"In God We Trust"

[George H. Smith]

Was the Declaration a founding document? The answer depends on what you mean by "founding document." It established the independence of the 13 colonies, but that is all it did. Although the colonies formed a coalition to fight Britain, they regarded themselves as separate and sovereign states. Not until the Articles of Confideration were ratified in 1781 did they officially unite into a single political unit, if a loosely structured one. States passed their own constitutions before the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788.

In other words. it is absurd to say that the Declaration constitutes a founding legal document for a United States that didn't even exist in 1776.

George,

I was with you until this last statement. I just can't look at July 4, the Bicentennial celebration I lived through, Abe Lincoln's interpretation, etc., and call all that absurd.

I think it's absurd to ignore that stuff, insinuating that it does not refer to a founding document of the USA, and label any thought of such matters as "absurd."

I notice your selective omissions in discussing Jefferson. (Kinda like what I said folks do when they argue this stuff.)

Rather than get into a pissing match, I'll bow out. But you have not convinced me that your view of Jefferson--or even colonial Deism--is the correct one to the exclusion of all others.

Frankly, I want to read more on my own about this stuff and come to my own conclusions.

At least I'll be able to look at material and examine it without someone telling me to consult with aliens.

Michael

The Declaration -- which I regard as the greatest political document ever written -- expressed American ideals of the 18th century. Some of these ideals were later incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, but the document itself does not constitute a legal foundation of the United States.

We have a similar situation with The Federalist Papers. These have repeatedly been citied by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine the intention of the Framers, and insofar as these interpretations have become part of constitutional law, their ideas have been given legal force. But The Federalist Papers per se have no legal force. They are not part of American law, and neither is the Declaration.

I dearly wish this were not true, because the primary purpose of the Declaration was to justify revolution against an oppressive government, but I don't think you will ever find a recipe for the violent overthrow of a government embedded in the constitutional law of that government. As someone once said in a different context, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It neither specifies nor implies the conditions in which the U.S. Government may be violently overthrown.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whether justified or not, I picked up a strain of this attitude in one of your replies, and it pissed me off.

George,

Thanks for the explanation.

Just to be clear, for future reference, that attitude is so not me...

Seriously...

btw - I saw a TED talk a few months ago (I don't remember the lecturer) that discussed violence. Religion was not discussed as a cause, but the "oppressive violence" we have today as opposed to former times was. It turns out that we humans are far more civilized and non-violent right now, even with all the screaming bloody murder and atrocities on the news, than we have ever been in our history.

Michael