Comments on: FREE DC! – A Little Rebellion Now http://dc.metblogs.com/2005/11/17/free-dc-a-little-rebellion-now/ Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:28:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tiff http://dc.metblogs.com/2005/11/17/free-dc-a-little-rebellion-now/comment-page-1/#comment-1926 Tiff Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:31:23 +0000 http://dc.metblogs.com/2005/11/17/free-dc-a-little-rebellion-now/#comment-1926 I've pondered that question myself, more as the sort of theoretical excercise that political science students engage in because they aren't getting laid. It seems to me that rebellion is, by definition, breaking the rules. So if you have the "right to rebel," you are then incapable of actually rebelling. Sucks, doesn't it? So anyway, rebellion can't be done within the bounds of the law. (Which isn't to say that it's BAD, just that it's inherently ILLEGAL. Sometimes, illegal is good.) So if, as in this example, DC statehood activists tried to rebel, the US is bound by its own principles of the rule of law to try to stop the rebellion. (Note that rebellion is not the same as secession, which could be perfectly legal and non-rebellious if it would just get written into the Constitution.) I’ve pondered that question myself, more as the sort of theoretical excercise that political science students engage in because they aren’t getting laid.

It seems to me that rebellion is, by definition, breaking the rules. So if you have the “right to rebel,” you are then incapable of actually rebelling. Sucks, doesn’t it?

So anyway, rebellion can’t be done within the bounds of the law. (Which isn’t to say that it’s BAD, just that it’s inherently ILLEGAL. Sometimes, illegal is good.) So if, as in this example, DC statehood activists tried to rebel, the US is bound by its own principles of the rule of law to try to stop the rebellion.

(Note that rebellion is not the same as secession, which could be perfectly legal and non-rebellious if it would just get written into the Constitution.)

]]>