you are going to attempt to bring down a government your not really worried about obeying thier rules are you?
The fact that we have the right to revoultion is not always a reference to a conflic or war. Some instances of a non violent right to revolve is an impeachment of a president. If we believe he is not doing his or her job, we have the right to end their term since they were not living up to the responsability of thier position. The definition of a revolution is th overthrow or repudiation of a government or a political system by the people governend. This says nothing of conflic to absolve that sort of problem. Yet still the people have the power to engage in conflic if they see fit. I guess im just saying that we are smart enough as the people to know when a certain aspect of the government is not working out, and we can deal with it democraticaly.
The "right to revolution" says that all US citizens have the right to revolt against the government if it fails to protect their rights. I agree with black lizzy in the sense that this right is all just for show. I mean, back in the 60's and 70's when they had all the war protests in Washington, government officials didn't approve of it at all, which went against the protesters rights. Those people did not agree with the government's ways and they were trying to show that, but in the end, it didn't really change anything. That means that this right may in fact exist, but it is in almost no way being practiced.
As Locke and the Founders said " that if a government fails to protect the people's right, the people have a right of revolution". What this means is that if the majority of the people don't believe in how our government is being run we can overthrow it. I mean look at the march on Washington. That speaks for itself. African Americans didn't get there rights just because of that but it sure helped. So all in all if a group of people can come together in front of the government it is possible to get change.
When the founding fathers designed our government and wrote our constitution, they made it so a revolution wouldn't have to be violent. If we have the right to overthrow our president then the government has the responsibility to protect our right. The people don't have to protect their own rights with axes and pitchforks anymore. George Bush is not violating our rights in any way. MAking bad decisions and doing a bad job as president is not grounds for for a revolution according to the constitution.
the right to revolution is just to make the citizens feel better, like they have a chance to revolt if they want to. mind you, they probably wont, but if the option is there they feel like their government is more fair.
The claim that the people have a "right to revolution" is said to mean that if people do not feel that the government is accomplishing what it was originally meant to do and should do, the people have the right to revolution. i do not feel as though the right is existent. if someone was to decide they wanted to go to the whitehouse and tell the president that he felt, as well as did the rest of the country, that they need a new president because he was not doing a good job and they had their "right to revolution", their right would not be honored. this man would not even make it anywhere near the president because he'd be shot down on his way towards him. however, he does not need to get face to face with the president to get his point across. if he and many many many people all protested outside the whitehouse, i think the president would see it out his window. however, the same thing would happen in that the protesters would probably be beaten by police. one perfect example of this? the boston massacre.
I agree with Cutlass Jim Breakman that our right of revolution can be as simple as the impeachment of our President, no viloence involved. We have the right to protest and voice our opinions when we feel slighted by the governement, and other people have the right to agree and join in the protest or not. We do not however have the right to go to the White House and throw rocks at the windows and spray paint the grass with nasty messages. In a situation like that those people have become criminals by taking away the rights of the individuals in the government, of the President himself, in which case I believe the police should intervene and put a stop to the danger. There are ways to express our right to revolution and chosing violence is not the appropriate way. Also, Freejack I can understand why you would say that the Boston Masacre is a perfect example of protestors being beaten by police, but I would like to inform you that the British offiicers according to John Adams acted in self defense. This massacre was more like a riot and the radical people tried to use this minor event as propaganda. Priavte Montegomery did shoot the first shot, but it was only after he was struck in the head by a club and as he fell to the ground, his rifle discharged. The protestors had clubs, knives, swords, and ice blocks and were luring the soldiers to fight. The protestor's violence was only answered with violence which John Adams proved in court was self defense, and the officers were stated not guilty. I know this was really random, and I'm not hating on Freejack, I just wanted him to know :)
The "right to revolution" means that the people have the authority to say, "We don't care for the way you are managing us, so change." I disagree with what Black Lizzy says about protesters in our country. Yes, in the past revolutionist would have been "gunned down or imprisoned almost immediately",as she put it, but she was forgetting one key element that we have these days--the media. News reporters would have been all over that story and people would have been able to find out what happened to the leaders of the outbreak. There is such a thing as revolting smartly. Those who are upset with something can campaign their idea for a solution. (notice I say suggesting a solution instead of just COMPLAINING) As the group gets larger and larger, it will become more noticed and therefore the problem will be more likely to be resolved.And as for Johnny Kronick 's comments on the government saying,"ahh what the hell, maybe we are wrong" It is very difficult for ANYONE to admit they were wrong, especially a supposed high-powered, enlightened government. The acknowledgment of a mistake will take TIME. That's why there are revolutions. So people realize what their errors are. So, yes, the right of revolution does exist and will always exist while we are still classified as "homo sapien sapiens."
