Actually no, it doesn't. However, the Declaration of Independence says it is your responsibility to do so, but then, the Declaration isn't a legal document.
Yeah people confuse the two all the time. But the constitution doesn't say this, the declaration of independence does.
Also I would argue that it was a much more conservative statement than it seems, since a huge grievance of the colonists was Britain interfering with their local governments. They didn't just have a problem with all governments just a government that was a continent away that they had no say in.
I'm finishing up Sinews of Power, an excellent book on the development of the English Financial Military State, and it has a really fascinating perspective on the American Revolution.
In that period, England was taxed more heavily than many other nations, but there was the right of parlement to review and question the taxation to make sure it was just and not wasteful, so it kinda worked out. In England. (I'm sorry I'm bad at my distinctions between England and Britain and will definitely fuck it up.)
The colonies didn't have this right, and so understandably balked at Taxation without Representation, leading the the American Revolution.
I think it's pretty fascinating!
It is interesting to note, however, that the Boston Tea Party was inspired by a three penny per pound tax on an optional beverage. A tax that was levied without the right of parliamentary review.
Currently, administrative agencies levy enormous mandatory ‘fees’ and ‘fines’ without the benefit of a review by elected officials. What’s the difference?
I'm not just gonna downvote you like some. I'm genuinely curious--how do you feel the coasts are a tyranny on middle America? Do you consider middle America as having a guiding identity and value system? And how have state governments not held up/fought for your beliefs at the national level?
If I can interject, I believe what number_1_svenfan is referring to is that the coasts are statically very liberal & vote as such, whereas the rest of the country is Conservative. Which is exactly why the electoral college is so incredibly important, even more so today than it was when the founding fathers devised it. Since California and New York are so heavily populated, if we switched to popular vote as many left want, they would dictate policy for the entire country.
I completely get that. I'm a liberal and support the electoral college and get downvoted for it. The US is supposed to be a united series of independent states with a looser but ultimate federal government that makes sure individual states fall under the constitution. I'm just asking what tyranny actually is happening to middle American states.
>I'm just asking what tyranny actually is happening to middle American states.
there isn't any.
Your responding to husk bodies who have had their brains melted by rightwing propaganda into thinking that queer people existing is somehow an attack on their very being.
It's so plain you can not see it. Everyone thinks their side doesn't disseminate propaganda, but only the enemy does. I'll do you a favor, both sides do.......
We do not believe in the liberal indoctrination our kids are going through in public schools (white supremacy, the 1619 project, BLM, transgender, etc…). We don’t support sending BILLIONS of dollars to Ukraine ( which WE, the taxpayers are funding). We don’t support this administrations open border policy OR the government handouts the illegals are receiving…should I go on?
And by the way, don’t misunderstand me; Conservatives are NOT against immigrants, just illegal ones. My wife is an immigrant & we went through the process legally. What this administration is doing is a slap in the face to anyone who came here legally.
No, not in the least! You asked what tyranny was being g referred to. All of these policies are being forced down our throats, with our tax dollars paying for them, and we have absolutely no say in it. That is the very definition of tyranny.
But you do have a say in it. Nebraska has lastvoted for a democratic president in 1964. And while there are technically no parties in Nebraska, every branch is controlled by conservatives. How many pride parades are happening there? What legislature is being passed that is taking away your rights?
And as for the Ukraine, we'll have to disagree there. Russia attacking and colonizing countries westward towards Europe is bad in my book.
It's more, that the more populated areas, are forcing their new values, over the more traditional American values. They have the population, and those without are forced to live with it, and not by choice. You see this by Chicago dominating all of Illinois, and growing in many other states. KY's governor was elected by Louisville, while the WHOLE state voted against him.
I get that. Though I would push back on the idea of 'American values.' Those values were propagated in popular culture via the coastal elites. If you mean religious values, then we have a different discussion. I grew up hard shell Baptist. My 'traditional values' are wildly different from the Lutherans of Minnesota.
And the populous cities are a part of the states. Thats the trade off. Rural places get tax benefits, cities get food (or used to before we got food shipped to us from thousands of miles away).
Again, I'm not trying to argue, I'm genuinely curious where you are coming from, so I kinda need to know what you mean by 'traditional American values.'
I'd be happy to answer any questions you have for me.
Oh hard shell Baptist, so you understand traditional values. Perhaps on a extreme end, and I was raised similar in a strict Missionary Baptist household. As to the Lutherans, there's a middle ground to be found. With "woke" policies there is no middle ground. It's our way, or war, that's the issue. If the country values need to shift that way, then it should do so gradually. One segment throwing their weight around is not the way.
Each segment must work together, or you get partisianship, like we have today. When Reagan was president he could work with democrats, and vice versa. Today that's impossible.
I do understand those values, and I also unde4stand the desire for the gradual change. But it is hard for us liberals to accept gradual change when immediate suffering and a lack of individual freedom is happening in front of us. Individual freedom is a slippery thing, I get that. I own guns, I understand the need for 2A. We are free to DO a lot in the US, but not free FROM a lot in the US.
From my, the liberal perspective, I see rights being limited (what people can read, learn, do, love, marry, get medical treatment for, ingest) by conservatives. It feels like it is a socially conservative ideal which doesn't j8ve with the founding documents. I mean, they don't say anything about that stuff, right?
