The Right To Rebel

Lets consider the right to rebel as its found in the Declaration of Independence. The fourth self-evident truth is pretty exciting stuff, however, its often lifted out of the Declaration without considering its context. Politicians may use it to draw attention to themselves, media outlets may take said candidates statements even farther out of context in order to make them squirm, extremists of various stripes love to justify their acts of random violence by cloaking themselves in the words of Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of us are often left wondering just what Tommy J. meant. Well, Thomas Jefferson probably meant exactly what he said, however, let us first remember that it was written after the Revolution was underway and it was brutally clear that reconciliation with the British Crown was impossible. So, look at the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (here is where we find its political theory) read closely the portion discussing the altering or abolishing of governments which are said to be "destructive to these ends." What are the "ends" to which Thomas Jefferson is referring? Correct! Governments are established to protect the self evident truths of equality, the unalienable rights, and the consent of the governed. And when a government has become destructive to these truths, its time for a change. Now, look at the section on "light and transient causes." Yup, you got it, governments shouldn't be changed for fluffy reasons. Next, check out the section dealing with " a long train of abuses" and "absolute depotism." That's right! Tommy J. is arguing the right to rebel requires a significant history of abuses from a government heading toward absolute power with little responsibility to or respect for the governed. While a few may still find this open to some interpretation, it does set the bar for rebellion pretty darn high! Now, lets take a look at an exchange between congressional candidate Stephen Broden and an interviewer over this vary topic. (Its about fifteen minutes long and the right to rebel come up about half way through the interview) What do you think? (1) Is Stephen Broden being badgered or treated unfairly by the interviewer concerning his statement about violent overthrow being "on the table" as a means to change the government? (2) Is Stephen Broden merely trying to add energy to his campaign for Congress by making a controversial statement? (3) Even though Stephen Broden says violent overthrow isn't the first option, can we find anything today that meets the threshold set by Thomas Jefferson for using violent overthrow? If so, explain. (4) Is Stephen Broden actually suggesting violent overthrow should be considered at the present time? (5) What is Stephen Broden careful to say is the preferred way to alter the government? In closing, I would like to offer that the right to rebel is not meant to be "a call to arms" only. While the Revolution and the Civil War are obvious examples of its most extreme application, let us consider that each time we pass legislation or elect a new official we are altering our government. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 effectively abolished the Articles of Confederation. (America's first government) And, finally, each of the amendments to the Constitution are also alterations of the government. All of these peaceful changes fall under the domain of the "right to rebel" just as appropriately and definitely more commonly in our history than does violent overthrow.