The "right to revolution" is an essential part to the constitution as johnny kronick said. It tells the people that if the government is not protecting their natural rights they have the right to try to have it changed. The "right to revolution" by a very large population in a nonviolent way might hopefully send a strong message to the government that they need to change and they are not accomplishing their main goal.
The Right to Revolution means that if you current governemtn is faling to protect you and your rights then the people have a right to change the governemtn and independance. The people have a right to decide wether their governemtn is doing the right job and overthrow a corrupt government. If the people are successful in overthrowing a corrupt governemtn then they may claim independance and create a new, non-corrupt governement
I somewhat agree with what Black Lizzy decided to say. The "Right to Revolution" can be a hypocritical statement. Our founding fathers once said that if you start to see order falling and depression taking its place in the government, then the people should immediately come together and replace the wrong with the right. But think about it. Think about you, yourself. If tomorrow you saw on the news that a new law was passed that completely screwed over about half of our population, would you fight for it? If it didn't affect you one bit in your every day life, would you even consider fighting for the rights of your family, the people who live in your same country? Even if it DID affect you, would you still stand for you, yourself and try to OVERTHROW the government? It is unlikely. And even if a decent amount of people attempted this and ended up killing the lives of others, they would most likely be punished and sentence to jail or death. This is a tough right to come by and actually set a list of laws that come with it. Only because the number of different circumstances is unlimited.
Well, people are said to have the "right to revolution", which is the duty to override and replace the current government set in place should it become corrupt and not properly handle its responsibilities to protect people and their natural rights. I must respectfully disagree with some posters such as Black Lizzy, who was the first to express her opinion that the "right to revolution" is for show. As some - like Slappy - said, the right to revolution doesn't have to be referring as violence, per se. Peaceful protests can be more painstaking than violent ones, but done well they can push the limits of a government's patience and they can get the world's attention. I certainly believe that we all have a right to revolution, because no matter what time period we're in, we can still cause change and of course DEFY the government that is wronging us. Just because the U.S. isn't a little group of "teenage" colonies anymore doesn't mean the right to revolution is invalid in current times; in my opinion, *responsible* revolutionary actions that take place are under the right of revolution. We've just not seen the right applied for a very long time, I feel, but we have seen protests and minds not afraid to think their own thoughts accomplish much in our country and around the world. Many of the men involved in the continental congress/etc. etc. were criminal in status to Britain (which they were still a part of, sort of), but it was worth it, right? They could have been hanged! Err, anyway, just because we haven't had to fulfill any duties pertaining to the "right of revolution" lately doesn't mean it's just something to keep for show or comfort, it's motivational and it's there for when dire times arrive and we need to take action, because legally because of it we actually are charged with the task of solving the problem; we don't have the choice to sit back and be treated unfairly. But who wants to do that anyway?
Cheatin' whatever, I do realize that the "right to revolution" doesn't necessarily mean violence, but you seem to think it means "the right to protest". In any case, non-violent forms of revolution like petitions or protests rarely work. Take President Bush's first time being sworn into office. The man had food thrown at him, but he's still president today. Petitions get shot down so easily that any peaceful form of revolution does nothing. Yes, i know that Martin Luther King changed things through peaceful protests and speeches, but i am a Malcom X girl myself, and that form of action is complete;ly stiffled by the government.
"The Right of Revolution" means that the people have the right (or the responsibility) to replace a government that does not protect their natural rights with one that does. This does not mean that when someone doesn't like how the present government is operating they have the right to start shooting bullets at government buildings. That would interfer with other people's natural right of life and that one person's negative opinion of the government might not reflect the opinion of the majority. Right of Revolution does mean that when the majority of the people decide that the present government is not fitting their best interests, they can and should replace it. Impeachment is one way the people of the US can exercise their right to replace the government. Another way to change the government is by voting. Each year people can re-elect officials or vote for someone they think would better protect their rights.
The "right to revolution" means that if the government is not protecting you and/or your rights, the people have the right to revolt. If they can successfully overthrow it, they have to right to change it, make it better than it was before. I have to agree with black lizzy and many others who have said that it is mostly for show. Even though it has occurred on occasion throughout our history, I don't believe that people will actually use this right, violent or non-violent and no matter how unhappy they might be.
