Mhm. Show me where in the US constitution it says that people have a right to rebellion.
And then please show me how this right to rebellion was applied when an actual rebellion occured.
And please also take into consideration any laws regarding treason or domestic terrorism.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
I said constitutional law, not the US constitution alone. Including declaration of independence and the surrounding history of discussion and all. Also not “says that people have”, but recognizes it as an inherent right. Naturally if such a right exists, either no law can retract it or it would be meaningless.
I don’t see how this is relevant. If you think it is, please explain how, explicitly and not implicitly.
(Also one would guess that slaveholders’ right to rebellion is in significant doubt.)
Can’t override constitutional and inherent rights. Also if you don’t recognize the latter, it’s too bad but your country’s founding documents do as a basis. Basically the US constitution is toilet paper compared to unstated but mentioned in d.o.i. inherent rights, and any normal law is toilet paper compared to the US constitution.
And people who made that system were very well educated, also very practical, and explained very thoroughly why should any system of formal rules be possible to discard by force and why inherent rights not prone to degeneracy of any formal system driven by power should exist in philosophy. They were not XX and XXI centuries’ idealists with overvalued ideas, or idiots dreaming of totalitarianism with those like them on top.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 day ago
A law that doesn’t apply is worthless.
Thinking that this somehow makes you or your anachronistic shithole of a country somewhat better is just plain delusional.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
First, my anachronistic shithole of a country would be Russia.
Second, I said right, not law. Rights are more transcendent.