There’s a lot of conversation now surrounding rebellion, and breaking rules and laws out of a sense of moral responsibility. Just last month, Merrimack State Representative Rosemarie Rung, verbally went after Merrimack State Representative Jeanine Notter, for refusing to comply with the unconstitutional rule to ban firearms on the House floor of the NH State House. Rep. Rung and her supporters found Rep. Notter’s rebellion to be out of order and wrong. But how wrong is it to rebel against such a rule, or any rule, that would be considered unconstitutional?
The fundamental question is: On what standard are we basing our rebellion? This question must be considered by both sides of the political spectrum. Rep. Rung’s view is that it’s wrong to ignore the new gun ban rule on the House floor, but on what standard is she basing that opinion? Is it because it’s a new rule and she feels it should be obeyed simply because it was agreed upon by the majority of the House?
This fundamental question is important because the answer to it will either provide justification for rebellion or not.
When the Founding Fathers wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, they stated exactly why they were rebelling and the justification for it. They believed, first of all, that each man is created with unalienable rights, and that those rights are to be recognized and secured by the government. If the government does not recognize those rights by refusing to protect those rights of the people, the Founders believed “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute new government…”.
The Founders had a standard, and that standard was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those fundamental unalienable rights were, and still are, justification for rebellion which is not only a right, but an expactation to throw off the chains of tyranny. In the particular example I provided earlier, Rep. Rung called out Rep. Notter as being wrong to oppose the gun ban. But Rep. Notter’s refusal to recognize the gun ban, based on the standard outlined by the Founding Fathers, is entirely justified by the simple principle that Rep. Notter, like all Americans, has a right to life and liberty.
Rep. Rung’s support for the gun ban was a violation of her oath, so in my opinion, she should be immediately removed from office. Not only will that not happen, but we will see Rep. Rung and many others react foolishly and continue to willfully ignore and not recognize the Constitutional right to self-defense.
Other leftists pontificate about how they are justified to “resist” against any policy they disagree with. Their excuse? It’s their moral duty. My question: Based on what moral code? They don’t even claim to believe in God who provides a moral foundation in the first place.
Does Rep. Rung believe it is her moral duty to uphold this rule? Does she just believe guns are inherently bad? Rep. Rung’s emotional response seemingly indicates the latter; otherwise, she would recognize the Constitutional right to liberty which in this case is self-defense.
There are absolutely both good and bad reasons to rebel. The justification for ignoring unconstitutional laws does exist and it was first argued 243 years ago, in response to a violation of unalienable rights. Rep. Notter and a long list of other liberty minded State Reps are justified to rebel. Rep. Rung and her anti-liberty colleagues have merely responded to the rebellion with emotion and will continue to do so as this term progresses through 2020.