Does the Constituion make rebellion against tyranny impossible?

[gorfle]

In another thread, another poster has been making the argument that the state militias of the founding fathers' era could not have been used to resist, by force of arms, a tyrannical federal government, because Article III Section 3 of the constitution speaks about Treason, and such resistance would be treasonous.

I have asked the question:

Do you believe the founding fathers never intended the people to have the means to repel a tyrannical federal government by force, because that would be treason?

What do you think?

[ursi]

1. Homeland Security and Bush can with executive order from Bush in 207

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453

[gorfle]

3. Wront time period...

Please note we are talking about "of the founding fathers' era".

[ReformedChris]

2. Most of them felt that rebellion was going to be a constant possibility...

I think the founders always wanted the people of the time to have an "out" if something happened where a tyranical situation occurred. If a state wanted to succeed, the Federal Government could take it back by force. If a tyranical prescense was in Washington, the states still had the individual means to defend themselves with militia. The greatest thing about the constitution was the structure in which in placed power, divided in a way where there was always salvation from tyranny.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Well, apparently folks on the frontier didn't think so

Remember the Whiskey Rebellion of 1792?

[ladjf]

5. It doesn't matter now. Real, physical rebellion can not succeed.

[gorfle]

6. Two things:

1) I was speaking of the era of the founding fathers.

2) There are numerous examples of underarmed, undisciplined fighters successfully waging a rebellion against superior military forces. Mogadishu is an example. Iraq is another.

Rebellion is never a sure thing, but disarmed people will definitely have a harder time attempting it.

[jmeyer]

9. Real physical rebellion can still succeed

It has everything to do, though, with how popular the rebellion really is. People constantly forget that soldiers are not robots and, if the rebellion is popular enough and the government unpopular enough, may very well mutiny. This is exactly what happened in both Russian revolutions (1917 and 1990), the Hungarian uprising in 1956 (although the Soviets intervened), Castro's revolution in Cuba, the Iranian revolution, etc. That the government has tanks, aircraft, and nuclear weapons doesn't matter much if the soldiers and airmen in charge of deploying those weapons decide they'd rather use them against the government.

[jmg257]

7. Of course not, that is the whole import of the people's role re: Militia - best security of a free

State, and best defense against tyranny.

Even Hamilton, a staunch "federalist", pointed out this benefit of the Militia system after the Constitution was written:

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."


James Jackson, re: the Militia: "In a republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurption, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils - a standing army."


Plenty of others chimed in on the importance of a free, and armed, people.

[gorfle]

8. Excellent citations, jmg257! n/t

.

[gorfle]

11. When did James Jackson write that?

Say, JMG257, did James Jackson write that after the Constitution was adopted? When did he write it?

Thanks.

[jmg257]

12. After...Dec 16, 1790. When debating/coming up with the 1st Militia Bill

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=002/llac002.db&recNum=287


{[He was}"of the opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived the privilege of carrying arms Though it may be burdensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated..."

[Recursion]

10. Er... once you're in armed revolt, "legality" is kind of a moot point

Because you'll either be the founding fathers of the next regime or hung after the battle.

[Boomer 50]

13. Remember something about treason

Treason in the US is a crime against the flag. NOT the government. It is possible and I believe happening right now that the Government can commit treason against the flag.

We have a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Any action that is treasonous must be an act against the people. This is why we have the 2nd Amendment. To ensure that our elected officials don't commit treason. I hate to say it but we've been facing a constant state of treason in our Government since Bush senior took office. With every administration since, it's just gotten worse and worse.

Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment has shielded us from what could be much worse. Remember the scene at Waco. Think what our nation would be like today if we had situations like that happening every month, or week or day.