Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

shushshush Senior MemberPosts: 6,260 Senior Member
In Philadelphia, American and British lawyers have debated the legality of America's founding documents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

‘The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?
Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.
The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.’

smiley-flag013.gif


We would say that, would we not?:tooth:

cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

 


 

«134

Replies

  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,087 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to.

    This is exactly why English citizens live under a rule they will never crawl out from under. So many years of "Royal" rule has cast the people in to depressed acceptance of being forcefed what the government wants to feed them. If you had free thinkers, the quote above would make you sick to your stomach that people actually believe that garbage.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,260 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    This is exactly why English citizens live under a rule they will never crawl out from under. So many years of "Royal" rule has cast the people in to depressed acceptance of being forcefed what the government wants to feed them. If you had free thinkers, the quote above would make you sick to your stomach that people actually believe that garbage.

    Do not sit on the fence; tell me what you really think.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,087 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    Do not sit on the fence; tell me what you really think.

    I have that reputation 'round here.

    Besides, Europe has a history of imprisoning and executing its free-thinkers. Further proof that totalitarian control was the goal from inception.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?

    On the present economic and social trajectory, it may happen, eventually.

    A strong, intelligent governor, backed heavily by voters and lots of important people and other state governors, could take a more or less 'passive' approach to defying the federal government. He could declare openly that Texas and Texans would no longer obey unconstitutional federal laws, or recognize the authority of unelected bureaucrats. He would declare that beginning on a certain date, Texans would stop paying federal taxes, and stop accepting federal handouts. State taxes would be assessed at a much lower rate, to cover reasonable government services, and able-bodied 'wards' of the federal government would begin lining up for subsistence level food and medicine for a finite period of time, before being cut off entirely. They could 'opt out' at any time, and receive a one-way airline ticket instead, to Washington, D.C. Illegal immigrants could apply for visas, or go home. Those with jobs and good citizenship recommendations, would be allowed to stay for a finite amount of time, and then re-apply, if they could do so without an interpreter.

    Done properly, other states would jump on the bandwagon, freeloaders would flock out of the state, and workers would flock in to the state. The National Guard would refuse to turn over armaments, and the federal government would face the decision as to whether to order the military to attack its own 'brothers-in-arms,' knowing that most of that military would oppose the decision.

    It would be tricky, but knowing the low character of the current crop of elected politicians, they might not be able to handle such a large dose of reality. It would be a situation that the media could not spin them out of with lies, and propaganda.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Shush wrote:
    ‘The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to.

    I totally disagree with the fact that our Declaration of Independence was illegal.. Back in 1774-1776, and the colonies wanting to break from England and its Tyrannical Kings, It ain't illegal.
    The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict
    Thats ironic I thought the French help us in the Revolutionary war, and we still have to this day in 2012 TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION...
    shush wrote:
    We would say that, would we not
    :agree: yea ya'll limee's would say that. Are you English folks still mad at us American's for winning our independecne from England in 1776? Get over it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I have that reputation 'round here.

    Besides, Europe has a history of imprisoning and executing its free-thinkers. Further proof that totalitarian control was the goal from inception.

    :agree::agree::agree::agree::agree::usa:

    The US Constitution and Declaration of Independence contributed much to the civil rights and liberties of the US political system. It is first important to distinguish the two documents.

    The Declaration was essentially a resolution passed by the Second Continental Congress to inform King George III that America had split. It had no real legal effect on the system, but it did provide a common ground of ideals (which were mainly borrowed from John Locke's work). The Preamble cites as natural rights "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," claims that "all men are created equal," and that when a government becomes counterproductive of achieving these goals, it is the right and duty of the governed to change that government. These ideas are the basis for American political culture, and have provided for several Supreme Court decisions that allowed advancements in civil liberties and rights.

    The actual legal basis of these rights, however, must come from the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified at first without individual rights, but, at the urging of some New England liberals, one was added. The majority of civil liberties and civil rights have their bases in the Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X), Amendment XIV, and the right to habeas corpus.


    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_relationship_of_the_Constitution_and_the_Declaration_of_Independence_to_civil_rights_and_civil_liberties#ixzz27ZKSRskZ

    But in fact the Declaration is more than a litany of complaints. Its greater meaning is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government. It proclaimed that political rule would, from then on, reside in the sovereignty of the people. “If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence,” wrote the great historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, “it would have been worthwhile.”

    The ringing phrases of the document’s famous second paragraph are a powerful synthesis of American constitutional and republican government theories. All men have a right to liberty as they are by nature equal, which is to say none are inherently superior and deserve to rule or inferior and deserve to be ruled.

    Because all are endowed with these rights, the rights are unalienable, which means that they cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess these rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. Government’s purpose is to secure these fundamental rights and, although prudence tells us that governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, the people retain the right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of these ends.

    The Declaration also insists we have the right to “the pursuit of happiness.” A higher component of that pursuit, of course, is being able to worship as we please. What right is more fundamental than religious liberty?

