Is the Constitution subordinate to the

[Tigermike 3,052]

Is the Constitution subordinate to the Declaration of Independence?

It would seem to be the conclusion of our Constitution's author, James Madison, who in a letter to our Declaration's author, Thomas Jefferson, in 1825. Madison, in his own hand, wrote of the supremacy of the Declaration of Independence: "On the distinctive principles of the Government...of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in...The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States."

What are your thoughts?

[LegalEagle 22]

The Constitution is the "bible."

[quietfan 233]

The Declaration is one of the most beautiful documents ever written and a powerful reminder of why the United States threw of the yoke of one government for a better one "deriving [its] just power from the consent of the governed'. But other than perhaps as guide to the thoughts of our founding fathers and their intents in the Constitution, The Declaration has no legal authority. It does not even attempt to be a governing document, just an explanation for why we sought a different government.

The Constitution is the document the states agreed to live under, as ratified by the conventions of nine of them at first, eventually all. The Declaration was never submitted to any state conventions or legislatures for ratification. Similarly, all of the amendments to Constitution have been ratified by 3/5ths of the states. Not so the Declaration. Furthermore, the President takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not the Declaration.

I love the Declaration of Independence, but it is not law at all. Not a single one of its tenets is enforcible in court, although the spirit and principles of the Declaration are preserved and expanded by the Constitution, which IS enforcible in court.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The Dec of Independence is outside the realm of our Gov't. It has no legal standing. It breaks the ties that bind us w/ England.

[Captain Liger 0]

I love the Declaration of Independence, but it is not law at all.

220989[/snapback]

True, but it sure is one hell of an inspirational document. So inspirational in fact that...

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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

it served to fuel the South's secession from the Union which is found nowhere in the Constitution to be illegal. I'm not advocating secession, just making an observation as to the importance and relevance of the Declaration. Don't underestimate it.

[Tigermike 3,052]

Well Liger, since you brought up the South's secession, I will give you guys something further to discuss.

Originally the Constitutional Union was a voluntary agreement among the several states. The Founding Fathers established the Constitutional Union as a voluntary agreement among the several states, subordinate to The Declaration of Independence which never mentions the nation as a singular entity, but instead repeatedly references the states as sovereign bodies, unanimously asserting their independence. The Civil war preserved The Union (thank God) geographically, but the concept of a voluntary union was destroyed. Consequently the powers of the federal government were extended beyond the constitutional intentions of our founders.

link

The first of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was the preservation of the Union. It is, we believe, a blessing that we are still the USA, one nation united, though it has been argued eloquently that Southern states would likely have reunited with Northern states before the end of the 19th century, had Lincoln allowed for a peaceful and constitutionally accorded secession. Furthermore, under this reunification model, the constitutional order of the republic would have remained largely intact.

The Constitutional Union was a voluntary agreement among the several states.

The Founding Fathers established the Constitutional Union as a voluntary agreement among the several states, subordinate to The Declaration of Independence, which never mentions the nation as a singular entity, but instead repeatedly references the states as sovereign bodies, unanimously asserting their independence.

The states, in ratifying the Constitution, established the federal government as their agent-not the other way around. At Virginia's ratification convention, for example, the delegates affirmed "that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression." Were this not true, the federal government would not have been established as federal, but instead a national, unitary and unlimited authority. Notably, and in large measure as a consequence of the War between the States, the "federal" government has grown to become an all-but unitary and unlimited authority.

Our Founders upheld the individual sovereignty of the states, even though the wisdom of secessionist movements was a source of great tension and debate from the day the Constitution was ratified. Tellingly, Hamilton, the greatest proponent of centralization among the Founders, noted in Federalist No. 81 that waging war against the states "would be altogether forced and unwarranted." At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton argued, "Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?"

Yet Lincoln threatened the use of force to maintain the Union in his First Inaugural Address, saying, "In [preserving the Union] there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority."

The Union was preserved geographically, but the concept of a voluntary union was destroyed.

Lincoln may have preserved the Union geographically (at great cost to the Constitution), but politically and philosophically, the concept of a voluntary union was shredded by sword, rifle and cannon.

In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln employed lofty rhetoric to conceal the truth of our nation's most costly war-a war that resulted in the deaths of some 600,000 Americans and the severe disabling of over 400,000 more. He claimed to be fighting so that "this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." In fact, Lincoln was ensuring just the opposite by waging an appallingly bloody war while ignoring calls for negotiated peace. It was the "rebels" who were intent on self-government, and it was Lincoln who rejected their right to that end, despite our Founders' clear admonition to the contrary in the Declaration.

Moreover, had Lincoln's actions been subjected to the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention (the first being codified in 1864), he and his principal military commanders, Gen. William T. Sherman heading the list, would have been tried for war crimes. This included waging "total war" against not just combatants, but the entire civilian population. It is estimated that Sherman's march to the sea was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. (Continuing their legacy, after the war, Sherman and Gen. Philip Sheridan waged unprecedented genocide against Native Americans.)

"Reconstruction" followed the war, and with it an additional period of Southern probation, plunder and misery, leading General Robert E. Lee to conclude, "If I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand."

No other nation at the time required war to end slavery.

The second of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was ending the abomination of slavery. It has come to be understood that this calamitous war was the necessary cost of ridding our nation of slavery, yet no other nation at the time required war to do so. In fact, the cost of the war itself would have more than paid for compensatory emancipation, giving each slave 40 acres and a mule-all without bloodshed.

However, Lincoln's own words undermine his hallowed status as the Great Emancipator. For example, in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Originally, of course, the War between the States was not predicated on freeing slaves, but preserving the Union-or, as the South saw it, preserving the sovereignty of the several states.

States' rights are most aptly understood through the words and actions of Gen. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined Lincoln's request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: "I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state...I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword." He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: "Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender."

As for delivering slaves from bondage, it was two years after the commencement of hostilities that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation-to protests from free laborers in the North, who didn't want emancipated slaves migrating north and competing for their jobs.

In truth, not a single slave was emancipated by the stroke of Lincoln's pen.

In truth, not a single slave was emancipated by the stroke of Lincoln's pen. Slaves were "freed" in Confederate states, excluding the territory occupied by the federal army. Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware and Maryland were also left in bondage. With his Proclamation, Lincoln succeeded in politicizing the issue and short-circuiting the moral solution to slavery, thus leaving the scourge of racial inequality to fester to this day-in every state of the Union. In fact, there is evidence now of more ethnic tension in Boston than in Birmingham, in Los Angeles than in Atlanta and in Chicago than in Charleston.

Little reported and lightly regarded in our history books is the way Lincoln abused and discarded the individual rights of Northern citizens. Tens of thousands of citizens were imprisoned (most without trial) for political opposition, or "treason," and their property confiscated. Habeas corpus and, in effect, the entire Bill of Rights were suspended.

In fact, the Declaration of Independence details remarkably similar abuses by King George to those committed by Lincoln: the "Military [became] independent of and superior to the Civil power"; he imposed taxes without consent; citizens were deprived "in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"; state legislatures were suspended in order to prevent more secessions; he "plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people...scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

Chief among the spoils of victory is the privilege of writing the history. Thus, the Lincoln most Americans know is the one who preserved the Union, freed the slaves and founded the Republican Party. A more thorough and dispassionate reading of history, however, reveals that these were silver linings within a dark cloud of constitutional abuse.

The War between the States concluded in 1865, the battle for states' rights-the struggle to restore constitutional federalism-remains spirited.