There are some who believe the Declaration of Independence is law. It is included with the U.S. Civil Code -- though not in the body. It is described, in its inclusion, as one of the Organic Laws.

Is the Declaration of Indendence law?

Do its principles regarding the abolishment of a tyrannous government have current force of law through the Declaration of Independence itself?

Today, does it require other documents of law to enforce its principles as law?

Laws are based on principles, obviously. But does that mean principles are law? It seems to me that principles need a law in order to be enforced. The Declaration of Independence makes reference to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. Obviously, that is a reference to other laws. Does the Declaration of Independence create a new law based on these other laws? No. It makes statements of principle -- it is the duty of the people to abolish a tyrannous governement. It is not a command, but a statement of principle. So, does the Declaration of Independence serve as legal authorization to overthrow the government should it become tyrannous? No. Does that mean that the people do not have the obligation, the duty as free men to overthrow such a government despite the legality of such an action? No. They most certainly do. But these would be people with principle to support them, but not the force of law. If they failed, they would be considered traitors and, most likely, put to death. The Declaration of Independence would have no effect as a defense.

The Declaration of Independence is considered Organic Law because it is a system of principles on which the organization of our government is based. The laws of this country are meant to enforce these principles, but the principles themselves are not enforced by the Declaration of Independence -- except as a declaration of independence from Britain in 1776.

Is the Declaration of Independence law?

No.

Do its principles regarding the abolishment of a tyrannous government have current force of law through the Declaration of Independence itself?

The Declaration of Independence advocated the use of violence to overthrow the rule of England. Regardless of how tyrannical some might think the U. S. government, any attempt at overthrowing it, regardless of whether it was a violent or peaceful attempt, would lead to its perpetrators being shot, jailed and possibly executed. Power tends to perpetuate itself.

Today, does it require other documents of law to enforce its principles as law?

Definitely. A statement by John Kennedy was used on the other thread to argue the point that the declaration is law. When Kennedy took office, however, the oath he took was:

"I, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." (Note he didn’t solemnly swear to uphold the Declaration of Independence.)

I like BoF's response to this question: short, sweet and to the point. The Declaration is a list of grievances, it would be like a child writing complaints to a parent. They sit down to discuss them and resolve them but the child throws a temper tantrum and runs away from home. The Declaration served as a warning before the child ran away from mama England.




I find it hard to still carry it's ideals with firm conviction. It is nothing more now than a piece of paper critical to the formation of our republic and a beacon that some ideas do work. It's principles have long since dried with the ink it was written with to become nothing. The highest set of laws to follow and to cherish is the Constitution.




Yes. Being just a list of problems and solutions it is vital for other pieces of legislature to support the claim, say, that all men are created equal. To write it is fine, yet it must have substance, a real law, behind it to make it a precedent to follow.

As entspeak's primary (only?) opposing sparring partner on this issue in another topic, I am heartened to see from the introduction of this topic that it no longer seems our positions are so far apart, correct me if I am wrong. I had been preparing to start a similar topic, so to some extent I have cut-and-pasted passages from that attempt into the framework entspeak has provided, which may overlap some things others have already stated. Some of it may be agreeable to both camps, and some may not.

Is the Declaration of Independence law?

The amended Constitution and the Declaration are the only two unabolished Organic Laws of the United States-- such is a matter of fact which we are probably not directly disputing. If the Constitution is law, then so is the Declaration, albeit with different mechanisms of enforcement-- such is the crux of our debate.

Do its principles regarding the abolishment of a tyrannous government have current force of law through the Declaration of Independence itself?

If I may, let me answer this question by first answering a somewhat related question...

Do its principles regarding the abolishment of a tyrannous government have current force of law through the current government operating under the U.S. Constitution and the body of law it has generated?

No. However, such an answer does not paint a complete picture, because the Declaration is not subject to the Constitution, and the current government is not the only means of enforcement, as I will discuss. Furthermore, that was not the question actually asked. The question asked is...

Do its principles regarding the abolishment of a tyrannous government have current force of law through the Declaration of Independence itself?

The "current" qualifier might be debatable, but yes, there exists a form of "force of law" under which the Declaration asserts that the People have their own means of enforcement apart from a government they institute. Let me explain what I mean by that...

The critical difference between the Constitution and the Declaration is their respective methods of enforcement. The Constitution and its system of laws can be directly enforced by the sitting government, but the Declaration cannot-- it can only be directly enforced by the People acting apart from the sitting government to replace the old government with a new one, and only after a very restrictive set of conditions are met.

The Declaration acts as both a carrot and a stick for government-- a reward to strive for, and a forceful consequence to avoid. The Declaration's carrot is that the People cannot legitimately revolt so long as the government upholds the People's unalienable rights and provides a peaceful and reasonable means for the People to alter or abolish government. The Declaration's stick is that the People have both the right and the duty to alter or abolish a government, forcefully if necessary, after that government has become despotic for a long period of time, and has left the People with no reasonable peaceful means to alter or abolish it. I believe that this "force" asserted by an Organic "Law" is at least some reasonable form of a "force of law"-- others may disagree with such use of terminology, but I will leave terminological debates to the linguists.

Today, does it require other documents of law to enforce its principles as law?

If I may, I will address this question in three parts. First, I will address whether documents exist that help enforce at least some of the principles in the Declaration; second, I will address the circumstances under which those documents are actually required; and third, I will address any relevant powers or authorities present in the Declaration which may not have been transferred to government by the People under other bodies of law.

Do other documents authorize government to enforce many of the principles in the Declaration?

Yes-- particularly the Constitution. According to the Declaration, without the Constitution (or a system of laws generated under a similar Organic Law by which the People transfer authority to a government), that government has no legitimate authority to do anything or enforce anything, because that authority is retained by the People (at least in theory). When the People institute Organic Law that reserves their rights while authorizing government to make and enforce other law, and provides a peaceful and reasonable means of altering or abolishing that Organic Law in such a way that modifies or re-engineers government, then that government has been authorized to institute and enforce, under the government's own system of laws, many principles asserted under the Declaration as originating from a higher system of laws.

What are the circumstances under which other documents are required in order to enforce principles asserted by the Declaration?

The Declaration declared the authority of the People to establish government. It declared that government cannot legitimately take upon itself any power or authority not granted by the People. Therefore, the government cannot enforce any principles, not even principles in the Declaration, unless the People so authorize the government, usually beginning with some form of Organic Law, and thereafter, by laws enacted under that Organic Law.

However, as the Revolutionary War itself demonstrated, the People retain certain means of enforcing laws that, according to the Declaration, are higher than the laws of Government, because these higher laws transfer powers and authorities to the People that the people may have retained for themselves and may not have transferred to government through some other Organic Law. So there exists the possibility that there are some principles in the Declaration that are not transferred to the government under the Constitution and are thus retained by the People and denied to the government. Which brings us to the third point...