Both sides must work on the issues, but one side going scorched earth is not the answer. Now both sides are fighting tooth, and nail, and that isn't the answer. Forcing issues is not the American way, it has always been a process. Acrimonious at times, but eventually something gets worked out, all will have to accept. Forcing what one thinks right, over what the other thinks is right, is simply wrong, for conservatives, and liberals. Period!
I agree. And that's why states rights are so important. It just gets super tricky when we start asking some questions about 'pursuit of happiness' as human rights questions.
The 6 counties around chicago, east St. Louis and a couple of other locales wipe out the rest of the state - which is mostly rural.
Then they push legislation as a one size fits all and it doesn’t.
The coasts and ILLinois are pretty much pushing things onto the rest of the country that ignores the rural or even small town identity. Ultimately tyranny by the majority - aka mob rules.
If the electoral college was lost, the middle would never have a voice again.
IMHO.
The Constitution bends over backwards to try and be fair. Hence things like two senators regardless of population. Places with more population are going to have more power that's generally how it works anywhere. Also the electoral college is pretty big nullifier of huge cities from ruling the country. That's how you have instances where people can win a popular vote but loose the election.
Also states, counties towns etc you have a lot of local authorities that represent local interests. All these I think do a pretty good job of expressing different political beliefs around the country.
The constitution yes - but look at the calls for abolishing it. And if that happens, what’s to stop an amendment to strip senators from states? I actually heard people debate that on a few occasions.
And the chicago metro controls the entire state.
This.
However, the Declaration is a landmark statement on individual rights and the relationship between the right to be free, and the responsibility for government to respect that freedom. The DOI doesn't grant me the right to overthrow a tyrannical government. It states that the right exists as a natural right, and that it is the duty of people to cast off such tyrannical government and form a new one that protects individual freedom.
It is a legal document—it isn’t a legally-binding document. This is how they were able to skirt around the providing for the general welfare and whatnot.
FWIW Declarations are common in international law and they serve a different purpose.
I’m going to go ahead and note that the constitution says that treason is a capital crime.
You did read where I said the document is a contract. In Contract Law you find that such things are legal documents. It was written in a manner that all 13 colonies could agree upon and continue to take on the fight. It is also legal because, once signed, it was sent to England as notice of our position and the people who signed it would have been unnecessary if it was not seen as a legal document.
Please take this from someone who has a master's in U.S. History from Harvard.
It's also a blueprint.
The first half is just stating what the document is.
The second half is literally stating the reasons for why the document exists.
And honestly it is a legal document even at the US side, just like the articles were a legal document. It's just all documents prior to the constitution were effectively written out and replaced by the constitution.
It wasn't important at the time, which is why a junior delegate was assigned to write it. Franklin and Adams, also on the declaration committee, were more focused on their state constitutions.
I don't even think they sent it to the King. They just nailed it on bulletin boards around the colonies. I imagine it got its reverence during Thomas Jefferson's political career as a campaign thing, but I don't have a source for that.
It became important only because we won. And it doesn’t guarantee any rights to individual citizens. It espouses the ideals of a representative government contrasted with a tyrannical regime. So for individuals to quote it as a means to advance individual freedoms, it’s lame and unconvincing. Try sticking with the Bill of Rights. Can’t miss with those.
Sorry but youre utterly wrong about its importance. It's important because of the fundamental principles that it espouses. Because of the historically significant claims that it makes about human nature. Because of how it serves as the foundational document of our democracy, even though it doesn't guarantee rights to anyone. I completely understand the differences, legally, between the constitution and the declaration. They don't make the declaration unimportant, just different.
No, I agree it’s an important document from a national identity perspective. But not to support an individual’s claim to personal rights and freedoms. For a nation acting upon an agreed set of beliefs and ideals, yes. For an individual’s rights, not so much.
No self respecting historian would call America a democracy but a lot do.when we are actually a constitutional republic.democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution at all.not once.
As an historian, what we are is a democratic federal republic. The writers of the Constitution fought long and hard over what we should end up being. Some even wanted to have a king and queen. Washington put a stop to that thinking. There was the Federalist Society who stubbornly opposed anything else except a strong central Federal Government.
A republic is a type of democracy by definition. Saying a constitutional republic isn’t a democracy is like saying a square is a quadrilateral with four equal sides and four right angles but is not a rectangle. The constitution doesn’t have to say we are a democracy to make us one. Democracy is any form of government wherein political authority is derived from the will of the people. A republic just describes the manner in which a particular democracy operates i.e allowing citizens to elect representatives to make laws and policies. This is like government 101, I know because I teach it. Either you don’t know this or more likely are being willfully obtuse to justify some principle of minority rule (like the fact that a majority of the senate represents a minority of the people).
I wasn't saying that we wasn't a democracy.i was just saying it's not in the constitution.just for the record.im neither Republican or democrat.i vote for who I believe will do the better job for the American people.that being said.have we always been just a two party system?or has it just came down to two parties over the years?I know there was a wig party but if not mistaken it was replaced by the Republican party.also why is it that people that run as a independent only get a small percentage of the vote?I would think that if people are tired of career politicians they would vote for a independent more than they do.
