January 27, 2011

Law Prof Gets It Wrong On Right To Revolt

Do Americans – indeed any people – have the right to take up arms against their nation’s government when they live in a democracy? According to one law professor, Carl T. Bogus of the Roger Williams University School of Law, such a right does not exist in a democracy.

We must be eternally vigilant about government errors and abuse. But we must recognize that differences of opinion are the normal order of things. In a constitutional democracy, we correct errors through constitutional means.

It will not do to say that we must be armed and ready to go to war with our government in the event that it becomes tyrannical. There are always those who believe that government tyranny is not a future contingency but a present reality. That may not have been the case with Jared Loughner, but it was the case with John Wilkes Booth and Timothy McVeigh.

There we have it – since we are a society that operates by democratic means, that means that the very notion of taking up is illegitimate. Or so argues Carl Bogus. Indeed, he dares to classify those of us (and I gladly include myself in that number) with a presidential assassin and a murderous terrorist. But what he fails to grapple with is the truth of the principles that he tried to explain away as valid only in the historical context of the American Revolution – the words of the Declaration of Independence.

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,[72] 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 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, 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.

Notice, please, that this cornerstone of our nation’s independence does not limit its principles to just one time and place – it states a universal truth. Whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes destructive of people’s liberties, it is inarguably the right of the people to make a change in that government – and when such a regime becomes despotic, it is their right and duty to THROW OFF (overthrow) said government.

Of course, does this necessarily mean the use of violence to achieve change? Certainly not – the use of violence should, ought, and must be reserved for only the most rare of circumstances. But is the use of violence precluded because a government calls itself democratic, perhaps retaining the form and trappings of a republic while becoming despotic and beyond the control of the people in reality? No, it is not – and indeed it cannot be so precluded if we are to remain faithful to the founding principles of American independence.

How, then, does Bogus reach his flawed conclusion? He does so by assuming that at all times and in all circumstances the American government (and any democratic republic) is the people’s government rather than something alien to them which is imposed upon them without their consent. And therein lies the flaw of his argument.

Consider circumstances in which a relatively closed cabal of oligarchs manages to secure control of the instruments of government. They could certainly pass and implement laws and have them held to be valid in the courts upon which members of that elite sit, even as they ride roughshod over the will of the people.

We see such a situation in the wake of Proposition 8 in California. The people passed a proposition banning gay marriage, only to have members of the legislature pass bills that would have authorized it and courts rule that the vote of the people was without force due to a tortured reading of the state’s constitution. Upon the amending of that constitution by the vote of the people, the executive branch refused to carry out its obligation to defend the amendment in the courts and the courts in turn ruled the amendment itself to be a violation of the constitution to which the people had appended it at the ballot box. In effect, the forms and trappings of democracy exist, but the reality is something quite different. I’d argue that such a situation cries out for the use of force by the people to take back control of the reins of government from those who have shown blatant disregard for the will of the people – at least in theory. Provided, of course, that one could make a cogent case that this is part of “a long train of abuses and usurpations” of such severity as to have created the very sort of despotism that makes the government of that state a hollow democracy which is not, in fact, the people’s government. At that point it would have become the very sort of alien government that Bogus posits that the British Crown and Parliament were in the 1770s.

Bogus, however, speaks specifically to the issue of the use of Second Amendment rhetoric in response to proposals to undercut the very right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. He would, no doubt, find my words here to be the very sort of frightening stuff that undermines faith in democracy and which no doubt is the very reason that rights under the Second Amendment (and probably the First Amendment, for that matter) ought to be restricted and limited by government. And therein we return to the same problem noted above – when government is not merely wrong, but is in fact impinging upon the liberties which our fundamental law guarantees to us, does violence become an option? Bogus would argue that it never can in a system that claims to be a democracy.

The Jeffersonian answer, on the other hand, is that it does remain an option – that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And I, for one, will stand by that principle – but suggest that said tree, like a cactus, must be watered sparingly and only when absolutely necessary lest it die from a hyper-abundance of the very substance that would otherwise guarantee its survival. Such “Second Amendment solutions” are therefore only to be used in extremis, not in every instance of disagreement with any given policy.

|| Greg, 03:37 PM || Permalink || Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for Law Prof Gets It Wrong On Right To Revolt

TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Law Prof Gets It Wrong On Right To Revolt'.

Comments on Law Prof Gets It Wrong On Right To Revolt

Bogus' argument is totally bogus!

|| Posted by Hube, February 3, 2011 06:30 PM ||

Professor Bogus is appropriately named.

Jefferson and the rest of the Founders did not equivocate about the right to revolt. It is inherent in our nature as free people. The government is granted powers by the people. The people are not supplicants who beg the government for conditional boons.

|| Posted by Walking Horse, February 5, 2011 07:13 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?




Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)


January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure


About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site

Support This Site

Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs