When the laws of a government ostensibly provide for change but in some circumstances do not, when the laws of a government forbid violent overthrow of the government, which, for the justification thereof purport to provide means for the non-violent overthrow of the government, but which laws do in fact not provide for such an action, why should not the people act? No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln stated that the right of revolution is fundamental to a free people.
In fact, any law which fails to perform or whose effect is invidious, demands that a free people object to, ignore it and bring change. We cannot treat the thief who steals bread for his children or medicines for his wife the same as the thief who steals objects of art or entertainment or commerce. We do not treat the killer who does so by any manner of accidental misstep the same as one who plans and with intention and possible profit takes the lives of others. Surely, we pardon all soldiers who kill in time of war, and exigent circumstances are often cited to defend the most egregious of offenses. Assassination of political figures is also outside the law, but only in certain forms: when done so by the press, by lies and innuendo, by malicious prosecution, by the paid political hounding of the District Attorney, Attorneys General or by some special prosecutor, that is fully permitted. Such assassination is surely pernicious, coercive and inimical to all forms of sound government.
The preamble to the constitution lays the fundamental groundwork for any and all means of action: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary....", this is followed by the action that is proposed or is being taken, and then follows the list of justifications leading to that proposal, open to those who are thoughtful, involved, and whose writings and actions demonstrate the exhaustion of all other means set forth in a reasoned manner and devoid of demagogy or strident tone: thus did our preamble to our declaration of independence explain and justify the separation that was made.
Cannot the assassination of a public (or private) person be so reasonably addressed? And time, time always, is of the essence. Shakespeare has Hamlet speak of our pains of the laws delay, Patrick Henry asked "why stand we here idle, when our brethren are already on the field". Indeed, if Jesus had not already been nailed to the cross, might he have chosen action over an impotent plea for explanation: "why has thou forsaken me?"
Now we still believe we have the vote, we have the laws, but daily, we loose faith that those measures serve us faithfully, and are not twisted and manipulated to distribute rights and powers most inequitably. Surely, there can be a time when we say these laws are broken, they do not serve us, and therefore, like the dictates of King George, will not be observed by free men who have inalienable rights which, no matter their source, simple observation will show that they have been taken.
So, let us begin to contemplate the actions we may find ourselves compelled to take "in the course of human events" and state for all to see the reasons we propose these actions be taken, and as our revolutionary forefathers, willingly put forth our lives, liberty and fortunes as hostage to the consequences, should we fail.
