1. Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of
p p y g g
) g y y g
rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated throughout
y p p
history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government
that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right
extends back to ancient China, and it has been used
throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the
American Revolution and the French Revolution.
1 Origins
1.1 China The storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789 has
1.2 Islamic tradition come to symbolize the French Revolution, when a
1.3 Medieval Europe people rose up to exercise their right of revolution.
1.4 Early Modern Europe
2 Use in history
3 The Right of Revolution as an individual or
collective right
4 Duty versus right
5 Preconditions to the right of revolution
6 Natural law or positive law
6.1 Examples of the right of revolution as
positive law
6.2 An end to the right of revolution in
positive law
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
China
The right of revolution was perhaps first articulated as part of an official state philosophy by the Zhou Dynasty
(1122 – 256 BC) of China.[1] To justify their overthrowing of the earlier Shang Dynasty, the Zhou kings
promulgated the concept known as the Mandate of Heaven, that Heaven would bless the authority of a just
ruler, but would be displeased and withdraw its mandate from a despotic ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would
then transfer to those who would rule best. Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that
the Mandate of Heaven had passed on. Throughout Chinese history, rebels who opposed the ruling dynasty
made the claim that the Mandate of Heaven had passed, giving them the right to revolt. Ruling dynasties were
often uncomfortable with this, and the writings of the Confucian philosopher Mencius (372 – 289 BC) were
often suppressed for declaring that the people have the right to overthrow a ruler that did not provide for their
1 of 9 4/3/2012 11:20 PM

2. Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
needs.
See also: Mandate of Heaven
Islamic tradition
According to scholar Bernard Lewis, the Qur'an and Sunnah have several points to make on governance
regarding the right of revolution in Islam.The Quran, for example, makes it clear that there is a duty of
obedience:
"Obey God, obey the Prophet, obey those who hold authority over you."
And this is elaborated in a number of sayings attributed to Muhammad. But there are also sayings that put strict
limits on the duty of obedience. Two dicta attributed to the Prophet and universally accepted as authentic are
indicative. One says, "there is no obedience in sin"; in other words, if the ruler orders something contrary to the
divine law, not only is there no duty of obedience but there is a duty of disobedience. The other pronouncement,
"do not obey a creature against his creator," again clearly limits the authority of the ruler, whatever form of ruler
that may be.[2]
Medieval Europe
In Europe, the right of revolution may be traced back to Magna Carta, an
English charter issued in 1215, that required the King to renounce certain
rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It included a
"security clause" that gave the right to a committee of barons to overrule
the will of the King through force if needed. Magna Carta directly
influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and many
constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution.
The Golden Bull of 1222 was a golden bull, or edict, issued by King Andrew The Magna Carta marks one of the
II of Hungary. The law established the rights of Hungary's noblemen, earliest attempts to limit a
including the right to disobey the King when he acted contrary to law (jus sovereign's authority and it is seen
resistendi). The Golden Bull is often compared to the Magna Carta; the as a symbol of the rule of law.[3]
Bull was the first constitutional document of the nation of Hungary, while
the Magna Carta was the first constitutional charter of the nation of
England.
Thomas Aquinas also wrote of the right to resist tyrannical rule in the Summa Theologica. John of Salisbury
advocated direct revolutionary assassination of unethical tyrannical rulers in his Policraticus.
Early Modern Europe
Main article: Resistance theory in the Early Modern period
In the Early Modern period, the Jesuits, especially Robert Bellarmine and Juan de Mariana, were widely known
and often feared for advocating resistance to tyranny and often tyrannicide—one of the implications of the
natural law focus of the School of Salamanca.
John Calvin believed something similar. In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, he observed that contemporary
monarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God,” but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reign
2 of 9 4/3/2012 11:20 PM

3. Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
without control.” He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God,” so “it
behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” When ordinary citizens are confronted with tyranny,
he wrote, ordinary citizens have to suffer it. But magistrates have the duty to “curb the tyranny of kings,” as had
the Tribunes in ancient Rome, the Ephori in Sparta, and the Demarchs in ancient Athens. That Calvin could
support a right of resistance in theory did not mean that he thought such resistance prudent in all circumstances.
At least publicly, he disagreed with the Scottish Calvinist John Knox’s call for revolution against the Catholic
Queen Mary Tudor of England.[4]
The Catholic Church shared Calvin's prudential concerns—together with a concern for saving the souls even of
tyrants, a concern that was irrelevant in double-predestinarian Calvinism. Thus, the Pope condemned Guy
Fawkes' Gunpowder Plot, and Regnans in Excelsis was widely considered to be a mistake. St. Thomas Aquinas
had argued that fear of tyrannicide drove tyrants to worse conduct, and that tyrannicide and rebellion tended to
end in the placement of an even worse tyrant on the throne—so that the safest course of action for the people
was to endure tyranny for as long as it could be borne, rather than run the larger risks of armed revolution.
The presumption in favor of peace, in just war theory, came to be the more common belief and is the one
officially held by the Catholic Church as of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.
Among the revolutionary movements claimed to seek justification as an exercise of the right of revolution
include:
French War Of Religion: The right of revolution was expounded by the Monarchomachs in the context
of the French Wars of Religion, and by Huguenots thinkers who legitimized tyrannicides.
Glorious Revolution: The right of revolution formed the basis of the philosophical defense of the
Glorious Revolution, when Parliament deposed James II of England in 1688 and replaced him with
William III of Orange-Nassau.
American Revolution: The right to revolution would play a large part in the writings of the American
revolutionaries. The political tract Common Sense used the concept as an argument for rejection of the
British Monarchy and separation from the Empire, as opposed to merely self-government within it. It was
y p p , pp y g t.
also cited in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, when a group of representatives from
p , g p p
the various states signed a declaration of independence citing charges against King George III. As the
g g g g g A
American Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the p p were
p p t,
, g people
“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government
y
“destructive” of those rights.
French Revolution: The right of revolution was also included in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of
Man and of the Citizen during the French Revolution.
Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual
right, it was clearly understood to be collective right under English constitutional and political theory.[5] As
Pauline Maier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “[p]rivate individuals were forbidden to
g private injuries....”[6] Instead, “not just a few
take force against their rulers either for malice or because of p j j
individuals, but the ‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned” before the right of revolution was j
y p g justified and
with most writers speaking of a “ ‘whole people who are the Publick,’ or the body of the people acting in their
y
‘public Authority,’ indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society.”[7] [
3 of 9 4/3/2012 11:20 PM

4. Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
The concept of the right of revolution was also taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part
p y f p
of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and
y p p g y
estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted
p p g g g
against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some
g p g
cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard
against tyranny.
Some p philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government but also
p g p p pp g
their duty to do so. Howard Evans Kiefer opines, "It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more
y H
understandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty
t b r,
[8]
[8]
to rebel goes beyond and breaks it."
i
Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries, "The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely
y y y
important to stress, for it shows that they thought they were complying with the commands of natural law and of
g y
nature's God when they threw off absolute despotism."[9] The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that
y p [9
p
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce
g p p g y j
them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" (emphasis
p g y
added). Martin Luther King likewise held that it is the duty of the people to resist unjust laws.
Some theories of the right of revolution imposed significant
preconditions on its exercise, limiting its invocation to the
most dire circumstances. In the American Revolutionary
context, one finds expressions of the right of revolution both
as subject to precondition and as unrestrained by conditions.
On the eve of the American Revolution, for example,
Americans considered their plight to justify exercise of the
y
right of revolution. Alexander Hamilton justified American
g nj
resistance as an expression of “the law of nature” redressing
p
violations of “the first principles of civil society” and
invasions of “the rights of a whole people.”[10] For Thomas
g p p [10] The presentation of the draft of the Declaration of
Jefferson the Declaration was the last-ditch effort of an Independence in Trumbull's Declaration of
oppressed people—the position many Americans saw Independence depicts another idealization of the
themselves in 1776. Jefferson’s litany of colonial grievances exercise of the right of revolution.
was an effort to establish that Americans met their burden to
exercise the natural law right of revolution.
Certain scholars, such as Christian Fritz, have written that with the end of the Revolution, Americans did not
renounce the right of revolution. In fact they codified it in their new constitutions.[11] For instance, constitutions
considered to be "conservative," such as those of post-revolutionary Massachusetts in 1780, preserved the
people's right "to reform, alter, or totally change" government not only for their protection or safety but also
whenever their "prosperity and happiness reduire[d] it."[12] This expression was not unusual in the early
American constitutions. Connecticut's 1818 constitution articulated the people's right "at all times" to alter
government "in such a manner as they may think expedient."[13]
4 of 9 4/3/2012 11:20 PM

5. Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
Legal historian Christian Fritz in American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition
Before the Civil War, describes a duality in American views on preconditions to the right of revolution: "Some
of the first state constitutions included 'alter or abolish' provisions that mirrored the traditional right of
revolution" in that they required dire preconditions to its exercise.[14] Maryland's 1776 constitution and New
Hampshire's 1784 constitutions required the perversion of the ends of government and the endangering of public
liberty and that all other means of redress were to no avail.[15] But in contrast, other states dispensed with the
onerous preconditions on the exercise of the right. In the 1776 Virginia constitution the right would arise simply
if government was "inadequate" and Pennsylvania's 1776 constitution required only that the people considered a
change to be "most conducive" to the public welfare.[16]
Descriptions of the Right of Revolution also differ in whether that right is considered to be a natural law (a law
whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere) or positive law (law enacted or
adopted by proper authority for governing of the state).
