No, it doesn't. It says the collective "People," not individual states, have a right to separate the collective from another "destructive" foreign entity.
It says "When... it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
It says "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [current form of government], and to institute new Government..."
The Declaration of Independence was speaking of the unanimous colonies as "one people" in relation to "another," namely England. It was not speaking of, say, New York in relation to Virginia.
It wasn't speaking of future generations splitting from the collective, it was speaking of "abolishing" the form of government and creating a new one. It was not abolishing the Union and creating a new one.
Okay, you lost me. Where do you get that from?
I withdrew that comment. I had an early-morning brain fart.
-PJ
You mean the collective people of all the United Kingdom? Should the rest of the United Kingdom have gotten a vote as to whether or not the states should secede?
The Declaration of Independence was speaking of the unanimous colonies as "one people" in relation to "another," namely England. It was not speaking of, say, New York in relation to Virginia.
The "One People" must include England to be consistent with your explanation.
It is for that reason I say your interpretation is wrong. The states existed as independent entities before the Revolution, and they only banded together to face their common adversary, the United Kingdom. (Union.)
It wasn't speaking of future generations splitting from the collective, it was speaking of "abolishing" the form of government and creating a new one. It was not abolishing the Union and creating a new one.
It was abolishing the "Union of the Crowns" and creating the "Union of the States". It was separating from an existing Union. Their flag is even called the "Union Jack."
And while we're at it, this seems like a good time to point out that they formed a Confederacy... a slave owning confederacy of slave states.
The Union, (the British) offered freedom to their slaves. (Lord Dunmore's proclamation.) The Confederacy decided they needed a slave owning General from Virginia to lead their armies.
Sounds familiar somehow.
There was no "one people" when it came to the United States.
[the Constitution would be ratified by the people]"not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct independent States to which they respectively belong.." James Madison, the Federalist #39
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant." Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist #32