AskHistorians

Is there any place in the constitution

Of what Nation? You know that there are a few other countries outside your own and that they all have their own constitution? ;)

France, my own country, in the second article of its 'Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme' (1789) reads « Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits naturels et imprescriptibles de l’homme. Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté et la résistance à l’oppression. » Which roughly translates as : “The aim of any political association is the preservation of the natural and imperscriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.”

Not only does this text states what the purpose of any legit government must be but in doing so it also let it be understood that any government who is not actively working at protecting those fundamental rights stops being legitimate (and then it becomes the political/moral duty of citizens to oppose it).

The text is not mentioning violently overthrowing said government nor is it targeting specifically tyranny or monarchy (even though it was written against them) but it's making it a legit reason to stop obeying and to oppose any form of government that fails to protect those fundamentals rights… without fixing any 'acceptable' limit to the form said opposition could take.

And said limit can and were quite... high, back then. That is not something people like to consider nowadays but violence was part of the Republic’s DNA since its inception. Not even mentioning our own national enthem (la marseillaise) which is everything but friendly to whoever dares threatening our Nation, the most well known symbol is the beheading of the king and queen (and many other aristocrats) and then, in the name of its own safety, the new born French Republic turned itself into a literal mass murderer, culminating in what was later described as 'The Terror' (1792-94) during which, in the name of its own preservation, the Nation (that was indeed directly threatened by European monarchies and by internal dissents) massacred their own population (and also its own leaders). That Terror was a nightmarish blood bath, but I don't think the republic would have stand much of a chance without at least some of that extreme violence.

Violence set aside, I sincerely think France’s 'Déclaration’ is a wonderful text that is more than worth reading and meditating over and over again, today probably more than ever: La déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen , plus its official English translation: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

I suppose your from the USA? Then, your own Declaration of Independence (1776) states that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (protecting the people's fundamental rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

Please do note that they take a stance against 'any Form of Government' that is abusing its power and stops respecting people’s fundamental rights, not just against monarchy or tyranny.

Sure, back then they wrote it against what they considered abuses from the British monarchy but those people were smart enough to make sure that this essential text could be used against abuse of power from any form of government... including democratic ones.

Depending how one interprets it, this could also be one of the reasons why that young USA republic has deemed it necessary to have the 2nd Amendments (1791) say that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But I will let US people discuss that particular US notion. Still, as a foreigner I consider it another key text that is worth reading over and over again:

• The Declaration of Independence
• The Amendments

It's also worth remembering those people were highly educated and valued education in the citizen. As far as I can tell, as a mere foreigner, the US constitution does not talk about education of the people but one just needs to refer to Jefferson’s, Adams or Franklin’s own work (edit: and the work of some of their contemporaries) to brush aside any doubt: education and culture was considered a way to protect the republic from any ‘elite’ taking hold of it.

Education is something whose essential importance in protecting and strengthening our democracies we may have dangerously neglected for the last few decades. Here in France too, btw.

I have often argued that the Declaration of Independence is the true foundational document of the United States, and very few people have ever countered my claim.

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.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

If you’re applying the law as it is written, there isn’t a way to square a dictator within the framework of the constitution. ALL federal power is vested in the elected positions, and ALL remaining powers are reserved to the states. It’s not possible for a non-elected official to have more power than an elected official.

The constitution would have to die for a dictator to exist- as in, people would have to willingly stop enforcing it.

2nd amendment, but in america this is used to shoot kids.

In America, rights aren't "given", they are "respected". This is the same distinction made about the right-of-way while driving. Nobody ever has the right-of-way, but there are times when right-of-way must be yielded to others.

The US Constitution and its amendments declares all of the rights that the US Government must not infringe upon. Nothing declares what rights Americans have. [1] There is no external authority that "gives" Americans rights. They are inherent within us from birth. It is up to our systems of government to recognize and respect what has always been there.

The Second Amendment declares a right to self-defense that extends to defense against any threat including government agents. A modernizing of the 2A language would be, approximately - A free state is a critically important feature of civilization, therefore the people of that state possess the right to self-defense using the same level of technology as the state's agents.

The offensive use of arms is not a basic human right, but the defensive use is.

[1] The "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment has a lot of interesting legal history around it. The main point of argument has been how broadly to read new rights into that phrase. Most reasonable people can observe that the ambiguity in that clause is likely to have been intentionally broad because of this "natural rights" interpretation that is embedded deeply within US law all over the place.

laws are not made for revolution. Its more by having a policty of violating the consitution takes away an legitamacy a government has. The USA came into being with ratification of the constitution and if its not being followed it effectively does not exist. Now the declaration of independence basic is an outline of when its ok to revolt which is really a list of stuff the bill of rights does not allow. The bill of rights pretty much comes from the greivences in the declaration of independence.