And most others probably.Originally Posted by cadet
Ignored by the alt-right
And most others probably.
"when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
"You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
Young punk
Of course if america ever followed in it's forefathers footsteps, we could add quite a few.
"If you must mount the gallows, give a jest to the crowd, a coin to the hangman, and make the drop with a smile on your lips"
Ignored by the alt-right
for makin' me go all Lincoln on ya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara...f_IndependenceThis has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[6] containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history."[7] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitutionshould be interpreted.[8]
"when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
"You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
Super Minion
Exactly. "Rights" based on natural law, that is what the Declaration was all about. However, even the Constitution acknowledged that all the 'rights' couldn't be stated, as natural law is a political philosophy in and of itself. There was nothing 'new' regarding 'natural rights', save for the small detail that no governing body had used them as a basis of either law or crating a government. That indeed was the unique act of the Declaration.
While a seminal legal document in and of itself, there was no 'laws' created, though many of the 'grievances' listed would become part and parcel of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Super Minion
Your points with emphasis are a partial numeration of grievances, eventually addressed in the Constitution.
If the colonists had lost the war, there would have been no Constitution, at least then. However, the Declaration would still have been a powerful statement of the rights of the governed and the limits of government.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Senior Member
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.It does not establish rights duties and liabilities.
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.It does not fit the definitions of constitutional,
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.statutory
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.or case law.
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.I agree that it defines the moral compass of the nation and gave direction to the great minds that established the Constitution.
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.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 07-05-2013 at 02:55 PM.
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
Educate man, Liberate man
Perhaps now is the time to READ the Document at your own time, and speed.
Agreed. It is not Law. But anyone who reads it, and understands what it says. Should then have little doubt,
where the Constitution of the United States got it's power to rule a New Nation.
The document shown below does not include the signatures.
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
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.
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.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Last edited by aboutime; 07-05-2013 at 02:59 PM.
I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
So, this is for them.
GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !
Copacetic
First of all, it's title I (or 1) not volume 1, and secondly, I just read title 1 chapters 1-3 and the doi is not mentioned. Please link to the actual code if you believe I'm mistaken.
He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99
Copacetic
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.
He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99
Senior Member
"It's the Law!"
"It's not the Law!"
I think kathianne's more nuanced comments are better, though I'd probably lean more toward the whole doc having legal weight.
I don't know if we can push the DOI in total as "the Law!" in the same sense as the constitution.
But I sure i can't agree that, "It not the Law!" but a nice document I hope we can think about from time to time but it has zero real legal force or influence.
I think we'd need a definition of "LAW" 1st of all.
law
n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience....
The principal source of American law is the common law, which had its roots about the same time as Justinian, among Angles, Britons and later Saxons in Britain. William the Conqueror arrived in 1066 and combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. The American colonies followed the English Common Law with minor variations, and the four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone (completed in 1769) was the legal "bible" for all American frontier lawyers and influenced the development of state codes of law. To a great extent common law has been replaced by written statutes, and a gigantic body of such statutes have been enacted by federal and state legislatures supposedly in response to the greater complexity of modern life. 2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice)....
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1111Seems to me that1- a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law
b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law
c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe
d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law
Similar to the Magna Carta the DOI IS in fact a foundation legal document.
I think the main LAW portion of the text is:
...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do....
And it seems to me the 1st part of the DOI is not just preamble. But a declaration of the 1st principals of our national laws. It's the foundational concepts that legitimize our legal system and Outline it's source of legal power. Natural law and the consent of the people.
... to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, 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...
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 governedlaying 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.
Seems to me, as acorn mentioned, these concepts are set down and voted on by the congress as THE foundational principals that are to be the fixed guide for the laws of our nation. They are not a set "good ideas" or a reiteration of thoughts of the day. They are promoted in that legal document as the legal LAWFUL assumptions of 1st principals of the people of the nation.
Someone might say well they just said it that doesn't make it law. Well our city council people "just say things" too. but when they put it into a document and vote on it it becomes law. and is law until it's repealed or shown to be unconstitutional or illegal in court.
Another simple definition of law is
An Assertion of rules by a person or group, backed by force.
The Continental congress was granted authority by the people to assert certain propositions and create legal jurisdiction.