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/04/morning-bell-does-the-declaration-of-independence-still-matter/
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    shush wrote:
    Do not sit on the fence; tell me what you really think
    Look at what Woodrow Wilson had to say, I don't agree with him he was a progressives, now a days we call them Left-wing bleeding heart liberals:

    The Declaration of Independence was partly intended as a list of grievances against a distant monarch. And both George III and the colonists who disagreed with his rule are long dead. But so are many of those who’ve argued that the Declaration is obsolete. In fact, this is exactly what those who called themselves “progressives” were saying a century ago.

    Woodrow Wilson, one of the most famous early progressives, argued during the 1912 presidential campaign that “all that Progressives ask or desire is permission…to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle,” meaning that it should promote an ever-expanding set of powers for an ever-expanding government. The problem, he declared, was that pesky Declaration of Independence: “Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence,” he remarked. “The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.”

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/04/morning-bell-does-the-declaration-of-independence-still-matter/
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    Well, yeah it was treason. That's kinda why we fought the Revolutionary War.....
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,332 Senior Member
    From what I understand about British law at the time, it was/is a textbook act of Treason against the crown.
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "It's far easier to start out learning to be precise and then speeding up, than it is having never "mastered" the weapon, and trying to be precise." - Dan C
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 12,827 Senior Member
    From what I understand about British law at the time, it was/is a textbook act of Treason against the crown.
    Yes it was. See SirGeorge's statement...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • airheadairhead Member Posts: 424 Member
    bisley wrote: »
    On the present economic and social trajectory, it may happen, eventually.

    A strong, intelligent governor, backed heavily by voters and lots of important people and other state governors, could take a more or less 'passive' approach to defying the federal government. He could declare openly that Texas and Texans would no longer obey unconstitutional federal laws, or recognize the authority of unelected bureaucrats. He would declare that beginning on a certain date, Texans would stop paying federal taxes, and stop accepting federal handouts. State taxes would be assessed at a much lower rate, to cover reasonable government services, and able-bodied 'wards' of the federal government would begin lining up for subsistence level food and medicine for a finite period of time, before being cut off entirely. They could 'opt out' at any time, and receive a one-way airline ticket instead, to Washington, D.C. Illegal immigrants could apply for visas, or go home. Those with jobs and good citizenship recommendations, would be allowed to stay for a finite amount of time, and then re-apply, if they could do so without an interpreter.

    Done properly, other states would jump on the bandwagon, freeloaders would flock out of the state, and workers would flock in to the state. The National Guard would refuse to turn over armaments, and the federal government would face the decision as to whether to order the military to attack its own 'brothers-in-arms,' knowing that most of that military would oppose the decision.

    It would be tricky, but knowing the low character of the current crop of elected politicians, they might not be able to handle such a large dose of reality. It would be a situation that the media could not spin them out of with lies, and propaganda.

    I'd be there within a week.
    This post has been made with 100% recycled electrons.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,437 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?

    Membership in the Union was supposed to be completely voluntary. And it was until some bunch of northerners forced some states back into the union.

    Yes, the Decleration of Independance was illegal under the law that was current at the time. So was Rosa Parks sitting in the 'wrong part' of the bus. But we changed it because law is through the consent of the governed.

    In other words, we kicked butt to make it legal.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 27,794 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    In Philadelphia, American and British lawyers have debated the legality of America's founding documents.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

    ‘The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?
    Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.
    The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.’

    smiley-flag013.gif


    We would say that, would we not?:tooth:

    A strong possibility within my or my childrens' lifetime, I fear...
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,087 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    A strong possibility within my or my childrens' lifetime, I fear...

    If they did, I'd move there.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,260 Senior Member
    JasonMPD/ robert38-55?

    Did you have difficulty opening the link; did you read what it was about?
    They are not my words, did you see the quote marks?
    It was a debate.
    shush wrote: »
    In Philadelphia, American and British lawyers have debated the legality of America's founding documents.
    bisley wrote: »
    Those with jobs and good citizenship recommendations, would be allowed to stay for a finite amount of time, and then re-apply, if they could do so without an interpreter

    This could trip me up
    Well, yeah it was treason.
    From what I understand about British law at the time, it was/is a textbook act of Treason against the crown.

    It is not Treason when you win!:devil:

    PS
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I have that reputation 'round here.
    Really?

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,157 Senior Member
    Legality is irrelevant in this situation. All laws are contingent upon a legitimate and widely accepted government framework and meaningless outside of that framework. The Declaration of Independence was a document rejecting the legitimacy of the British ruling government and therefore their laws as well.

    From the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
    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.

    This statement wasn't asserting anything new, but simply stating the reality. All governments require the explicit or at least implicit consent of their people to function. If the people deny the government's legitimacy it loses its power. Even in a dictatorship this can occur...just look at Libya and Egypt. In both cases the people decided they weren't going to take it anymore and took down their governments. Of course most governments don't give up without a fight which is why most revolutions are bloody affairs. They are also not always successful, just look at the Civil War which could alternately be called the 2nd Revolution.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,087 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    Really?

