-PJ
I'd recommend adding Blackstone's Commentaries and Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws to that list. The Founders drew very heavily from both of those texts.
As for the "Declaration", it is the expression of what we aspire to be (that all men are created equal) and that which we dislike (The King of Great Britain has dissolved our representative houses repeatedly,...”). The Constitution is a mature, just, perpetual, "King". The Declaration is a passionate rebel. America would not be America without both. The Declaration reminds the King that if he does not rule wisely, there will be "probable cause" for rebellion.
And the Queen? I have always considered Old Glory to be our Queen. Forever beautiful, forever inspiring bravery. She compels us to be worthy of her. When we are truly worthy, she is given to our parent or spouse as "a symbol of the gratitude of a grateful nation". She represents the majesty of the "King", our Constitution and the passion of rebellion in our "Prince", the Declaration.
The Declaration, the Constitution and Old Glory are the "Trinity" of America. Without all three, the "stool" has only two legs and is unstable.
Well, as one who could have said it, I think it always needs discussion due to the abuse of people in the usage of the language of the Declaration.
To explain my position, I refer to the Declaration as an "Animating" document and to the Constitution as a "Framing" document. Certainly they were both essential in our "founding."
The former was a letter to the world and a communication establishing what animated our actions and clearly established who we thought we were. It was created by representatives, but not confirmed by representatives after a full review by the people. It was not meant to be law or to replace aspects of established common law.
The Constitution was meant to be Law and very stringent and supreme in nature. It was approved by the people through their representative state governments.
Why is the distinction so important in political discourse? In my opinion, it is because much of Collectivism tries to stick its nose under the tent of our system of government by using the words of the "animating" documents. Letters by Jefferson, quotes from pamphletiers, and the Declaration's communicative wording all are fodder for the Rationalistic Totalitarian Democary activist.
Once the nose is in the tent, Equality, displaces property. Liberty becomes a limitless god and lawful order is just a convienience when needed by the Rationalist. And lastly, the Framing document is found to be "deficient" for not meeting the expectations of the "animating" document as determined by the Rationalist. A Crisis looms and only the vision of the annointed with the force of centralized control can save the issue-made-god. (See T. Sowell)
Your shunt to discuss what founded the framing document is worthy of discussion, I would agree. But the issue that "animated" your post is never to simple to avoid in detail.
For those who have the time, I reccommend Forrest McDonald's Novus Ordo Seclorum,The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution
I wouldn't say so. The Declaration of Independence was "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America." Unless there is something earlier in which the states acted in unison, that would have been the beginning of the American nation. By the time the Constitution was adopted, the States had had the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation, had fought a war together, and the American nation was past "founding" (if only barely).
That does not diminish the importance and significance of the Constitution or of any of the other documents mentioned.
Of course, this might depend on how you define "American nation."