I kinda agree with black lizzie and all her supporters. the fact that a government would allow its own citizens to commit treason is not realistic. it seems from the way the constitution was written was that it is suggested that we revolt if the government crosses the line. to me it seems like the founding fathers implied more change than actually going the whole nine yards to bring down a government and establish a new one. Therefore i strongly disagree with peg leg elena said. the "media" is just the middle man imbetween the people and the news. they may be in control of almost everything the population thinks, but there still is no type of revolution without bloodshed or violence. No matter how idealistic your views could be, people we always fight, they will always be greedy, and they will always hold on to power and/or what they belive in. To deny that humans are as violent as peaceful is just being ignorant.
The right to revolution is one of the most essential things a country rewriting a constitution must have. If the government does something stupid and harms the people why shouldn't the people be able to rise against the government in order to protect there natural rights? The people then could succeed and then change the problems happening within the government.
I think the right to revolution is defiantly legitimate and applies to the government because things do go wrong sometimes and sometimes someone needs to step in and protest against injustice if things start to go wrong. However, I don't think it is very realistic in this time because, taking into consideration the size of our country, the chance of having a vast majority ALL wanting to revolt is incredibly low. Plus, we are spread out over a huge continent, not to mention other differences that would set us apart, like religion or social class. I like & agree with Mickey McCracken on the form in which we revolt. There are other ways than shooting at the White House, like impeachment. Although I think many people are too impatient or don't think it will actually change, so they may resort to more desperate measures, like violence [even if there are much better ways].
It is my personal belief that the "right to revolution" can only be taken seriously if there are a sufficient number of men and/or women revolting. If the depending force is so much greater than the opposing force, than the opposing force really doesn't have much of a chance. However, if the entire country rebeled against the government, than the people would be fulfulling their right to revolution.
The right to revolution, however, has some side notes that have to be considered as well. The right to revolution DOES NOT apply to individuals who do not agree with the government; it applies to the governed body as a whole. If that body is not in agreement, than they forfeit the right to revolution. The rebels can still try, but they are simply rebels, instead of men and women with a morally upstanding mission.
I have to agree with black lizzy, only because, yes we do have this right, but thnk about it! People hate the war in Iraq and we prottest about it, but does anything happen, no! I agree we should have this right because the government does not have the right to be cruel to us because they're normal people too. But i think its something that we "have" but would be hard to use!
I believe that the "right to revolution" gives every person in the United States his own opinion to go against the government and change the officials. Now one person may no be able to change many things, but if many people come together with the same concerns than a revolution can be done. People have the right at anytime to empeech the president, but people dont stand up and state that they want this to be done. We all have the right, yet not many are willing to use it.
once again im pretty sure everything im about to say has already been said but, the right of revolution gives the people the right to protest against the way things are being run. Although this is great in theory, if any results happen, they happen very slowly. If the people dont like a law thats been passed, and many many people sign a petition, it takes years to work through the judicial system, and even after its been reviewed the law may still remain
Basically, a "right to revolution" is the peoples right as consenting citizens to get rid of any official who they feel are not up to par, or who arent doing what they said they were doing. I think the claim DOES exist, because people are continually having "movements" or "mini-revolutions" to help make the government more equal. Examples: (The Gay Rights Movement for equal rights to Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, Intersexed and Asexual....And the TransACTION movement for equal rights to Trans peoples)These movements exist, and I belive thats proof that "rights of revolution" do exist. Of course, these are on a smaller scale than a full blown revolution to a corrupt government. I dont believe that there is enough in place to help the people access their rights to revolution, and that really should change.
29 comments:
I believe that a "right to revolution" clause is essential to any constitution. It provides a escape route if the goverment set in place by the so called "founding fathers" grows stagnent or opresses it's people. The right to revolution allows the people to rise up in arms against the government and porvided that they are succesful, change the government to better suit there needs. After all, isn't the point of a government to protect the rights of it's people?
The "right to revolution", in theory, does give citizens the right to overthrow a corrupt government. This right really is just for show. Do you honestly believe that if a modern day minute men group started shooting bullets at a government building, that people would stop and say "Oh, it's their right"? Yea, they'd either get gunned down or imprissoned almost imediately. I believe that this is a very hipicritical right to have.
the "right to revolution" is, like johnny kronick said is essensial to a constitution. it is taken most of the time to mean violence, but it doesn't nessasarily mean violence and war. it should only mean that the people may overthrow the government and replace it. this can be done peacefully or violently, and will probably always be violent. and this is because nobody with power is willing to remain in power.