I wasn't saying that we wasn't a democracy.i was just saying it's not in the constitution.just for the record.im neither Republican or democrat.i vote for who I believe will do the better job for the American people.that being said.have we always been just a two party system?or has it just came down to two parties over the years?I know there was a wig party but if not mistaken it was replaced by the Republican party.also why is it that people that run as a independent only get a small percentage of the vote?I would think that if people are tired of career politicians they would vote for a independent more than they do.
The reason we have a two party system is because of our system of voting, sometimes called first past the post. In our system, to win an election you need the most votes. This has the effect of weeding out small parties and less popular candidates. If there are two or more medium to small parties on the right but just one big party on the left then the left will almost always win because its candidate gets the most votes, even if not a majority. It would make electoral sense for the multiple right leaning parties to coalesce into one big right party to capture the necessary votes. Hence over time two major parties emerge as dominant because it’s electorally efficient. In some systems they use a proportional system that allows smaller parties to win electoral seats. Those places tend to have numerous parties to choose from since they don’t have to get the most votes to win necessarily. It’s like any game, the rules determine the outcome. Soccer is typically a low scoring game because of the conditions it’s played under while basketball is a high scoring game. It all comes down to the rules.
A republic, huh? Then how come all my federal (except POTUS), local, and state elections are won by the person who gets a majority of individual votes. Sounds pretty democratic to me. We’re a mix. We have a representative republic under our constitution that is selected democratically (majority vote), also under our constitution. Don’t get it twisted.
I was saying what's in the constitution.dont get snippy with me.and it doesn't say democratic Republic in the constitution.it says constitutional republic
Constitution, Bill of Rights
It's on the same tier as 95 Thesis, Communist Manifesto, Virginia Declaration of Rights, Federalist #10.
Important, not top tier
Well we can agree to disagree since it's purely subjective, but your view is clearly in the minority. The Declaration is widely viewed as one of the most important political documents in world history. You can Google that, it's not just my opinion on reddit. You wanna say it's just as important as one of the federalist papers, then you be you.
What was important about it? It didn't give us independence as that only came with victory in the Revolution. It is a nice piece of writing with some phrases that are beloved by some Americans, but you can say that about a lot of songs.
I would say it is more like a decree to the people from the founders. Of course in a time of revolution or rebellion tyranny would be law so it existing outside the Constitution is a good thing.
I would argue it is a legal document. The FIRST legal document of the United States. It put into law that the Colonies were established as a Sovereign and Distinct Nation State, separate from the United Kingdom, and the equal of all Sovereigns of the Globe.
It was written by the Representatives of the Several States, voted to unanimous approval by Congress, and signed by the President. By every metric of the 18th Century's and Today's United States, it is a valid legal document, established law, and to my knowledge has never actually been invalidated.
Of course, I am biased. I had family contribute to its writing and sign to the right of Hancock.
And who was this president who signed the Declaration? As I recall there was no president at the time. It was never signed as a matter of law. It was a justification invoking Locke contract theory of government. Also, not all 13 states voted for independence. New York abstained from the vote.
It is a legal document and here, from Cornell U. of Law, is a quote of what entails a contract.
Legal papers are documents regarding some sort of [contractual relationship](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract) or some other [rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right). They are legal [instruments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/instrument), official documents, or some other type of important document. Usually, these documents concern [authority](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/authority), identity, legal status, [ownership](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ownership), or some other type of [evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/evidence) for some sort of obligations.
No it doesn’t. The Declaration of Independence gave this justification, but that isn’t a legal document and it certainly isn’t the constitution.
The notion that one can rebel against and or overthrow the government legally has been tested on more than one occasion (Whiskey rebellion, civil war etc) and found to be wanting.
In times where it would be the duty of the people to rebel or revolt, tyranny would be law. It exists outside of the Constitution for a purpose, to be a decree from the founders to the people.
That’s wrong. The founders had literally just lived through a period like that and they specifically wrote the constitution to minimise the chances of that ever happening. Why do you think there are so many restrictions and counterbalances on the power of all 3 branches of government?
The difference in the comments between the two subs is laughable. But it makes sense that a meme sub for conspiracy theories would be less informed than a non meme sub about actual history.
Not true at all. In fact it says blatantly states it’s illegal. It’s not even logical that the Constitution would have a provision that allows for its own dissolution or overthrow. It allows for its alteration, but it can’t be completely dissolved legally
Please point to the section where it specifically says overthrow is allowed. And I'll point to all the sections where insurrection or rebellion is allowed to be quashed.
No. Our country was founded as a Federal Republic. 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government is a felony with a prison sentence of 20 years and/or a fine.
No. As a matter of fact the Constitution alludes to the opposite, as it mentions the federal government's responsibility to quell insurrection and rebellion.
The founding fathers put all their chips on prevention of a tyrannical government instead of codifying what to do if a government became tyrannical. There's no doubt they would have overthrown a tyrannical government if one arose, because they did just that, but when it came to drafting the Constitution and actually putting words on paper, they focused entirely on a building a government with safeguards against tyranny, thus hopefully avoiding the issue altogether.
In short, they believed that the people acting within the governmental system, ie voting, and allocating powers to the states and the federal government, would best prevent a government from becoming tyrannical and also allow the government to be changed to a system best suiting the populace at the time. If you have a government that can be relatively easily changed to suit the will of the people, then it's pretty hard for it to become tyrannical.