What are some of the relevant powers and authorities present in the Declaration that the People have reserved for themselves by refraining from transferring them to government?

Among these powers retained by the People is the power to revolt as a very last resort, and only if there is no reasonable, peaceful means of otherwise altering or abolishing government. No document other than the Declaration asserts this power on behalf of the People, and no document enacted by the People under the Constitution transfers this power to the government itself or any agency of the government-- so here we have an example of a "principle" set forth in the Declaration that does not require transfer to a government in order to the People to retain the right to enforce it themselves. There are certainly related laws under the Constitution against treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government-- but for these to be legitimatly prosecuted, it must be the judgment of the People that such acts of treason were at best a misapplication of the Declaration, by the People's silent consent to the outcome rather than siding with the attempted revolt.

Another example of a power not transferred to government is the authority to directly interpret the Declaration. As far as I know, the People have not transferred to the government the power to say what is legal or illegal under all the principles set forth in the Declaration, at least not directly-- to do so would create a logical inconsistency by which the Declaration would become meaningless. The government can interpret documents like the Constitution by which the people have transfered authority to enforce many powers and rights discussed in the Declaration-- however, the People have not transferred all the powers and rights discussed in the Declaration to government, and to the extent the People have retained powers and rights for themselves apart from government, the government has no legitimate authority to interpret how those powers and rights are to be applied by the People.

The powers and rights retained by the People and not administered by government primarily deal with the power of the People over the government when push comes to shove, so it would not seem to make much sense to allow a despotic government to legitimately have the last word over whether it is despotic enough to be altered or abolished by the People against its will-- as a result, such a determination is left to the proverbial "court of public opinion," possibly acting through representatives outside the current government, by their best determination of the judgment of the "Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions," to quote the Declaration.

In President Lincoln's words, "Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us do our duty as we understand it"; and speaking at Independence Hall of the Declaration and its signers on George Washington's birthday, 1861...



Lincoln was not the only historical figure to make prophetic statements. Benjamin Franklin, a member of the committee charged with drafting the Declaration, clearly believed that the Constitution was insufficient to prevent government from becoming despotic, as he stated in his final address to the Constitutional Convention (emphasis mine):



In the event Franklin is right, it is important for the entire Declaration to remain in effect, not just its separation from Britain, but also the general principles of law which the American people may again need to enforce apart from government at some point in the far distant future.

Conclusions

It seems to me that if any of us are disagreeing over the Declaration, the source of our disagreement rests on technicalities rather than the general effect of the Declaration. We may disagree over whether the Supreme Court should attempt to confine itself within the boundaries of the Declaration even though it is not authorized to use the Declaration as a basis for its decisions. We may disagree on whether the term "law" is accurately applied to Organic Laws which are not subject to direct enforcement by an existing government. We may disagree on whether the description of the source of the higher law cited in the Declaration ("Laws of Nature and of Nature's God") is the best description of the power People have over government. We may dispute whether any power the People have apart from government is entirely theoretical, or rather, an available contingency which plays a practical role in keeping government benevolent toward the People.

However, it seems that we all might agree that the Declaration was important to history, sets forth general principles (even if we do not all consider them laws) which we all seem to agree remain generally true (even if our respective interpretations of them remain at least slightly different), and which we all seem to agree remain important guiding principles of government today (even if we have different opinions on exactly how those principles should be applied in specific cases).

I find this much agreement among political polar opposites rather refreshing-- it renews my faith that the founders were actually onto something-- that we will find a way to hold this country together even if the red states get redder and the blue states get bluer-- because, deep down, "we, the People," (or at least most of us) much prefer to remain united together under such a Declaration and Constitution than to irreconcilably divide ourselves against one another by the more despotic tendencies of human nature to which none of us are entirely immune.

There remains plenty of room in this country for impassioned disagreement and the peaceful means by which to channel it into some semblance of acceptable compromise or consensus, given enough patience, fortitude and foresight-- along the way, certain issues may remain open or unresolved for a long period of time. AmericasDebate is a prime example of how the People, quite apart from government itself, can participate to some degree in that long process, which has the overall effect of binding us more tightly together even as it may seem at times, to the casual observer, as though it threatens to rip us apart.

edited to add Franklin quote

The Declaration was introduced into the Second Continental Congress as a reesolution. It was duly debated, modified, and then passed by a (unanimous!) vote of 12 states, with one abstention. This makes it as legal and binding, as any other bill or resolution passed by that body... which was a duly constituted and legitimate lawmaking body at the time.

Perhaps I should point out, that if the Declaration is NOT legally binding, then the United States is doing business under a false name... and is, in fact, still owned by England!

The fact that the Declaration contains a list of grievances that do not specify a burden of compliance, in no way compromises the legitimacy and force in law of the parts that do. Lots of laws contain grievances, explanations for their existence, etc., but they are still completely binding. Examples include the Constitution itself (see "Preamble"), the 2nd amendment (see the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"), and others.

The part of the Declaration that DOES bind us all, includes the words, "We...the Representatives of the U.S.A.... do... solemnly... declare... that these united colonies are... free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection... is... totally dissolved...."

Lots more words in there, but if you look it up, you'll see that I didn't change the meaning.

The Declaration is as binding a law as any other piece of legislation passed by the 2nd Cont. Congress.

I believe what you are attempting to say was that its passing made it legal for the time being. The Declaration is a set of principles and personal moral opinion of the men who at the time represented the colonial system of government. In no way was it law, and in no way is it law today.

Today the presidential oath of office is not "... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Declaration of Independence of the United States." It is in fact " ...to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Today the document that the Supreme Court uses to decide on what grounds something may or may not happen is the Constitution.

Today we use the Constitution's first ten Amendments to describe our basic right's as Americans. We call them these freedoms the bill or rights. No one has ever drawn law for the Declaration.

There is but one document that can tell us law, that is the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence is no more than a list of complaints, a quick-fix to a big problem (which the Constitution resolves), and a list of principles that fifty-five men believed in enough to die for.


Historical lists of principles:

- Magna Carta, 1297

- Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

- Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, (La Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen), 1789

- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGAR 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948


Declarations of principles may or may not have binding legality. This depends on the nation, however we are one of the nations that this document is binding.

"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."

These concepts have been incorporated into the laws of the United States. The Declaration of Independence itself does not -- of itself -- create or legislate rights or obligations or make law for this nation.




