Declaration of Independence - How Is It Not Law?

[marukka]

I have often been told by people that the Declaration of Independence is not law, except for use as a point to determine when we legally separated from England, but i've never received a satisfactory explanation as to how it is not, and was hoping someone here could explain why.

My belief that the DoI may be law rests in the fact in its inclusion in the US Code under Organic Law. This belief is furthered by 1 USC 204(a) states

The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States...

My reading of that gives the impression that any text included in the USC is prima facie law.

The only explanation i've received stating that the DoI is not law would be Cotting v. Godard from 1901. But because the USC wasn't completed until 1926, Cotting v. Godard isnt necessarily applicable anymore if 1 USC 204(a) did make the DoI law simply by inclusion in the USC.


And to address why is this in this part of the forum? Because I couldn't find a better place, and the DoI acknowledges the right to rebellion. If you think there is a better place to ask this question, please let me know.

 

[Proserpina]

A better place might be a law library, or..well, you can find a whole buncha stuff online.

 

[LdiJ]

I have often been told by people that the Declaration of Independence is not law, except for use as a point to determine when we legally separated from England, but i've never received a satisfactory explanation as to how it is not, and was hoping someone here could explain why.

My belief that the DoI may be law rests in the fact in its inclusion in the US Code under Organic Law. This belief is furthered by 1 USC 204(a) states



My reading of that gives the impression that any text included in the USC is prima facie law.

The only explanation i've received stating that the DoI is not law would be Cotting v. Godard from 1901. But because the USC wasn't completed until 1926, Cotting v. Godard isnt necessarily applicable anymore if 1 USC 204(a) did make the DoI law simply by inclusion in the USC.


And to address why is this in this part of the forum? Because I couldn't find a better place, and the DoI acknowledges the right to rebellion. If you think there is a better place to ask this question, please let me know.

The Declaration of Independence is a document that declared our intent to separate from England, and outlined our reasons why. The US Constitution, and the US Code which are constantly evolving documents, outline the laws that we, as a nation, put together after we declared independence.

Therefore, if you are looking to determine an individual's rights, you need to look at the US Constitution and its amendments...particularly the Bill of Rights, which is the first 10 amendments to the constitution...not to the Declaration of Independence.

 

[FlyingRon]

As Ldij says, the Declaration of Independence is pretty much explicitly what the title says it is. A declaration. It describes the grievances that forced the colonies to sever their ties to Britain. It does not do anything to establish a government. It, in fact, pretty much indicates that the colonies though united in their common cause, are individually independent both from the crown and each other.

About the closest it comes to "law" is by defining some rights that are inherent in all men. These aren't in fact original thoughts. The famous "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness" was cribbed from John Locke by way of Voltaire.

It was superseded by the Articles of Confederation and then later the Constitution.

 

[tranquility]

The Declaration of Independence was not the law, it was a crime.

 

[marukka]

As Ldij says, the Declaration of Independence is pretty much explicitly what the title says it is. A declaration.... About the closest it comes to "law" is by defining some rights that are inherent in all men... The famous "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness" was cribbed from John Locke by way of Voltaire. It was superseded by the Articles of Confederation and then later the Constitution.

I am aware that at the time of its inception this was the case, I am aware that at the time it was signed it was not law, but I think you might be misreading my argument. My argument was that today, 1 USC 240(a) makes it prima facie law by inclusion in the USC.

 

[TheGeekess]

I am aware that at the time of its inception this was the case, but I think you might be misreading my argument. I am aware that at the time it was signed it was not law. My argument was that today, 1 USC 240(a) makes it prima facie law by inclusion in the USC.

Well, do continue on with your homework.

 

[Zigner]

I am aware that at the time of its inception this was the case, I am aware that at the time it was signed it was not law, but I think you might be misreading my argument. My argument was that today, 1 USC 240(a) makes it prima facie law by inclusion in the USC.

Let's assume it is "law". What does it matter? What, specifically, do you feel has force of law in the document? What, specifically, does it regulate?

 

[marukka]

Let's assume it is "law". What does it matter?

Well that would be off topic, irrelevant to this thread and be something deserving of its own thread.

 

[Zigner]

Well that would be off topic, irrelevant to this thread and be something deserving of its own thread.

Actually, it's entirely ON topic. The POINT is that your question is moot. As such, this is not the appropriate forum for it.

Now, did you have an actual legal question relating to a matter you are dealing with?

 

[LdiJ]

Well that would be off topic, irrelevant to this thread and be something deserving of its own thread.

Its actually not irrelevant at all.

However, as I said down the street. Lets pretend for a minute that it is/was law.

If so, it would have been replaced by the Articles of Confederation which were then later replaced by the US Constitution and its amendments.

Your intend and how to use it really do matter.

 

[Isis1]

Well that would be off topic, irrelevant to this thread and be something deserving of its own thread.

it's s not off topic. it's actually the point. it's called thinking out of the box. what would the DECLARATION be enforcing if it were law?


is it exam time? it can't be. or is this a first day of a college course question to see if you can cut it?

 

[marukka]

Lets pretend for a minute that it is/was law.

If so, it would have been replaced by the Articles of Confederation which were then later replaced by the US Constitution and its amendments.

I'm not sure you've read all of my posts in this thread. I stated congress made it prima facie law a long time after the Articles of Confederation or US Constitution with 1 USC 240(a).

 

[LdiJ]

I am aware that at the time of its inception this was the case, I am aware that at the time it was signed it was not law, but I think you might be misreading my argument. My argument was that today, 1 USC 240(a) makes it prima facie law by inclusion in the USC.

I think that you are citing the code incorrectly because I am not finding the code you cited. All US codes state with Title something, Chapter something. There seems to be something missing. Title one has no chapter 240.

Also, having something mentioned within the code does not necessarily mean it would be law. One would have to be able to read the exact code you are citing in order to know what you are talking about.

 

[marukka]

I think that you are citing the code incorrectly because I am not finding the code you cited. All US codes state with Title something, Chapter something. There seems to be something missing. Title one has no chapter 240.

Also, having something mentioned within the code does not necessarily mean it would be law. One would have to be able to read the exact code you are citing in order to know what you are talking about.

You would be correct, although I had it correctly stated in my original post, I got the numbers mixed up part way through this thread. It should be chapter 204 not 240. My mistake.