A revolution can take many forms like Slappy said. The modern day one is a bit more civilized because instead of one king with all the power, there is a legislative branch that has the power over the president. The people won't have to take up their rifles and attack the White House because the president doesn't have the authority to fight back without the approval of the senate. Proof of this right can be seen in the form of protesters. Once a legitimate, political protest gains tons of support then the elected officials in congress will take action.
I totally agree with what Lizzy says, the right to revolution is mostly just for show. It simply says, "look how forward thinking we are, we invite revolution for the betterment of the people!" but in reality, I think that it would be very rare for a government to go "ahh what the hell, maybe we are wrong" and allow a revolution to succeed. And anyway, if you are going to attempt to bring down a government your not really worried about obeying thier rules are you?
The fact that we have the right to revoultion is not always a reference to a conflic or war. Some instances of a non violent right to revolve is an impeachment of a president. If we believe he is not doing his or her job, we have the right to end their term since they were not living up to the responsability of thier position. The definition of a revolution is th overthrow or repudiation of a government or a political system by the people governend. This says nothing of conflic to absolve that sort of problem. Yet still the people have the power to engage in conflic if they see fit. I guess im just saying that we are smart enough as the people to know when a certain aspect of the government is not working out, and we can deal with it democraticaly.
The "right to revolution" says that all US citizens have the right to revolt against the government if it fails to protect their rights. I agree with black lizzy in the sense that this right is all just for show. I mean, back in the 60's and 70's when they had all the war protests in Washington, government officials didn't approve of it at all, which went against the protesters rights. Those people did not agree with the government's ways and they were trying to show that, but in the end, it didn't really change anything. That means that this right may in fact exist, but it is in almost no way being practiced.
As Locke and the Founders said " that if a government fails to protect the people's right, the people have a right of revolution". What this means is that if the majority of the people don't believe in how our government is being run we can overthrow it. I mean look at the march on Washington. That speaks for itself. African Americans didn't get there rights just because of that but it sure helped. So all in all if a group of people can come together in front of the government it is possible to get change.
When the founding fathers designed our government and wrote our constitution, they made it so a revolution wouldn't have to be violent. If we have the right to overthrow our president then the government has the responsibility to protect our right. The people don't have to protect their own rights with axes and pitchforks anymore. George Bush is not violating our rights in any way. MAking bad decisions and doing a bad job as president is not grounds for for a revolution according to the constitution.
the right to revolution is just to make the citizens feel better, like they have a chance to revolt if they want to. mind you, they probably wont, but if the option is there they feel like their government is more fair.
The claim that the people have a "right to revolution" is said to mean that if people do not feel that the government is accomplishing what it was originally meant to do and should do, the people have the right to revolution. i do not feel as though the right is existent. if someone was to decide they wanted to go to the whitehouse and tell the president that he felt, as well as did the rest of the country, that they need a new president because he was not doing a good job and they had their "right to revolution", their right would not be honored. this man would not even make it anywhere near the president because he'd be shot down on his way towards him. however, he does not need to get face to face with the president to get his point across. if he and many many many people all protested outside the whitehouse, i think the president would see it out his window. however, the same thing would happen in that the protesters would probably be beaten by police. one perfect example of this? the boston massacre.
I agree with Cutlass Jim Breakman that our right of revolution can be as simple as the impeachment of our President, no viloence involved. We have the right to protest and voice our opinions when we feel slighted by the governement, and other people have the right to agree and join in the protest or not. We do not however have the right to go to the White House and throw rocks at the windows and spray paint the grass with nasty messages. In a situation like that those people have become criminals by taking away the rights of the individuals in the government, of the President himself, in which case I believe the police should intervene and put a stop to the danger. There are ways to express our right to revolution and chosing violence is not the appropriate way. Also, Freejack I can understand why you would say that the Boston Masacre is a perfect example of protestors being beaten by police, but I would like to inform you that the British offiicers according to John Adams acted in self defense. This massacre was more like a riot and the radical people tried to use this minor event as propaganda. Priavte Montegomery did shoot the first shot, but it was only after he was struck in the head by a club and as he fell to the ground, his rifle discharged. The protestors had clubs, knives, swords, and ice blocks and were luring the soldiers to fight. The protestor's violence was only answered with violence which John Adams proved in court was self defense, and the officers were stated not guilty. I know this was really random, and I'm not hating on Freejack, I just wanted him to know :)
The "right to revolution" means that the people have the authority to say, "We don't care for the way you are managing us, so change." I disagree with what Black Lizzy says about protesters in our country. Yes, in the past revolutionist would have been "gunned down or imprisoned almost immediately",as she put it, but she was forgetting one key element that we have these days--the media. News reporters would have been all over that story and people would have been able to find out what happened to the leaders of the outbreak. There is such a thing as revolting smartly. Those who are upset with something can campaign their idea for a solution. (notice I say suggesting a solution instead of just COMPLAINING) As the group gets larger and larger, it will become more noticed and therefore the problem will be more likely to be resolved.And as for Johnny Kronick 's comments on the government saying,"ahh what the hell, maybe we are wrong" It is very difficult for ANYONE to admit they were wrong, especially a supposed high-powered, enlightened government. The acknowledgment of a mistake will take TIME. That's why there are revolutions. So people realize what their errors are. So, yes, the right of revolution does exist and will always exist while we are still classified as "homo sapien sapiens."
