The Law: A Duty And A Responsibility

The notion that 'when [injustice/tyranny] becomes law, [resistance/rebellion] becomes duty' is a powerful concept often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, although it has not been found in his written works. This idea encapsulates the belief that when laws become unjust, it is the duty of citizens to resist and seek change. This sentiment has been a rallying cry for those standing against oppression and has been embraced by figures such as Thoreau and Gandhi through the practice of civil disobedience. The concept explores the tension between legal obedience and moral righteousness, emphasising that the duty to uphold true justice may require opposing established laws.

Injustices become law, resistance becomes duty

The phrase "Injustices become law, resistance becomes duty" is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. However, there is no evidence that Jefferson ever said or wrote this exact phrase. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which maintains his property at Monticello, has deemed the quote “spurious”, and it cannot be found in any of Jefferson's writings. The first known attribution to Jefferson was in 2006, although the saying has been in circulation for decades.

Despite this, the quote does capture some of the ideas that Jefferson expressed in the Declaration of Independence. For example, Jefferson wrote:

> "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

The quote has also been attributed to Henry David Thoreau, and it has been popularised by social activists in Australia.

The phrase "Injustices become law, resistance becomes duty" implies that when laws are perceived as unjust, it is the responsibility of the people to resist and challenge those laws. This idea of resistance against unjust laws has been a recurring theme throughout history, with various individuals and movements embracing the notion that passive acceptance of injustice is not an option.

Resistance can take many forms, from peaceful protests and civil disobedience to more radical actions. In the context of this quote, resistance implies a duty to actively oppose and seek to change or overthrow unjust laws. This concept of resistance as a duty is particularly relevant in situations where laws are seen to be oppressive or discriminatory, or where they violate fundamental human rights.

The notion that "injustice becomes law" suggests a situation where laws are enacted that are inherently unfair or immoral. This could include laws that legalise discrimination, violate civil liberties, or infringe upon the basic rights and freedoms of individuals or groups. In such cases, the idea that "resistance becomes duty" implies a moral obligation to stand against these laws and strive for a more just and equitable legal system.

Ultimately, the phrase "Injustices become law, resistance becomes duty" serves as a reminder that the presence of unjust laws does not mean they should be accepted or obeyed without question. Instead, it is the duty of those who recognise these injustices to resist and work towards a more just society.

Tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty

The phrase "when law becomes, it is a duty" is often associated with the quotation, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty," which is often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson. This quotation first appeared in print in 2006 and captures some of the ideas that Jefferson expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The full quotation from the Declaration of Independence is as follows: "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

The concept of "when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" is similar to the idea expressed in the previous quotation. It suggests that when a government or ruling power becomes oppressive and unjust, it is the responsibility of the people to resist and overthrow that government. This notion is often associated with justifying or encouraging revolutionary action against a perceived tyrannical regime.

While the exact phrase "when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" has not been found in Thomas Jefferson's writings, it is possible that the idea is influenced by his work, particularly the Declaration of Independence. The phrase has become a rallying cry for those who believe that they are living under an oppressive or unjust government and feel it is their duty to take action, whether through protest, civil disobedience, or even more radical means.

The phrase "when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" has been widely reproduced on merchandise such as t-shirts, hoodies, decals, stickers, and flags, often with patriotic imagery and references to the year 1776, the year of the American Revolution. This suggests that the phrase is particularly resonant with those who identify as patriots or supporters of revolutionary action in the name of freedom and liberty.

While the sentiment "when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" may inspire revolutionary action, it is important to recognize that the phrase also carries potential risks and consequences. Revolutionary actions can have unintended outcomes, and the definition of "tyranny" and "rebellion" can vary depending on one's perspective. As such, the interpretation and application of this phrase should be carefully considered within the context of one's values, beliefs, and the specific circumstances of one's society.

Opposing established laws to uphold justice

The idea that "when law becomes, it is a duty" can be interpreted in various ways depending on the context and the specific law in question. In this discussion, we will explore the notion of opposing established laws in the pursuit of upholding justice. This concept is complex and often controversial, as it involves navigating between the established legal framework and the pursuit of what is morally right.

One perspective on this topic is reflected in the quotation, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty," which has been attributed to figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Henry David Thoreau. This quotation underscores the belief that when laws are perceived as unjust, it becomes the responsibility of citizens to challenge and resist them. This idea is particularly relevant when laws are seen to infringe on fundamental rights and freedoms or perpetuate systemic injustices. In such cases, opposition to established laws can be justified as a means of upholding higher principles of justice and equality.

However, opposing established laws can be a delicate and contentious issue. Laws are intended to uphold justice and maintain social order, and they are established through democratic processes or by duly appointed authorities. As such, the rule of law is a fundamental principle in democratic societies. Nevertheless, there are instances throughout history where laws have been enacted that perpetuate injustice or fail to address societal needs adequately. In such cases, opposition to established laws can be a form of civic engagement and a means of pursuing a more just society.

For example, consider the history of civil rights movements. In many countries, there have been instances where discriminatory laws or practices were institutionalized, perpetuating systemic racism or marginalization of certain groups. In these cases, opposition to established laws became a critical tool for marginalized communities to demand equal rights and justice. Their actions often involved civil disobedience, peaceful protests, or legal challenges aimed at changing discriminatory laws and creating a more equitable society.

