Right to revolution in US States: Ever tested in court?

Let me be clear that this question is in now way intended to encourage a revolution.

Apparently, several states in the US have, in their constitutions, an apparent acknowledgement or grant to the people of a right to rebel and overthrow the state government.

Has this ever been tested in court (either a state court or a Federal court)? What’s the case law on this? Do these clauses actually represent legal rights, or are they meaningless statements that basically acknowledge that citizens have a right to vote?

E.g. has anyone ever shot a cop and claimed, as a defense, that they were exercising their Right to Revolution under the State Constitution?

Let’s put it this way. If the people did rise up and overthrow the State (or Federal) government, any constitution in place at the time would be worthless.

I’m more thinking of the case of a failed rebellion, where the would-be revolutionaries are being prosecuted (e.g. for terrorism, murder, arson, etc.) and they claim that what they did was legally permissible because the state guarantees them a right to revolution.

Or, if someone did manage to overthrow a State government, would the US Federal Government respect that and accept the new de facto rulers as the legitimate government for purposes of Full Faith and Credit, etc.?

no way, not “now way”.

Apparently they don’t. The right to “alter, reform, or abolish the government” is not the same as a right to rebel and overthrow the government.

Well, the analogous federal right was declared invalid in the famous case Lee v. Grant, 1861-1865.

I can see no “right to rebellion” as a legal matter.

I mean, if some population in state starts an armed insurrection is the state to just to stand aside and let them have at it?

Of course not, the state militia will oppose them with police and the National Guard.

An insurrection is, by definition, not “legal”. That group is sidestepping the legal process to effect change and trying to get their way via force.

As someone in another thread recently noted though if you can take your merry band and overthrow a government and then defend your position against all comers then you win. Your history books will write about the righteousness of it all. If you lose you will go down in history as the cranks who caused murder and mayhem illegitimately.

The victor writes history.

Which, if I remember what I’ve read, never got appealed to any actual court of law. But yeah, I bet the pragmatic answer is, “not if the rest of the United States have anything to say about it.”

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court did uphold Lee v. Grant in the 1869 decision Texas v. White.

So, does the presence or absence of one of these clauses in a State constitution actually affect substantive legal rights (I hope I’m using that term right) in any way?

That is, if I am living in a state that does not have one of those clauses, and a constitutional amendment is passed via the established process that adds one, have I gained any actual new legal rights that I didn’t before? Or the opposite - if I am in a state that has the clause and a constitutional amendment is passed removing it - have I lost some legal right of some nature that I used to have, but no longer have?

Those clauses are puff pieces for the writers, not the citizens. The only way you are protected when you attempt to overthrow your government is when you actually succeed at it.

What CitizenPained said.

Imagine to yourself how such a clause in your constitution would work.

How many people need to rise up to make it legitimate? One? A hundred? A thousand? A hundred-thousand?

Illinois, where I live, has nearly 13 million people in it. 100,000 people rising up would still only be 0.7% of the total population.

I will say if you got 100,000 people to wage war on the state that is pretty substantial but still…

Such a clause in a constitution is meaningless. The state will never step aside willingly and will oppose you. If you get caught you will go to jail and no amount of pointing to that clause will help you in the slightest.

So no, the presence of such a clause grants you, as a citizen, absolutely nothing.

Just flowery rhetoric.

ETA: Perhaps such a clause would protect you from talking about needing to change the government of your state. Maybe they could not prosecute you for agitating for change but even here I am dubious you’d get a lot of cover from it. Inciting people to violence is a crime. If you talk vaguely about a need for change (sans violence) you are already covered.

Quite. But I think the underlying decision is more correctly cited as Davis et al. v. Lincoln et al.

Yes!
Luther v Borden (1849) was SCOTUS basically saying it’s up to the Legislative and Executive branch to determine. This legal view was upheld by Virginia v. West Virginia

The Second Wheeling Convention basically rebelled, took over the state offices by declaration/election by rump session. Since they were recognized as the legal government by the Feds, the split of Virginia and West Virginia was legal under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

As it stands now, your rebellion is perfectly legal provided you win (of course) and are recognized by Congress and the President. What if you lose? I believe a few states have treason against the state in their Constitution as well.

Yes, I find it difficult to take seriously a constitutional provision that includes phrasing like this: “the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

I believe that the right to revolt is covered under the clause in the Constitution concerning treason.

hh

Arguably, however, any state government that is established by a means other than “one person, one vote” would now violate Baker v. Carr.

I would disagree that this pertains to the OP. For normal elections it’s possible to sue claiming a violation of “one person, one vote” but even then, Baker v. Carr deals with redistricting and not the outcome of an election with illegal districts. If it ever came up, i.e. that a state’s government was not of republican form because the legislative districts violate Baker v. Carr, would SCOTUS refer the question of legitimacy back to the Congress/President?

Also, the OP referred to a state rebellion. I think given that scenerio Baker v. Carr is a non-issue.

All good points. This would make an interesting article.

Yes. This question covers only rebellion against the State government, and assumes that the revolutionaries want to replace the state government, but do not want to secede from the Union or form their own independent country.

We all know what happens in real life when a state tries to leave, so that’s really out of scope for the question.