Handy-dandy pocket guide to overthrowing your government

I’ve been reading with much interest all the articles, letters and blogs that have appeared in the daily papers recently regarding “impeachment,” “recall,” and the latest entry: “overthrow.” It was only yesterday, in an article about the CUC “protest rally” that at least one reader went so far as to say that the “Bill of Rights says something like our people have the right to form a militia and overthrow their government when they feel their lives are in jeopardy.” Well, that got me thinking about this whole mess, so here is what I found out.

First of all, it now seems as if the NMI has been divided into two distinct groups. Group “A” appears to be composed of about a half dozen people and includes the governor, his spin-doctor mouthpiece, his (free) legal adviser, “Chucky” (whoever that is) and, of late, one Mr. Andersen. This group apparently believes that all is now under control and if the rest of us would just leave them alone, everything would soon return to “normal.” They appear to actually believe that the band-aid (Aggreko) that temporarily covers the festering wound that now threatens the very existence of the NMI will allow enough time to somehow miraculously cure all ills. They accuse group “B” of unnecessary thrill-seeking tactics and disruption and also believe that the situation is “only a minor inconvenience” and we should all “grin and bear it” because the cure is at hand. But I have yet to see any soothing ointment or fester-killing solutions being applied directly to the wound.

In fact, just after those incantations appeared, Mr. Muña publicly declared that he “hoped” the central government and PSS would pay their past due bills now so that he could pay Aggreko at the end of this month. He even went so far as to opine: “Hopefully, no one up at the Legislature thinks I can pay Aggreko without their money.” Uhhhh…what if they don’t pay?

There is also, apparently, a “sub-group” here consisting of most NMI government employees and many legislators who appear to be keeping a tight lid on the collective mouth; whether this is due to an innate inability to form an opinion, internal pressure, or simply a materialistic desire for job self-preservation won’t easily manifest until closer to election time. These people are, at least temporarily, a sub-group of group “A”—but I suspect that this sub-group may, in its time, splinter or move wholesale to Group “B.”

Then there is group “B,” composed primarily of the entire rest of the NMI population which includes indigenous, mainlanders, and alien workers who, like it or not, are coming together in a near homogeneous mass with the single thought that “there-must-be-something-wrong-with-this-picture.” Suddenly, everyone is beginning to realize that we all actually do bleed the same way—except for group “A,” of course, who apparently doesn’t see the bleeding.

Thus, the purpose of “rallies,” “protests,” and other sorts of demonstration of people’s growing frustrations with the government. After all, it really is the “right” and, as indicated below, the “duty” of citizens to peacefully show their dissatisfaction. For all who are interested, here is a bit of background taken directly from “Wikipedia” (much of the writing below is credited to Wikipedia and its authors, inclusive):

Some philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government, it is also their duty to do so. Howard Evans Kiefer opines, “It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more understandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty to rebel goes beyond and breaks it.”

Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries, “The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely important to stress, for it shows that they thought they were complying with the commands of natural law and of nature’s God when they threw off absolute despotism.” The United States Declaration of Independence states that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government” (emphasis added). Martin Luther King likewise held that it is the duty of the people to resist unjust laws.

Later, the concept was also taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acts against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that serves the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny.

Now, regarding the “Bill of Rights” referred to by our blogger of yesterday: The Bill of Rights constitutes the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution (there were actually 12, but articles 1 and 2 were not included at the time—Article 1 never has been, and Article 2 came as amendment 27, but much later). Nowhere in the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, or any of its amendments is there any mention or reference to the people’s right (or even “duty”) to overthrow their government. In fact, such statements were deliberately left out because our founding fathers recognized the widely held tenet that such language would destroy the ability to have an orderly government and serve only as a destabilization tool.

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. The NMI Constitution is no exception, but there are some that are:

New Hampshire’s Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to rebellion, 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 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.”

Kentucky’s Constitution also guarantees a right of revolution in Section 1 of its Bill of Rights.

“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.”

Article I, §2 of the Tennessee Constitution states:

“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.”

North Carolina’s Constitution of Nov. 21, 1789, also contains in its Declaration of Rights:

“3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the 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.”

So much for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the NMI Constitution. What we are left with is the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and since the NMI has elected freely to become a part of the United States of America, we must also believe that this document applies equally to the philosophy behind the people’s belief in good government within the NMI as well. The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence is as follows:

“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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (Emphasis added)

The 13 original oppressed colonies sought to remove their oppressing government (the British Crown) through such declaration which might rightly be compared to a sort of “impeachment” in reverse—that is, since the colonies could not remove the British Crown itself, they could remove themselves from its rule and abolish such rule from the colonies.

What a mess! There is no local “Declaration of Independence” in the NMI and constitutions do not give such rights; however, I believe it is abundantly clear that the people have not just a right, but a well held duty to “throw off” a government that has demonstrated a “long train of abuses and usurpations” and become “destructive of the ends” to the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not the current NMI government fits into these parameters is a matter for the people under its rule to decide—and indecision means acceptance. As stated above, “The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive.” This whole notion is why we have what are called “elections” and why, now, it is more important than ever to seek redress, force responses from those in power, and then vote—or rebel—accordingly.