Civics In A Year
What do you really know about American government, the Constitution, and your rights as a citizen?
Civics in a Year is a fast-paced podcast series that delivers essential civic knowledge in just 10 minutes per episode. Over the course of a year, we’ll explore 250 key questions—from the founding documents and branches of government to civil liberties, elections, and public participation.
Rooted in the Civic Literacy Curriculum from the Center for American Civics at Arizona State University, this series is a collaborative project supported by the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. Each episode is designed to spark curiosity, strengthen constitutional understanding, and encourage active citizenship.
Whether you're a student, educator, or lifelong learner, Civics in a Year will guide you through the building blocks of American democracy—one question at a time.
Civics In A Year
The Declaration's Blueprint for Revolution: Understanding Your Rights Against Tyranny
Dr. Carrese continues to examine the Declaration of Independence's guidance on what citizens can do when facing government abuse of power. We explore how the document establishes the right and duty to overthrow tyrannical regimes under specific circumstances.
• Analysis of the Declaration's second paragraph structure and its four distinct subsections
• Discussion of Harvard scholar Danielle Allen's research on a contested period after "the pursuit of happiness"
• Explanation of how governments are instituted to secure unalienable rights with powers derived from consent
• Clarification of the right to "alter or abolish" destructive governments and establish new ones
• Examination of the Founders' prudent approach to revolution after "a long train of abuses"
• Comparison between despotism and tyranny as interchangeable terms for unchecked rule
• Insight into how the Declaration justifies American resistance to British imperial policies
Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!
School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership
Hi, my name is Audrey and I live in Arizona and I'm in 11th grade. My question is what does the Declaration say that people can do if the government abuses its power?
Speaker 2:really interesting. If you've joined us, dr Kreis is back. For people who have listened to previous episodes, we are still in that same paragraph. If you haven't listened to the previous episodes, definitely invite you to do that, because they all kind of build up on each other. So, dr Kreis, welcome back.
Speaker 1:Thank you very much, liz. So yes, have your text of the Declaration of Independence handy and we are in the second paragraph. As I mentioned earlier, there are really four sections to the second paragraph and if you look carefully in the text you can see double dashes in the second paragraph and those sort of break them out into four subsections. And the first subsection ends with pursuit of happiness. Then I just mentioned, there's a controversy about this period and then the double dash. So a wonderful scholar at Harvard University, danielle Allen, published a book about a dozen years ago called Our Declaration, and it's her very careful, intense reading of the Declaration of Independence that all Americans should think of it as their birthright, their patrimony, as she says. And she notices, and she mentions it in an appendix there's a problem with that period because in a way the first half of the second paragraph should be seen as one long sentence and you'll notice so in the second section that we're talking about now, that to secure these rights ends with the word governed. Then there's a comma, then a double dash and then there's only a period at safety and happiness later on, and she goes back and forth. She actually wrote to people at the National Archives. She recounts this in the book that first period after pursuit of happiness shouldn't be there and it wasn't there in the original text. It kind of snuck in later, too complicated, but anyway these are all connected.
Speaker 1:I want to make the argument on Danielle's grounds that the next clause here, the second section, that to secure these rights, it's all part of the self-evident truths. We hold these truths to be self-evident All men are created equal. Now take a breath. Comma next self-evident all men are created equal. Now take a breath. Comma. Next self-evident truth that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Comma. Then double dash that whenever any form of government. So here we are in the second important subsection that to secure these rights, governments are instituting men deriving their just powers from consent of the governed. And then we get what? If a government abuses its power, they will be abusing their power if they're not resting it on consent of the governed. Now we're going to do. We've got a separate episode on consent of the governed. We get now some details A government is destructive of these ends when they are suppressing or abusing these rights and a form of government would have to be organized organized.
Speaker 1:There's a reference here to a right to overturn a government and form a new one on such principles and organizing his powers in such a form as shall seem to them most likely to affect their safety and happiness.
