Each goes on to establish how the respective governments each group of signees lives under is no longer doing so. Each lists a number of grievances that prove their point. The U.S. document makes the additional case that the King of England was attempting to establish a tyrannical systems by controlling each of the governing powers - the legislative, executive and judicial. Free people refuse to live in such systems, so there's the justification.
But though each declaration makes the point that citizens can rebel and change their governing systems, the United States Constitution does not mention this right. This right is mentioned in the Texas Constitution however, it is in the Second Section in Article One - the Texas Bill of Rights.
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
The Atlantic Magazine has posted article pointing out that many countries do have provisions in their Constitutions stating that people to have rights to rebel. But they find this right to be problematic. A quick read through it might help clarify some of the issues associated with the simultaneously trying to establish a government that is stable, but subject to the will of the people. As you will note (especially 2305 students) the framers of the Constitution wrestled with the fact that governments closely tied to the general population were unstable, and lacked the ability to in fact govern.
- Click here for the article.
Here are a few quotes from the Article:
Why no clause in the U.S. Constitution?
Quite often, the right appears in constitutions written in the immediate aftermath of a military revolt or popular revolution. Such “founding” texts frequently include language meant to justify the overthrow of the old order as well as provide a blueprint for the new. Our Founding Fathers, with their fondness for the idea of natural rights, might have embraced something similar in the United States had the Declaration of Independence not been separated by more than a decade from the drafting of the Constitution.
It's worth noting that the 1876 Constitution was written just after the end of reconstruction, and the ex-Confederates who could now again participate politically were animated by antipathy towards the national government which of course had just forced them to give their slaves.
The right to rebel helps create instability by making it easier to challenge the legitimacy of government officials. It facilitates military coups:
Several of today’s trouble spots, including Mali, Turkey, and Venezuela, have constitutional rights to resist. In many ways, the regimes in these countries couldn’t be more different. But they also share something else: disputed legitimacy at the time of their ascension.
Here’s how this dynamic typically plays out:
Step 1: A government with questionable democratic credentials takes administrative control following a coup or revolution, or else is democratically elected after previously failing to seize power through one of the above. Soon afterward, these rulers consolidate their power by drafting a new constitution—one which includes a “right to resist,” ostensibly meant to serve as ex-post-facto validation of their past attempts to overthrow their predecessors.
Step 2: In Faustian fashion, the proviso becomes a thorn in the side of the administrations that govern under the new constitution, as agitators and enemies wield it to foment instability. When that instability grows great enough, it produces a crisis that topples the very system it was supposed to be legitimizing. And yet, the provision—or one like it—often sticks around in the next constitutional revision, since taking it out might signal weakness or fear on the part of the country’s new rulers.
Step 3: Rinse and repeat.
The right to rebel is less about allowing the people to stage future protests than to justify previous overthrows of the government. But these provisions then provide constitutional authorizations for future moves against the government. It introduces into the constitutional order a destabilizing element, when constitutions are supposed to provide order, along with a manageable orderly way to change policies (at least ideally).
He uses Thailand, Cuba and Venezuela as examples.
Here's the concluding point:
One could argue that the Venezuelan people are better off if a right to resist helps them destabilize the likes of Chávez. And it is likewise possible that since unstable countries tend to write more constitutions than stable ones do—Thailand had 19, Venezuela 26—troubled nations simply have more opportunities to adopt the clause. But the fact remains that constitutions are nearly always written with an eye toward ensuring the survival of the system being created—and the constitutional right to resist can undermine that goal and generate greater political instability.
If politics is the “art of the possible,” a constitution is its canvas—with set parameters limiting the scope of those possibilities. Right-to-resist provisions explode these constraints, potentially providing carte blanche to those who might someday seek to upend the system, and leaving those in power with a constitutional Clause of Damocles hanging over their heads.
The right to rebel most likely fits under the heading of what the framers of the Constitution called direct democracy, which - as 2305 students will note in the section on Federalist 10 - was destabilizing. As we walk through the structure of the Constitution, we'll note the various ways it connects the electorate indirectly with the operations of government. The goal was to provide just enough responsiveness to the preferences of the population to react to it, without destabilizing the governing system.
It's why we have a republic rather than a democracy.
Some things to consider as you go through the class material.