False. While writing your supposed "legal" Declaration of Independence they were not in the least bit legal. History says they were not free until 4 July 1776. Discussion and debate over the content of their complaint letter were assembled before that while they were still under the rules and laws of the British crown. Their meeting was illegal, declared illegal and should be remembered forever as illegal. They were conspiring against the government, sir. The penalty was death and they most certainly would have received it should the war had been lost. The laws of their ethics made it legal but the government they were ruled by at the time made it illegal. Arguments that after the war it became a legal body are still false, once a duck: forever a duck. History cannot change because circumstances were in one force's favor. The law is the law and the men's assemblage at Independence Hall under the name "Second Continental Congress" was illegal, in not the foggiest bit legal and certainly in no way legitimate.




All other "legislation" passed by the Congress was also illegal. Only a piece of the Declaration may be considered legal, that is the quotation I mentioned above. The Constitution of the United States is the only legal and firm document that we abide by today for support and guidance. The Declaration is a pretty piece of paper behind a six inch thick piece of plastic display case.

While most would probably agree that the Colonists were committing high treason against the laws of Britain, the Declaration did not claim to be legal under British law or under its own law, but under the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," which I am willing to discuss in terms of a "higher law" in that it was a higher law than that of any government-- depending upon ones philosophy, this "higher law" might have originated from nature, a god, both, neither, or Mickey Mouse, so long as this theoretical law existed that was higher than the law of government.

The Declaration not only listed grievances, and not only separated from Britain, but also asserted that this "higher law" legalized their activities, and under this "higher law" they had not done anything illegal, even though they were committing extremely illegal acts under the laws of Britain. Moreover, Britain had violated this "higher law," so under this higher law, the Declaration declared the Monarch "unfit to rule."

Were the signers wrong about their actions being legal under a law higher than that of the British government?

This kind of law is a personal law which I am quite willing to accept legal to any one person. To say it is a national law or body of laws such as the Constitution is absurd. I agree with you that a higher law than mine is valid, yet the closest thing mentioned in the government's set of laws is freedom of religion. So it becomes more of a personal choice whether you submit to a higher law. Some people choose to submit to the laws of the nation (the Constitution) others may be willing to serve the Declaration's higher law, once again I say this is a personal freedom but I am not required to service it because the Constitution is silent about higher laws. Excellent point though, however I still must hold that those laws too (though invalid on a national-scale, personal perhaps) are not legal since the document they were written under was illegal.




To which I said something to the effect of they are entitled to their personal beliefs, in deed I am entitled to mine. My beliefs could be to do something illegal and put other American's in danger? But am I excused because I answer to a higher law? The fact they had convictions to a higher law does not make the illegal document legal.




You see, now that is the beauty of personal beliefs. No one can tell you otherwise and you can enjoy breaking all rules of the earth because you think you are slaves to a higher moral authority.


All in all I do agree with you, the men were driven by a force to gain freedom. Yet this force was still a personal force, in no way a sanctioned, approved or legal.

Nations are built upon the concrete foundation of laws we can all relate to and all benefit (or suffer) under. Nations are not built upon whispers of doing good because of a higher law. The fact they had a higher law while writing a list of solutions to their problems shows they were concerned men who valued freedom. Through their example a series of real laws were written later and called the Constitution.

Excellent point. Courts can only rule on that part of higher law that the People have authorized government to rule upon, such as the Bill of Rights. For example, a Jewish person might claim a higher law requires a specific behavior from Friday evening through Saturday evening, but courts cannot rule on that higher law because the People have not given government that authority-- beyond protecting the free exercise of religion under the first amendment. For example, the Supreme Court cannot force someone to observe a Sabbath, but it can can rule in favor of someone's right to observe a Sabbath.

Similarly, under your example, I cannot expect to be able to do anything I please and get away with it by appealing to a higher law protected under the Declaration, because government operates under the Constitution, by which the People have authorized the government to issue and apply laws, which I am not allowed to break with impunity by appealing to a higher law.


I will agree to the extent that not just any personal belief about a higher law can be made a national law by an appeal to the Declaration. However, because the Declaration is embodied in the same category of national law as the Constitution (unabolished Organic Law), is it not reasonable to assert that at least the points of higher law mentioned in the Declaration have also been elevated to national law, even if their method of enforcement is quite different from that of the Constitution (the Declaration being enforceable only by revolution, and the Constitution being enforceable by government)?


I agree about most higher law being purely personal and not national, but I believe the Declaration is a unique exception in that it asserts specific portions of a higher law as a national law rather than being merely personal beliefs.


The Constitution asserts that its authority comes from "the People," which most of us would accept at face value without any further explanation, so perhaps no further explanation is required. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Declaration does provide a further explanation that can be seen when parts of the Constitution and Declaration are viewed side-by-side. Here is a slight hack job on the Declaration that takes out some negatives so the positives are easier to see...

Now, compare that wording to the preamble to the Constitution:

The Constitution establishes its authority as the People, while the Declaration establishes its authority as higher law, which it later asserts is transferred to the People, who then have the right to transfer authority to Government. The Constitution does not rehash the Declaration too much, but states pretty clearly how it relates. Both mention the reasons for establishing new government, and those reasons are very close variations of one another.

Normally, the assertions of higher law could be written off as personal beliefs, but because these two documents are classified as the same kind of law, Organic Law, it would seem reasonable that the specific elements of higher law referenced in the Declaration have become national law, and the People transferred the authority to enforce most of the higher laws mentioned in the Declaration to the Government through the Constitution in a way entirely consistent with the language of Declaration. Because the remaining higher laws in the Declaration can only be enforced by revolution-- and even then only after a long period of suffering under despotism-- the result is that there is very little practical difference between, on the one hand, accepting both the Constitution and everything in the Declaration as national law; and, on the other hand, accepting only the Constitution while rejecting that the higher principles in the Declaration have become national law. The only time this difference would become practical is if and when, as I previously quoted Franklin, the government under the Constitution "can only end in despotism." We are probably nowhere near that point, but to be on the safe side, it would seem reasonable to continue asserting the Declaration is a form of law in case some future generation has cause to apply it, and as a tool for keeping government honest by reminding government of the kind of trouble it can get into for committing despotism by adding enough boxcars to "a long train of abuses and usurpations".

My previous post was no longer editable, and I'd like to state the point above a little more clearly.

To consider the implications, let's assume that, in spite of all indications to the contrary, the itemized "higher laws" in the Declaration do not have the full affect of organic law, and are merely personal principles. Let us further assume that, at some point in the distant future, the US government becomes despotic even under the Constitution (as Franklin predicted) and leaves the people no reasonable peaceful means of altering or abolishing government. If enough of the People still agree with the personal beliefs of the signers of the Declaration, then the People will overthrow the government, if worse comes to worse, quite possibly with a copy of the Declaration in hand. Such an outcome under such circumstances would be no different whether we consider the Declaration to promote personal principles or national law. Because the outcome is the same, that dreaded outcome will be avoided by any element of government which does not wish to be held responsible by posterity for driving the nation into despotism and revolution.

If the outcome is the same either way, then what would be the practical effect of a bill in Congress or a Court decision indicating that the higher laws specifically itemized in the Declaration are no longer part of active national Organic Law, and alter the US code to annotate the change? Such would have no practical effect on the People other than to convince at least some of them that another boxcar had been added to "a long train of abuses and usurpations" leading toward despotism, and thus make matters worse, not better.

I can see no practical advantages to striking down the higher laws itemized in the Declaration, including equal rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness; the right of the people to alter, abolish and establish government; the right of the People to judge a government guilty of despotism; the ban against revolting on a whim; and others. This part of law helps give authority to the Constitution, provides the basis for much of the Bill of Rights, and makes despotic government illegal as judged by the People. But striking down the Declaration does not have the practical effect of overturning any of those rights and privileges, so I'm seeing no practical benefits for denying the Declaration as law.

However, there are several benefits of continuing to assert the Declaration's specific itemization of higher law as national law, and the most important is that the Declaration outlaws despotism and authorizes the People to judge whether government is guilty of it. It does not restrict its ban on despotism to the case against 1776 Britain, it outlaws despotism as a matter of higher law, and then convicts Britain of violating that law against despotism.

Being able to retain a legal warning to the government against heading down the path to despotism is a valuable rhetorical tool, if nothing else. Whether or not a Court judges aggressive legislation like the Patriot Act unconstitutional becomes irrelevant-- if the People believe such an Act is despotic, then it adds a boxcar toward the proverbial long train, unless government fixes the problem (by amendment of necessary). Such an understanding should give government good reason not to allow serious abuses of power to remain in effect very long, even if those abuses of power may not be technically illegal under the Constitution.

The Constitution contains many mechanism designed to avert despotism, but in the end, despotism is still possible under the Constitution (as Franklin pointed out). Under the Constitution, the branches of government have checks and balances on one another to help reign in abuses of other branches, but there is no mechanism under the Constitution that gives the People the right to alter or abolish a government whose overall effect is irreparably despotic-- that's in the Declaration.

There may exist some cases in which reducing the legal status of the Declaration's itemization of higher laws would be politically expedient, at least from a rhetorical standpoint-- but considering the harm that could be done, I do not believe weakening the Declaration is a wise course of action in building any political case. If a political position can only be made stronger by making the Declaration weaker, then I would suggest either changing political positions, or simply ignoring the Declaration and hoping no one notices, rather than subjecting the position to closer scrutiny or outright rejection by attempting to officially weaking the legal status of the Declaration.

Is the Declaration of Indendence law?
No, it is a declaration, not a law. To be law, a document must:

1. declare specific, well-defined behaviors that are either mandatory or forbidden;
2. specify the penalties consequential to its violation;
3. specify the court of law that will interpret its application
4. derive authority from an established government

The Declaration of Independence does not meet any of these criteria. It does not specify mandatory or prohibited behaviors; it merely characterizes a set of behaviors on the part of a government that justifies rebellion by the people. No specific means of defining such behaviors is provided. It does not specify penalties; it instead justifies rebellion. It specifies no court of law to interpret its application; and it explicity declares that its authority does not derive from any established government but rather is "self-evident".

Do its principles regarding the abolishment of a tyrannous government have current force of law through the Declaration of Independence itself?
Most emphatically not. By definition, a law if enforced by a government; therefore it can only have force of law through a government. It is logically unthinkable for a government to declare itself illegitimate and abolish itself.

Today, does it require other documents of law to enforce its principles as law?
That would be a bad idea. The DOI sets down principles, not law. A principle is not a law, because it is too vague to have any utility as law. Take, for example, my earlier observation about the DOI's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness": a noble and desirable principle, to be sure, but useless as a law, because it does not make any provision for the necessary exceptions arising from criminal law. The proper role of the DOI is to provide inspiration to lawmakers, who attempt to realize its grand principles in precisely worded laws. The Constitution was the first step in this process, and the Constitution provides us with the fundamental law of the land. The DOI does not under any circumstances legally override the Constitution.

Indeed. That higher law that the government has been permitted to use to govern the masses is the Constitution. The Bill of Rights could be argued as the higher law in this case, thereby reconstructing your argument of a higher law taking precedent of national law when dealing with the Declaration, because the nations laws are depicted from the framework of the Constitution.




Yes, but the same Jewish person's higher law does not override the national law. When an individual or group of individuals come together as a whole to challenge the government's laws on a topic they are confronting the Constitution, not the Declaration, and the Constitution permits you to have higher law. Yet when passing along verdict courts do not use the Declaration of Independence, they are duty bound to use the Constitution. This ensures fair treatment of all people, the Declaration ensures principle: not real law which is provided by the Constitution.

When a court official or a president is appointed they are promising to uphold the Constitution, which frames for the right to have a higher law... it is not the law to have a law higher than national law, it is simply guaranteed. But rules are not made with regards to higher law, they are made to service all peoples regardless wether they think so or not. Higher law and national law come to odds and national law should always come out on top because it is clearly defined with guidelines in the nation's only law-making document.




However true that might be that is not exercise of a higher law. That is the protection of a right under a higher law that is permitted by national law. Special treatment is not given to an individual for having a higher law- all things are in the best interest of what the Constitution says about an issue.




Nothing should be done that you should be able to sanction it under the words "for a higher law." When people are citizens of two types of law there is division of loyalty and a persons loyalty must be with the Constitution. There are no laws under the Declaration because the Constitution supports all of its ideals. If this does not prove the Declaration is illegal by being void it most certainly proves it needs other documents of legal intent to support it.




You have said in the past that the Declaration is law, yet now you are saying the Constitution is the highest national law of the land. Which is it? The Constitution makes room for higher law, the Declaration might have had it in mind: but the mention and vacancy for higher law does not permit higher law from having more weight when making a law. Laws supported by action and thinking are what the Constitution is. Higher law is personal opinion of an individual to attempt to reshape the national law.




Higher law is not what the framer's of the United States had in mind. They believed in firm, solid regulations that all people could follow and relate to. An invisible force such as higher law is a fall-back to safety when a law cannot be passed legally by the concrete construction of the Constitution. No one can amend national law by appealing to higher law or trying to call in an illegal document. It is not feasible and it is not right to call into question to foundation of all law of the government by bringing up personal ideals and principles. This proves the Declaration to be a document of hopeful wishes: principles are preserved with the hope that change is a dormant action. When the action occurs change shall come about. The Declaration was the hope and the Constitution is the change for the better. An illegal document of hope and dreams is not the right document to appeal to if you wish to change a national law.




