Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?

[Giant Saguaro]

"...and to assume among the powers of the earth the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"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..."

I'd point out that our President has echoed the above when he's stated he believes that freedom is God's gift to mankind.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."

Okay, we're up to three references to God in the Declaration; I could go on, but I won't. So tell me that Congress shall not make a law respecting religion when this nation was begun on faith in God. But I guess the document which declared our freedom is still in violation of the Constitution according to the hardline interpretation.

What the first amendment was intended to do was ensure that the US Government would not establish a state religion (and force people to adhere to it - the Pledge of Allegiance hardly qualifies), and it hasn't. If they want to throw out the Pledge for having under God in it, they may as well throw out the Declaration while they're at it too. I'm sure the 9th Circuit Court could find someone it offends.

[Lunar]

I don't think Congress supervised the Declaration of Independence though.  It was done before the Constitution and since it was talking about natural rights from the 1700s perspective it made sense to talk about God making us all equal.

Personally I don't care about the writings on the dollar bill or the words in the pledge.

[TexasGurl]

i have no problem with god being on money or buildings but i have a huge problem with anyone being forced to take oaths or pledges to a god.

[Lunar]

i have no problem with god being on money or buildings but i have a huge problem with anyone being forced to take oaths or pledges to a god.

Luckily no one is I believe.

Even in court there is an alternative to swearing to God if you're dumb enough to take it and potentially seperate yourself from the jury.

[Giant Saguaro]

i have no problem with god being on money or buildings but i have a huge problem with anyone being forced to take oaths or pledges to a god.

I definitely agree.

[KEmperor]

Um....in case you were unaware, the Declaration of Independence was written before the Constitution and is not a legally binding document.

[angus]

exactly.  and whereas the constitution was written by "patriots" and "founding fathers" the declaration of independence was written by rebels and troublemakers.

[angus]

of course they were pretty much the same crowd.  what a difference twelve years makes.  history is written by the winners.  

[migrendel]

Just a perfunctory glimpse at history will reveal the fact that the Declaration and the Constitution were written under two divergent legal standards. What kind of question is this?

[Giant Saguaro]

Just a perfunctory glimpse at history will reveal the fact that the Declaration and the Constitution were written under two divergent legal standards. What kind of question is this?

I don't care. Point is that the Pledge, as it stands now before under God is taken out, is not in violation of the first amendment because it's not a law respecting or establishing a state religion. The word God meant many things to our founding fathers and I suspect means many things to us today. It doesn't say "one nation under Jesus Christ," or etc. One also has the option of skipping the words and I'd also point out that in the Pledge, one is not swearing allegiance to God or a god, so it's not in violation of the first amendment. Other than spout the usual jargon about how we'd all be better off we saw the world through your enlightened lenses, you have failed to argue otherwise.

What I'd say is what about everyone else's rights? Ever hear that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? The US Congress voted a decisive vote of support for the Pledge as it is now and the vast majority wants under God to remain in the Pledge, so if somebody is offended, tough.

[KEmperor]

Just a perfunctory glimpse at history will reveal the fact that the Declaration and the Constitution were written under two divergent legal standards. What kind of question is this?

I don't care. Ever hear that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

See, now this is EXACTLY why we have a Constitution designed to limit the power of government.  It is supposed to be a higher law, not subject to the will of the majority.  No law should be passed that serve the needs of the majority at the expense of the rights of a minority.

[Giant Saguaro]

Just a perfunctory glimpse at history will reveal the fact that the Declaration and the Constitution were written under two divergent legal standards. What kind of question is this?

I don't care. Ever hear that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

See, now this is EXACTLY why we have a Constitution designed to limit the power of government.  It is supposed to be a higher law, not subject to the will of the majority.  No law should be passed that serve the needs of the majority at the expense of the rights of a minority.

You stripped it of its context. We're not talking about sending people back into slavery, we're talking about one guy who's got issues with his wife and making a national issue of it and dividing the country is how he deals with it. Please.

[Gustaf]

Just a perfunctory glimpse at history will reveal the fact that the Declaration and the Constitution were written under two divergent legal standards. What kind of question is this?

I don't care. Ever hear that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

See, now this is EXACTLY why we have a Constitution designed to limit the power of government.  It is supposed to be a higher law, not subject to the will of the majority.  No law should be passed that serve the needs of the majority at the expense of the rights of a minority.

You stripped it of its context. We're not talking about sending people back into slavery, we're talking about one guy who's got issues with his wife and making a national issue of it and dividing the country is how he deals with it. Please.

I agree with Kemperor. The whole purpose of a constitution is tp prevent majority tyranny.

[migrendel]

Let me remind you that it doesn't say an establishment of a religion, it says an establishment of religion. The text would seem to indicate that establishing religion in any of its manifestations is unconstitutional, but conservatives draw an inference that only sectarian religious actions, indeed only establishing a national church is unconstitutional. The Constitution has never been interpreted that way, and it would be ridiculous to start down a truly problematic road at this point.

[classical liberal]

Wow, a Strict Constructionist Liberal.

[migrendel]

If you go back to my legal writings, you will see that all of my jurisprudential positions are based upon the text of the Constitution. None of them are based upon the penumbrae which are so in vogue. I just happen to be a textualist who reaches liberal results.