Talk:Right of revolution

German constitution

While not exactly a right of revolution, Germany also has a "when all else fails" provision in Article 20 Paragraph 4 of its constitution:

All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

The Constitution of Greece also has a similar clause, called the "Final Provision" (Greek: Ακροτελεύτιο άρθρο):

Observance of the constitution is entrusted to the patriotism70.150.94.194 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC) of the Greeks who shall have the right and the duty to resist by all possible means against anyone who attempts the violent abolition of the Constitution.[1]

Erm. How is this close to a right to revolution? It's almost the opposite. 192.75.48.150 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Good work. Too bad that stuff wasn't removed earlier. Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 18:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello what about magna carta. There is a similar provision there.70.150.94.194 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas also wrote of the right to resist tyrannical rule in the Summa Theologica. Likewise Robert Bellarmine.--Gazzster (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee Constitution

only New Hampshire's guarantees its citizens the right to rebellion, in Article 10 of the constitution's bill of rights:

Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Tennessee Constitution, Article I, § 2: "That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Okay, we're skipping § 1, which says:

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Somebody tell me...how is that not a right of revolution, just as strong as that in the N.H. Constitution? -- Calion | Talk 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are right. I got that fact about New Hampshire being the only state guaranteeing a right to revolution from the Free State Project's website (I think) and added it to the article, but the claim certainly appears to be false. I was foolish to trust that source, it would appear. Thanks for catching the error. I have removed the offending bit about N.H. being the only state with a right to revolution in its constitution.

Germany

The "Right of revolution" only quoted US examples. I have added a quote from the German constitution. Hope it fits. I think we should also add other international examples. --Schoelle 07:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh - stupid me - should have read this talk page better, first ... sorry for the noise, the problem is that the German page for "Widerstandsrecht" (right to resist) links to this page, which is obviously wrong. --Schoelle 07:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing request

The introduction states:

"Doctrines of the right of revolution differ on several dimensions:

1. Whether the right is owned and exercised individually or collectively.
2. Whether the acquisition of a right to cast off a government also creates a duty to do so.
3. Whether the right is subject to restrictive conditions before it becomes effective, such as that the right exists only in the face of tyrannical government.
4. Whether the right is a result of natural law or of positive law."

Can someone point to the sourcing for this four pointed idea? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be WP:OR, perhaps you should tag it as such. LK (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Render unto Caesar

The article should probably mention that the New Testament phrase render unto Caesar, apparently formulated by Jesus himself, has often been used to oppose any existing right to revolution. Many Jews wanted to rebel against Roman authorities, but Jesus told them that it was better for them to pay their taxes and not resist authorities, and that in this way they would be rendering a better service to God as well. This Gospel teaching partly explains why so many Christians were not really in favour of joining revolutionary movements during the 18th century Enlightenment era. ADM (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Terrible first sentence.

Anyone want to take a wack at rewriting this mess, but still retaining all the meaning?

In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is a right or duty, variously stated throughout history, possessed by subjects of a state that justifies their action to overthrow the government to whom the subjects otherwise would owe allegiance.

While you're at it, the lead could stand to be expanded as well. LK (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have given it a go. Feel free to change it if it is unsatisfactory. Unfortunately it shortened the lead, but I am not sure what else to expand it with. Perhaps the clarification that the reasons and justifications of this belief varies greatly, and/or some basic concise history of the theory? --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, in an effort to streamline the opening sentence, I have removed the parenthetical phrase, "previously stated throughout history," and tagged it to the beginning of the following sentence. Although others will surely disagree, this phrase seemed unnecessary to a summary of the concept and set up an impression of redundancy when it appeared again in the second sentence. Tejanoviejo (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"...the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce."

Is there evidence that mentioning a right of revolution in a constitution is likely to produce this effect? —Darxus (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Double Predestination

Irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.75.129 (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Right of revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140227022845/http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/sites/core/files/text/Preface%20to%20the%20Constitution%20of%201793.pdf to http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/sites/core/files/text/Preface%20to%20the%20Constitution%20of%201793.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Right of revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703062053/http://courts.ky.gov/research/history.htm to http://courts.ky.gov/research/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130613083740/http://www.usoud.cz/en/charter-of-fundamental-rights-and-freedoms to http://www.usoud.cz/en/charter-of-fundamental-rights-and-freedoms/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Post-January 6th U.S. Capitol Attack

Historians and Legal Scholars,

Since the 2020 U.S. election's outcome and the violent attack on the U.S. capitol on January 6th, 2021, politicians and everyday Americans have unsubtly advocated for their supposed right to overthrow the government violently. Americans are making excuses for repeat attacks against government institutions, politicians, and election workers. Conversations on news stations and at the dinner table frequently focus on this topic. I am disturbed by how angry people are getting and the casualness with which extreme accusations are being made. It is surprising that this topic is not settled in popular discourse. Please expand this page to document high-profile legal opinions, court cases, and revolution attempts based on a belief that a violent revolution today would be or could be legal. LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Constitutional right to insurrection in El Salvador

Hi all,

I think El Salvador's approach to the right to insurrection as a constitutional one is worth mentioning here, but I don't know if it would be best as a section or if it could be the basis for a new article about the legal recognition of rights to insurrection. https://web.archive.org/web/20230517051139/https://www.courthousenews.com/extraordinary-events-in-el-salvador/ Chemistmenace (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)