from the glacier

Let's open a can of worms. All modern political philosophy from Locke to Rousseau and others says that the governments exists by consent of the governed. That may or may not be the foundations for the regime in which we live - I suppose certain friends of mine would say no. Be that as it may, there is even in "On Kingship" and certain passages of the Summa by St. Thomas that require government to have the consent of the governed. Look at our current regime. What if the government lost the consent. What does that morally do? Does the governing body have to have a mass resignation? What qualifies as consent? Simple majority? Plurality?
But what if the governing body lost the consent of the ruled - but did not lose the power. Wouldn't that put us two degrees from Molotov cocktails and rock fights? It wouldn't be a rebellion, or a revolt - both of these operate within the framework of a legitimate government. It would be a revolution. So if natural law states that the foundation of rule is by consent, and the consent is rescinded, then revolution is legal (in the natural sense if not in the sense of positive human law). But then again, if the rule of (positive) law broke down, I'd probably be one of the first assholes up against the wall when the revolution came.