An example of the dual nature of the right of revolution as both a natural law and as positive law is found in the
American revolutionary context. Although the American Declaration of Independence invoked the natural law
right of revolution, natural law was not the sole justification for American independence. English constitutional
doctrine also supported the colonists’ actions. By the 1760s, English law recognized what William Blackstone’s
Commentaries on the Laws of England called “the law of redress against public oppression.”[17] Like the
natural law’s right of revolution, this constitutional law of redress justified the people resisting the sovereign.
This law of redress arose from a contract between the people and the king to preserve the public welfare. This
original contract was “a central dogma in English and British constitutional law” since “time immemorial.”[18]
The Declaration’s long list of grievances demonstrated that this bargain had been breached.[19]
This well-accepted law of redress justified a people resisting unconstitutional acts of government. Liberty
depended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist. Unconstitutional commands breaching the “voluntary
compact between the rulers and the ruled” could be “ignored” and arbitrary commands opposed with force.[20]
This right implied a duty on the part of the people to resist unconstitutional acts. As Alexander Hamilton noted
in 1775, government exercised powers to protect “the absolute rights” of the people and government forfeited
those powers and the people could reclaim them if government breached this constitutional contract.[21]
The law of redress had limits like the right of revolution under natural law. The law of redress, like the right of
revolution, was not an individual right. It belonged to the community as a whole, as one of the parties to the
original constitutional contract.[22] It was not a means of first resort, or response to trivial or casual errors of
government.[23] Blackstone’s Commentaries suggested that using the law of redress would be “extraordinary,”
for example if the king broke the original contract, violated “the fundamental laws,” or abandoned the
kingdom.[24] During the Stamp Act crisis of the 1760s the Massachusetts Provincial Congress considered
resistance to the king justified if freedom came under attack from “the hand of oppression” and “the merciless
feet of tyranny.”[25] A decade later the “indictment” of George III in the Declaration of Independence sought to
end his sovereign reign over the colonies because he violated the original constitutional contract.[26]
As explained in legal historian Christian Fritz’s description of the role of the right of revolution in American
Revolution, American independence was justified by conventional theories under Anglo-American
constitutional thought at the time about the people’s collective right to cast off an arbitrary king. “Both natural
law and English constitutional doctrine gave the colonists a right to revolt against the sovereign’s
5 of 9 4/3/2012 11:20 PM

6. Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
oppression.”[27] But these understandings about the right of revolution on the eve of the American Revolution
rested on a traditional model of government. That model posited the existence of a hypothetical bargain struck
in the mists of antiquity between a king and a people. “In this bargain, the people were protected by the
monarch in exchange for the people giving the king allegiance. This was a contractual relationship. American
revolutionaries accused George III of breaching his implied duty of protection under that contract, thereby
releasing the people in the colonies from their allegiance. The sovereign’s breach of the hypothetical contract
gave rise to the subjects’ right of revolution”—grounded on both natural law and English constitutional
doctrine.”[28]
Examples of the right of revolution as positive law
Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer
constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a
guarantee would likely produce. Among the examples of an articulation of a right of revolution as positive law
include:
The szlachta, nobles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also maintained a right of rebellion, known
as rokosz.
New Hampshire's constitution[29] guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of
the New Hampshire constitution's Bill of Rights:
Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all
fg p p y f y g
other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish
f ff p p y f g g f
a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd,
g f g
slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
The Kentucky constitution[30] also guarantees a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in the
Kentucky Bill of Rights:
All power is inherent in the p p and all f
p people, free governments are founded on their authority and
g f y
instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of
f p f y pp p fp p y f
these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their
y
government in such manner as they may deem proper.
Similar wording is used in Pennsylvania's constitution,[31] under Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of
Rights:
All power is inherent in the p p and all f
p people, free governments are founded on their authority and
g f y
instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all
f p f y pp f y
times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner
as they may think proper.
