The Declaration of Independence should supercede the Constitution

A variation of an Abraham Lincoln quote would go, “The Declaration of Independence is prior to, and independent, of the Constitution. The Constitution is only the fruit of the Declaration of Independence, and could never have existed if the Declaration of Independence had not first existed. The Declaration of the Independence is the superior of the Constitution, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

Should the Declaration of Independence supercede the Constitution? Like Abraham Lincoln felt, yes, I propose so.

“All men are created equal with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That is our right under the Declaration of Independence.

(Does anyone need me to explain how “all men are created equal” does include “all women?” In case you do, just think of the Spanish language, or other similar languages, that when you refer to “men and women,” you simply use the masculine.)

It is the Declaration that gives us the right to have rights. It is the Declaration that gives us the right to exist as a Nation. It is the Declaration that gives us the right to have our own Constitution.

In fact, the Declaration as Law of this Land already exists in our Constitution. Article VII reads, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” Indeed, the Declaration is make the Constitution binding upon the States.

Samuel Adams even echoed this sentiment in 1794, “This Declaration [] was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.”

And in 1897, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ry. Co. v. Ellis also echoed this, “[The Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the [Declaration] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”

But sadly, the Constitution is failing to protect and uphold our rights under the Declaration.

Let us review the historic failures of the Constitution, and how these failures would have been prevented if the Declaration came first.
Slavery. This was a constitutional system before the 13th Amendment. When Abraham Lincoln tried to put an end to slavery, he was violating the Constitution. The South was correct to secede. They had a constitutional right to slavery. However, slavery was always undeclarational, and if the Declaration would have came first, the Civil War could have been prevented.

Then, in 1893, we have the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Is imperialism constitutional? Perhaps. But is imperialism declarational? No.

And it wasn’t until almost 150 years after the Declaration, did we resolve the issue of women’s right to vote in 1920. Constitutionally, they did not have a right to vote, but declarationally, they did.

Let’s not forget about our very own concentration camps, the Japanese Internment Camps, which the Supreme Court even ruled were constitutional. But were they declarational? No.

Then, there was the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, where our government poisoned our own citizens, which was actually unconstitutional, but our government, which took an Oath to honor the Constitution, somehow thought this was constitutional. But the cruel experimentation on humans? Undeclarational.

And sadly, we even have our own Tiananmen Square right here in America. The Kent State University shooting in 1970. Our government opened fired on unarmed American civilians for exercising their First Amendment rights, and actually, slaughtered Americans during that incident. Again, somehow, our government, which took an Oath to the Constitution, thought this was constitutional. It wasn’t, but was it declarational? No. In fact, the reason we had the American Revolution was so that the government would not open fire on its own citizens, like the British did at Concord and Lexington.

And all wars, since World War I, have been unconstitutional. And yet again, somehow, our government, and even the American People, seem to think that these wars were constitutional. They aren’t. But let there be no mistake, they have been undeclarational.

But a quick note about World War II. If any War is waged to be an end to the slaughter of innocent People, then that would be both constitutional and declarational. However, this is not why America entered WWII. In fact, when our government learned of the horrors of the Holocaust, they did not allow Jews to enter this country. They sent them back to Germany to be slaughtered. How could anyone think this was constitutional, but it was clearly undeclarational.

And when President Roosevelt provoked the Japanese into attacking us, by amassing our Pacific Fleet at Hawaii, and denying Japan access to natural resources, this was constitutional, but it was undeclarational. Pearl Harbor could have been prevented and MILLIONS of innocent People could have been saved...if your government would have put the Declaration first.

Today, our government somehow thinks dropping bombs on innocent women and children is constitutional, that the wars in the Middle East are constitutional, that the Patriot Act is constitutional, that certain taxes are constitutional, that suppressing our Bill of Rights is constitutional, that a failing education is constitutional, that a crippling infrastructure is constitutional, and that enslaving more than half the world is constitutional, and the argument could sadly be made that they are (as our government currently makes), but let there be NO mistake, all of these actions are unequivocally undeclarational.

Therefore, as Abraham Lincoln felt, the Declaration of Independence should supercede the Constitution when it comes to Law and what our government does, and we should have a government "of the People, by the People, for the People."

Interesting post.
But I have to point out that what you said about the Tuskegee syphilis study was just wrong.

Then, there was the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, where our government poisoned our own citizens, which was actually unconstitutional, but our government, which took an Oath to honor the Constitution, somehow thought this was constitutional. But the cruel experimentation on humans? Undeclarational

The study was to record the natural history of syphilis, for which in 1932 there was no effective treatment. There was no poison involved, the men in the study already had syphilis. When penicillin came in 1947, it was an error in bioethics that the study did not end, and the still living participants given treatment.

a reply to: MinangATS

It is my understanding the government gave some of the participants syphilis. Disease can be considered poison. But if I am mistaken about them "poisoning" them, they still let the untreated syphilis consume their bodies, which again, you can consider poison. One of the definitions of poison is: "to ruin, vitiate, or corrupt." So our government still poisoned them.