The "right to revolution" is an essential part to the constitution as johnny kronick said. It tells the people that if the government is not protecting their natural rights they have the right to try to have it changed. The "right to revolution" by a very large population in a nonviolent way might hopefully send a strong message to the government that they need to change and they are not accomplishing their main goal.
The Right to Revolution means that if you current governemtn is faling to protect you and your rights then the people have a right to change the governemtn and independance. The people have a right to decide wether their governemtn is doing the right job and overthrow a corrupt government. If the people are successful in overthrowing a corrupt governemtn then they may claim independance and create a new, non-corrupt governement
I somewhat agree with what Black Lizzy decided to say. The "Right to Revolution" can be a hypocritical statement. Our founding fathers once said that if you start to see order falling and depression taking its place in the government, then the people should immediately come together and replace the wrong with the right. But think about it. Think about you, yourself. If tomorrow you saw on the news that a new law was passed that completely screwed over about half of our population, would you fight for it? If it didn't affect you one bit in your every day life, would you even consider fighting for the rights of your family, the people who live in your same country? Even if it DID affect you, would you still stand for you, yourself and try to OVERTHROW the government? It is unlikely. And even if a decent amount of people attempted this and ended up killing the lives of others, they would most likely be punished and sentence to jail or death. This is a tough right to come by and actually set a list of laws that come with it. Only because the number of different circumstances is unlimited.
Well, people are said to have the "right to revolution", which is the duty to override and replace the current government set in place should it become corrupt and not properly handle its responsibilities to protect people and their natural rights. I must respectfully disagree with some posters such as Black Lizzy, who was the first to express her opinion that the "right to revolution" is for show. As some - like Slappy - said, the right to revolution doesn't have to be referring as violence, per se. Peaceful protests can be more painstaking than violent ones, but done well they can push the limits of a government's patience and they can get the world's attention. I certainly believe that we all have a right to revolution, because no matter what time period we're in, we can still cause change and of course DEFY the government that is wronging us. Just because the U.S. isn't a little group of "teenage" colonies anymore doesn't mean the right to revolution is invalid in current times; in my opinion, *responsible* revolutionary actions that take place are under the right of revolution. We've just not seen the right applied for a very long time, I feel, but we have seen protests and minds not afraid to think their own thoughts accomplish much in our country and around the world. Many of the men involved in the continental congress/etc. etc. were criminal in status to Britain (which they were still a part of, sort of), but it was worth it, right? They could have been hanged! Err, anyway, just because we haven't had to fulfill any duties pertaining to the "right of revolution" lately doesn't mean it's just something to keep for show or comfort, it's motivational and it's there for when dire times arrive and we need to take action, because legally because of it we actually are charged with the task of solving the problem; we don't have the choice to sit back and be treated unfairly. But who wants to do that anyway?
Cheatin' whatever, I do realize that the "right to revolution" doesn't necessarily mean violence, but you seem to think it means "the right to protest". In any case, non-violent forms of revolution like petitions or protests rarely work. Take President Bush's first time being sworn into office. The man had food thrown at him, but he's still president today. Petitions get shot down so easily that any peaceful form of revolution does nothing. Yes, i know that Martin Luther King changed things through peaceful protests and speeches, but i am a Malcom X girl myself, and that form of action is complete;ly stiffled by the government.
Kimball that Star Wars thing is wicked funny.
