• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal government?

QuadpolarNutjob

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
the question is in the title; if the government is not enforcing order or law, is it support for, or against, law and order, to rebel against that government?




i expect this to be trolled by people who can't be bothered to read or think before responding, but it's an honest question that's been on my mind for awhile now as i contemplate the possibility of societal breakdown in america.
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

the question is in the title; if the government is not enforcing order or law, is it support for, or against, law and order, to rebel against that government?




i expect this to be trolled by people who can't be bothered to read or think before responding, but it's an honest question that's been on my mind for awhile now as i contemplate the possibility of societal breakdown in america.

This is almost always called Treason, but it does depend. If you are planning to spray paint F The police on walls or get a group together to protest things which I don't particularly like either, but you have the right to do. Then maybe you'll just get a slap on the wrist but I believe I know what you are talking about, and if it's THIS country you are talking about, then it is actually considered Treason. Well really everywhere it's considered Treason to rebel against the operational government. No matter what crappy dictator happens to run it. Now there have been cases in Libya, Syria, and Iraq where people are actively getting together and banning against the government. People in America generally like living in this country. Even people in other countries like living in this country better. So to me there is no point in rebelling against it.

Plus depending on what you do, you would either be considered a terrorist, or wind up on the 6 o'clock news making a fool of yourself. Just ask Cliven Bundy. He managed to do both at the same time. Yes, I am saying it's better to just take it. Because rebelling against a world power isn't going to get you anywhere but a jail cell or worse.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

The question is too general to answer. What spcecific law is not being enforced by what level of government and what is meant by rebel against that government? E.g. - If the city won't fix that pothole then is it OK to burn down city hall?
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

the question is in the title; if the government is not enforcing order or law, is it support for, or against, law and order, to rebel against that government?

i expect this to be trolled by people who can't be bothered to read or think before responding, but it's an honest question that's been on my mind for awhile now as i contemplate the possibility of societal breakdown in america.

My kneejerk response is that if the government is acting in a criminally oppressive way, then a rebellion in order to change it would seem to exemplify support for law and order.

But really, there shouldn't be any confusion about this, at least not here in the USA.

People often quote various historical documents to make points about American society and principles of government. Most often the Constitution; being the foundational contract between the government and the governed.

However, the other document most often cited is the Declaration of Independence, especially a particular passage. Here it is:

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, 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.
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Now to some of us this passage is pretty clear, and shows that it is lawful to try to overthrow any government that acts unjustly when all peaceful avenues are closed.

However, many choose to misunderstand or misinterpret this key passage; that is...when they are not dismissing the entire document as having no value after the ratification of the Constitution.

Such people argue that there is no need for common citizens to keep and bear arms. That is it laughable to think anyone would have any chance of successfully changing or abolishing it by force. This because they think that our government is immune to the corruption leading to tyranny.

They might argue that as long as the government has the support of the majority of citizens, it's actions however capricious and oppressive to some, are still lawful and orderly. That to oppose it violently rather than through the ballot box is not enforcing order or law.

I'd say look at any act of government sponsored "legally authorized" oppression or genocide in our history as a counter-argument for that position...at least as far as the victims were concerned.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

The question is too general to answer. What spcecific law is not being enforced by what level of government and what is meant by rebel against that government? E.g. - If the city won't fix that pothole then is it OK to burn down city hall?

My kneejerk response is that if the government is acting in a criminally oppressive way, then a rebellion in order to change it would seem to exemplify support for law and order.

But really, there shouldn't be any confusion about this, at least not here in the USA.

People often quote various historical documents to make points about American society and principles of government. Most often the Constitution; being the foundational contract between the government and the governed.

However, the other document most often cited is the Declaration of Independence, especially a particular passage. Here it is:

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Now to some of us this passage is pretty clear, and shows that it is lawful to try to overthrow any government that acts unjustly when all peaceful avenues are closed.

However, many choose to misunderstand or misinterpret this key passage; that is...when they are not dismissing the entire document as having no value after the ratification of the Constitution.

Such people argue that there is no need for common citizens to keep and bear arms. That is it laughable to think anyone would have any chance of successfully changing or abolishing it by force. This because they think that our government is immune to the corruption leading to tyranny.

They might argue that as long as the government has the support of the majority of citizens, it's actions however capricious and oppressive to some, are still lawful and orderly. That to oppose it violently rather than through the ballot box is not enforcing order or law.

Ya'll got this thread under control. I'll just watch.
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

My kneejerk response is that if the government is acting in a criminally oppressive way, then a rebellion in order to change it would seem to exemplify support for law and order.

But really, there shouldn't be any confusion about this, at least not here in the USA.

People often quote various historical documents to make points about American society and principles of government. Most often the Constitution; being the foundational contract between the government and the governed.

However, the other document most often cited is the Declaration of Independence, especially a particular passage. Here it is:

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Now to some of us this passage is pretty clear, and shows that it is lawful to try to overthrow any government that acts unjustly when all peaceful avenues are closed.

However, many choose to misunderstand or misinterpret this key passage; that is...when they are not dismissing the entire document as having no value after the ratification of the Constitution.

Such people argue that there is no need for common citizens to keep and bear arms. That is it laughable to think anyone would have any chance of successfully changing or abolishing it by force. This because they think that our government is immune to the corruption leading to tyranny.

They might argue that as long as the government has the support of the majority of citizens, it's actions however capricious and oppressive to some, are still lawful and orderly. That to oppose it violently rather than through the ballot box is not enforcing order or law.

I'd say look at any act of government sponsored "legally authorized" oppression or genocide in our history as a counter-argument for that position...at least as far as the victims were concerned.

That is exactly the logic that has interested me for some time. It seems clear enough that resistance is an integral and fully legitimate part of free democracy rule of law systems. One can easily argue that resistance or even revolt are not only implied by certain conditions but even a duty of each citizen.

There are questions, however.
- perception of the lawlessness of the state are subjective
- which level of lawlessness warrants which force
- is the individual criminal, if she makes a wrong call
- etc
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

If the US Government blatantly abuses the limits of power as defined in the constitution, then the people have the right to rebel. And, if it comes down to it......with arms.

Treason would not apply.
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

The question is too general to answer. What spcecific law is not being enforced by what level of government and what is meant by rebel against that government? E.g. - If the city won't fix that pothole then is it OK to burn down city hall?

I think the OP raises an excellent point.

If our government does not govern in accordance with its founding charter, what do we really have? Rhetorical question.

If our government, for example, passes legislation that nullifies the Fourth Amendment, is that government legitimate? If a government passes legislation that nullifies Habeas Corpus, is that government legitimate?

If a government refuses to prosecute or hold accountable public officers who have clearly broken the law, is that government legit? Does any citizen have an obligation to serve that government?
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

I think the OP raises an excellent point.

If our government does not govern in accordance with its founding charter, what do we really have? Rhetorical question.

If our government, for example, passes legislation that nullifies the Fourth Amendment, is that government legitimate? If a government passes legislation that nullifies Habeas Corpus, is that government legitimate?

If a government refuses to prosecute or hold accountable public officers who have clearly broken the law, is that government legit? Does any citizen have an obligation to serve that government?

OK you have established a starting point. Some actions/inactions of government are questionable if not outright unconstitutional. Now describe a proposed and appropriate citizen remedy for our consideration. Is outright rebellion or filing a petition for redress of grievances the appropriate citizen response?
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

OK you have established a starting point. Some actions/inactions of government are questionable if not outright unconstitutional. Now describe a proposed and appropriate citizen remedy for our consideration. Is outright rebellion or filing a petition for redress of grievances the appropriate citizen response?

I am a big advocate of jury power and especially jury nullification. I think the jury box is a far more potent tool to control government misbehavior than is the ballot box. Trouble is, it requires an informed citizenry, and we are certainly not quite there.

An informed and brave jury can stop some government misbehavior in its tracks. In a grassroots scenario, the potential is there for jury power and action to bring about a bloodless revolution. Jury acquittals and nullifications were largely responsible for the failure of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, so the precedent has been set.

As for armed revolution, I am skeptical that it would work today, given the superior fire power of today's military. Yes, if the military refused to follow orders to fire on civilians it might have a chance, but today's military seems compromised to me. I hope I'm wrong on that point.

Soldiers did fire upon and kill their former brothers in arms back in the Brown Shoe Army protests circa 1920
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

I am a big advocate of jury power and especially jury nullification. I think the jury box is a far more potent tool to control government misbehavior than is the ballot box. Trouble is, it requires an informed citizenry, and we are certainly not quite there.