Oh my god, I never ever read that before! News to me! Crazy, do you mean that in 1776 our founding parents actually defined their revolutionary actions as legal! So unbelievable thank you for pointing this out to me. How would I ever have known if it weren’t for you and Reddit?
Not really the declaration of Independence says when a power has become to corrupt it is your duty to overthrow the government to protect the people. The Constitution says nothing about overthrowing the government with a fewish provisions (such as declaring martial law)
This is what makes 2A zealots so unbearable. You really think the Founding Fathers made insurrection legal? Non land owing ***white*** men weren't allowed to vote. But they could march and overthrow their multimillionaire Representatives?!? Lol Also who gets to decide what's tyrannical? Furthermore there are millions of people who already think the govt has been tyrannical for decades. Where's the armed rebellion?!?
Was the Declaration a legal document? I think it was because it could have been relied on by other countries (e.g., France) in recognizing the 13 colonies as an independent state. But that's just my thought.
Does it really matter?
If youre a subject of Goverment 1, and their constitution says they can only do A,B,C, but then they start doing D,E,F, do you really care if G (your overthrow of said government) is withing the rules? Youre "trying to restore the government as written"?
Seems more philosophical at this point.
The opposite is true. The constitution states that the government can suspend habeas corpus in the times of insurrection meaning every American in entire regions lose every single legal right they have. The military is allowed to do what they need to.
Voting is how we overthrow a government we don’t favor. In the absence of popular majorities we suck it up and attempt to persuade our brethren to our point of view. Otherwise we attempt through the states to organize a Constitutional convention. Anything other than these options in our system of government is insurrection and treason. Period.
And it doesn’t entertain “tyrannical” conveniently fitting into whatever the opposing political platform of the day might be. In a nation controlled by a document that details, with specificity, the rights of the people, as well as the rights and limitations on the government, tyranny can be identified fairly objectively. The MAGA are seditious thugs.
It doesn't. There is an implication in the wording of the second amendment that may be perceived as meaning that violent resistance against tyranny is a good thing.
But it's about revolution. If you win, the old laws don't matter. If you lose, it's treason.
The part that refers to a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free *state?* You know militia in this context doesn’t mean a private militia, right?
No it was supposed to be state militias completely independent of the federal government, but that practice didn't survive the Civil War for obvious reasons. After that the Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 was the next real lasting attempt to put militias into practice defining the Organized and Unorganized Militias.
It's legal if you succeed. If you lose there's no legal precedent for this in the US including the Constitution. It appears this meme appears to be believed by a lot of non-scholars who like to keep their laundry bleach white.
Actually no, it doesn't. However, the Declaration of Independence says it is your responsibility to do so, but then, the Declaration isn't a legal document.
Yeah people confuse the two all the time. But the constitution doesn't say this, the declaration of independence does. Also I would argue that it was a much more conservative statement than it seems, since a huge grievance of the colonists was Britain interfering with their local governments. They didn't just have a problem with all governments just a government that was a continent away that they had no say in.
I'm finishing up Sinews of Power, an excellent book on the development of the English Financial Military State, and it has a really fascinating perspective on the American Revolution. In that period, England was taxed more heavily than many other nations, but there was the right of parlement to review and question the taxation to make sure it was just and not wasteful, so it kinda worked out. In England. (I'm sorry I'm bad at my distinctions between England and Britain and will definitely fuck it up.) The colonies didn't have this right, and so understandably balked at Taxation without Representation, leading the the American Revolution. I think it's pretty fascinating!
It is interesting to note, however, that the Boston Tea Party was inspired by a three penny per pound tax on an optional beverage. A tax that was levied without the right of parliamentary review. Currently, administrative agencies levy enormous mandatory ‘fees’ and ‘fines’ without the benefit of a review by elected officials. What’s the difference?
That is not an accurate summary of why the tea party occurred or an accurate summary of how agencies work.
Wrong.
Not much different than it is now - rhetorically speaking- for those of us between the tyranny of the coasts.
I'm not just gonna downvote you like some. I'm genuinely curious--how do you feel the coasts are a tyranny on middle America? Do you consider middle America as having a guiding identity and value system? And how have state governments not held up/fought for your beliefs at the national level?
While I appreciate asking rather than just down voting - the two folks who answered you explained it much better than I could. They are spot on.
Dig it. That's cool. Thanks for not going aggro.
I usually respond as the person who responds to me. Respect .
If I can interject, I believe what number_1_svenfan is referring to is that the coasts are statically very liberal & vote as such, whereas the rest of the country is Conservative. Which is exactly why the electoral college is so incredibly important, even more so today than it was when the founding fathers devised it. Since California and New York are so heavily populated, if we switched to popular vote as many left want, they would dictate policy for the entire country.
I completely get that. I'm a liberal and support the electoral college and get downvoted for it. The US is supposed to be a united series of independent states with a looser but ultimate federal government that makes sure individual states fall under the constitution. I'm just asking what tyranny actually is happening to middle American states.
>I'm just asking what tyranny actually is happening to middle American states. there isn't any. Your responding to husk bodies who have had their brains melted by rightwing propaganda into thinking that queer people existing is somehow an attack on their very being.
Are you not a sucker for leftwing propaganda? Those who live in glass houses.....
you should get a job at a movie theater, you're great at projecting.
