> 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.
The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. When any governing entity no longer respects those rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again.
The current government of the USA, at the urging of a self-selected elite among its supporting citizens, believes those inalienable human rights only apply to a select few. These are the conditions outlined in the Declaration of Independence as reason to overthrow the current regime.
There is well-documented historical precedence. Tread lightly.
> The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all.
I agree with you, but when those words were written, slavery was still one of the cornerstones of the American economy and women didn't have the right to vote.
Should the protections afforded by the constitution apply to all people? Of course. But legally, the US has a longstanding tradition of denying certain rights to certain people.
Slavery and suffrage were eventually fixed. perhaps it's revisionist, but I'm told most founders wanted it one way, and wrote non binding language such as this, while punting legal battles to actually implement these principles in favor of diplomacy.
Originalism as a legal doctrine means looking at the original meaning of words in the Constitution. It explicitly rejects as too wishy-washy trying to figure out the intent behind laws from other writings and using that to decide what they mean.
> Some people would give the Declaration greater weight, as a reflection of values that inspired the Constitution, and thus of values that we should read into the Constitution even if they are not expressly there in the Constitution's text. But I am skeptical. The two documents are very different. The Declaration is fundamentally a rhetorical document, meant to persuade the world -- and more immediately and significantly, to persuade wavering Americans -- that the revolutionaries' cause was just. The Constitution is fundamentally a legal document, meant to spell out a form of government to which Americans would be bound, and by which that government would be bound. Perhaps the Constitution implemented the rhetorical ideals of the Declaration, but perhaps it didn't (and perhaps it was the worse for that). The way to see if the Constitution implemented the ideals of the Declaration is to look at the Constitution's text, not to assume that it did.
> When any governing entity no longer respects those rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again.
Interesting that you read it that way. I read it as when YOUR governing entity no longer respects YOUR rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again.
Yeah, everyone has the rights, but not everybody has the same government. The People are not random people, they are citizens.
That document declared "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"... which part of that says only some men are created equal, or only citizens were endowed by their Creator, or that maybe some Rights are inalienable?
I see no room in the wording of the founding statement of the USA to read into it that it's OK for an administration to treat some people like shit as long as it's only certain groups. I only get the sentiment that if the administration treats anyone wrong (for a strictly definition of wrong), it's time for them to go.
As soon as it becomes OK to discriminate between those with inalienable rights and those without based on privileges like "citizenship" then it becomes easy to redefine or revoke such privileges at will. There is plenty of historic precedence for just that. The only legitimate reading of 'all' is all, not some or a few or all citizens.
No, everyone has the rights. The point isn't that only citizens do, the point is that only citizens get to say how their government functions. If you're a citizen of another country, you get to say how THAT country is governed, but not mine.
The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. When any governing entity no longer respects those rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again.
The current government of the USA, at the urging of a self-selected elite among its supporting citizens, believes those inalienable human rights only apply to a select few. These are the conditions outlined in the Declaration of Independence as reason to overthrow the current regime.
There is well-documented historical precedence. Tread lightly.