The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in the US

[BA]

This is just a pet peeve a mine.

Constitution=law
DoI!=law

It may 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, but it's not law.

 

[Kadarin]

Of *course* the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing... it is a declaration of independence of the original colonies against the English government of the time, and the reasons for this. It was created prior to the formation of the US. The Constitution, a later document, forms the foundation for our government.

So why is this a pet peeve, exactly?

 

[chrisms]

YOU'RE not law, man... YOU'RE not law.

 

[DT4K]

Maybe not.
But it lays out the principles on which our country was founded and thus is an important document to look at when we make decisions about what the laws "should" be. The constitution codifies many of those founding principles.

But yeah, I saw that guy quote the DOI as evidence in the gay marriage thread. Obviously it shouldn't be used to back up issues of legality or constitutionality but it certainly can be used to backup arguments about what should or shouldn't become part of the law of the land.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It was a statement of fact, a guideline, series of opinions

 

[Rainsford]

How COULD it be law? It's not really very specific.

That being said, if we are doing someone that seems to contradict what's written in the Declaration, we should probably take a good hard look at why we're going agains the principles this country was founded on.

 

[rudder]

I am a bill, only a bill, trying to make it to capitol hill.

 

[BA]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Of *course* the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing... it is a declaration of independence of the original colonies against the English government of the time, and the reasons for this. It was created prior to the formation of the US. The Constitution, a later document, forms the foundation for our government.

So why is this a pet peeve, exactly?

Basically because it's a blatant display of ignorance on a subject of vital importance.


Most everyone else in here I agree with completely. It's an important historical document, but has no bearing on the legality or constituionality of laws.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: BA

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Of *course* the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing... it is a declaration of independence of the original colonies against the English government of the time, and the reasons for this. It was created prior to the formation of the US. The Constitution, a later document, forms the foundation for our government.

So why is this a pet peeve, exactly?

Basically because it's a blatant display of ignorance on a subject of vital importance.


Most everyone else in here I agree with completely. It's an important historical document, but has no bearing on the legality or constituionality of laws.

Who is claiming it does?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BA
This is just a pet peeve a mine.

Constitution=law
DoI!=law

It may 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, but it's not law.

Yep, that's why the U.S. is packing it in and folding it up. Not a bad run for something that was never real to begin with.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: BA
This is just a pet peeve a mine.

Constitution=law
DoI!=law

It may 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, but it's not law.

I would disagree. It had legal standing to the group that became known as the Continental Congress. In fact, I'd say it gave them legal standing as soverign, for whatever that was worth, at least until the end of the war and the formation of the new government.

 

[CycloWizard]

I had to ask a lawyer about this as part of some Boy Scout merit badge or rank advancement back in the day, and was instructed that the DoI was used as a framework for the Constitution, just as the Constitution acts as a framework for the law. The inalienable rights enumerated in the DoI are the basis for government in general, and government exists to protect these rights. The Constitution details how the government protects these rights. Laws restrict specific rights that the government deems necessary to restrict in order to protect the rights that are held to be more important.

So, while the DoI isn't strictly law, it is the basis for all law. Its principles are universally applicable, and the Constitution necessarily agrees with the DoI. Since laws cannot contradict the Constitution (theoretically), they must also be in compliance with the DoI.

I'm guessing this is posted regarding the web site that I recently introduced in my sig. Here is the text:

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.

--Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

The legal history of the United States largely stems from the hierarchy of rights developed in the opening statements of the Declaration of Independence. It is held that Life is the single overriding right that must first be attended to, even before Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Therefore, no action may be taken, nor law written, that places one's right to Liberty above the right to Life. By the same token, no action may be taken that would place one's pursuit of Happiness above the right to Life or Liberty. Note that this indicates that one may not even pursue Happiness at the expense of his own right to Life or Liberty. Further, one may not strive to hold his own right to Life above another's right to Life, Liberty above another's Liberty, nor pursuit of Happiness over another's pursuit of Happiness. As Life is the overriding right, it may not be infringed on by any man, since it is endowed by the Creator. Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness may only be infringed by government in cases where a person has violated another's right of a higher position in the hierarchical structure of rights. Thus, incarceration - the rescinding of one's right to Liberty - is an allowable recourse if one has violated one of these cardinal rights.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Who is claiming it does?

You haven't met cyclowizard apparently.

 

[LunarRay]

Jefferson took the Virginia Bill of Rights and sorta moved it over to the Declaration of Independence...

True it was the justification to Georgie for the third of 'Americans' who wanted to self govern but, it was also part of the underlying basis upon which the Constitution was based. So... in essence, the D of I is embodied in the law...

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I had to ask a lawyer about this as part of some Boy Scout merit badge or rank advancement back in the day, and was instructed that the DoI was used as a framework for the Constitution, just as the Constitution acts as a framework for the law. The inalienable rights enumerated in the DoI are the basis for government in general, and government exists to protect these rights. The Constitution details how the government protects these rights. Laws restrict specific rights that the government deems necessary to restrict in order to protect the rights that are held to be more important.

So, while the DoI isn't strictly law, it is the basis for all law. Its principles are universally applicable, and the Constitution necessarily agrees with the DoI. Since laws cannot contradict the Constitution (theoretically), they must also be in compliance with the DoI.

I'm guessing this is posted regarding the web site that I recently introduced in my sig. Here is the text:

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.

--Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

The legal history of the United States largely stems from the hierarchy of rights developed in the opening statements of the Declaration of Independence. It is held that Life is the single overriding right that must first be attended to, even before Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Therefore, no action may be taken, nor law written, that places one's right to Liberty above the right to Life. By the same token, no action may be taken that would place one's pursuit of Happiness above the right to Life or Liberty. Note that this indicates that one may not even pursue Happiness at the expense of his own right to Life or Liberty. Further, one may not strive to hold his own right to Life above another's right to Life, Liberty above another's Liberty, nor pursuit of Happiness over another's pursuit of Happiness. As Life is the overriding right, it may not be infringed on by any man, since it is endowed by the Creator. Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness may only be infringed by government in cases where a person has violated another's right of a higher position in the hierarchical structure of rights. Thus, incarceration - the rescinding of one's right to Liberty - is an allowable recourse if one has violated one of these cardinal rights.

It's a bit of a stretch of logic to infer such a rigid hierarchy from the order of words in a sentence. Primacy is not necessarily priority. Could it not have been that TJ simply thought it rolled of the tongue better the way he wrote it?

In fact, Patrick Henry explicitly expressed a different priority.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: daveshel
It's a bit of a stretch of logic to infer such a rigid hierarchy from the order of words in a sentence. Primacy is not necessarily priority. Could it not have been that TJ simply thought it rolled of the tongue better the way he wrote it?

In fact, Patrick Henry explicitly expressed a different priority.

Are you saying that the right to life should be secondary to the right to liberty or pursuit of happiness? I think this hierarchy is obvious when you think about it this way. This hierarchy must exist in any society. The difference between societies is how this hierarchy is enforced. A society cannot exist that places personal liberty over the right to life of its citizens, else murder is perfectly acceptable. Similarly, liberty must supercede pursuit of happiness, or I can barricade you in your own house if it makes me happy.

 

No, it is not. HOWEVER, the United States supreme court often refers back to documents the founders have written in order to inteperate the US Constitution, and that does include the D o I.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: daveshel
It's a bit of a stretch of logic to infer such a rigid hierarchy from the order of words in a sentence. Primacy is not necessarily priority. Could it not have been that TJ simply thought it rolled of the tongue better the way he wrote it?

In fact, Patrick Henry explicitly expressed a different priority.

Are you saying that the right to life should be secondary to the right to liberty or pursuit of happiness? I think this hierarchy is obvious when you think about it this way. This hierarchy must exist in any society. The difference between societies is how this hierarchy is enforced. A society cannot exist that places personal liberty over the right to life of its citizens, else murder is perfectly acceptable. Similarly, liberty must supercede pursuit of happiness, or I can barricade you in your own house if it makes me happy.

I am saying that there is no evidence on the four corners of the document that any of the 3 listed items is more important than the next. If we look elsewhere for evidence we find from the author's other writings that he had a style of writing that was more literary than legal, and that one of his cohorts notably expressed his opinion that liberty is more important than life.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: daveshel
I am saying that there is no evidence on the four corners of the document that any of the 3 listed items is more important than the next. If we look elsewhere for evidence we find from the author's other writings that he had a style of writing that was more literary than legal, and that one of his cohorts notably expressed his opinion that liberty is more important than life.

I ask again, are you saying that this hierarchy does not or should not exist?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: daveshel
I am saying that there is no evidence on the four corners of the document that any of the 3 listed items is more important than the next. If we look elsewhere for evidence we find from the author's other writings that he had a style of writing that was more literary than legal, and that one of his cohorts notably expressed his opinion that liberty is more important than life.

I ask again, are you saying that this hierarchy does not or should not exist?

I am saying it is not a mandatory interpretation of the DoI. As to whether it should exist, that is not my call to make. I'd say that life and liberty both trump happiness, and there is an argument that there could be no liberty without life (another possible interpretation of the order), but I personally would side with Patrick.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: daveshel
I am saying it is not a mandatory interpretation of the DoI. As to whether it should exist, that is not my call to make. I'd say that life and liberty both trump happiness, and there is an argument that there could be no liberty without life (another possible interpretation of the order), but I personally would side with Patrick.

Ah, gotcha. Well, as you said, there could be no liberty without life. Nor can any rights be prescribed without the right to life first and foremost. Anyway, I presented it in the manner that it was presented to me. The guy that presented it to me was explaining it in the context of the legal precedent of the US, so I guess that's how the courts usually interpret it. I guess I hadn't really considered that there could be other ways to interpret it, though the precedent has and will stand up as the 'proper' interpretation.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: daveshel
I am saying it is not a mandatory interpretation of the DoI. As to whether it should exist, that is not my call to make. I'd say that life and liberty both trump happiness, and there is an argument that there could be no liberty without life (another possible interpretation of the order), but I personally would side with Patrick.

Ah, gotcha. Well, as you said, there could be no liberty without life. Nor can any rights be prescribed without the right to life first and foremost. Anyway, I presented it in the manner that it was presented to me. The guy that presented it to me was explaining it in the context of the legal precedent of the US, so I guess that's how the courts usually interpret it. I guess I hadn't really considered that there could be other ways to interpret it, though the precedent has and will stand up as the 'proper' interpretation.

Did he mention any cases or line of cases that interpret it that way? (I have a legal background and I can't think of any that use that analysis.)

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Did he mention any cases or line of cases that interpret it that way? (I have a legal background and I can't think of any that use that analysis.)

Meh, it was probably ten years ago now, if not more, and it was more of a general discussion dealing with the basics of how our legal system worked (e.g. something is allowed unless restricted, etc...). Nothing that in-depth that I can recall. I think I probably have his e-mail address lying around somewhere. I'll see if I can get something out of him if I can find it.