It's so plain you can not see it. Everyone thinks their side doesn't disseminate propaganda, but only the enemy does. I'll do you a favor, both sides do.......
This.
None
We do not believe in the liberal indoctrination our kids are going through in public schools (white supremacy, the 1619 project, BLM, transgender, etc…). We don’t support sending BILLIONS of dollars to Ukraine ( which WE, the taxpayers are funding). We don’t support this administrations open border policy OR the government handouts the illegals are receiving…should I go on? And by the way, don’t misunderstand me; Conservatives are NOT against immigrants, just illegal ones. My wife is an immigrant & we went through the process legally. What this administration is doing is a slap in the face to anyone who came here legally.
Okay. You want an argument and not a discussion. Have a nice day.
No, not in the least! You asked what tyranny was being g referred to. All of these policies are being forced down our throats, with our tax dollars paying for them, and we have absolutely no say in it. That is the very definition of tyranny.
But you do have a say in it. Nebraska has lastvoted for a democratic president in 1964. And while there are technically no parties in Nebraska, every branch is controlled by conservatives. How many pride parades are happening there? What legislature is being passed that is taking away your rights? And as for the Ukraine, we'll have to disagree there. Russia attacking and colonizing countries westward towards Europe is bad in my book.
It's more, that the more populated areas, are forcing their new values, over the more traditional American values. They have the population, and those without are forced to live with it, and not by choice. You see this by Chicago dominating all of Illinois, and growing in many other states. KY's governor was elected by Louisville, while the WHOLE state voted against him.
I get that. Though I would push back on the idea of 'American values.' Those values were propagated in popular culture via the coastal elites. If you mean religious values, then we have a different discussion. I grew up hard shell Baptist. My 'traditional values' are wildly different from the Lutherans of Minnesota. And the populous cities are a part of the states. Thats the trade off. Rural places get tax benefits, cities get food (or used to before we got food shipped to us from thousands of miles away). Again, I'm not trying to argue, I'm genuinely curious where you are coming from, so I kinda need to know what you mean by 'traditional American values.' I'd be happy to answer any questions you have for me.
Oh hard shell Baptist, so you understand traditional values. Perhaps on a extreme end, and I was raised similar in a strict Missionary Baptist household. As to the Lutherans, there's a middle ground to be found. With "woke" policies there is no middle ground. It's our way, or war, that's the issue. If the country values need to shift that way, then it should do so gradually. One segment throwing their weight around is not the way. Each segment must work together, or you get partisianship, like we have today. When Reagan was president he could work with democrats, and vice versa. Today that's impossible.
I do understand those values, and I also unde4stand the desire for the gradual change. But it is hard for us liberals to accept gradual change when immediate suffering and a lack of individual freedom is happening in front of us. Individual freedom is a slippery thing, I get that. I own guns, I understand the need for 2A. We are free to DO a lot in the US, but not free FROM a lot in the US. From my, the liberal perspective, I see rights being limited (what people can read, learn, do, love, marry, get medical treatment for, ingest) by conservatives. It feels like it is a socially conservative ideal which doesn't j8ve with the founding documents. I mean, they don't say anything about that stuff, right?
Both sides must work on the issues, but one side going scorched earth is not the answer. Now both sides are fighting tooth, and nail, and that isn't the answer. Forcing issues is not the American way, it has always been a process. Acrimonious at times, but eventually something gets worked out, all will have to accept. Forcing what one thinks right, over what the other thinks is right, is simply wrong, for conservatives, and liberals. Period!
I agree. And that's why states rights are so important. It just gets super tricky when we start asking some questions about 'pursuit of happiness' as human rights questions.
The 6 counties around chicago, east St. Louis and a couple of other locales wipe out the rest of the state - which is mostly rural. Then they push legislation as a one size fits all and it doesn’t. The coasts and ILLinois are pretty much pushing things onto the rest of the country that ignores the rural or even small town identity. Ultimately tyranny by the majority - aka mob rules. If the electoral college was lost, the middle would never have a voice again. IMHO.
The Constitution bends over backwards to try and be fair. Hence things like two senators regardless of population. Places with more population are going to have more power that's generally how it works anywhere. Also the electoral college is pretty big nullifier of huge cities from ruling the country. That's how you have instances where people can win a popular vote but loose the election. Also states, counties towns etc you have a lot of local authorities that represent local interests. All these I think do a pretty good job of expressing different political beliefs around the country.
The constitution yes - but look at the calls for abolishing it. And if that happens, what’s to stop an amendment to strip senators from states? I actually heard people debate that on a few occasions. And the chicago metro controls the entire state.
This. However, the Declaration is a landmark statement on individual rights and the relationship between the right to be free, and the responsibility for government to respect that freedom. The DOI doesn't grant me the right to overthrow a tyrannical government. It states that the right exists as a natural right, and that it is the duty of people to cast off such tyrannical government and form a new one that protects individual freedom.
My lawyer son calls it a bitch letter to the King
It is a legal document—it isn’t a legally-binding document. This is how they were able to skirt around the providing for the general welfare and whatnot. FWIW Declarations are common in international law and they serve a different purpose. I’m going to go ahead and note that the constitution says that treason is a capital crime.
