PDA

View Full Version : Question...




Patriot123
02-06-2008, 09:50 PM
All right. First, I'm not condoning this, supporting it, or anything of the sort. It's just a question which I was curious about regarding constitutional law. That's all. Not encouraging this in any way, shape or form. Now...

In the bill of rights, it says it is the citizens responsibility to throw off such tyrannical government if it comes into existance. Right? The Declaration of Independence states it is our responsibility to revolt in any way possible to ensure our happiness if our government were to turn tyrannical, corrupt, etcetera. Right? I believe this is also mentioned in the Constitution in another way. Though I'm probably mistaken about it being in the Constitution. Now. After the Civil War, if I recall, none of the generals of soldiers could be tried for treason because they were fighting to ensure their own happiness. As such, they couldn't be tried, if I'm correct. So here's the question. Well, two questions, really.

1) If such a violent revolution were to take place, according to the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, would such an act be lawful? Would it be justified by those three documents?
2) With the Patriot Act and other new laws, what the chances of actually being tried for treason if such an event were to occur?

Again, and I repeat myself, I am not encouraging such an event in no way, shape or form. I am simply curious about constitutional law. That's it. Not condoning this, supporting it, etcetera.

Cleaner44
02-06-2008, 09:58 PM
It may be legal but one could feasibly go to jail for 3 years without seeing a lawyer before ever even having a chance to claim your constitutional right.

Patriot123
02-06-2008, 10:42 PM
What about if, say, less than half of the nation were to be involved? Then would, "we the people" apply still? Doesn't we the people apply to the majority of the nation? If so, then wouldn't a minority revolting without the consent of the rest of the "we the people" be technically overstanding their constitutional right? Is it collective, or non-collective?