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

[Little-Acorn]

"It is Their Right, It is Their Duty, To Throw Off Such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Jefferson wrote that into the Declaration of Independence. He was describing what people should do if their government kept doing repeated actions that took away freedom; especially when that government made it clear that they were dloing it as part of a deliberate plan.

And the Declaration was voted unanimously into law, on July 4, 1776. And remains legally binding, just as any other laws passed then or since.

Overthrowing an oppressive government, isn't just a good idea. It's the LAW.

[WiccanLiberal]

As much as I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Declaration, I believe you are incorrect in the weight you give it. It is NOT law. It is a statement of principles and purpose. It presupposes a moral imperative to rebellion in the face of overwhelming tyranny. It does not reach the level of civil law.

[aboutime]

As much as I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Declaration, I believe you are incorrect in the weight you give it. It is NOT law. It is a statement of principles and purpose. It presupposes a moral imperative to rebellion in the face of overwhelming tyranny. It does not reach the level of civil law.


Gotta disagree with you WiccanLiberal. Had it not been for the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Father's would have had Nothing to base their creation, and agreement in formulating our Constitution.

Granted. The DOI is not law. But more like the BLUEPRINT used to create what later became the LAWS of the Land.

[WiccanLiberal]

Gotta disagree with you WiccanLiberal. Had it not been for the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Father's would have had Nothing to base their creation, and agreement in formulating our Constitution.

Granted. The DOI is not law. But more like the BLUEPRINT used to create what later became the LAWS of the Land.


It may be, in that case, more a moral law than a civil law. But the sense I got from the OP was of it being civil law and that is an incorrect assumption. The Constitution is, in legal terms anyway, the more valuable document, even if the Declaration is more dear to our hearts as a statement of our purpose as a nation.

[Robert A Whit]

As much as I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Declaration, I believe you are incorrect in the weight you give it. It is NOT law. It is a statement of principles and purpose. It presupposes a moral imperative to rebellion in the face of overwhelming tyranny. It does not reach the level of civil law.

If you feel that way, you actually declare Gen. Washington to be a criminal and the enemy of our state, along with Jefferson et a; pf course.

The present government has long opposed the will of the public it is supposed to serve.

[Robert A Whit]

It may be, in that case, more a moral law than a civil law. But the sense I got from the OP was of it being civil law and that is an incorrect assumption. The Constitution is, in legal terms anyway, the more valuable document, even if the Declaration is more dear to our hearts as a statement of our purpose as a nation.

The DOI really is the mission statement and as such applies to this very day.

When the government becomes an outlaw, we retain our right to correct that.

[logroller]

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

[aboutime]

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


Sure thing! If you were praising the King of England, and calling the New Americans traitors to the U.K.
That was the purpose of the DOI. To inform England. They were no longer running the show, nor were they welcome to
come here to rule.

[Robert A Whit]

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

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

[aboutime]

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


Nobody said anything about the Civil War.

[Robert A Whit]

Nobody said anything about the Civil War.

Whatever you say popeye.

[Little-Acorn]

As much as I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Declaration, I believe you are incorrect in the weight you give it. It is NOT law. It is a statement of principles and purpose. It presupposes a moral imperative to rebellion in the face of overwhelming tyranny. It does not reach the level of civil law.

I am at a loss to understand how you reach that conclusion.

The Second Continental Congress passed hundreds of laws, all by the same method: A vote by the required number of states, as cast by their Congressional delegations. This was usually a majority vote of the 13 state delegations, counted by state. (actually the DOI was required to have a unanimous vote of the 13 states, and it got it.)

All those other laws that the SCC passed, were indeed laws.

What made the DOI (which was passed in exactly the same way, by the same group under the same rules) "not a law"? I am puzzled by your assertion, and can find no rational explanation for it.

In fact, the leftists are the ones that hope to make it the sole exception, merely by wishing it so. They are good for a laugh, but not much more.

