Kathianne
07-05-2015, 07:56 PM
Yeah, and 'We the People too!"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/05/declaration-of-independence/29734667/
<section id="module-position-OPpiee8DSyw" class="storytopbar-bucket story-headline-module" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">Glenn Reynolds: Declaration should still wake the powerful up at night
</section><section id="module-position-OPpiee9Ndz0" class="storytopbar-bucket story-byline-module" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">Glenn Harlan Reynolds4:40 p.m. EDT July 5, 2015
</section>More than complaints about a king, the Declaration of Independence was a justification for rebellion that applies today
...
Everyone knows, of course, that the Declaration of Independence announced (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html) our separation from <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Great Britain" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Great Britain</culink>. But it did much more than that. It also spelled out a theory of governance that represented a tremendous departure from pretty much all of human history up to that date.
The key to this is to be found in the second sentence (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. — That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, 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.
Before the declaration, the standard political theory went something like this: God anointed a king, who is the locus of sovereignty on earth. Though the king is supposed to rule decently, it is the duty of everyone else to submit to the king, who is answerable only to God. The king might grant you rights, but if he did so that was an act of generosity on his part, not an entitlement on yours.
Divine-right political theory was understandably popular with kings and their supporters and hangers-on, and a form of it survives in assorted variations today. But the declaration takes a different approach. It says that rights come from God, not from the king, and that they are "unalienable" — that is, incapable of being sold ("alienated") surrendered, or given away.
What's more, rather than rights coming from the government, government exists to protect rights. Government, in the declaration's explanation, exists to protect rights, and rather than subjects enjoying rights with the consent of the government, the government itself rules only by the consent of the governed. And when the government fails to live up to its duties, and the people no longer consent to it, it becomes illegitimate and subject to replacement by something the people like better.
As Dan Himmelfarb noted (http://www.jstor.org/stable/796767?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) in The Yale Law Journal25 years ago, not much contemporary attention is paid to this. I'm sufficiently cynical to think that the lack of attention isn't an accident, but rather a consequence of not wanting to address the questions that the declaration's second sentence raises, which bode poorly for our ruling class.
Does our government now have, as its principal function, the protection of people's rights? Or is it more of a giant wealth-transfer machine, benefiting the connected at the expense of the outsiders? And, most important, does our government enjoy the consent of the governed? (According to a 2014 Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2014/21_think_federal_government_has_consent_of_the_gov erned), only 21% think so.) What would the drafters of the declaration say?
...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/05/declaration-of-independence/29734667/
<section id="module-position-OPpiee8DSyw" class="storytopbar-bucket story-headline-module" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">Glenn Reynolds: Declaration should still wake the powerful up at night
</section><section id="module-position-OPpiee9Ndz0" class="storytopbar-bucket story-byline-module" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">Glenn Harlan Reynolds4:40 p.m. EDT July 5, 2015
</section>More than complaints about a king, the Declaration of Independence was a justification for rebellion that applies today
...
Everyone knows, of course, that the Declaration of Independence announced (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html) our separation from <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Great Britain" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Great Britain</culink>. But it did much more than that. It also spelled out a theory of governance that represented a tremendous departure from pretty much all of human history up to that date.
The key to this is to be found in the second sentence (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. — That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, 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.
Before the declaration, the standard political theory went something like this: God anointed a king, who is the locus of sovereignty on earth. Though the king is supposed to rule decently, it is the duty of everyone else to submit to the king, who is answerable only to God. The king might grant you rights, but if he did so that was an act of generosity on his part, not an entitlement on yours.
Divine-right political theory was understandably popular with kings and their supporters and hangers-on, and a form of it survives in assorted variations today. But the declaration takes a different approach. It says that rights come from God, not from the king, and that they are "unalienable" — that is, incapable of being sold ("alienated") surrendered, or given away.
What's more, rather than rights coming from the government, government exists to protect rights. Government, in the declaration's explanation, exists to protect rights, and rather than subjects enjoying rights with the consent of the government, the government itself rules only by the consent of the governed. And when the government fails to live up to its duties, and the people no longer consent to it, it becomes illegitimate and subject to replacement by something the people like better.
As Dan Himmelfarb noted (http://www.jstor.org/stable/796767?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) in The Yale Law Journal25 years ago, not much contemporary attention is paid to this. I'm sufficiently cynical to think that the lack of attention isn't an accident, but rather a consequence of not wanting to address the questions that the declaration's second sentence raises, which bode poorly for our ruling class.
Does our government now have, as its principal function, the protection of people's rights? Or is it more of a giant wealth-transfer machine, benefiting the connected at the expense of the outsiders? And, most important, does our government enjoy the consent of the governed? (According to a 2014 Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2014/21_think_federal_government_has_consent_of_the_gov erned), only 21% think so.) What would the drafters of the declaration say?
...