"It is Their Right, It is Their Duty, To Throw Off Such Government..."

[Little-Acorn]

"It is Their Right, It is Their Duty, To Throw Off Such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Jefferson wrote that into the Declaration of Independence. He was describing what people should do if their government kept doing repeated actions that took away freedom; especially when that government made it clear that they were dloing it as part of a deliberate plan.

And the Declaration was voted unanimously into law, on July 4, 1776. And remains legally binding, just as any other laws passed then or since.

Overthrowing an oppressive government, isn't just a good idea. It's the LAW.

[WiccanLiberal]

As much as I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Declaration, I believe you are incorrect in the weight you give it. It is NOT law. It is a statement of principles and purpose. It presupposes a moral imperative to rebellion in the face of overwhelming tyranny. It does not reach the level of civil law.

[aboutime]

As much as I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Declaration, I believe you are incorrect in the weight you give it. It is NOT law. It is a statement of principles and purpose. It presupposes a moral imperative to rebellion in the face of overwhelming tyranny. It does not reach the level of civil law.

Gotta disagree with you WiccanLiberal. Had it not been for the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Father's would have had Nothing to base their creation, and agreement in formulating our Constitution.

Granted. The DOI is not law. But more like the BLUEPRINT used to create what later became the LAWS of the Land.

[WiccanLiberal]

Gotta disagree with you WiccanLiberal. Had it not been for the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Father's would have had Nothing to base their creation, and agreement in formulating our Constitution.

Granted. The DOI is not law. But more like the BLUEPRINT used to create what later became the LAWS of the Land.

It may be, in that case, more a moral law than a civil law. But the sense I got from the OP was of it being civil law and that is an incorrect assumption. The Constitution is, in legal terms anyway, the more valuable document, even if the Declaration is more dear to our hearts as a statement of our purpose as a nation.

[Robert A Whit]

It may be, in that case, more a moral law than a civil law. But the sense I got from the OP was of it being civil law and that is an incorrect assumption. The Constitution is, in legal terms anyway, the more valuable document, even if the Declaration is more dear to our hearts as a statement of our purpose as a nation.

The DOI really is the mission statement and as such applies to this very day.

When the government becomes an outlaw, we retain our right to correct that.

[logroller]

The DOI was, legally speaking, an act of treason.

[Robert A Whit]

As much as I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Declaration, I believe you are incorrect in the weight you give it. It is NOT law. It is a statement of principles and purpose. It presupposes a moral imperative to rebellion in the face of overwhelming tyranny. It does not reach the level of civil law.

If you feel that way, you actually declare Gen. Washington to be a criminal and the enemy of our state, along with Jefferson et a; pf course.

The present government has long opposed the will of the public it is supposed to serve.

[Little-Acorn]

As much as I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Declaration, I believe you are incorrect in the weight you give it. It is NOT law. It is a statement of principles and purpose. It presupposes a moral imperative to rebellion in the face of overwhelming tyranny. It does not reach the level of civil law.

I am at a loss to understand how you reach that conclusion.

The Second Continental Congress passed hundreds of laws, all by the same method: A vote by the required number of states, as cast by their Congressional delegations. This was usually a majority vote of the 13 state delegations, counted by state. (actually the DOI was required to have a unanimous vote of the 13 states, and it got it.)

All those other laws that the SCC passed, were indeed laws.

What made the DOI (which was passed in exactly the same way, by the same group under the same rules) "not a law"? I am puzzled by your assertion, and can find no rational explanation for it.

In fact, the leftists are the ones that hope to make it the sole exception, merely by wishing it so. They are good for a laugh, but not much more.

[WiccanLiberal]

Respectfully, while the Declaration is one of the finest expositions of liberty and the rights of humanity, it carries no legal weight. It does not establish rights duties and liabilities. It does not fit the definitions of constitutional, statutory or case law. I agree that it defines the moral compass of the nation and gave direction to the great minds that established the Constitution. In that way it may be more valuable than concrete law.

