Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

[scandal 951]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

By Matt Danzico and Kate Dailey BBC News Magazine

In Philadelphia, American and British lawyers have debated the legality of America's founding documents.

On Tuesday night, while Republican candidates in Nevada were debating such American issues as nuclear waste disposal and the immigration status of Mitt Romney's gardener, American and British lawyers in Philadelphia were taking on a far more fundamental topic.

Namely, just what did Thomas Jefferson think he was doing?

Some background: during the hot and sweltering summer of 1776, members of the second Continental Congress travelled to Philadelphia to discuss their frustration with royal rule.

By 4 July, America's founding fathers approved a simple document penned by Jefferson that enumerated their grievances and announced themselves a sovereign nation.

The Declaration of Independence

Called the Declaration of Independence, it was a blow for freedom, a call to war, and the founding of a new empire.

It was also totally illegitimate and illegal.

At least, that was what lawyers from the UK argued during a debate at Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Hall.

American experiment

The event, presented by the Temple American Inn of Court in conjunction with Gray's Inn, London, pitted British barristers against American lawyers to determine whether or not the American colonists had legal grounds to declare secession.

For American lawyers, the answer is simple: "The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified," they say in their summary.

To the British, however, secession isn't the legal or proper tool by which to settle internal disputes. "What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union? Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right," they argue in their brief.

A vote at the end of the debate reaffirmed the legality of Jefferson and company's insurrection, and the American experiment survived to see another day.

It was an unsurprising result, considering the venue - just a few blocks away from where the Declaration was drafted. But did they get it right? Below are some more of the arguments from both sides.

The American case for the Declaration

The Declaration is unquestionably "legal". Under basic principles of "Natural Law", government can only be by the consent of the people and there comes a point when allegiance is no longer required in face of tyranny.

The legality of the Declaration and its validity is proven by subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just, based on the fundamental principles of equality and self-determination now reflected in the UN Charter.

The British case against it

The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?

Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.

The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

As answer: Given that Americans were already in a state of rebellion as of 1775/12/31, it's unlikely they expected that Britain would take that Declaration as binding/legal. In 1781, Britain had no choice but to accept it as fact--after their top general, Cornwallis, got clobbered at Yorktown. Britain (which still had delusional George III on throne) DID try reversing it 1812-1814 in retaliation for tiny President Madison's failed attempt to evict them from the REST of North America--and got a SECOND clobbering at Baltimore, which sealed the issue forever.

Anyway, the US saved Britain's butt twice (1918 and 1945) in 20^TH century--demolishing any locus-standi it imagined having about the Declaration's legality!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A few members here could use some understanding of "Natural Law" when it comes to immigration. To them, written law reigns supreme, regardless of the consequences. Asinine.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

A few members here could use some understanding of "Natural Law" when it comes to immigration. To them, written law reigns supreme, regardless of the consequences. Asinine.

"Natural Law" to most is non-existent.

People live their lives on stupid things like the Geneva convention. Which at the end of the day totally ignores what War truly is.

Granted if we lived by Natural law, we'd have anarchy and live in countries where militants ruled.

Of course in this country today, we have our moral laws that seed to drive us in a certain direction, but those laws have proven to be cruel in their own ways.

The truth is, at the end of the day, natural law wins. The question becomes whether or not you are going to let man-made laws control the way you act, or if you are going to of your own free will.

That's why when Steven mentions immigration, "natural law" would allow armed men on the border permanently stopping anyone who dares to try and cross the border.

[slim 1,530]

Of course it was illegal - that's why they fought a war to make it legal.

If Texas wanted to secede today, all they'd have to do is wallop the US in a war and then the US would have to recognize whatever documents Texas presented.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

War is always a conflict. One nations says this and the other nation says something else. So an armed conflict begins and the winner of such conflict then says who was "right" and history is written accordingly.

The U.S. armed Saddam with weapons of mass destruction in order to keep Iran at pace. That was super profitable business for the U.S. corporations who own the war machine and the politicians. Once they felt that Saddam has served his purpose, yet the weapons of mass destruction were already gone (as confirmed by U.N. weapons inspectors), the U.S. declared war on Saddam based on him having weapons of mass destruction. That again was a very profitable business for the U.S corporations who own the war machine and the politicians.

Attempting to bring legality into this seems to be ludicrous.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Brother Hesekiel

[scandal 951]

As answer: Given that Americans were already in a state of rebellion as of 1775/12/31, it's unlikely they expected that Britain would take that Declaration as binding/legal. In 1781, Britain had no choice but to accept it as fact--after their top general, Cornwallis, got clobbered at Yorktown. Britain (which still had delusional George III on throne) DID try reversing it 1812-1814 in retaliation for tiny President Madison's failed attempt to evict them from the REST of North America--and got a SECOND clobbering at Baltimore, which sealed the issue forever.

Anyway, the US saved Britain's butt twice (1918 and 1945) in 20^TH century--demolishing any locus-standi it imagined having about the Declaration's legality!

Bravo Sir, bravo. The one additional point to note is the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which formally ended the Revolutionary War and in which England formally recognized American sovereignty.Whatever qualms of illegaity remained in the wake of the Declaration of Independencence in 1776 were most assuredly laid to rest with formal treaty recognition of US nationhood 7 years later by the key belligerant to the dispute and admittance of John Adams as US ambassador to the Court of St James.