RoR: Forum

Post 0

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 6:59am

Link

Edit

The links don't work making the article inaccessible.

Post 1

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 7:43am

Link

Edit

Thanks, Rick - was wondering if was just my pc.........

Maybe that's what 'unalienable' means?

(Edited by robert malcom on 1/13, 7:44am)

Post 2

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 7:51am

Link

Edit

Rick is correct. I'll tell Dean or Joe

Post 3

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 11:13am

Link

Edit

Be it as it may, Tibor - the Declaration, sadly is just a document - it has no force of law.

Post 4

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 1:16pm

Link

Edit

I am not sure if being a "mere" declaration rather than a constitution deprives the former of significance and influence. Considering that the latter is hardly adhered to and has been wildly altered over the last 200 years, the difference seems hardly that significant. And the declaration is, after all, widely celebrated!

Post 5

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 4:12pm

Link

Edit

The Declaration was a declaration of independence from government. The Constitution created a government. Two diametrically opposite actions.

BTW, only around 10% of the members of either of those committees was also a member of the other. The two documents were created by very different groups of men.

Post 6

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 4:37pm

Link

Edit

I am told, "The Declaration was a declaration of independence from government. The Constitution created a government. Two diametrically opposite actions." Well, not entirely (though I am not sure what that has to do with my essay on what "unalienable" means.). Anyway, the framers of the US Constitution instituted a government roughly in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, namely, "to secure [our] rights." Strong piece of evidence is the eventual inclusion of a Bill of Rights. The Declaration sketched the theory of government the US Constitution was supposed to instantiate--one limited to the protection of individual rights. Though not fully carried out for a variety of reasons, that's still a mighty good idea. None better has come around in the meantime, although some improvements on the original have been suggested by a few folks.

Post 7

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 9:25pm

Link

Edit

Wasn't trying to disparage the Declaration, but to note the Constitution has force of law, whereas the Declaration is only a 'moral' document, without any legality to it...

Post 8

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 11:24pm

Link

Edit

Robert, isn't the DOI used as argument (of intent) in legal cases just as the preamble to the constitution is?

Tibor: "unalienable" smacks too much of the absolute for modern academics to tolerate, methinks.

Further, "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"

That's a call to revolution--armed revolution! That brings the Second Amendment into the discussion and oh! dear, we certainly can't discuss *that* in a nice, consensus-driven public school, can we?

Lip-service is paid to the vague generality of a long forgotten revolution. God help us if we should actually take history seriously. And God help us if we should realise that the factors that obtained 230 years ago do so now and that we are in need of a remedy just as much as we were then.

Post 9

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 5:51am

Link

Edit

It would be valuable to unpack "force of law," especially in a libertarian context. Like, a contract has but a promise lacks "the force of law." I would hazard to guess that claiming something has the force of law means that the use of force to make sure it happens is justified. But that, of course, begs for a consideration of what amounts to a justification. Among libertarians some seem to hold that it is very troublesome to justify any use of force other than in a situation calling for immediate self-defense (and the late Robert LeFevre disputed even that). Thus they would probably argue, with Lysander Spooner, that no such document as a constitution can authorize the use of force to implement its provisions other than on those who explicitly agreed to be guided by it. (What if they change their minds at some point after they have agreed?) Randy Barnett wrote Restoring the Lost Constitution (Princeton UP, 2004) in part to respond to Spooner. Very briefly, the response is that if a constitution authorizes only defensive force--protecting our rights and whatever else that implies--then Spooner's complaint lacks punch.

Post 10

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 11:26am

Link

Edit

I liked this line especially ...

“Unalienable” means, however, that one’s rights to life, liberty, property and whatever else qualifies as a basic right may never be violated—by no one at all, certainly not by one’s government, not even if it has full democratic support.

Post 11

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 8:21am

Link

Edit

Actually, the Bill of Rights is strong evidence that the Constitution was not written in accordance with the ideas of the Declaration. The creators of the Constitution strongly resisted the inclusion of a BOR and only reluctantly accepted it because they knew they couldn't get the Constitution ratified without it. Even so, the first Congress barely managed to get the BOR submitted to the States.

It is a myth that the Constitution implemented the Declaration of Independence, a myth encouraged by the supporters of a strong central government.

For example, how many people realize that Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, had nothing to do with the Constitution? In fact, he was was "conveniently" in Paris when it was written and opposed its adoption on his return.

Post 12

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 8:22am

Link

Edit

What is meant by saying that the DOI does not have the force of law is that no judge will allow it to be cited as an argument.

Post 13

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 8:29am

Link

Edit

"Unalienable" does not mean that the right cannot be violated. Such rights are violated all the time. What it means is that it is always wrong to violate such rights, and necessarily so.

Remember, Rand defined rights as moral principles. Principles can be violated and ignored but they do not cease to exist because of what anyone says or does. It is for this reason that rights are unalienable. That is what unalienable means.

Post 14

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 8:56am

Link

Edit

Thank you Rick - I guess I presume too much of others having such understanding.

Post 15

Friday, November 2, 2007 - 1:28pm

Link

Edit

Relevant.