[Little-Acorn]

Respectfully, while the Declaration is one of the finest expositions of liberty and the rights of humanity, it carries no legal weight.

You said that before, without citing any reasons why you thought so. I pointed out why it did carry legal weight: It was passed by a legally constituted body whose purpose was to enact legislation which, by the act of passage, DID carry legal weight.

Now you've said it again, and without citing any reasons why you think so, again.

It does not establish rights duties and liabilities.

Establishing duty, is exactly what it DOES do, as I have pointed out already.

As for rights, Jefferson long maintained that the right to overthrow an oppressive government does not come from any law (how could it?), but comes from "our Creator". That is, it's a right we had merely by being human, a right that everybody automatically has whether government likes it or not.

But even if that were not so, the fact that this legally constituted lawmaking body passed it by due process of law, would MAKE it our right to overthrow an oppressive government.

It does not fit the definitions of constitutional,

Of course not. There was no Constitution at the time, either with a capital C or a lowercase c.

statutory

As I have repeatedly pointed out, "statutory" is exactly what it IS. It is a law. It is passed by a body put together by the people who wanted to set up their government, for the purpose of passing laws they would obey, according to set parliamentary practices. And those practices were followed to the letter. The DOI was just as much a law, and just as binding on citizens then or since, as any other law passed in that way by that body. The only thing that could possibly change that, is deliberate repeal or amendment by the same (or subsequent) duly empowered lawmaking body.

And no such repeal or amendment, has ever been passed. The people who wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation did nothing to repeal or amend what the DOI said. Even the Constitutional Convention of 1786-1787 passed nothing to repeal it, only to add to it. Same for every amendment passed since, starting with the Bill of Rights throuhg the amendments of today.

The Declaration of Independence was given the FORCE OF LAW by the Second Continental Congress, just as everything else they passed was given the force of law. And it has NEVER been repealed or modified since.

I suggest that anyone who wants to claim the DOI is "not law", will need to specify exactly which law(s) passed since then, repeals or modifies it, and in what way. Good luck with that.

or case law.

It its a LAW. Laws precede court cases, not the other way around. Cases only try to interpret what laws say... but there is NO requirement that a law passed today, must conform to a case decided yesterday. Unless that case refers to a "higher" law, which the DOI did not.

I agree that it defines the moral compass of the nation and gave direction to the great minds that established the Constitution.

Yes, it did. (And it also made law.) But the people who wrote it, could have "defined the moral compass of the nation" simply by writing tracts and pamphlets and publishing them on their own, as many people did at that time, without getting the pamphlets agreed to and duly passed by a lawmaking body. Such pamphlets could still have a lot of effect, by PERSUADING people of something.

But the DOI went beyond that: It made the things it contains, LAW. That is, COMMANDS that something will be so.

One of the things it commands, as we have been discussing, is that it is your DUTY to overthrow an oppressive government. "Duty" doesn't necessarily mean that you can be punished for not overthrowing such a government. But it certainly means that, if you DO overthrow an oppressive government, you cannot be punished for doing so.

The Framers were referring to, of course, the government of England (King, Pariliament etc.). And they weren't exactly overthrowing it, just cutting away and declaring themselves "no longer legally bound" by it. It still existed after they were done.

But the Framers carefully worded the DOI so that it referred to ANY oppressive government. They specified that, long before referring in the document to the King. And many of the Framers were lawyers, who knew exactly what such a general reference meant.

The DOI was law then, and it is law today, just as much. And overthrowing an oppressive government, is a perfectly legal act.

Note that even in the later Constitution, "treason" is defined only as acts against "the United States", not against the [i]government.]/i] Even then the Framers (some were the same people who had signed the DOI, and some were not) did not want to change what they had legally enacted before: The duty and right to overthrow an oppressive government... ANY oppressive government.

There's a reson for that. And the reason is written right into the DOI.

And it is LAW. The Constitution could have overridden it, but carefully did not. It can still override it, by a Constitutional amendment. But nobody has passed one to do so.

The DOI is LAW.