[WiccanLiberal]

Respectfully, while the Declaration is one of the finest expositions of liberty and the rights of humanity, it carries no legal weight. It does not establish rights duties and liabilities. It does not fit the definitions of constitutional, statutory or case law. I agree that it defines the moral compass of the nation and gave direction to the great minds that established the Constitution. In that way it may be more valuable than concrete law.

[logroller]

The DOI really is the mission statement and as such applies to this very day.

When the government becomes an outlaw, we retain our right to correct that.
I believe the preamble to the constitution is the mission statement. Although, it carries not the weight of law either.


Sure thing! If you were praising the King of England, and calling the New Americans traitors to the U.K.
That was the purpose of the DOI. To inform England. They were no longer running the show, nor were they welcome to
come here to rule.
furthermore, it was a solemn plea to the world's powers for acceptance.


I am at a loss to understand how you reach that conclusion.

The Second Continental Congress passed hundreds of laws, all by the same method: A vote by the required number of states, as cast by their Congressional delegations. This was usually a majority vote of the 13 state delegations, counted by state. (actually the DOI was required to have a unanimous vote of the 13 states, and it got it.)

All those other laws that the SCC passed, were indeed laws.

What made the DOI (which was passed in exactly the same way, by the same group under the same rules) "not a law"? I am puzzled by your assertion, and can find no rational explanation for it.

In fact, the leftists are the ones that hope to make it the sole exception, merely by wishing it so. They are good for a laugh, but not much more.
A declaration is only as valid, legally speaking, as there is some codified structure by which it is to be judged and enforced. In reading the DOI I see no such designation, save the Creator and humanity et al. So unless you're speaking in superlative contexts, above and beyond the law of the lands governed by the United States of America, the DOI is not law any more than Ten Commandments.

[revelarts]

The Declaration of Independence is a legal Document. But it's limited.
In a sense it is our nation's 1st "law", it's the establishing law.

It declares or legally announces to other nations the sovereignty of the 13 colonies as a new national entity.

It is what it says it is primarily.
It's a "DECLARATION", in fact a Legal Notice. It names the parties involved in the new Nation. And names the offenses/crimes the new nation was formed to remedy. And sets out the general principals of law the 13 states expect to be governed by. (believes all people's should be governed by) It sets those legal boundaries with some broad terms but some fairly specific too.

the declaration of Independence is the legal birth certificate of the the U.S..

It seem to me that It's not "law" in the same sense as the constitution. The declaration is more narrow but in sense broader as well. It's has 1 main purpose, but it does set up the legal character or tone of the nation as well. Just as Corwallis's surrender document is a legal document, And there were/are terms to honored in that document. So is the Declaration of Independence, it's terms are legal.
It is the legal charter of our nation.
If it's broken by our own gov't, then it's is a legal breech.

[Kathianne]

The Declaration of Independence is a legal Document. But it's limited.
In a sense it is our nation's 1st "law", it's the establishing law.

It declares or legally announces to other nations the sovereignty of the 13 colonies as a new national entity.

It is what it says it is primarily.
It's a "DECLARATION", in fact a Legal Notice. It names the parties involved in the new Nation. And names the offenses/crimes the new nation was formed to remedy. And sets out the general principals of law the 13 states expect to be governed by. (believes all people's should be governed by) It sets those legal boundaries with some broad terms but some fairly specific too.

the declaration of Independence is the legal birth certificate of the the U.S..

It seem to me that It's not "law" in the same sense as the constitution. The declaration is more narrow but in sense broader as well. It's has 1 main purpose, but it does set up the legal character or tone of the nation as well. Just as Corwallis's surrender document is a legal document, And there were/are terms to honored in that document. So is the Declaration of Independence, it's terms are legal.
It is the legal charter of our nation.
If it's broken by our own gov't, then it's is a legal breech.

In every constitutional law class I've taken (3), The Declaration of Independence is considered a message to the 'world' that the colonies were declaring a right to secede from Britain, giving the reasons why, and in the preamble explaining what they based the right to do so on.

Law? I don't see that. Pretty much until the Constitution was ratified over a decade later, the 'laws' were pretty much established British law, common law, and those that each colony or town had passed in the previous years.