Article I, §2 of the Tennessee constitution[32] states:
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against
g g f f f g
arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of
y
mankind.
North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights:
[citation needed]
6 of 9 4/3/2012 11:20 PM

7. Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the
g f f p y f
p p f g
people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd,
slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.
The Constitution of Texas[33] also contains similar wording in Article 1, Sect 2:
All political power is inherent in the p p and all f
p p people, free ggovernments are founded on their authority,
f y
and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a
f f f f p p f p g p
republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the
p f fg j y y
inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think
expedient.
The post-World War II Grundgesetz, the Fundamental Law of the Federal Republic of Germany contains
both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its
Article 20, recognizing the right of the people to resist tyranny, if all other measures have failed.
The Greek Constitution, in Article 120, states that "[...] it is both the right and the duty of the people to
resist by all possible means against anyone who attempts the violent abolition of the Constitution."
An end to the right of revolution in positive law
In modern times, among other arguments, it can be argued that as democratic governments can be overthrown
by popular vote, the right of the people to remove the government has become embedded into the political
system. However, replacing representatives falls short of changing the actual form of government by altering or
rewriting its constitution. The ease of peoples to democratically implement such fundamental changes varies
widely across nations and is generally quite onerous, if not impossible, within existing legal and media
frameworks.
In a study of the idea of rule by the people in the American Revolution and in early post-revolutionary America,
legal historian Christian Fritz notes that the logic of a revolution that would erect a government by the people
also served to "impl[y] the irrelevance of a right of revolution" in post-revolutionary America:
“The constitutional logic of recognizing the people, not a king, as the sovereign implied the
irrelevance of a right of revolution in America. This did not develop instantly or uniformly after the
establishment of American governments. Some of the first state constitutions included ‘alter or
abolish’ provisions that mirrored the traditional right of revolution.... Other state constitutions
adopted different versions of this right to ‘alter or abolish’ government that did not sound like the
traditional right of revolution. In these provisions, the ability of the people to revise constitutions
existed regardless of the traditional preconditions for the right of revolution.... Increasingly, as
Americans included it in their constitutions, the right of revolution came to be seen as a
constitutional principle permitting the people as the sovereign to control government and revise
their constitutions without limit. In this way, the right broke loose from its traditional moorings of
resistance to oppression. The alter or abolish provisions could now be interpreted consistent with
the constitutional principle that in America, the sovereign was the people.”[34]
The third paragraph of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that so that people are
not compelled to rebellion against tyranny, human rights should be protected by rule of law.
7 of 9 4/3/2012 11:20 PM

8. Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
Citizen suit
Confederation (Poland)
Money trail
Occupy movement
Political corruption
Qui tam
Regulatory capture
1. ^ Perry, Elizabeth. [2002] (2002). Challenging the dq=%22duty+to+rebel%22&source=web&
Mandate of Heaven: Social Protest and State Power ots=AmncN84fAl&
in China. Sharpe. ISBN 0765604442 sig=f9RHPgKdL2XXRekmS6OXc2-gcgg&hl=en&
2. ^ Freedom and Justice in the Middle East sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
(http://www.foreignaffairs.org 10. ^ Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, [Feb.
/20050501faessay84305/bernard-lewis/freedom- 23], 1775, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, I:136
and-justice-in-the-modern-middle- 11. ^ See Christian G. Fritz, <a
east.html?mode=print) href="http://books.google.com
3. ^ Ralph V. Turner. Magna Carta. Pearson /books?id=ZpKCvUacmSwC&pg=RA1-PA168&
Education. (2003). ISBN 0582438268 p.1 lpg=RA1-PA168&
4. ^ Dave Kopel: The Calvinist Connection, Liberty dq=christian+g+fritz+%22american+sovereigns%22&
magazine, October 2008, pp. 27-31 source=web&ots=UjY_WKHNjv&
(http://www.davekopel.com/religion/calvinism.htm) sig=Y2_7OZMg6ksk_866oiD44FArH-
5. ^ See Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The w&hl=en#PRA1-PA1,M1" class="external text"
People and America’s Constitutional Tradition rel="nofollow">American Sovereigns: The People
Before the Civil War (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008), and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the
14 (noting that under English constitutional law the Civil War (In Chapter 2, entitled "Revolutionary
right of revolution “belonged to the community as a Constitutionalism," Professor Fritz notes that after
whole, as one of the parties to the original the Revolution, "[i]ncreasingly, as Americans
constitutional contract”). See also John Phillip Reid, included it in their constitutions, the right of
Constitutional History of the American Revolution revolution came to be seen as a constitutional
(4 vols., University of Wisconsin Press, 1986-1993), principle permitting the people as the sovereign to
I:111 (identifying the collective right of the people control government and revise their constitutions
“to preserve their rights by force and even rebellion without limit.")(Cambridge University Press, 2008)
against constituted authority”), III:427n31 (quoting at p. 25 [ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3</a>
Viscount Bolingbroke that the “collective Body of 12. ^ Massachusetts 1780 Constitution, Bill of Rights,
the People” had the right to “break the Bargain Art. 7.