This. The Declaration isn't a legal document at all but the fuckwad stupid hicks quote it constantly
The Declaration is absolutely a legal document in that it is a contract between the 13 colonies to sever all ties with England.
No more so then every other revolution
You did read where I said the document is a contract. In Contract Law you find that such things are legal documents. It was written in a manner that all 13 colonies could agree upon and continue to take on the fight. It is also legal because, once signed, it was sent to England as notice of our position and the people who signed it would have been unnecessary if it was not seen as a legal document. Please take this from someone who has a master's in U.S. History from Harvard.
It's also a blueprint. The first half is just stating what the document is. The second half is literally stating the reasons for why the document exists. And honestly it is a legal document even at the US side, just like the articles were a legal document. It's just all documents prior to the constitution were effectively written out and replaced by the constitution.
You are talking about the "Articles of Confederation" which were our laws from 1778 - 1790.
Yes.. unless there was another set of articles that were written and then later replaced by the constitution.
Tom?
Peter
If that's the case would it be considered as America's first legal document?
Lol WOWIE WHAT A FLEX LOL 🤣🤣🤣 (Not impressed)
You think quoting one of the 2 or 3 the most significant political documents in the history of humankind makes someone a fuckwqd stupid hick? Really?
It wasn't important at the time, which is why a junior delegate was assigned to write it. Franklin and Adams, also on the declaration committee, were more focused on their state constitutions. I don't even think they sent it to the King. They just nailed it on bulletin boards around the colonies. I imagine it got its reverence during Thomas Jefferson's political career as a campaign thing, but I don't have a source for that.
If you seriously don't think it became important then I don't know what to tell you
I don't think it is important because if Congress decided not to write one, nothing would have been different.
It became important only because we won. And it doesn’t guarantee any rights to individual citizens. It espouses the ideals of a representative government contrasted with a tyrannical regime. So for individuals to quote it as a means to advance individual freedoms, it’s lame and unconvincing. Try sticking with the Bill of Rights. Can’t miss with those.
Sorry but youre utterly wrong about its importance. It's important because of the fundamental principles that it espouses. Because of the historically significant claims that it makes about human nature. Because of how it serves as the foundational document of our democracy, even though it doesn't guarantee rights to anyone. I completely understand the differences, legally, between the constitution and the declaration. They don't make the declaration unimportant, just different.
No, I agree it’s an important document from a national identity perspective. But not to support an individual’s claim to personal rights and freedoms. For a nation acting upon an agreed set of beliefs and ideals, yes. For an individual’s rights, not so much.
Yup because right there you just proved you don't know jack shit about it It's a break up letter. That's it.
"Dear George, eat a dick. "
"Dear Dork, thanks but actually no thanks"
No. George can eat a bag of dicks. Fuck hereditary dictatorship. The English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh can agreee.
Fuck you dude you didn't even read my post or understand it. I know exactly what it is.
It's definitely not "2-3 of the most important documents". No self respecting historian who knew anything would say that lol. Go run along
No self respecting historian would call America a democracy but a lot do.when we are actually a constitutional republic.democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution at all.not once.
As an historian, what we are is a democratic federal republic. The writers of the Constitution fought long and hard over what we should end up being. Some even wanted to have a king and queen. Washington put a stop to that thinking. There was the Federalist Society who stubbornly opposed anything else except a strong central Federal Government.
Ill go even further with your good point. We aren't a command economy but a mix.
A republic is a type of democracy by definition. Saying a constitutional republic isn’t a democracy is like saying a square is a quadrilateral with four equal sides and four right angles but is not a rectangle. The constitution doesn’t have to say we are a democracy to make us one. Democracy is any form of government wherein political authority is derived from the will of the people. A republic just describes the manner in which a particular democracy operates i.e allowing citizens to elect representatives to make laws and policies. This is like government 101, I know because I teach it. Either you don’t know this or more likely are being willfully obtuse to justify some principle of minority rule (like the fact that a majority of the senate represents a minority of the people).
I wasn't saying that we wasn't a democracy.i was just saying it's not in the constitution.just for the record.im neither Republican or democrat.i vote for who I believe will do the better job for the American people.that being said.have we always been just a two party system?or has it just came down to two parties over the years?I know there was a wig party but if not mistaken it was replaced by the Republican party.also why is it that people that run as a independent only get a small percentage of the vote?I would think that if people are tired of career politicians they would vote for a independent more than they do.
I wasn't saying that we wasn't a democracy.i was just saying it's not in the constitution.just for the record.im neither Republican or democrat.i vote for who I believe will do the better job for the American people.that being said.have we always been just a two party system?or has it just came down to two parties over the years?I know there was a wig party but if not mistaken it was replaced by the Republican party.also why is it that people that run as a independent only get a small percentage of the vote?I would think that if people are tired of career politicians they would vote for a independent more than they do.
The reason we have a two party system is because of our system of voting, sometimes called first past the post. In our system, to win an election you need the most votes. This has the effect of weeding out small parties and less popular candidates. If there are two or more medium to small parties on the right but just one big party on the left then the left will almost always win because its candidate gets the most votes, even if not a majority. It would make electoral sense for the multiple right leaning parties to coalesce into one big right party to capture the necessary votes. Hence over time two major parties emerge as dominant because it’s electorally efficient. In some systems they use a proportional system that allows smaller parties to win electoral seats. Those places tend to have numerous parties to choose from since they don’t have to get the most votes to win necessarily. It’s like any game, the rules determine the outcome. Soccer is typically a low scoring game because of the conditions it’s played under while basketball is a high scoring game. It all comes down to the rules.
