[rhombus]

They went to war against the "law of the land," to form their own independent nation because the "law of the land" violates certain unalienable human rights.

They went to war against a Gov't that gave them no representation. In order to protect themselves from another tyranical Gov't that acted without authority, they established a Constitution. The Chief Executive's oath of office is to protect the Constitution...not the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't mean the Declaration is irrelevant, it just means we are protected by the Constitution as the "law of the land".

[mike182d]

It doesn't mean the Declaration is irrelevant, it just means we are protected by the Constitution as the "law of the land".

The Declaration of Independence is inseperable from the Constitution because it gives the Constitution purpose and legitimacy as a document. The Constitution is not the "Bible" or secular equivalent, nor is it automatically exempt from the principles of freedom and liberty laid out in the Declaration. In the mid-1800s, when the "law of the land" denied blacks liberty and treated them like property, was it proper to sit back and say "oh, well. there's nothing we can do, legally?"