5 ms·

You know what's interesting about the Declaration of Independence? It's superseded by The Constitution, the actual foundation for all American laws. It's a ni

by RC_ITR 3y ago

You know what's interesting about the Declaration of Independence? It's superseded by The Constitution, the actual foundation for all American laws. It's a nice thing Americans are proud of, but for example, The Supreme Court can't cite in a ruling, unless it's also in-line with The Constitution.

tombert 3y ago
That's why I specifically mentioned it's not binding, and I agree that if it were directly cited as a source in a court case, that would probably be bad. That said, I think it's perfectly useful to demonstrate the possible intent of the founders. Even if you can't directly cite a law out of it, it can still be useful as a tool to figure out what the founders were going for.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  The US was pretty clear in the Constitution that non citizens are not entitled to those rights. The same people also wrote the Constitution.
- qmarchi 3y ago
  To note, it's actually used several times in the past in order to clarify components of the Constitution and other laws. Disclaimer: Not a legal expert. Ex: Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976) The Plaintiffs argued that they were denied Social Security benefits because they were "illegitimate" children of their father even though the plaintiffs were able to prove that they were related. The court held that among other reasons, because as defined in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", that there was no differentiation between a "legitimate" child and an "illegitimate" child in the eyes of the government. There's a few other cases, but that's one that I've studied the most.
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    Yes, but as you rightly point out, it's used to decide what the founders were going for specifically as it relates to interpretations of The Constitution. The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity” There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  Yes, but what the founders were going for specifically as it relates to interpretations of The Constitution The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity” There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”
amalcon 3y ago
> unless it's also in-line with The Constitution. The Supreme Court is itself the sole arbiter of this exception, so in practice they can cite it whenever they want to. The Federalist Papers are cited in a number of supreme court rulings. While one could argue that they are equally relevant to the Declaration, it would be hard to argue that they are less relevant.

by RC_ITR 3y ago

tombert 3y ago

That's why I specifically mentioned it's not binding, and I agree that if it were directly cited as a source in a court case, that would probably be bad. That said, I think it's perfectly useful to demonstrate the possible intent of the founders. Even if you can't directly cite a law out of it, it can still be useful as a tool to figure out what the founders were going for.

bobthepanda 3y ago
The US was pretty clear in the Constitution that non citizens are not entitled to those rights. The same people also wrote the Constitution.
qmarchi 3y ago
To note, it's actually used several times in the past in order to clarify components of the Constitution and other laws. Disclaimer: Not a legal expert. Ex: Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976) The Plaintiffs argued that they were denied Social Security benefits because they were "illegitimate" children of their father even though the plaintiffs were able to prove that they were related. The court held that among other reasons, because as defined in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", that there was no differentiation between a "legitimate" child and an "illegitimate" child in the eyes of the government. There's a few other cases, but that's one that I've studied the most.
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  Yes, but as you rightly point out, it's used to decide what the founders were going for specifically as it relates to interpretations of The Constitution. The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity” There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”
RC_ITR 3y ago
Yes, but what the founders were going for specifically as it relates to interpretations of The Constitution The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity” There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”

amalcon 3y ago

> unless it's also in-line with The Constitution. The Supreme Court is itself the sole arbiter of this exception, so in practice they can cite it whenever they want to. The Federalist Papers are cited in a number of supreme court rulings. While one could argue that they are equally relevant to the Declaration, it would be hard to argue that they are less relevant.