An informed and brave jury can stop some government misbehavior in its tracks. In a grassroots scenario, the potential is there for jury power and action to bring about a bloodless revolution. Jury acquittals and nullifications were largely responsible for the failure of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, so the precedent has been set.

As for armed revolution, I am skeptical that it would work today, given the superior fire power of today's military. Yes, if the military refused to follow orders to fire on civilians it might have a chance, but today's military seems compromised to me. I hope I'm wrong on that point.

Soldiers did fire upon and kill their former brothers in arms back in the Brown Shoe Army protests circa 1920

That (bolded above) is a viable response (remedy?) for improper government attempted legal action against citizens but does not touch government inaction, ilegal (no charges are filed or trial held) or corruption. If government officials are never charged by the government with crimes then what?
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

That (bolded above) is a viable response (remedy?) for improper government attempted legal action against citizens but does not touch government inaction, ilegal (no charges are filed or trial held) or corruption. If government officials are never charged by the government with crimes then what?

There is a thing called Writ of Mandamus, and I think it can be filed under current US law. That could be used to force various agencies to enforce the damn law please. Trouble is, the courts have no balls, there is no dignity or pride, just going along with the system.

I've heard of the Bivens action, which is something about suing federal officers for their improper/illegal actions.

If we had a healthy judiciary things might be different, but right now Madison's vision that the courts would be the last bastion against tyranny was proven wrong many years ago.
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

i don't have a proposal, it's just something i've been thinking on, because both obvious alternatives seem bad. it seems there is no way to force the executive branch to enforce the laws it is sworn to enforce...and this means that anarchy is as likely as tyranny at this point.
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

Contrary to what some here probably believe, given my rantings against police abuse, I am a HUGE supporter of law and order. Only from ALL sides. It's not police or order that I rail against, it's against abusive police acting illegally and/or unethically.

Anyway, somewhat to the OP's question: When I joined the military many years ago I swore to defend the Constitution. Members of Congress and the President swear to uphold the Constitution. Should one of those people clearly and egregiously violate the Constitution, would I have been legally and morally justified in removing them from office at the point of my military-issued M-16?

Theoretically, of course. Should anyone try to actually do so, they'd almost certainly die in the process.
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

My kneejerk response is that if the government is acting in a criminally oppressive way, then a rebellion in order to change it would seem to exemplify support for law and order.

But really, there shouldn't be any confusion about this, at least not here in the USA.

People often quote various historical documents to make points about American society and principles of government. Most often the Constitution; being the foundational contract between the government and the governed.

However, the other document most often cited is the Declaration of Independence, especially a particular passage. Here it is:

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Now to some of us this passage is pretty clear, and shows that it is lawful to try to overthrow any government that acts unjustly when all peaceful avenues are closed.

However, many choose to misunderstand or misinterpret this key passage; that is...when they are not dismissing the entire document as having no value after the ratification of the Constitution.

Such people argue that there is no need for common citizens to keep and bear arms. That is it laughable to think anyone would have any chance of successfully changing or abolishing it by force. This because they think that our government is immune to the corruption leading to tyranny.

They might argue that as long as the government has the support of the majority of citizens, it's actions however capricious and oppressive to some, are still lawful and orderly. That to oppose it violently rather than through the ballot box is not enforcing order or law.

I'd say look at any act of government sponsored "legally authorized" oppression or genocide in our history as a counter-argument for that position...at least as far as the victims were concerned.
I firmly believe that it is precisely because we have an armed populace that we have been able to retain as much freedoms and rights as we have.

Even considering the piece-by-piece backsliding we have done.
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

the question is in the title; if the government is not enforcing order or law, is it support for, or against, law and order, to rebel against that government?




i expect this to be trolled by people who can't be bothered to read or think before responding, but it's an honest question that's been on my mind for awhile now as i contemplate the possibility of societal breakdown in america.

It depends. What is not being enforced. If the government is not enforcing laws imprisoning the raping of women and it gets out of control and armed militias rise up then I doubt anybody would be against that...
 
Re: Is it support for, or against, 'law and order' to rebel against criminal governme

Kind of a silly question. The government will see any sort of rebellion as treason and fight it. The people on the other hand will likely agree with the government in almost all cases. In the end however, all causes are subjective in their merits and the people that pursue them will not ask for your permission or be at the point where they care what you think. People that ask if there is a just cause for rebellion kind of miss the point, imho.
 
Back
Top Bottom