Replies

Poohbah, I must note a disconnect here, however. You argued vehemently against my statement that the Decl. of Independence had the force of law (because there is no article or section number in teh US Code), yet now you argue that the Atticles of Confederation (a lesser document) also in the U.S. Code does have the force of law.

No, I'm not, not in the present day. The Declaration of Independence has no force of law, either, because it is, at its heart, merely a statement of why the colonists opted to split from the mother country, and contains no legally enforceable content.

I'm arguing that the Constitution has the force of law. I'm also arguing that the Constitution did not just come from nowhere, with no context whatsoever (Ex nihilo, nihil fit), and that to understand the slightly vaguer portions of the Constitution, you have to look at the law that was in force at the time the Constitution was drafted--namely, the Articles of Confederation.

I'm arguing that the Constitution has the force of law. I'm also arguing that the Constitution did not just come from nowhere, with no context whatsoever (Ex nihilo, nihil fit), and that to understand the slightly vaguer portions of the Constitution, you have to look at the law that was in force at the time the Constitution was drafted--namely, the Articles of Confederation.

You did not provide a prima facie constitutional case against secession, although I think there is a case to be made that secession was not morally justified.

Furthermore, the way you relegate the Declaration to obscure unimportance shows that you have little understanding of the dynamic moral connection between the Declaration and the Constitution. How can you make the connection between the Articles and the Constitution and not the Declaration and the Constitution? One cannot fully understand the Constitution without understanding the genesis and the importance of the moral principles behind it. Those principles are laid out in a basic form in the Declaration of Independence. It is not codified positive law, but it has the force of the beliefs and convictions of the men who wrote, debated and ratified the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution served to secure the God-given rights proclaimed in the Declaration. To deny its importance is to deny the importance of the moral principles which are the basis of the United States of America. Just because it is not codifed as Positive Law (it is a statement of principles and ideals not a demand for obedience to any laws). I think it is you who thinks the Articles and Constitution sprang ex nihilo since you place no importance on the Declaration of the principles behind these documents. Do you think these men were devoid of a philosophical worldview - do you think the Constitution is devoid of a set of ideals? The well established fact is that these documents are all undergirded by judeo-Christian philosophy, and I will not let you dismiss those noble principles as unimportant to the founding of our nation or to our present Republic!

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law, either, because it is, at its heart, merely a statement of why the colonists opted to split from the mother country, and contains no legally enforceable content.

Technically, this is true. But the moral principles contained therein are UNIVERSAL and apply to all men in all ages. So the force it contains is MORAL force of the highest order, and to deny its importance is deny the principles on which this country was founded.

I would add that the founders relied upon the 20-20 vision of historical retrospect (in studying Greece and Rome and monarchies) as well as the wisdom of prominent Christian philosophers such as Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Rutherford, Grotius, Puffendorf to help them form the unique Republic that we have here. Unlike the amoral lawyers and incompetent politicians running our country today, the founders were very well-read and learned men who knew government and philosophy inside and out, read all the classics, and many read greek and latin.