other doctrines?

besides the u.s constitution, what other documents or doctrines can be used to create, change or abolish u.s laws(e.g the declaration of independence- maybe common sense?)? if the u.s constitution was based on the grievances outlined in the declaration of independence, then the declaration of independence must be one of them, correct?

Is this homework? The law is created only through the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the creation of law. It mostly outlines the grievances with England that led to the revolution although there are a few passages where Jefferson states what are believed to be rights of man that were being infringed upon.

Other cultural political documents that shaped the nation (and perhaps more relevantly) are things like the Federalist Papers (written after the Constitution in support of it) by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. Other documents include Thomas Payne's common sense (probably even more widely distributed than the Declaration itself at the time) as well as his book "Rights of Man."

There were other shorter works by Franklin, Adams, Washington, etc..

Breyer and Ginsburg would use the laws of other countries too. They aren't binding, but instructive.

Correct. Much of what is in the Declaration was lifted from people like Voltaire.
Similarly many of the Constitutional principles have their roots in earlier English legal reforms.

heck, you could go back to the basis of common law sketched out in the Magna Carta if you want to.

However, the laws of the US are subject ONLY to the Constitution....State Constitutions derive their powers from the US Constitution, municipalities derive their powers from the state constitutions, etc.

There is a fair amount of validity, however, to the premise that most law that governs a citizen day to day is not law but regulation. Regulations, of course, are not laws but, instead, rules laid down by Constitutionally recognized agencies.

cyjeff said:

heck, you could go back to the basis of common law sketched out in the Magna Carta if you want to.

Click to expand...

That was one of the earlier English reforms I was talking about. The Bill of Rights was hardly an original concept either.

However, the laws of the US are subject ONLY to the Constitution....State Constitutions derive their powers from the US Constitution, municipalities derive their powers from the state constitutions, etc.

Click to expand...

Two (I suspect four but Kagan and Sotomayer have not claimed it yet.) Supreme Court justices disagree. You see, it's a LIVING constitution. (Although Scalia, Thomas and Alito would agree. Roberts and Kennedy are harder to read.)

tranquility said:

Two (I suspect four but Kagan and Sotomayer have not claimed it yet.) Supreme Court justices disagree. You see, it's a LIVING constitution. (Although Scalia, Thomas and Alito would agree. Roberts and Kennedy are harder to read.)

Click to expand...

Eh? It's the Constitution that gives the court the power to "interpret" the enacted laws.

With all due respect, the Magna Carta is not exactly the "early" laws the modern judicial system was born from

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html

I saw a schoolhouse rock on that once. Funny how reality isn't quite the same as they taught us in civics class. Darn those pesky penumbras.

so there's nothing in the constitution that guarantees protection to the actual lives of those that have committed no crime- even though it literally says in the declaration of independence, one of the primary documents of which the constitution was based on- that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is what we represent, yet you cannot have liberty and pursuit of happiness w/o life itself. so basically, if I'm understanding correctly, because our founders didn't state the obvious in the constitution, from what was derived from the outline of grievances- grievances which brought forth the constitution-that its to late to use its wording, isn't it all connected? reason and result. can the supreme court at least use it to justify new amendments?

questar said:

so there's nothing in the constitution that guarantees protection to the actual lives of those that have committed no crime- even though it literally says in the declaration of independence, one of the primary documents of which the constitution was based on- that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is what we represent, yet you cannot have liberty and pursuit of happiness w/o life itself. so basically, if I'm understanding correctly, because our founders didn't state the obvious in the constitution, from what was derived from the outline of grievances- grievances which brought forth the constitution-that its to late to use its wording, isn't it all connected? reason and result. can the supreme court at least use it to justify new amendments?

Click to expand...

The above makes no sense at all.
If you have a specific legal situation, perhaps you'd like to ask questions about it.

As those in the Big Nuns with Big Guns copyright thread(s) can attest to, the pursuit of happiness is not always legal, let alone Constitutional.

You Are Guilty said:

With all due respect, the Magna Carta is not exactly the "early" laws the modern judicial system was born from

Hammurabi

Click to expand...

We should scrap what we have and just go back? lol

The supreme court has nothing to do with amending the constitution. That would be done by congress and the states. If the constitution WERE amended, then the supreme court would have to change its interpretations based on the new amendment.