"The Right of Revolution" means that the people have the right (or the responsibility) to replace a government that does not protect their natural rights with one that does. This does not mean that when someone doesn't like how the present government is operating they have the right to start shooting bullets at government buildings. That would interfer with other people's natural right of life and that one person's negative opinion of the government might not reflect the opinion of the majority. Right of Revolution does mean that when the majority of the people decide that the present government is not fitting their best interests, they can and should replace it. Impeachment is one way the people of the US can exercise their right to replace the government. Another way to change the government is by voting. Each year people can re-elect officials or vote for someone they think would better protect their rights.
The "right to revolution" means that if the government is not protecting you and/or your rights, the people have the right to revolt. If they can successfully overthrow it, they have to right to change it, make it better than it was before. I have to agree with black lizzy and many others who have said that it is mostly for show. Even though it has occurred on occasion throughout our history, I don't believe that people will actually use this right, violent or non-violent and no matter how unhappy they might be.
I kinda agree with black lizzie and all her supporters. the fact that a government would allow its own citizens to commit treason is not realistic. it seems from the way the constitution was written was that it is suggested that we revolt if the government crosses the line. to me it seems like the founding fathers implied more change than actually going the whole nine yards to bring down a government and establish a new one. Therefore i strongly disagree with peg leg elena said. the "media" is just the middle man imbetween the people and the news. they may be in control of almost everything the population thinks, but there still is no type of revolution without bloodshed or violence. No matter how idealistic your views could be, people we always fight, they will always be greedy, and they will always hold on to power and/or what they belive in. To deny that humans are as violent as peaceful is just being ignorant.
The right to revolution is one of the most essential things a country rewriting a constitution must have. If the government does something stupid and harms the people why shouldn't the people be able to rise against the government in order to protect there natural rights? The people then could succeed and then change the problems happening within the government.
I think the right to revolution is defiantly legitimate and applies to the government because things do go wrong sometimes and sometimes someone needs to step in and protest against injustice if things start to go wrong.
However, I don't think it is very realistic in this time because, taking into consideration the size of our country, the chance of having a vast majority ALL wanting to revolt is incredibly low. Plus, we are spread out over a huge continent, not to mention other differences that would set us apart, like religion or social class.
I like & agree with Mickey McCracken on the form in which we revolt. There are other ways than shooting at the White House, like impeachment. Although I think many people are too impatient or don't think it will actually change, so they may resort to more desperate measures, like violence [even if there are much better ways].
It is my personal belief that the "right to revolution" can only be taken seriously if there are a sufficient number of men and/or women revolting. If the depending force is so much greater than the opposing force, than the opposing force really doesn't have much of a chance. However, if the entire country rebeled against the government, than the people would be fulfulling their right to revolution.
The right to revolution, however, has some side notes that have to be considered as well. The right to revolution DOES NOT apply to individuals who do not agree with the government; it applies to the governed body as a whole. If that body is not in agreement, than they forfeit the right to revolution. The rebels can still try, but they are simply rebels, instead of men and women with a morally upstanding mission.
I have to agree with black lizzy, only because, yes we do have this right, but thnk about it! People hate the war in Iraq and we prottest about it, but does anything happen, no! I agree we should have this right because the government does not have the right to be cruel to us because they're normal people too. But i think its something that we "have" but would be hard to use!
I believe that the "right to revolution" gives every person in the United States his own opinion to go against the government and change the officials. Now one person may no be able to change many things, but if many people come together with the same concerns than a revolution can be done. People have the right at anytime to empeech the president, but people dont stand up and state that they want this to be done. We all have the right, yet not many are willing to use it.
once again im pretty sure everything im about to say has already been said but, the right of revolution gives the people the right to protest against the way things are being run. Although this is great in theory, if any results happen, they happen very slowly. If the people dont like a law thats been passed, and many many people sign a petition, it takes years to work through the judicial system, and even after its been reviewed the law may still remain
Basically, a "right to revolution" is the peoples right as consenting citizens to get rid of any official who they feel are not up to par, or who arent doing what they said they were doing. I think the claim DOES exist, because people are continually having "movements" or "mini-revolutions" to help make the government more equal. Examples: (The Gay Rights Movement for equal rights to Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, Intersexed and Asexual....And the TransACTION movement for equal rights to Trans peoples)These movements exist, and I belive thats proof that "rights of revolution" do exist. Of course, these are on a smaller scale than a full blown revolution to a corrupt government. I dont believe that there is enough in place to help the people access their rights to revolution, and that really should change.
Post a Comment