4 ms·
While I agree with your point, I need to point out that the Declaration of Independence generally isn't used in case law.
by murph-almighty 7y ago
While I agree with your point, I need to point out that the Declaration of Independence generally isn't used in case law.
- naasking 7y agoIt seems like it would provide quite a bit of relevant background to originalist interpretations of the constitution, and those are fairly common.
- iudqnolq 7y agoOriginalism as a legal doctrine means looking at the original meaning of words in the Constitution. It explicitly rejects as too wishy-washy trying to figure out the intent behind laws from other writings and using that to decide what they mean. > Some people would give the Declaration greater weight, as a reflection of values that inspired the Constitution, and thus of values that we should read into the Constitution even if they are not expressly there in the Constitution's text. But I am skeptical. The two documents are very different. The Declaration is fundamentally a rhetorical document, meant to persuade the world -- and more immediately and significantly, to persuade wavering Americans -- that the revolutionaries' cause was just. The Constitution is fundamentally a legal document, meant to spell out a form of government to which Americans would be bound, and by which that government would be bound. Perhaps the Constitution implemented the rhetorical ideals of the Declaration, but perhaps it didn't (and perhaps it was the worse for that). The way to see if the Constitution implemented the ideals of the Declaration is to look at the Constitution's text, not to assume that it did. https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2016/07/what-is-the-relevance-of-the-declaration-of-independence-for-interpreting-the-constitutionmichael-ra.html https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/201... (Note: Blog by UC San Diego prof.)