The Declaration is not law, it has never been law. It was a guidebook to making law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land used in all settlements of things on American soil. The points mentioned of or about higher law in the Declaration may have been evaluated as higher law, but when constructing national law higher law was found to have no place in guiding the principles of the government. Higher law is a personal choice, but the government is a body of people whom all have to make a choice that will best serve the greater good. It was decided that higher law was best left at home, in private, and national law was the default of the government so all decisions were not infected by personal obligation to one's ideals. The Constitution is the government's "yes man," the Declaration is a private citizen's self-help guide to better morals.




There are no exceptions, all men are created equal in the eyes of the Constitution. For the government to be above serving the good of all mankind, regardless of personal or higher law, is to be tyrannical. Higher law can be used to make personal decisions, when you use higher law to rule a country you become Utah. National law can be used on a national scale, thus it is unbiased to one type of person's ideals or opinion. I personally enjoy my freedoms of speech, religion, etc., when they start to be taken away from me by the government's serving of a higher law I get a little concerned. That is why the Constitution is law- it is firm and unchanging in the ideal that all people are equal and entitled to basic human rights. For someone to make decisions based on higher law is to invite the elimination of these rights, personal higher law can demand all people with brown eyes be imprisoned. The unwavering Constitution protects against such silly profiling that can come with personal or group higher law.




You seem to cite passages that are universal in their desire to increase the quality of all Americans. This is not higher law. Higher law would better serve one group or one person. Since you cite universal passages that all people can benefit from this would be a prime example of national law. It does not say what group of people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not list the one individual who shall establish justice. It is written in shades of grey. I am not saying all principles from the Declaration are inherently the make up of higher law. What I am saying is that all things written into the Constitution from the Declaration were found to be unbiased and had the capability to provide goodness for all American citizens. That is a fine example of national law: blind law that can service the general good. The Constitution is the iron-platted housing of all national laws, the Declaration on the other hand is the house of idealistic principle and rejected national law.




Which is why the Declaration is void under the reign of the Constitution. As long as one type of people has one type of higher law there will be those who oppose it. The Constitution is dependent on the loyalty of the people, people who do not serve self-righteous teachings. What was needed, and what was drafted to ensure political and civil harmony was the Constitution. Higher law has no place in the Constitution.




You have said it yourself. The Declaration is just a list of reasons. They could be cousins to one another, but the Constitution is blind to the implication of a higher law in government office or government decision-making.




The government cannot and should not be permitted to use higher law to influence decisions even in a time of revolution. People are happy under the Constitution because no one's personal beliefs but their own may be enforced. That is the crux of this debate. The implication present in the Declaration is why that is not national law-- the protection of higher law is why the Constitution is national law.




All of those laws are promised to be protected in the Constitution: notice they are not promised to be UPHELD by the government, but they are still protected rights of the individual. When the security of the federal government, which is bound by the Constitution to provide for the common defense, is threatened they are under direction of national law to crush personal identification of higher law found in the Declaration. The same higher laws are present in the Declaration but those higher laws are not a force to make national law to change or redirect the Constitution. In closing, this is why the Declaration failed to be our national law, it was a black and white picture of higher law. The Constitution was assembled to establish firm national laws in which all rights are equally protected but higher law was not a political force in shaping or reshaping the course of law and events in this nation.



P.S. To any government agency reading this post: I love my country!!!

Please cite the ban against despotism in the Constitution and who it authorizes to enforce that ban.


What exactly do you mean by "personal identification of higher law found in the Declaration?"


The assertion that the Declaration failed to be national law is factually incorrect. Organic law is law by which a nation or government is organized. The Declaration and amended Constitution are both active organic law. Abolished or superceded organic law (like the Articles of Confederation and abolished Constitutional amendments) are annotated as such. The Declaration has not failed to be our national law, or else it would be so marked in the U.S. Code. We can debate whether it should be national law, but until it is abolished or superceded by government, it remains national law.

The Constitution and the Declaration were adopted almost exactly the same way, signed by the representatives of the People (the minor difference being the Constitution was ratified after being signed, and the Declaration's signers received approval before signing). In fact, six people signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They were George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris and James Wilson of Pennsylvania; George Read of Delaware; and Roger Sherman of Connecticut. If the Constitution is legitimate based on its mechanism of adoption, then so is the Declaration. Both of these officially remain in the U.S. Code as active organic law. Unless the Declaration was abolished at some point, the general declarations in the Declaration are still in force (those rooted in higher law) as are the specific declarations (those convicting Britain of violating the general declarations and as a remedy asserting independent national sovereignty for the United States). The fact that a Constitution was also needed to fill in more details does not override the Declaration-- the two documents are in no way mutually exclusive and were specifically drafted to be complementary to one another.

edited to improve clarity

The authority for the Continental Congress to declare law was that colonial/state legislatures (the representatives of the People) sent delegates for that purpose. The authority for the Congress in 1878 to enter the Declaration into the U.S. code was established under the Constitution. Where does your set of criteria for law come from? Please cite sources for your criteria so that we can discuss what authority they have, if any, to override law declared by the representatives of the People. Thanks.

minor edits

OK, I'll give you point #4. That leaves the first three untouched. Have you any objections to those requirements for a law?

You have yet to establish the source of your criteria and what gives the criteria their authority over whether the Declaration is law-- without citing such authority, any list of criteria only speaks to the question of whether someone holds the opinion of whether a document should be law, and not whether it actually is law, which was the question being addressed.

If your criteria appear somewhere in the Constitution-- or in a law passed by Congress-- or in the writings of the founders-- or in a decision legislated from the bench-- then let's take a look at where they are coming from, establish whether the Declaration is subject to them or not, and afterwards, discuss whether the Declaration would qualify as law under the criteria. But let's not get ahead of ourselves-- the authority for the criteria must be established first.

The representatives of the People have made a declaration of law. I don't have the authority, in my current capacity, to set up some criteria by which I can contramand them, at least not without presenting some compelling basis for the criteria in law. If we can agree that the Declaration is law, then maybe we can start a new topic where we can discuss whether the Declaration should be law-- in other words, should the Declaration be abolished in a way that keeps us independent of other countries.

In my first few replies to this topic, which are far too lengthly to repost here, I addressed in detail ( 1 ) whether the Declaration is law (summary: yes, and in a way that makes the two following questions unrelated to this one); ( 2 ) whether the Declaration exerts a force of law on its own (summary: yes, but not from a sitting government); and ( 3 ) whether the Declaration requires other documents to enforce its principles as law (summary: the People used the Constitution to grant government the authority to enforce most of the principles-- but the People reserved others for themselves, as I itemized). Your answers do not seem to take into consideration the points I raised earlier, leaving me with little to say in response other than that I do not agree with your answers for the same reasons I have already stated.

I cite no authority. Do you have objections to any of these criteria?


No, if we agree that these criteria are part of the definition of the word "law", then we can answer the question of whether the DOI can be law. The question of whether the DOI actually is law depends on additional criteria.

I repeat my question: do you find these criteria for the definition of the term "law" to be objectionable?

I object to all unauthorized criteria because without authority, they do not move us toward a determination of whether Declaration really is law, only whether you think they should be or could be law, in your own opinion.


I repeat my answer. If you cite a good enough authority, I might agree to apply them with you. If you are going to place restrictions on what can be law, working toward a determination of what is a law, we will need more than mere personal opinion as a basis.

I have entered plenty of evidence that the Declaration is, in fact, law. If you say there is a set of criteria by which all of my authoritative factual evidence is insufficient, and if that criteria has no authority beyond personal opinion, then the conclusion is that, according to verifiable fact, the Declaration is law, and according to your personal opinion, it might not be. Unless you are willing to strengthen your case for the authority of the criteria, I am quite happy with the status quo, as you are leaving my case unchallenged on any authoritative factual basis.

I am willing to discuss opinion of whether a criteria should be/can be applied by which we can filter out laws we don't like without actually abolishing them by claiming they don't qualify as law-- and I am willing to entertain the notion that such a set of authoritative critera already exists, is well-accepted, and may even coincide precisely with the criteria you presented. If so, it would be relevant to this topic so cite a source and let's move ahead. If not, and we're dealing strictly with opinion, then let's start a new thread to discuss if a universal set of criteria can be/should be applied to any document to conclusively rule whether it is or can be law.

If you do end up with such an authoritative criteria, I sure hope it rules out traffic violations as law, too. If your criteria can overrule the oldest and most well-established law in U.S. history (whose adoption is a national holiday), surely it can fix a few parking tickets along the way.

Inasmuch as you appear to be the only party advocating the position that the Declaration of Independence is law, and you now decline to address the questions I have raised, it appears then that there is nothing left to discuss.

A great document but it is not law.

I agree that the Declaration of Independence is legally binding as, just that, a declaration of independence. That does not make it law, it makes it a legal document that is currently binding. There is a difference. This Declaration was addressed to the world for a reason -- legal, international recognition of the sovereignty of the United States. Actions that fail to recognize the binding nature of the Declaration of Independence do not break the law of the Declaration, but break other laws because of the Declaration. The Declaration, itself, has no force of law.

And most certainly, the elements of the Declaration that deal with abolishing the Government are not law. They do not legally authorize anything.

Jack 22,

The Declaration of Independence has not expired, nor has it been abolished, because it is a currently valid, legally binding document declaring our sovereignty -- not because it is law. As long as there is a United States of America, its declaration of independence needs to exist. In this way, no other country can simply say, "This country belongs to us." The simply response to that would be, "No, we have a Declaration of Independence that has existed for over 200 years now that declares our sovereignty as an independent state." Now, the fact that we have also had a working (heh) government for that 200 years and that the government is based on the principles set down in the Declaration of Independence also serve as legal evidence of this country's sovereignty. So, this is why Declaration of Independence is one of the two "Organic Laws" that have not expired or been abolished. This does not mean that the Declaration of Independence is law.

Again, you keep referring to principles as if they are law, but they aren't. And while we certainly agree that people should act on those principles if the occasion arises, those statements of principle, in and of themselves, do not have the force of law. It is apparent that the Declaration suggests that it is the duty of the people to act outside national law and act on authority of a higher law, as I explain later, in order to preserve those ideals expressed in that document.

So, a document does not have to be law in order to be considered "Organic Law", being a system of principles on which the government is organized is sufficient. The Declaration fits that description.

The authority from which the people derive their freedom to overthrow a tyrannous government comes not from the Declaration of the Independence, but, as the Declaration itself states, from the Laws of Nature and that Nature's God -- this is reference to authority granted from other laws and not authority granted by the Declaration itself. This is why these elements of the Declaration represent statements of principle and not, in and of themselves, law.



But here you are dealing with an actual religious law -- a higher law in and of itself. The restrictions regarding the Sabbath are religious law. The Declaration itself grants no authority as a higher law itself, but states principles based on authority and entitlement granted by higher laws -- the Laws of Nature and that Nature's God -- the Creator.

One can certainly state that the Laws of Nature and that Nature's God, the Creator, gives the people legitimate authority to abolish a tyrannous government, but it is incorrect to state that the Declaration of Independence grants them that authority. It is a statement regarding the nature of that authority as granted by those higher laws, expressing reasons for acting upon that authority, and a legally binding, internationally recognized declaration of the result of that action, authorized under the Laws of Nature and Nature's God -- a declaration of sovereignty. It is not law, in and of itself, it is an example of the enforcement of higher laws.

entspeak, I continue to see the difference between your position and mine as being almost entirely terminological. If you can provide an authoritative basis for our terminological differences that sides conclusively with your usage and against my usage of the terminology, I will concede that yours is the correct usage.

Here is my case that the Declaration is law, stated a little more completely than before. Notice that in no way whatsoever does it rely on my own opinion, and is based in no authority lower than that of the U.S. Code.



That is my entire case as it pertains to whether or not the Declaration is law. Note that whether the Declaration bears its own force of law or requires other documents to enforce its provisions, the Declaration is part of the Code and as such, is has been officially declared the law of the land.

It is interesting to discuss how the Declaration might be enforceable or how it might relate to other documents, as well as the criteria others believe is necessary for law-- but unless there is some authority at least as high as the Code which places such litmus tests on law in a way that overrides the Declaration's status as law, then such considerations would seem to have little if any bearing on whether the Declaration is the law of the land as asserted in its legal Code.

Now, to be generous, I will supply all opponents of my case some hints of how to attempt to exploit its vulnerabilities. To be clear, I do not intend this as a means of controlling debate, just a friendly attempt to help those who do wish to engage me on the merits of my case-- as always, feel free to find other weaknesses, propose other cases, ignore my case entirely, talk about something else, etc.

( 1 ) Establish authority-- Minimally, an opposing case should cite no authority lower than the USC, or it would seem that the Code would automatically trump it. The USC itself is extensive, as is case law and many credible sources of legal theory. There should be plenty of material available to choose from in building a good opposing case if, indeed, the USC is wrong about the Declaration being law.

( 2 ) Find a weakness in its status as Organic Law-- The best case so far against mine is that the Declaration is cited in the USC as Organic Law, and a law dictionary's definition allows things which may not be law on their own to be considered Organic Law. The definition does not directly address whether non-laws become law when they become part of Organic Law, as would be a reasonable assumption by the inclusion of the word "law" in the phrase Organic "Law". The definition also does not address if active, non-law, Organic Laws become law when entered into the USC, where everything else is law. Legal dictionaries often derive their definitions from law, so there may exist a good basis in law for a case against mine rooted in the legal status of Organic Law. If a source more clearly worded than the law dictionary and at least as authoritative as the USC can establish that active Organic Law in the USC is not necessarily law, then my case will be proven insufficient-- but that level of evidence has not yet been offered in this topic. (If such evidence were offered, I would additionally need to show that the Declaration was intended as law similarly to the way that the other US Organic Law, the Constitution, was intended as law).

As a hint of where one might begin mounting an opposing case based on the inherent weakness of Organic Law, part of Canada's Organic Law, if I recall, is a handshake among provincial leaders meeting at P.E.I. which sealed the unification of the Canadian provinces, without any official verbal or paper documentation of exactly what that handshake meant. The authority of that handshake has been tested by the independence movement in Quebec. Although not directly applicable to US law, researching that Canadian handshake may or may not lead to some authoritative opinions of whether Organic Law is law even if it did not originate as something easily recognizable as law.

( 3 ) Find a weakness in where the Declaration is located in the USC-- The USC primarily includes enacted legislation, which is organized using a standardized hierarchical numbering system. It seems reasonable that the placement of Organic Law within Title 1, but before Section 1 on pages numbered with Roman numerals, can be easily explained by the fact that Organic Law did not originate, like most of the Code, as laws passed under the Constitution, and therefore its inclusion in a different portion of the Code than such law is not too surprising. However, if a good authority can corroborate that documents in the USC outside of the standard hierarchy (specifically the active Organic Law) are not necessarily law, then my case will have been refuted-- but such evidence has not yet been posted to this topic.

( 4 ) Prove that documents containing principles cannot be considered law-- Here is what entspeak has said about my reference to certain provisions of the Declaration as "principles":



I have repeatedly asked for, without answer, an authoritative source saying something to the effect that documents containing principles must not be considered law; or that it is otherwise impossible for laws to assert principles; or that principles may no longer be called "principles" once they have been transformed into law; or that principles asserted by a law are not part of that law.

If sufficient evidence applicable to the Declaration can show that either the Declaration is not law because it asserts principles, or that I have been misusing the term "principle" to describe the Declaration's general provisions, then I will concede such a point. In the absence of such evidence, I will continue to assert that laws can declare principles and that the legal principles declared within a law can continue to be called "principles" even after they have been given the authority of law. Obviously not all principles are laws, but I would assert principles contained in laws are provisions of those laws.

My case is likely to be vulnerable to many other such challenges if they rise to (or supersede) the USC's level of authority, but the four ideas I have listed might be a good place to start, if anyone cares to discuss my case.



Now, moving on to issues other than ideas for mounting a legitimate opposition to my case for the Declaration as Law...


The Declaration does not call itself a "Declaration of Independence," so we probably should not read too much into the limitations of that title. It is just a shorthand derived from the passage that says (with omissions and emphases my own, for clarity),



This Declaration declared more than just that the US was independent, but why they "of Right ought to be" independent, and also at least a partial list of "Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do". So, it could be more accurate to call this Declaration "The Declaration of Independence and Much, Much More." If all the Continental Congress had wanted was to declare independence, the Lee Resolution of about a month earlier would have been sufficient, which I quote here in its entirety, with my own emphasis.



If independence alone had been sufficient to the Congress, without any provisions declaring specifically why it "of right ought to be, free", then the Lee Resolution would have been the final word, and the Declaration would not need to have been written. But instead of letting this resolution be the last word, the Continental Congress decided to do more than simply resolve US independence, but to declare its Right to independence as a matter of law. The Declaration was drafted with the essential points of law included, and the rest is history.

In light of the Lee Resolution, it was determined to draft two separate, but complementary, laws: The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. The former would be general enough to remain in force, even if the People were to decide to replace the latter, because the former would declare the authority and general mechanism by which the latter could be replaced (abolishing old government and establishing new). So, when the Articles were found insufficient, the framers asserted their rights under the Declaration to formulate new government, and thus the Constitution superseded the Articles without superseding the Declaration.

Six of the same men who had signed the Declaration also signed the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the committee of five charged with drafting the Declaration, also had a hand in ironing out the Constitution, and as I quoted earlier, declared upon signing the Constitution that it was good, but not good enough to avoid despotism (a word borrowed from the Declaration) if and when the People become "too corrupt" for anything but despotism. In light of his other writings, Franklin was referring to moral corruption-- the inability or unwillingness to adequately distinguish, or act upon the differences, among right and wrong, good and evil.

If Franklin truly believed what he said, it does not seem reasonable that Franklin would have intended his Declaration to be interpreted any less forcefully than it was written, so that even when despotism eventually infected the Constitutional government beyond repair as he believed it would, the States could gather again, just as they did for the Declaration and Constitution, and institute new government-- peacefully if possible, forcefully if necessary.

However, if the declaration is indeed national law, it also authorizes the people to establish a new government peacefully as well, such as switching from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, without resorting directly to "higher law" as the only basis for that switch. The provision for revolution would only apply if the old government resisted being replaced.


Please substantiate these claims with a source at least as high as the USC that a non-law fails to become law when it becomes Organic Law, along with equally sound proof that the declaration was never intended as law in first place. If you or someone else can do that, I will gladly eat my proverbial crow.


Agreed. All the Declaration does is assert that the specific principles/provisions of higher Laws which it cites are valid to be enforced by the People with respect to abolishing and establishing a government, thus declaring the specific provisions of higher law as national law enforceable by the representatives of the people, acting apart from the established central government, if necessary.


Agreed 100%. Well put.


Again, please supply proof of this statement that is at least as authoritative as the USC.


Agreed, but Roe v. Wade is also ostensibly an example of enforcement of laws outside itself, yet even those of us who disagree with its conclusions still recognize it as the "law of the land." And to address one of your other questions, if the Declaration is an "enforcement of higher laws," as you say, is such an intentional admission that it has "force of law," or am I just reading too much between the lines?

Jack 22,

First, the Declaration of Independence is not included in Title 1 of the Code, it is included before Title 1 of the Code. The numbering system of the pages is consistent with that fact. Title 1 begins on page 2 of the USC and the Organic Laws are not, as you go from page to page, at all included in Title 1. But as you pointed out, the Declaration, the Constitution and the other Organic Laws have a roman numeral number system used in most texts for information that is not part of the main document -- in an introduction, preface, or appendix. Including the Constitution, the Declaration and other Organic Laws in this fashion makes sense given the definition of Organic Law. These documents have been key in defining and establishing the organization of our government, including the creating of the Titles and Sections that make up the body of the USC. It also, more reasonably, explains their absence when downloading the actual Code online -- the Organic Laws are, as you say, readily available for download elsewhere and, as I say, not part of the Code itself. Given the fact that all of these documents have had an impact on the creation of the USC, their inclusion in a prefatory manner makes sense and also supports the legal definition of Organic Law.

We are talking about Organic Laws in the United States. The field of Law in the US is different from the field of law in Canada. How Canada approaches its Organic Laws does not bear any relevance to the manner in which Organic Laws are handled in the United States. The statements of principle found in the Declaration have never been treated as law in and of themselves... never. I have also cited Supreme Court cases indicating that the statement of principles found in the Declaration of Independence are not to be treated as law in and of themselves. So your Canadian handshaking reference is irrelevant to the issue.

As to the definition of Organic Law, you are right... there is nothing to indicate in that definition that Organic Laws become law when included in the USC, but the Declaration of Independence is not included in the body of text that is considered the USC. The USC does not define the term Organic Law and just because the term has the word Law in it, does not change the legal definition of the term. You are breaking up the term and drawing conclusions based on its separate parts rather than looking at the definition of the term as whole, as it is used in context in the field of law in the United States. It is interesting to note, however, that the USC does take time to define other terms used within the body of the Code.



And where are the specific notations you refer to that indicate that certain Organic Laws are no longer in full effect? Could you quote one, please, because I couldn't find any reference to such a thing. This is not to say that the Declaration of Independence is not a currently binding legal document, because it is.

The Constitution, also not a part of the US Legal Code, is law... it is the law to which the USC must answer... as such it also fits the legal definition of Organic Law without being part of the USC itself.

There is absolutely no evidence in the USC to support your claim that the Declaration of Independence is law.

I have cited Supreme Court Justices that have made reference to the fact that the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence are not law. I have illustrated that the Declaration of Independence is not included as part of the USC, but rather along with the USC. I have pointed out that the Declaration itself states that the principles you refer to are not entitlements or obligations based on the Declaration itself, but based on the Laws of Nature and that Nature's God -- making the Declaration a precedent -- though not a legal precedent -- for the people's enforcement of the protection of those rights granted by those higher laws, but it does not make the Declaration law.

You mention Roe v. Wade, but you yourself claim that the USSC is not authorized to use interpretations of the principles found in the Declaration as law or precedent, yet they are allowed to interpret one of the other Organic Laws. It therefore appears quite clear that I am not referring to legal precedent or example, but merely to a simple precedent or example.

You have absolutely no positive proof showing that the Declaration of Independence is law. I, however, have given much evidence to indicate that it isn't. Why is the terminology important? Because it is dangerous to give the principles as they are worded in the Declaration of Independence the power of law in the same manner as, say, the Constitution or to consider it the "fundamental law of the land". The Constitution while broad in some aspects is nowhere near as broad in possible interpretation as the principles set down in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is law based on the principles of the Declaration, given power not by the statements of principle, but the act of declaring independence. To consider it otherwise also diminishes the power of those statements which clearly declare that no government should be allowed to use its laws to tyrannically impose upon the basic freedoms of man. If they are imposed upon in this way, a people should, and are entitled to under the Laws of Nature and that Nature's God, act outside the law... to risk the consequences of failure -- their actions legitimized not by a piece of paper as legal precedent or giving them legal authority, but the higher Laws of Nature and that Nature's God. In success, a founder; in failure, a martyr to those principles.



Did the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence not give it that title? If they did, then the Declaration calls itself a declaration of independence.



No, that would a modification of my statement, replacing the "enforcement of law" with "force of law" -- the two phrases do not mean the same thing. By "force of law" I meaning have the force, the power of a law in and of itself. By "enforcement of law", I mean the actions taken to exert said force of law. One is the logical extension of the other, but that is the only relation between the two phrases; and they are not interchangeable in terms of meaning. Just because the Declaration enforces... takes action to exert the force of law found in the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, it does not follow that the Declaration of Independence itself has force of law.

(emphasis mostly mine)
Because we are talking about the legal definition of Organic Law, perhaps you could enter it into this topic. I say the legal definition of Organic Law clearly supports the interpretation that non-laws become law when they become Organic Law. The Organic Law of the United States includes only two active documents. However, the Organic Law in the United States also includes 50 State Constitutions, the treaties with the various reservations, etc. Of all these documents, at least 52 of them (probably more), you are asserting only the Declaration is the only one that is not law. You will need to come up with stronger evidence than your personal interpretation of this legal definition. If your interpretation of the definition is the correct one, then please provide some evidence from the "context in the field of law" to support your interpretation and prove mine wrong.


Agreed. But they serve as an example that your interpretation of the legal dictionary's definition is not the only one out there, and that mine could be just as valid given how the definition is worded, so you need some clearer evidence that principles do not become law when they become Organic Law, just as the other 51+ documents became law when they became Organic Law.


As I pointed out, any evidence like that is not in this topic. You have made exactly three posts to this topic, none of them citing Supreme Court cases. And of those you did cite in another topic, I seem to recall the Supreme Court ruling it did not have authority to interpret/rule on the Declaration, because the Declaration is not subject to the Constitution and the Court interprets the Constitution and laws passed under it. Admirably originalist of them, but it would be true whether or not the Declaration is law. But if you cited a Court case that said "The Declaration is not law," then please enter it again in this topic, as it would conclusively prove me wrong with respect to the current government.

If the Declaration is not law, please cite the legal authority under which the Constitution replaced the the Articles of Confederation. If it is the Declaration, explain how a document that empowers one government to be replaced by another does not have the effect of law.

It occurs to me that the Delcaration weaves several cases together in a way that most modern documents do not, so I'll take out a few words that deal primarily with either abolishing old government or separating from England (along with some gender bias and theistic references while I am at it), leaving only the part that empowered the switch from the Articles to the Constitution (some conditionals are missing, so the meaning may not be 100% the same, but it should help show where I am coming from...


This gave the authority to draft both the Articles and the Constitution, and if a future generation were to decide to similarly replace the Constitution with something else, this would kick in again. Drafting two separate documents was genius-- it allows peaceful transition from one government to another while keeping the provisions of the Declaration in effect-- at least, in theory.


No evidence but its presence in the USC and citation as organic law, but I am still looking for the text of the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President that entered it into Code in 1878. You have argued that, in your opinion, the presence of the Delcaration in a "preface" does not make it part of the Code. Nice opinion, but you have provided no evidence, so the readers are left with your word against the word of the US Code of Law (which says the Declaration is Organic Law), and your interpretation of a definition for "organic law" against its most straightforward interpretation (the Declaration, even if nothing more than a list of principles, is law because it is Organic Law). Give them something more to go on in support of your case.