Speaker 1:There's an argument here about right forms of government and wrong forms of government. So by the middle of the second paragraph we get an argument that the British government maybe not so much in its form but how that form is being exercised by the current king and parliament has given us Americans no choice but to say you are destructive of these ends or aims of government. The whole point or aim of government is to secure these unalienable rights, and then we'll talk more about consent of the governed being the way that you ensure that right. So this form of government maybe it's not the British constitutional monarchy in its outlined form, but the way it's being exercised now it is destructive of these aims or proper ends of government. And then you know what, liz, actually why don't you read, if you would read that third subsection, that whenever any form of government to get that out on the table? And we'll talk a little bit more about the details.
Speaker 2:How far should I go?
Speaker 1:Up to safety and happiness.
Speaker 2:Okay that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its power in such forms as to them shall seem the most likely to affect their safety and happiness.
Speaker 1:Okay, terrific. So it rounds out with. It closes with happiness, which we saw earlier was one of the it's not an exhaustive list of three, but one of the three that's so important has to be listed on alienable rights of all human beings life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So a government that is not doing what it should do in the most obvious way has to be resisted, and the final form of resistance is to alter or abolish it. It is the right of the people to alter or abolish the oppressive, unjust form of government and then possibly to institute new government. Okay, now, in the remainder of the second paragraph, after happiness, we get a little bit more complicated reasoning, the Americans trying to say we're not doing this. Just, in some crazy way, we didn't have a bad night at the tavern last night and woke up with a hangover and a bad mood.
Speaker 1:We've been arguing about this for years with the British government. We've been watching things get worse and worse, and the first line there, the first word in the next part of this, is prudence. It's an English word translating an old Greek and then Roman philosophical concept that can be translated as practical wisdom, not the highest sort of metaphysical wisdom about the ultimate meaning of everything and the universe, and such but practical wisdom about everyday affairs, of particularly politics, but just interacting with other human beings, politics, but just interacting with other human beings. So here the claim is that we're not impatient, we are being fair to the British government. Government is hard but we know that we're beyond light and transient causes of objection, light and transient issues, problems that we're having with the British government. We accept that principle, but we're beyond the point when evils are sufferable. It says in the next sentence People get accustomed to forms of government, people will put up with a lot, we've put up with a lot and we've reached our limit.
Speaker 1:Is the argument and part of the reason at the end of this paragraph that facts will have to be submitted, ought to be submitted to a candid world is we want to prove we're not just in a bad mood, we're not just going off half-cocked about this. So the claim made, if you go down to the next sentence but when? A long train of abuses and usurpations. This is what we Americans have lived through From the Stamp Act crisis of the mid-1760s. For a decade now we've been living through a long train of abuses and usurpations and there's evidence now that this has been pursued invariably by the imperial government in London, as having the object of and a design to reduce we Americans under an absolute capital D despotism.
Speaker 1:Capital D despotism, that's our claim. So what does a people do when it's faced with this set of facts, which we're about to be cataloged, and this violation of the laws of nature, nature's God, of the rights endowed in us by a creator? Well then, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. It's not just a right, it's a duty, as human beings with equal natural rights, to take these steps if a government is oppressing you, suppressing you, denying rights to this degree, with such a pattern of practice.
Speaker 2:Dr Kreis. So in that can you kind of explain what is despotism? Because in that same paragraph is tyranny. Are those used interchangeably in this. So for listeners who may not know what a despot is or despotism, can you kind of help us out with that.
Speaker 1:Great question. I would say that in general political argument in the late 18th century, tyranny and despotism are roughly interchangeable. Okay, the important 18th century tyranny and despotism are roughly interchangeable. Okay, the important 18th century philosopher Montesquieu, who we'll talk about in a later episode, french political philosopher, category of rulers who are ruling without other institutions or parts of government balancing them and checking them, preventing them from going too far, and they have no regard for rights of the people or any claims that the people might have to object to how they're ruling. And despotism can take various forms, but that tends to be the way he phrases it. Tyranny is an older word going back to the English translation for tyranny. It goes all the way back to the Greek and Roman philosophers, but I would say it's interchangeable and it certainly means government that's not complying with the laws of nature. Nature's got an equal individual, the laws of nature, nature's God and equal individual, natural rights of all people and not consent to the governed, as we've talked about.
Speaker 2:Wonderful. Well, thank you again, listeners. There is so much to unpack here, so please continue to join us on this journey. Dr Carice, again thank you. We will be talking to you more and we look forward to it.
Speaker 1:Thank you.