[Marcus Aurelius]

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


"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.


"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'

[Kathianne]

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

Cornell Law:

http://legalworkshop.org/2012/10/05/the-continued-relevance-of-the-declaration-of-independence

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650295#post650295)
The DOI really is the mission statement and as such applies to this very day.

When the government becomes an outlaw, we retain our right to correct that.




Logroller: I believe the preamble to the constitution is the mission statement. Although, it carries not the weight of law either.

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

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

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

[revelarts]

In every constitutional law class I've taken (3), The Declaration of Independence is considered a message to the 'world' that the colonies were declaring a right to secede from Britain, giving the reasons why, and in the preamble explaining what they based the right to do so on.

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

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#Organic_laws_of_the_United_States_of_A merica


Organic laws of the United States of America Main article: Organic Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Act)
The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Code) (2007)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#cite_note-1) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence), the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation), the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance), and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#cite_note-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#cite_note-3)


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

[revelarts]

...

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

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

[Kathianne]

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

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

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

[Robert A Whit]

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

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

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

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

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

[revelarts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cadet]

Bolded are the ones that can fit the current president.


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

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

[logroller]

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/jun98nl.html
Blacks legal dictionary is repeatedly cited by scotus too. Is that law? So too is English common law considered to be the impetus for much of our laws, but it carries not the weight of law. It is indeed helpful in interpreting law, but that does not make it law.

Plus, legally speaking this passage is problematic "Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)"
"And" would imply that the OK constitution could be repugnant to the constitution of the us or the principles of the DOI, but not both.
The DOI is flush with references to the political philosophies of its day; the works of Hobbes, Locke, Paine etc.; presenting a blending of natural rights/laws and those created by man. I believe it was Hobbes that stipulated that the rights and laws of man are of no value absent enforcement; and the DOI offers not one iota of power to the entity of government, but rather the people. This is, of course, an indelible statement and certainly is the foundation of our great nation; but its nothing more than a visceral platitude absent some mechanism of power by which it is to be put into action. Declarations are used in legal actions all the time, but were it not for the constitutional directive conveying unto the courts the POWER to handle such a declaration, it would be a moot exercise. And following the Declaration of Independence, that's exactly why the articles of confederation were created; because the declaration wasn't a law in the state enforceable sense of the word. This doesn't mean that the people cannot still enforce the declaration, the supreme court has ruled such to be the case-- it's called revolution. Nothing to stop us from trying again, but the government of the United States of America isn't bound to respect such a declaration any more than the England was, but it doesn't keep us from trying I suppose. Just bear in mind that its an all or nothing wager, or as so eloquently stated in the DOI, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[fj1200]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#Organic_laws_of_the_United_States_of_A merica


the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence), the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation), the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance), and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#cite_note-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#cite_note-3)

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


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

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

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


The Declaration of Independence is a statement...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence

[Marcus Aurelius]

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

Plus, legally speaking this passage is problematic "Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)"
"And" would imply that the OK constitution could be repugnant to the constitution of the us or the principles of the DOI, but not both.
The DOI is flush with references to the political philosophies of its day; the works of Hobbes, Locke, Paine etc.; presenting a blending of natural rights/laws and those created by man. I believe it was Hobbes that stipulated that the rights and laws of man are of no value absent enforcement; and the DOI offers not one iota of power to the entity of government, but rather the people. This is, of course, an indelible statement and certainly is the foundation of our great nation; but its nothing more than a visceral platitude absent some mechanism of power by which it is to be put into action. Declarations are used in legal actions all the time, but were it not for the constitutional directive conveying unto the courts the POWER to handle such a declaration, it would be a moot exercise. And following the Declaration of Independence, that's exactly why the articles of confederation were created; because the declaration wasn't a law in the state enforceable sense of the word. This doesn't mean that the people cannot still enforce the declaration, the supreme court has ruled such to be the case-- it's called revolution. Nothing to stop us from trying again, but the government of the United States of America isn't bound to respect such a declaration any more than the England was, but it doesn't keep us from trying I suppose. Just bear in mind that its an all or nothing wager, or as so eloquently stated in the DOI, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

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

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

[cadet]

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence


This article's factual accuracy is disputed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute). Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS). See the relevant discussion on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Dis puted). <small>(January 2013)</small>

Right at the top of the page.

[fj1200]

Bolded are the ones that can fit the current president.

And most others probably.

[cadet]

And most others probably.

Of course if america ever followed in it's forefathers footsteps, we could add quite a few.

[fj1200]

Right at the top of the page.

:slap: for makin' me go all Lincoln on ya.


This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence#cite_note-6) containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence#cite_note-7) The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln), who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution)should be interpreted.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence#cite_note-McPherson126-8)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence

:poke:

[Kathianne]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. "Rights" based on natural law, that is what the Declaration was all about. However, even the Constitution acknowledged that all the 'rights' couldn't be stated, as natural law is a political philosophy in and of itself. There was nothing 'new' regarding 'natural rights', save for the small detail that no governing body had used them as a basis of either law or crating a government. That indeed was the unique act of the Declaration.

While a seminal legal document in and of itself, there was no 'laws' created, though many of the 'grievances' listed would become part and parcel of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[Kathianne]

Bolded are the ones that can fit the current president.



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

Your points with emphasis are a partial numeration of grievances, eventually addressed in the Constitution.

If the colonists had lost the war, there would have been no Constitution, at least then. However, the Declaration would still have been a powerful statement of the rights of the governed and the limits of government.

[Little-Acorn]

Respectfully, while the Declaration is one of the finest expositions of liberty and the rights of humanity, it carries no legal weight.
You said that before, without citing any reasons why you thought so. I pointed out why it did carry legal weight: It was passed by a legally constituted body whose purpose was to enact legislation which, by the act of passage, DID carry legal weight.

Now you've said it again, and without citing any reasons why you think so, again.


It does not establish rights duties and liabilities.
Establishing duty, is exactly what it DOES do, as I have pointed out already.

As for rights, Jefferson long maintained that the right to overthrow an oppressive government does not come from any law (how could it?), but comes from "our Creator". That is, it's a right we had merely by being human, a right that everybody automatically has whether government likes it or not.

But even if that were not so, the fact that this legally constituted lawmaking body passed it by due process of law, would MAKE it our right to overthrow an oppressive government.


It does not fit the definitions of constitutional,
Of course not. There was no Constitution at the time, either with a capital C or a lowercase c.


statutory
As I have repeatedly pointed out, "statutory" is exactly what it IS. It is a law. It is passed by a body put together by the people who wanted to set up their government, for the purpose of passing laws they would obey, according to set parliamentary practices. And those practices were followed to the letter. The DOI was just as much a law, and just as binding on citizens then or since, as any other law passed in that way by that body. The only thing that could possibly change that, is deliberate repeal or amendment by the same (or subsequent) duly empowered lawmaking body.

And no such repeal or amendment, has ever been passed. The people who wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation did nothing to repeal or amend what the DOI said. Even the Constitutional Convention of 1786-1787 passed nothing to repeal it, only to add to it. Same for every amendment passed since, starting with the Bill of Rights throuhg the amendments of today.

The Declaration of Independence was given the FORCE OF LAW by the Second Continental Congress, just as everything else they passed was given the force of law. And it has NEVER been repealed or modified since.

I suggest that anyone who wants to claim the DOI is "not law", will need to specify exactly which law(s) passed since then, repeals or modifies it, and in what way. Good luck with that.


or case law.
It its a LAW. Laws precede court cases, not the other way around. Cases only try to interpret what laws say... but there is NO requirement that a law passed today, must conform to a case decided yesterday. Unless that case refers to a "higher" law, which the DOI did not.


I agree that it defines the moral compass of the nation and gave direction to the great minds that established the Constitution.
Yes, it did. (And it also made law.) But the people who wrote it, could have "defined the moral compass of the nation" simply by writing tracts and pamphlets and publishing them on their own, as many people did at that time, without getting the pamphlets agreed to and duly passed by a lawmaking body. Such pamphlets could still have a lot of effect, by PERSUADING people of something.

But the DOI went beyond that: It made the things it contains, LAW. That is, COMMANDS that something will be so.

One of the things it commands, as we have been discussing, is that it is your DUTY to overthrow an oppressive government. "Duty" doesn't necessarily mean that you can be punished for not overthrowing such a government. But it certainly means that, if you DO overthrow an oppressive government, you cannot be punished for doing so.

The Framers were referring to, of course, the government of England (King, Pariliament etc.). And they weren't exactly overthrowing it, just cutting away and declaring themselves "no longer legally bound" by it. It still existed after they were done.

But the Framers carefully worded the DOI so that it referred to ANY oppressive government. They specified that, long before referring in the document to the King. And many of the Framers were lawyers, who knew exactly what such a general reference meant.

The DOI was law then, and it is law today, just as much. And overthrowing an oppressive government, is a perfectly legal act.

Note that even in the later Constitution, "treason" is defined only as acts against "the United States", not against the [i]government.]/i] Even then the Framers (some were the same people who had signed the DOI, and some were not) did not want to change what they had legally enacted before: The duty and right to overthrow an oppressive government... ANY oppressive government.

There's a reson for that. And the reason is written right into the DOI.

And it is LAW. The Constitution could have overridden it, but carefully did not. It can still override it, by a Constitutional amendment. But nobody has passed one to do so.

The DOI is LAW.

[aboutime]

Perhaps now is the time to READ the Document at your own time, and speed.

Agreed. It is not Law. But anyone who reads it, and understands what it says. Should then have little doubt,
where the Constitution of the United States got it's power to rule a New Nation.

The document shown below does not include the signatures.

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[logroller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#Organic_laws_of_the_United_States_of_A merica



The Declaration of Independence is, in fact, a law... according to the federal government.
First of all, it's title I (or 1) not volume 1, and secondly, I just read title 1 chapters 1-3 and the doi is not mentioned. Please link to the actual code if you believe I'm mistaken.

[logroller]

You said that before, without citing any reasons why you thought so. I pointed out why it did carry legal weight: It was passed by a legally constituted body whose purpose was to enact legislation which, by the act of passage, DID carry legal weight.

Now you've said it again, and without citing any reasons why you think so, again.


Establishing duty, is exactly what it DOES do, as I have pointed out already.

As for rights, Jefferson long maintained that the right to overthrow an oppressive government does not come from any law (how could it?), but comes from "our Creator". That is, it's a right we had merely by being human, a right that everybody automatically has whether government likes it or not.

But even if that were not so, the fact that this legally constituted lawmaking body passed it by due process of law, would MAKE it our right to overthrow an oppressive government.


Of course not. There was no Constitution at the time, either with a capital C or a lowercase c.


As I have repeatedly pointed out, "statutory" is exactly what it IS. It is a law. It is passed by a body put together by the people who wanted to set up their government, for the purpose of passing laws they would obey, according to set parliamentary practices. And those practices were followed to the letter. The DOI was just as much a law, and just as binding on citizens then or since, as any other law passed in that way by that body. The only thing that could possibly change that, is deliberate repeal or amendment by the same (or subsequent) duly empowered lawmaking body.

And no such repeal or amendment, has ever been passed. The people who wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation did nothing to repeal or amend what the DOI said. Even the Constitutional Convention of 1786-1787 passed nothing to repeal it, only to add to it. Same for every amendment passed since, starting with the Bill of Rights throuhg the amendments of today.

The Declaration of Independence was given the FORCE OF LAW by the Second Continental Congress, just as everything else they passed was given the force of law. And it has NEVER been repealed or modified since.

I suggest that anyone who wants to claim the DOI is "not law", will need to specify exactly which law(s) passed since then, repeals or modifies it, and in what way. Good luck with that.


It its a LAW. Laws precede court cases, not the other way around. Cases only try to interpret what laws say... but there is NO requirement that a law passed today, must conform to a case decided yesterday. Unless that case refers to a "higher" law, which the DOI did not.


Yes, it did. (And it also made law.) But the people who wrote it, could have "defined the moral compass of the nation" simply by writing tracts and pamphlets and publishing them on their own, as many people did at that time, without getting the pamphlets agreed to and duly passed by a lawmaking body. Such pamphlets could still have a lot of effect, by PERSUADING people of something.

But the DOI went beyond that: It made the things it contains, LAW. That is, COMMANDS that something will be so.

One of the things it commands, as we have been discussing, is that it is your DUTY to overthrow an oppressive government. "Duty" doesn't necessarily mean that you can be punished for not overthrowing such a government. But it certainly means that, if you DO overthrow an oppressive government, you cannot be punished for doing so.

The Framers were referring to, of course, the government of England (King, Pariliament etc.). And they weren't exactly overthrowing it, just cutting away and declaring themselves "no longer legally bound" by it. It still existed after they were done.

But the Framers carefully worded the DOI so that it referred to ANY oppressive government. They specified that, long before referring in the document to the King. And many of the Framers were lawyers, who knew exactly what such a general reference meant.

The DOI was law then, and it is law today, just as much. And overthrowing an oppressive government, is a perfectly legal act.

Note that even in the later Constitution, "treason" is defined only as acts against "the United States", not against the [i]government.]/i] Even then the Framers (some were the same people who had signed the DOI, and some were not) did not want to change what they had legally enacted before: The duty and right to overthrow an oppressive government... ANY oppressive government.

There's a reson for that. And the reason is written right into the DOI.

And it is LAW. The Constitution could have overridden it, but carefully did not. It can still override it, by a Constitutional amendment. But nobody has passed one to do so.

The DOI is LAW.
wow, I bet you're a hoot to play scrabble with. No doubt such long-winded arguendo is the reason for the creation of an official scrabble dictionary. If only there were an official document , some definitive text that details what is us law.... Oh yea, there is-- the constitution and the US code that resulted from the granted legislative powers therein....and the DOI isn't in there....because its not US law.
A definitive reference for natural rights, certainly it is; a documentation of the guiding principles for our great nation, one should hope; but its NOT US LAW.

[revelarts]

"It's the Law!"
"It's not the Law!"

I think kathianne's more nuanced comments are better, though I'd probably lean more toward the whole doc having legal weight.

I don't know if we can push the DOI in total as "the Law!" in the same sense as the constitution.
But I sure i can't agree that, "It not the Law!" but a nice document I hope we can think about from time to time but it has zero real legal force or influence.

I think we'd need a definition of "LAW" 1st of all.

law
n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience....
The principal source of American law is the common law, which had its roots about the same time as Justinian, among Angles, Britons and later Saxons in Britain. William the Conqueror arrived in 1066 and combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. The American colonies followed the English Common Law with minor variations, and the four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone (completed in 1769) was the legal "bible" for all American frontier lawyers and influenced the development of state codes of law. To a great extent common law has been replaced by written statutes, and a gigantic body of such statutes have been enacted by federal and state legislatures supposedly in response to the greater complexity of modern life. 2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice)....
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1111
1- a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common+law)
b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/litigation) (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law
c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe
d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law

Seems to me that
Similar to the Magna Carta the DOI IS in fact a foundation legal document.

I think the main LAW portion of the text is:
...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do....

And it seems to me the 1st part of the DOI is not just preamble. But a declaration of the 1st principals of our national laws. It's the foundational concepts that legitimize our legal system and Outline it's source of legal power. Natural law and the consent of the people.
... to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governedlaying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Seems to me, as acorn mentioned, these concepts are set down and voted on by the congress as THE foundational principals that are to be the fixed guide for the laws of our nation. They are not a set "good ideas" or a reiteration of thoughts of the day. They are promoted in that legal document as the legal LAWFUL assumptions of 1st principals of the people of the nation.

Someone might say well they just said it that doesn't make it law. Well our city council people "just say things" too. but when they put it into a document and vote on it it becomes law. and is law until it's repealed or shown to be unconstitutional or illegal in court.

