Here’s the link: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=124 …
-
-
Show this thread
-
As Abraham Lincoln said, when debating Stephen Douglas, “ If the Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it?”
Show this thread -
But that doesn’t make it law? Okay, then what does? -That it was adopted by a legislature? Declaration was. -That it have some kind of legal consequences? Declaration did. -That it be recognized as law by citizens & other sovereigns? Check!
Show this thread -
-That it command someone to do something? But not all laws command. Some specify what powers & duties officials have, or lay out boundaries, or specify how things (wills, marriages, etc., are made). The Declaration does these things.
Show this thread -
If the law creating, say, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is a “law,” then the Declaration’s a law.
Show this thread -
But it’s hortatory? Aspirational? Many laws are. That doesn’t make the Declaration not a law.
Show this thread -
Oh, but you disagree with it? Well, that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t a law.
Show this thread -
But courts don’t enforce it? Doesn’t mean it’s not law. And courts do, in fact, enforce it. In the obvious example, courts recognize July 4, 1776 as the date upon which American sovereignty became separate from British sovereignty.
Show this thread -
(This is often relevant in cases involving common law, or even cases tracing the ownership of property or treaty rights.)
Show this thread -
What grounds are there for denying the Declaration is law? Hostility toward natural law theory is really the only reason. And that’s a pretty terrible reason, bc the Declaration’s self-evident truths are in fact true, and do indeed limit the reach of legitimate sovereignty.
Show this thread -
Ah, but it can’t be law bc its terms limit the power of majorities, and whatever the majority wants just *is* the law? (Believe it or not, this was Scalia’s view.) Well, let’s assume that that’s true. How and why is THAT the law?
Show this thread -
For precisely the same reasons that I assert the Declaration to be law: because of the truth (or falsehood) of the assertion itself, nothing more. The Declaration’s nature as law derives ultimately from the fact that its moral claims are indeed correct, and the contrary
Show this thread -
view is incorrect. You may disagree with me on that, but you cannot deny that the reasons I am advancing are the same KIND of reasons you advance for saying that the will of the majority is law. In other words, you MUST meet the Declaration on its own terms—you
Show this thread -
CANNOT evade the issue by simply pronouncing it somehow outside the boundaries of “law.”
Show this thread -
Anyway, for more on this read my book: https://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Constitution-Declaration-Independence-Liberty/dp/1939709695 … Or the works of my mentor, Harry Jaffa, especially this one: https://www.amazon.com/Original-Intent-Framers-Constitution-Harry/dp/089526496X … and this one: https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Over-Constitution-Harry-Jaffa/dp/0739100416 …
Show this thread -
“Okay,” you say. “So the Declaration’s law. What difference does it make?” Well, for one thing I explained here, it would have made ALL the difference in Dred Scott:https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/event/virtual-event-slavery-and-the-constitution …
Show this thread -
The Declaration sets the metes and bounds of legitimate lawmaking, as John Q. Adams explained here: https://books.google.com/books?id=w325tHxgmJkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=adams+jubilee+of+the+constitution&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5uZzX4bbsAhUyJzQIHUnlBYQQ6AEwAHoECAYQAg … This is why every state admitted to the union post-secession has been required to affirm its adherence to the Declaration before Congress has admitted it.
Show this thread -
And *nothing* could be more important than a law that limits the legitimate reach of govt power.
Show this thread -
The most effective use of the Declaration in a recent legal decision that I’ve seen is in the Kansas Supreme Court’s excellent decision from last year in Hopes & Nauser v. Schmidthttps://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2019/114153.html …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.