Technically, that higher authority is the people themselves. Bear in mind that the Constitution was written in a context where the governed people successfully held their government accountable at the business end of their hunting rifles.
No they didn't, look up Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion as examples. The US government has never been successfully "held accountable" at gunpoint.
Britain as an entity certainly faced consequences from US independence, but they didn't behead the queen (which *did happen 20 years later in france).
Declaring independence from a distant seat of government is vastly different and vastly easier than trying to overthrow the local government.
I'm not talking about punishment or punative action. I'm talking about accountability, where being 'held accountable' could be a synonym for 'held responsible'. In this case, the way I used the phrase, Britain was 'held responsible' by simply being told to 'go away'.
I agree that many people blamed the British Government for their problems, indeed that was the impetus for the revolution, but accountability of the British government was limited to none.
you: Britain as an entity certainly faced consequences from US independence
me: The 'holding accountable' was the revocation of Britain's authority over the colonies.
Glad we agree.
(The Oklahoma City bombing was the biggest terrorist attack next to 9/11 and yet never discussed in any history class I’ve taken, while the latter is discussed in virtually every class on any subject on its anniversary. Probably an interesting reflection of xenophobia (probably among other things) I think.)
No government sponsored curriculum is going to open the door to the very tough questions that the first two parts of that trilogy naturally raise. It's the same reason people are never taught about the Indian wars or Jim Crow south except that "they existed". If people learned about how many times the government straight up violated treaties it signed and how many times state governments intentionally used the forces at their disposal to disenfranchise blacks then people wouldn't trust the government. The career arcs of the kind of people who think these things should be learned don't tend to put them on the committees that set state curriculum.
> Technically, that higher authority is the people themselves. Bear in mind that the Constitution was written in a context where the governed people successfully held their government accountable at the business end of their hunting rifles.
I should have probably said "there's no higher institutional authority to appeal to for enforcement." When you're talking about jail-time penalties, I think you're talking about something that's institutionally enforced.
At this point, the only check is the people via elections; but I don't think unconstitutional laws are passed for some private purpose, but rather to satisfy some popular political demand (like "never again"). Such esoteric concepts like the unconstitutionality of some particular law aren't often at the top of voters minds, either.
At least in the current climate, with the level of disunity and polarization, any attempt at a revolution would be a civil war where (in the end) half the country loses a good chunk of their civil rights.