The Constitution secures the right of the people to maintain certain aspects of their lives which some have argued can assist in the potential necessity of rebellion. Some historians (myself included) have argued that the inclusion of things like unrestricted gun rights, free speech, free assembly, and the supposed difficulty of the motion of the judicial system (restricted in Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) provide assistance to people who maintain rebellious attitudes. This idea is that these rights guarantee a certain level of independence necessary for an actual revolution to occur, an idea furthered by Thomas Jefferson's quote from a letter he penned to James Madison in 1787: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

That said, the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right of the people to rebel against their government if it grows tyrannical. This idea is perpetrated in the Declaration of Independence, which though fuzzy as to whether it's official American law, is still highly influential on American society and government as a whole. The Declaration itself was a statement as to why the United States of America had a right to exist in the first place and is structurally a fascinating document.

The latter part of the document is a list of grievances had against the British government, the former an ideological defense of the revolution. One of the ideological defenses as to why the country had the right to participate in the revolution which it was about to undertake was written in the list "self-evident truths" that people commonly know. Among this list was the statement:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [to secure the inalienable rights of men], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It is further stated that:

"But 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, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Declaration of Independence makes it explicitly clear that it is the right of the people to engage in rebellion or revolution against a tyrannical and despotic government. As this is the foundation of our country and passed as a resolution by the earliest form of a national Congress we had, it's a highly influential piece of history that still affects our legislature. In addition, early writings by our founders on the rights they added explicitly to the Bill of Rights shown an implicit right to usurp tyrannical government. However, the explicit Constitutional "Right of Revolution," as you've referred to it, is not formally present.

I might also suggest cross-posting this over into /r/AskPolitics. As a more political question, you can easily see more engagement on an ideological level over there.