[logroller]

You said that before, without citing any reasons why you thought so. I pointed out why it did carry legal weight: It was passed by a legally constituted body whose purpose was to enact legislation which, by the act of passage, DID carry legal weight.

Now you've said it again, and without citing any reasons why you think so, again.


Establishing duty, is exactly what it DOES do, as I have pointed out already.

As for rights, Jefferson long maintained that the right to overthrow an oppressive government does not come from any law (how could it?), but comes from "our Creator". That is, it's a right we had merely by being human, a right that everybody automatically has whether government likes it or not.

But even if that were not so, the fact that this legally constituted lawmaking body passed it by due process of law, would MAKE it our right to overthrow an oppressive government.


Of course not. There was no Constitution at the time, either with a capital C or a lowercase c.


As I have repeatedly pointed out, "statutory" is exactly what it IS. It is a law. It is passed by a body put together by the people who wanted to set up their government, for the purpose of passing laws they would obey, according to set parliamentary practices. And those practices were followed to the letter. The DOI was just as much a law, and just as binding on citizens then or since, as any other law passed in that way by that body. The only thing that could possibly change that, is deliberate repeal or amendment by the same (or subsequent) duly empowered lawmaking body.

And no such repeal or amendment, has ever been passed. The people who wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation did nothing to repeal or amend what the DOI said. Even the Constitutional Convention of 1786-1787 passed nothing to repeal it, only to add to it. Same for every amendment passed since, starting with the Bill of Rights throuhg the amendments of today.

The Declaration of Independence was given the FORCE OF LAW by the Second Continental Congress, just as everything else they passed was given the force of law. And it has NEVER been repealed or modified since.

I suggest that anyone who wants to claim the DOI is "not law", will need to specify exactly which law(s) passed since then, repeals or modifies it, and in what way. Good luck with that.


It its a LAW. Laws precede court cases, not the other way around. Cases only try to interpret what laws say... but there is NO requirement that a law passed today, must conform to a case decided yesterday. Unless that case refers to a "higher" law, which the DOI did not.


Yes, it did. (And it also made law.) But the people who wrote it, could have "defined the moral compass of the nation" simply by writing tracts and pamphlets and publishing them on their own, as many people did at that time, without getting the pamphlets agreed to and duly passed by a lawmaking body. Such pamphlets could still have a lot of effect, by PERSUADING people of something.

But the DOI went beyond that: It made the things it contains, LAW. That is, COMMANDS that something will be so.

One of the things it commands, as we have been discussing, is that it is your DUTY to overthrow an oppressive government. "Duty" doesn't necessarily mean that you can be punished for not overthrowing such a government. But it certainly means that, if you DO overthrow an oppressive government, you cannot be punished for doing so.

The Framers were referring to, of course, the government of England (King, Pariliament etc.). And they weren't exactly overthrowing it, just cutting away and declaring themselves "no longer legally bound" by it. It still existed after they were done.

But the Framers carefully worded the DOI so that it referred to ANY oppressive government. They specified that, long before referring in the document to the King. And many of the Framers were lawyers, who knew exactly what such a general reference meant.

The DOI was law then, and it is law today, just as much. And overthrowing an oppressive government, is a perfectly legal act.

Note that even in the later Constitution, "treason" is defined only as acts against "the United States", not against the [i]government.]/i] Even then the Framers (some were the same people who had signed the DOI, and some were not) did not want to change what they had legally enacted before: The duty and right to overthrow an oppressive government... ANY oppressive government.

There's a reson for that. And the reason is written right into the DOI.

And it is LAW. The Constitution could have overridden it, but carefully did not. It can still override it, by a Constitutional amendment. But nobody has passed one to do so.

The DOI is LAW.

wow, I bet you're a hoot to play scrabble with. No doubt such long-winded arguendo is the reason for the creation of an official scrabble dictionary. If only there were an official document , some definitive text that details what is us law.... Oh yea, there is-- the constitution and the US code that resulted from the granted legislative powers therein....and the DOI isn't in there....because its not US law.
A definitive reference for natural rights, certainly it is; a documentation of the guiding principles for our great nation, one should hope; but its NOT US LAW.

