"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]

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.

[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.

[aboutime]

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

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.

[Robert A Whit]

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

The revolution was treason. But the Civil war was not treason.

[aboutime]

The revolution was treason. But the Civil war was not treason.

Nobody said anything about the Civil War.

[Robert A Whit]

Nobody said anything about the Civil War.

Whatever you say popeye.

[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.

[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.