    Yes, really. I don't censor myself very much. I'm not "ruled" to hide my opinions.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,260 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Yes, really. I don't censor myself very much.

    That explains it.:up:

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    You have the right to stay in U.K., glad you like it, but the fact is we rejected British rule and if it were around today we would do it again. We can if we are so moved due to circumstances remove the government again no matter where it resides through voting and if not by voting we can by revolt, because 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. You might not have the stomach for such things, but many here do, so you might just want to stay in the U.K. where you feel safe. I have relatives who fought in the Revolution and Civil War and I fought for my country, don't underestimate our resolve and willingness to finally say enough is enough and then do something about it, however we decide to get it done. I know this is a concept that most of Europe does not understand nor do I expect them to understand, thats why those that stayed are not like those that took the risk to start a new life in a new land and were willing to pay the price and a lot of us are their off spring.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    Relax, man. He just posted a quote from a magazine...for our amusement (or his, more likely :tooth:.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Relax, man. He just posted a quote from a magazine...for our amusement (or his, more likely :tooth:.

    Yes, I read it and I will relax :jester:
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,087 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Relax, man. He just posted a quote from a magazine...for our amusement (or his, more likely :tooth:.

    I have to disagree. Don't relax. Objectively state your beliefs about this country as we have done for more than 225 years now. Being passionate about the concepts this country was founded on is nothing to keep quiet.

    Shush sounds like he likes his country and there is nothing wrong with that. Even if they do have more taxes than dogs in that country.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    I'm passionate enough, when I think I'm being attacked. This was not an attack.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,407 Senior Member
    The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable
    That's right, but, we won so it's legal now.
    This message has been deleted
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,087 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    I'm passionate enough, when I think I'm being attacked. This was not an attack.

    I found it ironic that this was still being discussed in England. A periodical contained an article about its debate over the legality of the Declaration of Independance. That is just funny. We don't sit around and lament about English Law. Cuz we won... :tooth:

    Sometimes, I like to think the Queen walks down in to the basement of the palace and grimmaces when she sees the Declaration of Independance giggling at her from the corner.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,260 Senior Member
    beartracker.
    I do not know where all that came from but there you go.:uhm:
    You have the right to stay in U.K.; glad you like it,…………………………................................ are their off spring

    Thank you for that, most kind.

    For the rest of it, well…My father’s generation ‘stayed in the UK’ did not feel very safe but still, stayed from the beginning and saw it through. I am his off spring.
    bisley wrote: »
    Relax, man. He just posted a quote from a magazine...for our amusement (or his, more likely :tooth:.

    You sir restored my faith.:devil:

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,260 Senior Member
    :bang:
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I found it ironic that this was still being discussed in England. A periodical contained an article about its debate over the legality of the Declaration of Independance.

    On Tuesday night, while Republican candidates in Nevada were debating such American issues as nuclear waste disposal and the immigration status of Mitt Romney's gardener, American and British lawyers in Philadelphia were taking on a far more fundamental topic.

    Namely, just what did Thomas Jefferson think he was doing?

    Some background: during the hot and sweltering summer of 1776, members of the second Continental Congress travelled to Philadelphia to discuss their frustration with royal rule.

    By 4 July, America's founding fathers approved a simple document penned by Jefferson that enumerated their grievances and announced themselves a sovereign nation.

    The Declaration of Independence

    Called the Declaration of Independence, it was a blow for freedom, a call to war, and the founding of a new empire.

    It was also totally illegitimate and illegal.

    At least, that was what lawyers from the UK argued during a debate at Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Hall

    Does this help.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Yes, they had to say it was illegal, because it would up end their world at that time and it did just that. It was a blow for freedom, a call to war and it became the unfounding of and empire that needed to be undone, at least in the colonies which it did.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 23,907 Senior Member
    Pretty funny article. Made even funnier by the fact that merry ole England used the colonies here as a dumping ground for all those religious nuts with guns and a mean wide streak of independence and independent thought. Law of unintended consequences reared up and bit them in the seat of their britches. :rotflamo: Turn a bunch like that loose alone on a new continent and they can get right hard to handle after a while. And their kids will be even worse! Make them mad, and they'll show you the door, at bayonet point! :tooth:

    Was it treason? You bet your bippy it was treason! The founders knew it was and discussed it at length. So did the people in taverns and town halls. The argument was status quo or freedom, and freedom won out. Buncha anarchists! :roll: And the Irish settlers; don't forget the Irish!

    Funny that you brought up that debate, Shush. Funny that the spilled milk is still being argued over after all this time. You do bring some of the best stuff to stir the pot. Don't let up! :up: :beer:
    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,226 Senior Member
    It's as legal or illegal as the Magna Carta.

    'nuff said.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.