Moreover, opposing established laws to uphold justice can also extend beyond direct challenges to the law itself. It can involve advocating for legal reform, engaging in public discourse, or utilizing legal mechanisms to interpret and apply laws in a manner that aligns with principles of justice and fairness. This may include strategies such as test case litigation, where a particular case is pursued not only for the benefit of an individual but also to establish a broader legal precedent that can benefit a larger group or clarify a point of law.

In conclusion, opposing established laws to uphold justice is a complex and nuanced issue. While respecting the rule of law is fundamental in a democratic society, there are times when established laws may fall short of delivering justice or may even perpetuate injustice. In such cases, it becomes the duty of engaged citizens to challenge and resist those laws through various means, including civil disobedience, legal reform, or strategic litigation. By doing so, they contribute to the ongoing pursuit of a more just and equitable society.

Civil disobedience as a tool for nonviolent challenge

Civil disobedience is a non-violent form of political protest where individuals intentionally break the law to address perceived injustices and convey their discontent to the government, media, and public. It is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or non-existent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law.

The modern concept of civil disobedience was most clearly formulated by Mahatma Gandhi, who developed the philosophy of satyagraha, which emphasizes nonviolent resistance to evil. In South Africa and India, Gandhi sought to obtain equal rights and freedom through satyagraha campaigns. Drawing in part on Gandhi’s example, the American civil rights movement, which came to prominence during the 1950s, sought to end racial segregation in the southern United States by adopting the tactics and philosophy of civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience can take various forms, including active or passive actions, and may involve breaking unrelated laws to bring attention to the cause. For example, an antiwar protester may destroy their draft card or refuse to register for the draft. Both actions qualify as civil disobedience because the protester intentionally violates the law as an expression of their opposition to the war, knowing the legal consequences of their actions.

Civil disobedience is fundamentally an act of political protest because the noncompliance is intended to convey a message of discontent to the government, media, and public. The acts of defiance are typically overt, public acts aimed at marshaling collective opposition to unjust or unconstitutional laws and policies. Civil disobedience is not restricted to protests over laws and public policies, but is also employed against the practices of private institutions such as corporations and universities.

Civil disobedience is a powerful tool for nonviolent challenge. It is a means of seeking change through protest or disruption, not through passively waiting for change. It is based on a philosophy of nonviolence, which includes the absence of verbal violence, intimidation, and property damage. Many nonviolent movements advocate the presence of openness and love used as a means to convert their opponent to the ideology of the civil disobedience campaign. Those who are participants and leaders in civil disobedience campaigns seek to change the worldview of those involved in the conflict so that the conditions that led to the conflict do not recur.

Civil disobedience campaigns can have a variety of potential effects on geographically based communities. These include an increase of outsiders coming into the area, a disruption in the local economy, or even a boost to the economy. There are effects associated with policing, including the number of officers needed to arrest and process the protesters. There are also effects on the courts, jails, and the legal aid system, as these institutions are forced to deal with larger caseloads.

The purpose of civil disobedience, as stated by Martin Luther King Jr., is "to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue." Proponents of civil disobedience argue that breaking the law is legitimate because they are following a higher moral code. They argue that there are just and unjust laws. It is one's moral and legal obligation to follow just laws and not follow unjust laws. Their peaceful acceptance of the consequence of breaking the law, they argue, shows their respect for the law.

The quotation "when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty" has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson, although it has not been found in his writings. It has also been attributed to Henry David Thoreau.

The right and duty to rebel against tyranny

The phrase "when law becomes, it is a duty" is often used in the context of rebellion against tyranny and injustice. The idea that "when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" is a powerful concept that has resonated throughout history, inspiring uprisings and revolutions. This notion captures the belief that individuals have not only the right but also the responsibility to stand against oppressive and unjust rule.

Throughout history, there have been numerous examples of people exercising their right and duty to rebel against tyranny. The American Revolution, sparked by the colonists' perception of a long train of abuses by the British Crown, resulted in the Declaration of Independence. This document, penned by Thomas Jefferson, echoed the sentiment that when injustice becomes systemic, resistance is not only justified but necessary. The French Revolution, inspired in part by the American example, further emphasised this principle by demonstrating that when people are denied their rights, they will rise up to reclaim them.

Philosophical frameworks, such as natural law and social contract theory, provide moral justifications for challenging unjust authority. Natural law suggests that individuals have a moral obligation to guide their actions towards the good and that any law contradicting inherent human rights is invalid. Social contract theory posits that governments are designed to reduce chaos, but when they fail and violate the very rights they are meant to protect, rebellion becomes not just a choice but an obligation.

Civil disobedience, as embraced by figures like Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi, plays a crucial role in nonviolently challenging and reforming unjust laws. It asserts that individuals have a moral responsibility to oppose unjust authority and signals a deviation from ethical principles. Through civil disobedience, individuals can make a deliberate stand against tyranny, grounded in moral conviction and a commitment to justice.

The duty to rebel against tyranny does not imply anarchy or unrestrained rebellion. Instead, it calls for a considered and collective response to injustice. Vigilance becomes a responsibility, where individuals must question, challenge, and if necessary, resist oppressive laws and regimes. The line between just rule and tyranny is delicate, and the weight of conscience and responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who seek to uphold freedom and justice.

In conclusion, the phrase "when law becomes, it is a duty" embodies the belief that individuals have a right and duty to rebel against tyranny and injustice. This concept has been a driving force behind historical rebellions, philosophical justifications, and acts of civil disobedience. By challenging unjust authority and advocating for change, individuals can protect their freedoms, rights, and the principles of democracy.

Frequently asked questions