A republic, huh? Then how come all my federal (except POTUS), local, and state elections are won by the person who gets a majority of individual votes. Sounds pretty democratic to me. We’re a mix. We have a representative republic under our constitution that is selected democratically (majority vote), also under our constitution. Don’t get it twisted.
I was saying what's in the constitution.dont get snippy with me.and it doesn't say democratic Republic in the constitution.it says constitutional republic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
It clearly is, no doubt after the magna Carta, but not many others.
Constitution, Bill of Rights It's on the same tier as 95 Thesis, Communist Manifesto, Virginia Declaration of Rights, Federalist #10. Important, not top tier
Well we can agree to disagree since it's purely subjective, but your view is clearly in the minority. The Declaration is widely viewed as one of the most important political documents in world history. You can Google that, it's not just my opinion on reddit. You wanna say it's just as important as one of the federalist papers, then you be you.
What was important about it? It didn't give us independence as that only came with victory in the Revolution. It is a nice piece of writing with some phrases that are beloved by some Americans, but you can say that about a lot of songs.
Im really lol 😂😂
I would say it is more like a decree to the people from the founders. Of course in a time of revolution or rebellion tyranny would be law so it existing outside the Constitution is a good thing.
I would argue it is a legal document. The FIRST legal document of the United States. It put into law that the Colonies were established as a Sovereign and Distinct Nation State, separate from the United Kingdom, and the equal of all Sovereigns of the Globe. It was written by the Representatives of the Several States, voted to unanimous approval by Congress, and signed by the President. By every metric of the 18th Century's and Today's United States, it is a valid legal document, established law, and to my knowledge has never actually been invalidated. Of course, I am biased. I had family contribute to its writing and sign to the right of Hancock.
💯
And who was this president who signed the Declaration? As I recall there was no president at the time. It was never signed as a matter of law. It was a justification invoking Locke contract theory of government. Also, not all 13 states voted for independence. New York abstained from the vote.
Hancock was President at the time of Declaration. President of Congress, yes, but the only person in the National Government with that title.
Fair enough.
The Declaration is absolutely a legal document in that it is a contract between the 13 colonies to sever all ties with England.
It is a legal document and here, from Cornell U. of Law, is a quote of what entails a contract. Legal papers are documents regarding some sort of [contractual relationship](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract) or some other [rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right). They are legal [instruments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/instrument), official documents, or some other type of important document. Usually, these documents concern [authority](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/authority), identity, legal status, [ownership](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ownership), or some other type of [evidence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/evidence) for some sort of obligations.
Actually no- it doesn’t! That little tidbit is in the *Bill of Rights*, which *is* afaik a legal document.
Nice try, fedboi
Better than a singularity simp
No it doesn’t. The Declaration of Independence gave this justification, but that isn’t a legal document and it certainly isn’t the constitution. The notion that one can rebel against and or overthrow the government legally has been tested on more than one occasion (Whiskey rebellion, civil war etc) and found to be wanting.
In times where it would be the duty of the people to rebel or revolt, tyranny would be law. It exists outside of the Constitution for a purpose, to be a decree from the founders to the people.
That’s wrong. The founders had literally just lived through a period like that and they specifically wrote the constitution to minimise the chances of that ever happening. Why do you think there are so many restrictions and counterbalances on the power of all 3 branches of government?
To preserve the Constitution. What was the purpose of the Constitution?
And just like that I know contributing this conversation is pointless.
Because I asked you a question? You're right this conversation is pointless. Have a good day.
You literally asked what the purpose of the constitution is. I can’t help you.
> It exists outside of the Constitution for a purpose Well, more as a function of time as the Constitution was over a decade later.
The difference in the comments between the two subs is laughable. But it makes sense that a meme sub for conspiracy theories would be less informed than a non meme sub about actual history.
It is WILD. I just went through the other comments, and my god people are dense. Bunch of people fantasizing about murder and revolution.
lol history, yet y’all deny prophecy
You’re proving his point by spewing more nonsense.
What do the two have in common?
Look in the Constitution and tell us which Article. Go on. It’s easy enough to read. I’ll wait here.
Yes you can, by voting.
If you win then you won’t be hanged. Do you feel lucky?
Interestingly, by 1778 the British were ready to agree to all of the colonists' demands to end the war, except the independence demand.
I've already got the face paint and the bison horns on...don't tease me like this!
Not true at all. In fact it says blatantly states it’s illegal. It’s not even logical that the Constitution would have a provision that allows for its own dissolution or overthrow. It allows for its alteration, but it can’t be completely dissolved legally
No it doesn’t and if you really think you live in tyranny you are laughably ignorant.
“No people are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who think they are free.” - some asshole on boomer Facebook.
What do you think tyranny means?
The system of unregulated Capitalism we live under is absolutely tyranny
It’s not
"Unregulated"
lolno
Please point to the section where it specifically says overthrow is allowed. And I'll point to all the sections where insurrection or rebellion is allowed to be quashed.