[logroller]

The DOI really is the mission statement and as such applies to this very day.

When the government becomes an outlaw, we retain our right to correct that.

I believe the preamble to the constitution is the mission statement. Although, it carries not the weight of law either.

Sure thing! If you were praising the King of England, and calling the New Americans traitors to the U.K.
That was the purpose of the DOI. To inform England. They were no longer running the show, nor were they welcome to
come here to rule.

furthermore, it was a solemn plea to the world's powers for acceptance.

I am at a loss to understand how you reach that conclusion.

The Second Continental Congress passed hundreds of laws, all by the same method: A vote by the required number of states, as cast by their Congressional delegations. This was usually a majority vote of the 13 state delegations, counted by state. (actually the DOI was required to have a unanimous vote of the 13 states, and it got it.)

All those other laws that the SCC passed, were indeed laws.

What made the DOI (which was passed in exactly the same way, by the same group under the same rules) "not a law"? I am puzzled by your assertion, and can find no rational explanation for it.

In fact, the leftists are the ones that hope to make it the sole exception, merely by wishing it so. They are good for a laugh, but not much more.

A declaration is only as valid, legally speaking, as there is some codified structure by which it is to be judged and enforced. In reading the DOI I see no such designation, save the Creator and humanity et al. So unless you're speaking in superlative contexts, above and beyond the law of the lands governed by the United States of America, the DOI is not law any more than Ten Commandments.

[revelarts]

The Declaration of Independence is a legal Document. But it's limited.
In a sense it is our nation's 1st "law", it's the establishing law.

It declares or legally announces to other nations the sovereignty of the 13 colonies as a new national entity.

It is what it says it is primarily.
It's a "DECLARATION", in fact a Legal Notice. It names the parties involved in the new Nation. And names the offenses/crimes the new nation was formed to remedy. And sets out the general principals of law the 13 states expect to be governed by. (believes all people's should be governed by) It sets those legal boundaries with some broad terms but some fairly specific too.

the declaration of Independence is the legal birth certificate of the the U.S..

It seem to me that It's not "law" in the same sense as the constitution. The declaration is more narrow but in sense broader as well. It's has 1 main purpose, but it does set up the legal character or tone of the nation as well. Just as Corwallis's surrender document is a legal document, And there were/are terms to honored in that document. So is the Declaration of Independence, it's terms are legal.
It is the legal charter of our nation.
If it's broken by our own gov't, then it's is a legal breech.

[Kathianne]

The Declaration of Independence is a legal Document. But it's limited.
In a sense it is our nation's 1st "law", it's the establishing law.

It declares or legally announces to other nations the sovereignty of the 13 colonies as a new national entity.

It is what it says it is primarily.
It's a "DECLARATION", in fact a Legal Notice. It names the parties involved in the new Nation. And names the offenses/crimes the new nation was formed to remedy. And sets out the general principals of law the 13 states expect to be governed by. (believes all people's should be governed by) It sets those legal boundaries with some broad terms but some fairly specific too.

the declaration of Independence is the legal birth certificate of the the U.S..

It seem to me that It's not "law" in the same sense as the constitution. The declaration is more narrow but in sense broader as well. It's has 1 main purpose, but it does set up the legal character or tone of the nation as well. Just as Corwallis's surrender document is a legal document, And there were/are terms to honored in that document. So is the Declaration of Independence, it's terms are legal.
It is the legal charter of our nation.
If it's broken by our own gov't, then it's is a legal breech.

In every constitutional law class I've taken (3), The Declaration of Independence is considered a message to the 'world' that the colonies were declaring a right to secede from Britain, giving the reasons why, and in the preamble explaining what they based the right to do so on.

Law? I don't see that. Pretty much until the Constitution was ratified over a decade later, the 'laws' were pretty much established British law, common law, and those that each colony or town had passed in the previous years.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/jun98nl.html

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.


"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'