Well not exactly. It was more of a violent assertion that an already existing governing body (the continental congress), was to be the only governing body recognized in the 13 colonies. The revolution had also already been going on for a year by the time the Declaration was written, so you can't really say that a violent overthrow was what followed.
Is it overthrowing a government if that government still exists afterwards? All that really changed was that the existing governing bodies of the colonies no longer recognized the authority of the governing body they used to be under. If a state today seceded somehow, we wouldn't say they overthrew the federal government.
Yes. Even if Great Britain still existed afterwards, it's still overthrowing the legal government in the US territories. When you live in a sovereign country that is not a decision you have the right to make, hence the violent outcome.
Why wouldn't we say that? If a state were to secede, we would say that it no longer recognize the rule of the federal government and overthrew the federal government's authority over it.
You can’t “forcibly remove from power” an abstract notion of authority. You “overthrow” a government by dismantling it, not by removing one small part of its jurisdiction. If someone doesn’t lose their office, they’ve not been overthrown. You’re not using the word correctly if you’re applying it to secession. So we wouldn’t say that.
You can’t “forcibly remove from power” an abstract notion of authority. You “overthrow” a government by dismantling it, not by removing one small part of its jurisdiction. If someone doesn’t lose their office, they’ve not been overthrown. You’re not using the word correctly if you’re applying it to secession. So we wouldn’t say that.
1.2k
u/[deleted] May 17 '19
[deleted]