Star an Flag for a well written and well thought out op.
If only those in Congress and the Supreme Court would keep the spirit of the declaration in mind as they make all of these "Constitutional" decisions, the USA would be much better off.
The World would be much better off.
I believe each bill that comes to the floor should not only be Constitutional but be tested and tried by the declaration.
Quad

a reply to: iosolomon

It does. Apply the lessons from that declaration, to the US Constitution today. The law certainly applies to them too.

Hint, you are an Oligarchy. Not will be, or could be, but are. Today, here, right now. You did not used to be that way. How? Research.

Yes, the Declaration should be law, and so forth....Agree

Figures that Lincoln would place the Declaration above the Constitution, considering that he basically neutered the Tenth Amendment with military force and established a precedent of futility for those who would dare oppose the Washington government in the future.

The irony is, the people he was determined to subjugate were the ones most adhering to the principle of "altering or abolishing" when confronted with what they considered to be a tyrannical state. They didn't call them "rebels" for nothing.

a reply to: iosolomon

The Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration of a statement. It was a necessary stepping stone for the U.S. Constitution to be born. I believe that its place should be recognized and its principles honored to be the basic foundation of our rights. Do you believe it is complete enough to be all encompassing? ...I don't. I believe our founding fathers seen holes and moved onward to build a better structure.

Our founding fathers carefully reviewed the Iroquois's Great Plan of Peace before framing the U.S. Constitution. They had debated immensely the language within. There are scholars who dedicate their whole lives to understanding what influences one had on the other. The parallel context is amazing. If anything, I believe that SCOTUS should be well versed in the Great Plan for Peace to use that in weight before passing decisions. our founding fathers were impressed with it enough that they used it as a model. Much disagreement could have been avoided if we had a better understanding of the forefathers' intent and interpretation.

100th Congress 2nd Session H.CON.RES. 331

I would think that the Constitution is made legitimate by the Declaration of Independence. It was only after we declared ourselves independent(and fought and won said independence) that we were truly free to declare the foundations for our society and the rules of how we govern ourselves. Without the Declaration of Independence, we would still be living under whatever the british crowns equivalent to our constitution is, provided of course we didn't fall under the rule of another government in the time since. American culture began the day that that document was ratified. Though they are two distinctly different documents with distinctly different purposes, Given the choice between the two, I think it would be the Declaration of Independence, by a small margin. It speaks not only to the rights of US citizenry, but goes so far as to speak to the inalienable rights of all mankind. Including the freedom from tyranny and oppressive government. IMHO one of the single most important documents ever drafted.

a reply to: NthOther

I agree, but do not at the same time. I used to think Lincoln was a horrible president. Not so much anymore. The reign of the existing Oligarchy more than likely started after Thomas Jefferson's presidency. History showed, that he was openly fighting it.

You know it as a different name. Today it is known as private debt-based banking.

The US Constitution, by itself does not make sense, unless you understand two things.

1.) It is based off Common Law, not Maritime Law.
2.) It is a continuation, not replacement, of the Declaration of Independence.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Then, read the US Constitution in one sitting.

a reply to: Not Authorized

Hint, you are an Oligarchy. Not will be, or could be, but are. Today, here, right now. You did not used to be that way. How? Research.

What do you mean I am an Oligarchy? You give me a bad name.

It does. Apply the lessons from that declaration, to the US Constitution today.

It's funny you think that. If the Declaration of Independence truly applied today, then why is it that We the People could replace "Great Britain" with "the United States of America," and we would be well on our way to American Revolution II / Civil War II?

Riddle me that one, Mr. Jim Carrey.

a reply to: iosolomon

And yet, you do not argue the merits of returning to it. Not even one solution, to start the return journey? Just, it has always been that way?

Nonsense.

We wouldn't be having this conservation if that was true!

What is operating differently, now vs then? How do we change it back, and modernize it?

a reply to: Not Authorized

Not even one solution, to start the return journey?

In my last post, I did offer one solution, but you have to read in-between the lines, but to spell it out, it is time for American Revolution II. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the Constitution, so I am actually calling for a Peaceful Revolution, as granted to us under the First Amendment. Although the right to American Revolution II is a Constitutional, and ironically, a Declarational right (that only a handful of States wisely spell out in their States Constitutions, since today, talk of American Revolution II would sadly be considered terroristic...)

What is operating differently, now vs then? How do we change it back, and modernize it?

All We the People need to do is unite as We the People. We do not need President Obama or the aristocracy to tell us what the Constitution or Declaration is, We the People just need to say "no mas" to their lies.