OK, let's just say for a moment you WERE successful and managed to overthrow the tyrants. Then what? You need to form a provisional government to fill the vacuum. If you don't someone else WILL (as we go along consider everything I suggest could go awry, happening in THAT eventuality)
OK so now you are in charge, what do you do now? First you would need to name a new President. You would need to incarcerate all the previous members of congress so they wouldn't be able to organize a counterrevolution. Then you would need to convene a Second Constitutional Convention. Why? Because if you leave everything as it was it will soon drift back to business as usual. Here is where it would get dicey. Under the Constitution, the States have the preponderance of authority. You would have to turn the Convention over to the Governors and/or their duly appointed representatives. You COULD impose some kind of Precondition, such as the Bill of rights remains essentially unchanged, with the exception of clarification that the rights of individuals cannot be abrogated by the Federal government or any LOWER jurisdiction (the same rule that seems to be applied to every right but the right to keep and bear arms). NOW, are you going to clarify EVERY right in this manner? What about Freedom of speech? (is is protected speech to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater?) What about the Second amendment? (Should the rights to 'keep and bear' be taken from felons? What if speaking out against the government was made a felony? Before you laugh that off, Google "Alien and Sedition Act") How about if it was decided that yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater WAS considered protected, but the yeller could be held responsible for the consequences? How about if a felon with a gun were treated by the courts as a felon with a gun? Ok, maybe now we're onto something, but how could you get the representatives of 50 States (some of whom are uber-liberal themselves) to agree to that? Answer is...in all fairness you can't, so you would be turning over our sacred birthright to a bunch who may decide to interpret it totally differently than you have. Need an example? The people who STARTED the discussion for a Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation were Federalists who WANTED a strong central government. Once they got the Convention together, (it wasn't CALLED to be a Constitution Convention originally but rather for more mundane purposes and then the need to come up with something stronger than the Articles of Confederation was brought up. The Delegates from the several States then proceeded to water down the strong central government, until they got it where the People would accept it. My, what a difference 221 years can make!
So, once the Constitution was where the Framers wanted it, they submitted it to the various States for ratification. Much debate was made over the wisdom of acceding any portion of a States sovereignty, but eventually the Constitution was ratified, and the United States came into being. NOTE: I did NOT say "the United States as we know it came into being" The United States as our Founders intended it to be was in the process of being changed into the vision of those who originally wanted a stronger centralized government over a hundred years ago. MUCH over! How so? You may ask. Consider that at the outbreak of the so-called Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had most of the State Legislature of Maryland and many on the city council of Baltimore placed under house arrest, with no charges brought, no trial, and no chargeable offenses, simply to prevent them from being able to form a quorum and potentially voting to secede! That my friends is what is meant when people say that Habeas Corpus was suspended. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed to force the government or police to either charge an individual, or release them, to prevent the unlawful detention of free citizens.
So it would seem that the framers of the Constitution acquiesced to ceding a portion of their sovereignty to the central (Federal) government in order to facilitate trade and commerce. The devil is in the details as they say, and here's where it gets tricky.
COMMERCE: The Department of Commerce was formed to facilitate trade between the States. How would it be if you agreed to trade 10 tons of cotton in Alabama for ten pounds of gold in Maine, only to find that either Maine's standard for a pound was the Carat ounce and pound (10 ounces to a pound, and a lighter ounce) If you tried to sue, the State the suit was brought in would try to put their State standard as the basis for their judgement. The Department of Commerce was to regulate standards of weight, measure and even time. This way, and ounce in Texas is exactly the same as an ounce in New Jersey. Likewise, it would be difficult for American industry to become as dominant as it did if other nations had to keep up with a patchwork of differing import and export laws, and tariffs. In these matters the Federal Government was assigned the States 'Power of Attorney' so to speak to act as their collective agent.
Now allow me to digress a moment and state that in many, if not most cases, and study of the Constitution needs to focus not on what the FRAMERS intended, but rather what the RATIFIERS intended. Because the Sovereignty the States signed over to the Federal Government was based of the 'Bill of Goods' THEY were presented with. If you can find an alternate interpretation for a passage of the Constitution, any interpretation other than what the States ratified would be grounds to nullify that ratification and allow the State to disassociate itself from the Union (secede). This seemed to be considered an illegal act to Abraham Lincoln, but upon passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Intolerable Acts, no less personage than Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, and one of his associates in the Kentucky legislature were actively engaged in discussion of doing just that! Hmmm, WHO do you think had a better grasp of Constitutionality? A man who suspended Habeas Corpus seventy years AFTER ratification of the Constitution, or a man who WROTE the Declaration of Independence, and sat in the legislature that RATIFIED that document? (by the way, did you know that the Unites States under the Constitution could have been killed by Virginia alone? If Virginia had chosen NOT to ratify, Virginia would have divided the northern states and the southern states, and they probably would have shelved the idea, rather than building a divided union.
Back to the subject at hand DEFENSE: Rather than each State having to build and maintain an army of it's own, and the stronger States possibly dominating the weaker ones, and the weaker ones entering into alliances with European powers to try to offset the advantages of the strong, and thus dragging us into the never ending squabbles in Europe; it was deemed that the Federal Government should provide for the common defense, with no one State being able to mobilize the army against any other State.
I could go on and on enumerating the limitations of power the Constitution places on the Federal Government, but it's only important at this point that you understand the PRINCIPLES that underlie the Foundations of our Country. In a more modern context, think of the European Union, and the individual nations that comprise it. THAT is more in keeping with what the Founders intended.
I may seem to have gotten way off track, but it's imperative that the reader understand what was created, and then follow the chain of events that ultimately led to the train jumping off the track. REMEMBER this installment was written with the assumption that things had become intolerable, and the last resort of governmental overthrow was resorted to, and against any sane analysis, succeeded. Benjamin Franklin said :"the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results". Too often we tend to throw the baby out with the bath water. The Constitution is the most wonderful foundation we could ask for to establish our homes on. Under this scenario, it is obviously not perfect (and that is still playing out, as we watch to see if the People can regain control of the monster our government has become). In our hypothetical scenario, we must therefore correct the errors that allowed us to get where we are. Therein lies the problem. The idea that the Supreme Court should exist with the Justices serving for life, upon appointment, so that they never need to be concerned with popularity, in the event that an opinion based on a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution go against the will of the people. This is the largest guarantee of prevention of tyranny of the majority over the minority.
This has led to a LONG chain of Judicial Activism that has created some precedents that often conflict with each other. In
Assuming you figure that one out, how do you get the representatives of 50 States to agree on it? There were only thirteen the first time, and it was a close thing! (I'm going ahead and posting this, such as it is, but will be adding to it soon! It is NOT a finished work!)