Another simple definition of law is
An Assertion of rules by a person or group, backed by force.

The Continental congress was granted authority by the people to assert certain propositions and create legal jurisdiction.

Seems to me that's what it does. It is Law and a legal document. Buuut, except for the basic establishment of the nation and the Concept of Natural laws and the people consent as being foundational. I'm not sure how one could interpret the rest of it, in any consistent way, as legally "binding" on anyone. The narrative and reasons portions gives an outline of what's considered tyrannical and unjust but there's no.. um... legally binding law attached to those, They are descriptive rather than proscriptive.

And the portion
...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such...
Seem to me to be not so much a legal command but a forgone conclusion of what OUGHT to be done. And the DOI is doing what that phrase says. In doing so it set the example. And sets the legal precedent for it. That precedent is then backed and established by force of arms rather than a court of law.

[Kathianne]

I rarely come back and reiterate arguments I've already made, but in this case I'll make an exception.

As LA and a few others have pointed out, the Declaration was first modified and ratified by The Continental Congress, thus is a legal document. It's also the basis for establishing the Constitution of the US, once the war was one. As I've pointed out, IF the war had been lost, it would have only been part of the 'evidence' to be used against those that wrote, ratified, and war officers that cited it to 'inspire' their troops. As for the last group, Thomas Paine's pamphlet, "Common Sense" would also have been used for convictions.

Because the document was written as an 'explanation' and 'justification' for secession from Great Britain, there was and is nothing to that could be amended or modified. Indeed, the 'drafts' and modifications took care of any issues that might have caused strife amongst those in Congress. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h33.html

While the Articles of Confederation qualify as a framework for a 'governing document,' regardless of how weak, the Declaration in no way creates laws or a basis for laws. It is what it is, a statement of what those that wrote and ratified considered some of the rights the governed had by natural law and a definition of a bad ruler. They purposely made the list of grievances much more detailed than the listing of natural rights, to justify to the world why secession was the only recourse they faced.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650398#post650398)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic...tes_of_America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#Organic_laws_of_the_United_States_of_A merica)

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



First of all, it's title I (or 1) not volume 1, and secondly, I just read title 1 chapters 1-3 and the doi is not mentioned. Please link to the actual code if you believe I'm mistaken.

The 'volume' refers to the book printed by Congress, listing the US Code, not the code itself or a title in the code.

Many books of multiple volumes have been printed by Congress over the years, covering the US Code Titles, and many have included the Declaration of Independence in the 1st volume, listing it as part of the The Organic Laws of The United States of America. The practice goes back as far as 1787.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt



-CITE- THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -End- -CITE- USC THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776 01/03/2007 -EXPCITE- THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776 -HEAD- THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776</pre>


http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1829734


"Every serious student of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 should have a copy of volume one of the United States Code, Prepared and published under the authority of Title 2, U.S. Code, Section 285b, by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives.

There are about fifty titles in the entire United States Code, however, you will only need volume one, which you will buy from the U.S. Government Printing Office Bookstore. The first volume of the United States Code puts the Constitution of the United States in its proper context and order — the Constitution of the United States is the last of the four Organic Laws of the United States of America.

The Constitution is preceded by the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787." Ed Rivera



"The written Organic Laws are the root foundation of all written law in America and limits all written law to the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America. All 4 Organic Laws, The Declaration of Independence of July 4,1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 are cited in Vol. 1 of both the United States Code (pgs. 43 to 71) and the Statutes at Large (pgs. 1-22) with the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 enacted as 1 Stat. 50 (pgs. 50-53) which and are recognized as enacted positive law. .


Hope that clears up any misunderstanding :-)

[avatar4321]

The Declaration came only after decades of petitioning the existing government into changing and restoring their rights.

Our efforts to restore our rights in this nation haven't nearly been as long and established.

There is no need for a violent overthrow. Nor do we want to remove the Constitution from it's place. We want to restore it.

[Little-Acorn]

What's an "Organic law", and how does it differ from a not-so-Organic law?