Seems to me that's what it does. It is Law and a legal document. Buuut, except for the basic establishment of the nation and the Concept of Natural laws and the people consent as being foundational. I'm not sure how one could interpret the rest of it, in any consistent way, as legally "binding" on anyone. The narrative and reasons portions gives an outline of what's considered tyrannical and unjust but there's no.. um... legally binding law attached to those, They are descriptive rather than proscriptive.
And the portion
...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such...
Seem to me to be not so much a legal command but a forgone conclusion of what OUGHT to be done. And the DOI is doing what that phrase says. In doing so it set the example. And sets the legal precedent for it. That precedent is then backed and established by force of arms rather than a court of law.
Last edited by revelarts; 07-05-2013 at 09:30 PM.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16
Super Minion
I rarely come back and reiterate arguments I've already made, but in this case I'll make an exception.
As LA and a few others have pointed out, the Declaration was first modified and ratified by The Continental Congress, thus is a legal document. It's also the basis for establishing the Constitution of the US, once the war was one. As I've pointed out, IF the war had been lost, it would have only been part of the 'evidence' to be used against those that wrote, ratified, and war officers that cited it to 'inspire' their troops. As for the last group, Thomas Paine's pamphlet, "Common Sense" would also have been used for convictions.
Because the document was written as an 'explanation' and 'justification' for secession from Great Britain, there was and is nothing to that could be amended or modified. Indeed, the 'drafts' and modifications took care of any issues that might have caused strife amongst those in Congress. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h33.html
While the Articles of Confederation qualify as a framework for a 'governing document,' regardless of how weak, the Declaration in no way creates laws or a basis for laws. It is what it is, a statement of what those that wrote and ratified considered some of the rights the governed had by natural law and a definition of a bad ruler. They purposely made the list of grievances much more detailed than the listing of natural rights, to justify to the world why secession was the only recourse they faced.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
You..... dumbass!!!
The 'volume' refers to the book printed by Congress, listing the US Code, not the code itself or a title in the code.First of all, it's title I (or 1) not volume 1, and secondly, I just read title 1 chapters 1-3 and the doi is not mentioned. Please link to the actual code if you believe I'm mistaken.Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic...tes_of_America
The Declaration of Independence is, in fact, a law... according to the federal government.
Many books of multiple volumes have been printed by Congress over the years, covering the US Code Titles, and many have included the Declaration of Independence in the 1st volume, listing it as part of the The Organic Laws of The United States of America. The practice goes back as far as 1787.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt
-CITE- THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -End- -CITE- USC THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776 01/03/2007 -EXPCITE- THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776 -HEAD- THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776</pre>
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1829734
"Every serious student of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 should have a copy of volume one of the United States Code, Prepared and published under the authority of Title 2, U.S. Code, Section 285b, by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives.
There are about fifty titles in the entire United States Code, however, you will only need volume one, which you will buy from the U.S. Government Printing Office Bookstore. The first volume of the United States Code puts the Constitution of the United States in its proper context and order — the Constitution of the United States is the last of the four Organic Laws of the United States of America.
The Constitution is preceded by the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787." Ed Rivera"The written Organic Laws are the root foundation of all written law in America and limits all written law to the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America. All 4 Organic Laws, 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 are cited in Vol. 1 of both the United States Code (pgs. 43 to 71) and the Statutes at Large (pgs. 1-22) with the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 enacted as 1 Stat. 50 (pgs. 50-53) which and are recognized as enacted positive law. .
Hope that clears up any misunderstanding :-)
Seeker of virtue
The Declaration came only after decades of petitioning the existing government into changing and restoring their rights.
Our efforts to restore our rights in this nation haven't nearly been as long and established.
There is no need for a violent overthrow. Nor do we want to remove the Constitution from it's place. We want to restore it.
If we were as industrious to become good as to make ourselves great, we should become really great by being good, and the number of valuable men would be much increased; but it is a grand mistake to think of being great without goodness; and i pronounce it as certain that there was never yet a truly great man that was not at the same time truly virtuous." - Ben Franklin
Imagine what good we can do if we all joined together, united as followers of Christ - M. Russell Ballard
Senior Member
What's an "Organic law", and how does it differ from a not-so-Organic law?
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote