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

[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.'

[Kathianne]

Interestingly enough, seems to be a reach for backing the 'living constitution':

Cornell Law:

http://legalworkshop.org/2012/10/05/...f-independence

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
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: I believe the preamble to the constitution is the mission statement. Although, it carries not the weight of law either.

There was no preamble nor a constitution when the declaration was agreed to and published to the world.

The idea was to first create and then follow up using first the Articles of Confederation that was later changed to the original constitution. That document as we all know also was later changed.

As to law, I presume General Washington, et al prosecuted the revolution believing it was a new law.

[revelarts]

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.

message to the world, ok yes but,
It's a legal declaration though. It's not ike love letter or just an FYI note. Other countries were, at that point, in a position to legally recognize the colonies as a nation, a legal union, a sovereign nation. PRE-Constitution. The continental congress formalized the nation's federal gov't with the Articles of Confederation, they were the 1st laws and structure. Those laws were set aside after the Constitution, but the Declaration was never set aside. It stands as legal doc drafted and voted on by the country's early Continental Congress.
But it's not only a legal doc, it has a narrative and aspirational aspect to it that I don't think we should take as flat law. But it does, in a legal sense, set the compass for how our Gov't is expected to conduct itself. And the portion Acorn quotes was understood to applicable to all people, ESPECIALLY those that were to live under the go'vt of the U.S..

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic...tes_of_America

Organic laws of the United States of America

Main article: Organic Act
The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)^[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.^[2][3]

The Declaration of Independence is, in fact, a law... according to the federal government.

[revelarts]

...

As to law, I presume General Washington, et al prosecuted the revolution believing it was a new law.

Exactly.
They were defending the new Nation. The DOI being the official public legal declaration of the (hopeful) legal fact.

[Kathianne]

It is a legal document. More importantly, because the colonists won the war it maybe the most important of the founding documents. It established a basis for what would become the political philosophy for the Constitution, IF the colonists were successful.

If they'd failed in their war, the declaration of secession would have been evidence against those on the legislature and in the army of insurrection to condemn them to death or imprison them.

However, there are no 'laws' in the sense commonly meant within the Declaration, only principles of political philosophy, list of grievances, and a sacred pledge.

[Robert A Whit]

It is a legal document. More importantly, because the colonists won the war it maybe the most important of the founding documents. It established a basis for what would become the political philosophy for the Constitution, IF the colonists were successful.

If they'd failed in their war, the declaration of secession would have been evidence against those on the legislature and in the army of insurrection to condemn them to death or imprison them.

However, there are no 'laws' in the sense commonly meant within the Declaration, only principles of political philosophy, list of grievances, and a sacred pledge.

Then you owe the court of the nation the duty to tell them to change the law of the land.

Marcus shows us that it is indeed part of the complete law.

[revelarts]

here's a problem i think some conservatives have.
I think we sometimes confuse "legal" with patriotic or "right".
Sometimes confusing being a strictly "law abiding" citizen with being a good citizen.

the portion of the DOI that Acorn quotes makes reference to basically Human rights. Not so much what was "legal" in terms of Common Law or British law etc..

It acknowledges people basic humans rights TRUMP gov't assertions of "law".
Many times here and elsewhere ive been asked "wells should we make up our laws or just read the constitution any way we want. ... the supreme court says it means X so that's what it mean..."
here's the thing, the declaration makes it fairly clear, 'after a LONG train of Abuses'. and it names them. Calls them assaults on basic rights/liberties of men. The question is can we name some of the same? if so then...
"It is Their Right, It is Their Duty, To Throw Off Such Government..."

And we can't allow any legal double speak allow us to imagine that locking people up without trial is Not REALLY locking people up without trial. Or that breaking and entering and taking private info without warrant or probably cause is NOT really breaking entering and taking private info without warrant or probably cause. Or that killing American citizens without trial is not REALLY killing American citizens without trials.

Jefferson Washington and the others would not allow themselves to be self deceived on these points. Or try to make them issues of Party politics alone. IMO they'd have congress and President in the street at gun point, if they had no other peaceful 'legal' remedy.

The declaration mentions that they did TRY very diligently and peacefully to petition the King and Parliament legally for years 1st. To correct the issues. Frankly I don't think the people of the U.S have presented a strong united front on the basic constitutional issues YET.

Both the TEA party and OWStreters had aspect of the constitution in mind but sadly they both had other agendas and were co-oped by the powers that be.