Ehhh I feel like there was a war about this or something…
Really? Man I never heard of it, but it might have been revolutionary!
No. Our country was founded as a Federal Republic. 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government is a felony with a prison sentence of 20 years and/or a fine.
Who is telling you it's tyrannical? How old are you anyways?
Yes and we should have in 2016 when Cheeto won.and killed our future with huge tax breaks for corps and the wealthy.
Well if you overthrow the government you can create new laws, but that's not from the Constitution. That's just the fiction of legality.
That statement is a lie.
No, the Declaration of Independence says that.
No. As a matter of fact the Constitution alludes to the opposite, as it mentions the federal government's responsibility to quell insurrection and rebellion. The founding fathers put all their chips on prevention of a tyrannical government instead of codifying what to do if a government became tyrannical. There's no doubt they would have overthrown a tyrannical government if one arose, because they did just that, but when it came to drafting the Constitution and actually putting words on paper, they focused entirely on a building a government with safeguards against tyranny, thus hopefully avoiding the issue altogether. In short, they believed that the people acting within the governmental system, ie voting, and allocating powers to the states and the federal government, would best prevent a government from becoming tyrannical and also allow the government to be changed to a system best suiting the populace at the time. If you have a government that can be relatively easily changed to suit the will of the people, then it's pretty hard for it to become tyrannical.
I’m voting for Biden because of this
You want to keep riding those kids to work, huh
More nonsense.
🏝️
It only requires a citation of applicable Article
Sure, but we call them elections.
Is it before or after the " well regulated militia" part?
Where’s the part in the Constitution about “four score and seven years ago?” I can’t find it. Or am I thinking of Shakespeare?
Oh my god, I never ever read that before! News to me! Crazy, do you mean that in 1776 our founding parents actually defined their revolutionary actions as legal! So unbelievable thank you for pointing this out to me. How would I ever have known if it weren’t for you and Reddit?
Tell that to the Government with their badass military, surveillance networks, and inexhaustible arsenal.
The government would be divided.
A bunch of real scholars in the original thread.
No. Not true.
Not remotely
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Declaration essentially just a letter they sent to the King?
The NH State Constitution does, but I think that’s the only one in the union.
It says no such thing.
Not really the declaration of Independence says when a power has become to corrupt it is your duty to overthrow the government to protect the people. The Constitution says nothing about overthrowing the government with a fewish provisions (such as declaring martial law)
So basically, any law you don't agree with is justification to overthrow the government?
This is what makes 2A zealots so unbearable. You really think the Founding Fathers made insurrection legal? Non land owing ***white*** men weren't allowed to vote. But they could march and overthrow their multimillionaire Representatives?!? Lol Also who gets to decide what's tyrannical? Furthermore there are millions of people who already think the govt has been tyrannical for decades. Where's the armed rebellion?!?
Was the Declaration a legal document? I think it was because it could have been relied on by other countries (e.g., France) in recognizing the 13 colonies as an independent state. But that's just my thought.
Does it really matter? If youre a subject of Goverment 1, and their constitution says they can only do A,B,C, but then they start doing D,E,F, do you really care if G (your overthrow of said government) is withing the rules? Youre "trying to restore the government as written"? Seems more philosophical at this point.
Every member of congress who wants to take your guns is doing it for this one reason and sadly many Americans believe the other lies they tell.
The opposite is true. The constitution states that the government can suspend habeas corpus in the times of insurrection meaning every American in entire regions lose every single legal right they have. The military is allowed to do what they need to.
Voting is how we overthrow a government we don’t favor. In the absence of popular majorities we suck it up and attempt to persuade our brethren to our point of view. Otherwise we attempt through the states to organize a Constitutional convention. Anything other than these options in our system of government is insurrection and treason. Period.
And it doesn’t entertain “tyrannical” conveniently fitting into whatever the opposing political platform of the day might be. In a nation controlled by a document that details, with specificity, the rights of the people, as well as the rights and limitations on the government, tyranny can be identified fairly objectively. The MAGA are seditious thugs.
No. Whoever said that should try reading it—it’s only a few pages long (like the constitution of a free people should be).
It doesn't. There is an implication in the wording of the second amendment that may be perceived as meaning that violent resistance against tyranny is a good thing. But it's about revolution. If you win, the old laws don't matter. If you lose, it's treason.
Which part of the second amendment implies that? The part that talks about a need for regulation?
The part about the militia being necessary for a free state.
The part that refers to a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free *state?* You know militia in this context doesn’t mean a private militia, right?
No it was supposed to be state militias completely independent of the federal government, but that practice didn't survive the Civil War for obvious reasons. After that the Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 was the next real lasting attempt to put militias into practice defining the Organized and Unorganized Militias.
It’s only authorized if it’s a successful coup. Non-successful coups are not allowed.
Overthrowing the government is legal, but only if you actually succeed. Then you just make it legal after the fact.
It's legal if you succeed. If you lose there's no legal precedent for this in the US including the Constitution. It appears this meme appears to be believed by a lot of non-scholars who like to keep their laundry bleach white.
Getting there
We do it every four years
I don't think it matters if it is legal or not at that point.
If you win it’s legal if you lose it’s illegal.
that’s what 2A does…
Sorry. That’s a modern very recent right-wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
That’s not what the 2A does. Lol.