between the King and the Nation”). 13. ^ Connecticut 1818 Constitution, Bill of Rights, Sec.
6. ^ Pauline Maier, From Resistance to Revolution: 2.
Colonial Radicals and the Development of American 14. ^ Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The
Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776 (Alfred A. Knopf, People and America’s Constitutional Tradition
1972), 33. Before the Civil War (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008),
7. ^ Maier, From Resistance to Revolution, 35-36. 24.
8. ^ http://books.google.com 15. ^ See Maryland 1776 Constitution, Bill of Rights,
/books?id=1R8bi1m9NvIC&pg=PA327& Sec. 4; New Hampshire 1784 Constitution, Bill of
lpg=PA327&dq=%22duty+to+rebel%22& Rights, Art. 10.
source=web&ots=xdUGaHk_fz& 16. ^ Virginia 1776 Constitution, Bill of Rights, Sec. 3;
sig=KbTANyl6oRDdLrb736Hq1iK017s&hl=en& Pennsylvania 1776 Constitution, Bill of Rights, Sec.
sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3& 5.
ct=result#PPA327,M1 17. ^ William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws
9. ^ http://books.google.com of England (4 vols., Oxford, 1765-1769, Facsimile
/books?id=z0thewbdTMsC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48& ed., repr., 1979), I:238.
8 of 9 4/3/2012 11:20 PM

9. Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
18. ^ John Phillip Reid, “The Irrelevance of the malice or because of private injuries, even if no
Declaration,” in Hendrik Hartog, ed., Law in the redress for their grievances were afforded by the
American Revolution and the Revolution in the Law regularly constituted government”).
(1981), 72. 23. ^ Some commentators endorsed the right of
19. ^ New Jersey 1776 Constitution, Preamble in resistance if Parliament “jeopardized the
Francis Newton Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State constitution,” but most identified the need for
Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic oppression and tyranny before its exercise. See Reid,
Laws of the ... United States of America, V:2594 Constitutional History, III:121, 427n31; Maier,
(noting that the King breached his contract with the Resistance, 33-35.
people). 24. ^ Blackstone, Commentaries, I:243 and 238.
20. ^ John Phillip Reid, Constitutional History of the 25. ^ Reid, Constitutional History, I:112
American Revolution (4 vols., 1986-1993), III:140. 26. ^ Reid, “Irrelevance of the Declaration,” 84.
21. ^ Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted,” [Feb. 27. ^ Fritz, American Sovereigns, 14.
23], 1775, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, I:88. 28. ^ Fritz, American Sovereigns, 13.
22. ^ See Reid, Constitutional History, I:111 29. ^ Constitution of the State of New Hampshire
(identifying the collective right of the people “to (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)
preserve their rights by force and even rebellion 30. ^ Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
against constituted authority”), III:427n31 (quoting (http://courts.ky.gov/research/history.htm)
Viscount Bolingbroke that the “collective Body of 31. ^ Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
the People” had the right to “break the Bargain (http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html)
between the King and the Nation”); Pauline Maier, 32. ^ Constitution of the State of Tennessee
From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals (http://state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/05-06/46-tnconst.pdf)
and the Development of American Opposition to 33. ^ The Texas Constitution (http://www.tlc.state.tx.us
Britain, 1765-1776, 33-34 (“Private individuals were /pubslegref/TxConst.pdf)
forbidden to take force against their rulers either for 34. ^ Fritz, American Sovereigns, 24-25.
Locke and the Social Order (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4n.htm)
The Founders Constitution, Vol. 1 Chapter 3, Right of Revolution (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu
/founders/documents/v1ch3I.html)
North Carolina Constitution of 1789 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratnc.htm)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_of_revolution&oldid=482230229"
Categories: Political concepts Collective rights Enlightenment philosophy Popular sovereignty
This page was last modified on 16 March 2012 at 18:08.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. See Terms of use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
9 of 9 4/3/2012 11:20 PM