IMO, the congress are such a cowardly bunch that if faced with a mass movement that dealt with a few specific constitutional issues they'd move. But until then they'll bob and weave. And Continue to piss on the Constitution and our rights, then smile into the camera and say how much they love the Constitution. And as long as they have the right letter by their name people will still vote for them. Because it's pragmatic.

[cadet]

Bolded are the ones that can fit the current president.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. We haven't been 'In a time of war' since WW II. These have all been classified differently.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

I'm pretty sure those are all meaningful to obama.
I might be wrong though, I may have read them wrong, and/or missed a few.

[logroller]

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

Blacks legal dictionary is repeatedly cited by scotus too. Is that law? So too is English common law considered to be the impetus for much of our laws, but it carries not the weight of law. It is indeed helpful in interpreting law, but that does not make it law.

Plus, legally speaking this passage is problematic "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.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)"
"And" would imply that the OK constitution could be repugnant to the constitution of the us or the principles of the DOI, but not both.
The DOI is flush with references to the political philosophies of its day; the works of Hobbes, Locke, Paine etc.; presenting a blending of natural rights/laws and those created by man. I believe it was Hobbes that stipulated that the rights and laws of man are of no value absent enforcement; and the DOI offers not one iota of power to the entity of government, but rather the people. This is, of course, an indelible statement and certainly is the foundation of our great nation; but its nothing more than a visceral platitude absent some mechanism of power by which it is to be put into action. Declarations are used in legal actions all the time, but were it not for the constitutional directive conveying unto the courts the POWER to handle such a declaration, it would be a moot exercise. And following the Declaration of Independence, that's exactly why the articles of confederation were created; because the declaration wasn't a law in the state enforceable sense of the word. This doesn't mean that the people cannot still enforce the declaration, the supreme court has ruled such to be the case-- it's called revolution. Nothing to stop us from trying again, but the government of the United States of America isn't bound to respect such a declaration any more than the England was, but it doesn't keep us from trying I suppose. Just bear in mind that its an all or nothing wager, or as so eloquently stated in the DOI, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[fj1200]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic...tes_of_America

the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.^[2][3]

The Declaration of Independence is, in fact, a law... according to the federal government.

Then you owe the court of the nation the duty to tell them to change the law of the land.

Marcus shows us that it is indeed part of the complete law.

Has anyone argued the Articles of Confederation in front of SCOTUS recently? But if ya want to get all wiki up in heya...

The Declaration of Independence is a statement...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara...f_Independence

[Marcus Aurelius]

Blacks legal dictionary is repeatedly cited by scotus too. Is that law? So too is English common law considered to be the impetus for much of our laws, but it carries not the weight of law. It is indeed helpful in interpreting law, but that does not make it law.

Plus, legally speaking this passage is problematic "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.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)"
"And" would imply that the OK constitution could be repugnant to the constitution of the us or the principles of the DOI, but not both.
The DOI is flush with references to the political philosophies of its day; the works of Hobbes, Locke, Paine etc.; presenting a blending of natural rights/laws and those created by man. I believe it was Hobbes that stipulated that the rights and laws of man are of no value absent enforcement; and the DOI offers not one iota of power to the entity of government, but rather the people. This is, of course, an indelible statement and certainly is the foundation of our great nation; but its nothing more than a visceral platitude absent some mechanism of power by which it is to be put into action. Declarations are used in legal actions all the time, but were it not for the constitutional directive conveying unto the courts the POWER to handle such a declaration, it would be a moot exercise. And following the Declaration of Independence, that's exactly why the articles of confederation were created; because the declaration wasn't a law in the state enforceable sense of the word. This doesn't mean that the people cannot still enforce the declaration, the supreme court has ruled such to be the case-- it's called revolution. Nothing to stop us from trying again, but the government of the United States of America isn't bound to respect such a declaration any more than the England was, but it doesn't keep us from trying I suppose. Just bear in mind that its an all or nothing wager, or as so eloquently stated in the DOI, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

All I am saying, is that as I stated in post 21, the federal government lists the Declaration of Independence, at the very beginning of US Code (Volume One) which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States.

Yes, it is not a 'law' in the sense of 'don't steal, it's against the law'. BNut it is considered part of the 'General and Permanent' laws of the US.

[cadet]

Has anyone argued the Articles of Confederation in front of SCOTUS recently? But if ya want to get all wiki up in heya...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara...f_Independence

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. <small>(January 2013)</small>

Right at the top of the page.