The Constitution

[Standing Wolf]

Absolute nonsense.

Nemo's analysis of what the Declaration is and is not appears to be sound. What, exactly, is your problem with it? He isn't disrespecting the document or those who composed and signed it, but simply praising it for what it was and pointing out that the Constitution takes a more practical and real world perspective on governance.

[carolina73]

Both are correct. The Declaration of Independence was not a lasting legal document. It was a argument for the revolutionary actions of our founders. You do not see SCOTUS refer to it at any point as law.
The Constitution was the legally binding foundation for all of our laws. Like any other document we have parts that were borrowed, rephrased and some that was original thought.

[CaveDog]

The Declaration of independence is not a foundational document. Aside from a brief preamble it has nothing to do with the formation of or running of the government. It is a petition for separation. It is a notice to the Crown of Intolerable Acts which form the desire for independence.

I take more of a declarationist position. It isn’t a legal document in the sense of the Constitution but it expresses the principles which justified the revolution to begin with. Any policy which contradicts those principals must also bring into question the legitimacy of the revolution and hence any form of government enabled by it. It follows that such policies become self-nullifying because they would have to be established by a government which, by contradicting the declaration, just admitted it has no moral authority to even exist. For better or worse we are forever wed to the principles of the declaration.

[carolina73]

I take more of a declarationist position. It isn’t a legal document in the sense of the Constitution but it expresses the principles which justified the revolution to begin with. Any policy which contradicts those principals must also bring into question the legitimacy of the revolution and hence any form of government enabled by it. It follows that such policies become self-nullifying because they would have to be established by a government which, by contradicting the declaration, just admitted it has no moral authority to even exist. For better or worse we are forever wed to the principles of the declaration.

I get where you are going with that in saying that the Spirit of the Document defines the creators of the Constitution but still no court is going to use it in an argument.
Our country was founded on liberty, family, individualism, capitalism but caring about our community.
If you look at the Warren and Sander crowd then you see the opposite They want government to treat them like 4 year olds. They want mommy and daddy to never leave them and to take care of them for ever. I want my allowance!

[The Sage of Main Street]

I have read the Constitution many times, and with every reading I am amazed by this singular document - this blueprint of the structure and function of our government, this guarantee of our rights and liberty by law - it is unique. It is deceptively simple (only 4,400 words), but on closer examination, its parts have the intricacy and precision of the most complicated timepiece made by George Daniels. It is a masterpiece. It has suffered some bumps and bruises over the years, and it has undergone more than a few amendments; but it has withstood the test of time. I think that we are most fortunate to have this great treasure that is our Constitution.

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Written by Lawyers for the Original American Aristocracy

Idolizing a self-serving government document like Christians treat the Bible is either superstitious or heretical.

[carolina73]

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Written by Lawyers for the Original American Aristocracy

Idolizing a self-serving government document like Christians treat the Bible is either superstitious or heretical.

Wow. That was just idiotic.

[The Sage of Main Street]

This person is 100% brainwashed

DO NOT BE DECEIVED PEOPLE!

The treasonous liberals are attempting to incite a civil war

Plutes Pulling Strings at the Public Puppet Show


Which the blueblooded Whiteys Hating Whitey already did when they were Republicans in 1860. Then, when they were overwhelmingly defeated in 1964, they infiltrated the Democratic Party and purposely made it insulting, disgusting, incompetent, and threatening in order to trick people into supporting the Party of guillotine-fodder HeirHead Chickenhawk economic bullies.

[Nemo]

" . . . the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration. . . When it came time to draft a new constitution, the Founders drew upon the principles they outlined in the Declaration."
- Roger Pilon, The Cato Institute, "Preface", The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, Pocket Ed. (2006)
. . .
There is general misunderstanding of the nature and character of our government instituted by the Constitution based upon principles of democracy both misquoted and misapplied, see e.g., the Cato Institute, supra. The Declaration of Independence was a call to arms against the rule of the English monarchy, a rule under which the colonists had no representation in Parliament. The principles of natural ("unalienable") rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence were not adopted or incorporated into the Constitution. That was not provided; that was not intended. Under the Constitution "We the People" retain the powers of self-government; however we live subject to the rule of law - this is the guiding principle. In this, it should be noted that the United States is not a true democracy; it is a constitutional republic. U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4. It is a representative form of government. We don't rule ourselves, but through our elected representatives and officials. Nor do we make the laws that govern us, albeit there is now provision for initiatives to be enacted into law directly by public referendum. What the framers of our Constitution sought to avoid was the tyranny of the majority. For example, under the Constitution, a person does not have the right to vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for "electors" for the President of the United States as provided under state law. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Still, the Constitution is only as good as those who preserve, protect and defend it: "We the People."

[donttread]

I have read the Constitution many times, and with every reading I am amazed by this singular document - this blueprint of the structure and function of our government, this guarantee of our rights and liberty by law - it is unique. It is deceptively simple (only 4,400 words), but on closer examination, its parts have the intricacy and precision of the most complicated timepiece made by George Daniels. It is a masterpiece. It has suffered some bumps and bruises over the years, and it has undergone more than a few amendments; but it has withstood the test of time. I think that we are most fortunate to have this great treasure that is our Constitution.

Yeah, but we'd be much better off if we actually followed it.

[Peter1469]

I would argue the Declaration of Independence was foundational to the Revolution and the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was counter-revolutionary.

The Declaration is certainly foundational- it was the ethical basis of what followed. The Articles were a failure and could never have worked. The Constitution can work if we followed it.