2009.07.04
The Declaration of Independence
'The right of the people'
Thomas Jefferson's "Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America" was a radical document that changed the world.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Read more.
RSS feed 
thank you for printing this wonderful document...I wish every one would read it and see what it really means
Comment by pammala — July 4, 2009 @ 9:55 am
The eloquence never fails to astound. Thanks for the reminder of what we were meant to be and what we were meant to value. Sadly, like the Holy Books, our precious Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been and continue to be "interpreted" by many for their own purposes and that remains a danger to our society that is self-inflicted and wholly domestic in origin.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 4, 2009 @ 10:34 am
Indeed Sandi, and your party, movement and man in Washington are at the top of the list of interpretive malefactors. Cut out the declaration and read it every morning, it's never too late to embrace it's plain truths.
Comment by John Kemp — July 4, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Funny thing is that the root of many of the ideas which are in this document are probably not legal in the context of society as it has come to be.
Comment by Al — July 4, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
That is funny John, it is your party that I see lacking in reading comprehension.
Comment by allen bunch — July 5, 2009 @ 9:42 am
"Indeed Sandi, and your party, movement and man in Washington are at the top of the list of interpretive malefactors.
Comment by John Kemp"
Nice try. Two words, "unitary executive."
Comment by Art Hill — July 5, 2009 @ 11:01 am
John Kemp, not even close!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 11:43 am
@Art Hill,
"unitary excutive" is nothing new, it goes all the way back to the founding fathers, unless you part of the black helicopter crowd.
Comment by John Kemp — July 5, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Thank God that we have some Justices that do not believe in interpreting the Constitution to fit their personal desires: Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. I especially thank those five for their ruling on the second amendment and the recent ruling on Ricci. How could any rational American believe the group rights nonsense about the second amendment? This country needs to get back to a federal government primarily limited to defense and international affairs. If we need to look for people interpreting the constitution for their own purposes to the determent of this country; think of Ginsburg and those types who want a "living constitution".
Mr John Kemp you appear to be a wise person.
Comment by Patt — July 5, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
And I thank God that we had four justices who realized that The Constitution, the 14th Amendment to it and the Civil Rights Act were implemented for a very valid and very American Values reason. If The Constitution were NOT a "living document" I doubt we would debate parts of it and their meaning on a daily basis, have so many amendments already added to it and more under discussion and contemplation.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
"Thank God that we have some Justices that do not believe in interpreting the Constitution to fit their personal desires."
I agree with you 100% Patt. The only problem is that it is not necessarily the same ones you are talking about. This is a great strategy you have come up with, or did you learn this in some kind of a political awareness class. Or, just maybe this could have come from a legal defense course. Accusing your enemies of the very transgressions of which you are guilty can often muddy the water enough to allow you to escape. It is not going to work this time Patt. Right now, you are the only one I hear advocating "interpreting the Constitution to fit their personal desires."
Why do you say, "This country needs to get back to a federal government primarily limited to defense and international affairs?"
I would think that ignoring major parts of the Constitution would be just as detrimental as "interpreting the Constitution to fit their personal desires."
Comment by allen bunch — July 6, 2009 @ 4:08 am
Who interpretes the Constitution and Bill of Rights for their own purposes more than people like Ginsburg or the DC City Government: gun bans are legal? Maybe, the quasi public theory crowd that tried (tries?) to force private organizations (St Patrick's Day Parade, Boy Scouts, ect) to accept members who violate the organization's beliefs? Thank God, we have some wise justices who understand the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights: especially what is likely the two most attacked and important admendments: the 1st and 2nd.
Comment by Patt — July 6, 2009 @ 6:10 am
I am not sure what a political awareness class would be: a very vague term. I have taken college level courses in business, consumer and constitutional law.I have a graduate degree, I am a CPA and a member of Mensa. I think that I can learn from other people both pro and con.
I believe in a limited central or Federal governemnt for many reasons, I will mention two. It is what we citizens agree to and the example of other countries with a strong central government: Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao: are examples of what can happen when a government is allowed to have too much power.
What trangressions, am I guilty off? I want a very limited Federal Government that will leave people alone for the most part. I am not anarchist. I believe the Federal Branch should provide the nation's defense and foriegn affairs. It may step in when states are clearly violating personnal rights. However, it needs to refrain from economic, educational and family issues.
This discussion started with a vague accusation of people using the constitution and other documents for their own advantage. I have pointed out that the majority of people who seeking new interpretations are now in power and have sited examples in the past of people using the constitution in creative ways: group rights for guns or quasi public organizations: to advanced their causes.
I'll be blunt, non gun owners, atheists, homosexuals, ect have used the constitution to attack the second amendment: right of the people to keep and bare arms: and the first amendment: the right of people to form organizations with common beliefs and goals. I don't know if the orginal comment was referring to some of these groups.
I am not attempting to muddy any waters; I believe in the entire constitution, however most attacks are on the 1st and 2nd Amendment. I will argue my beliefs based primarily on American History. I will defend the rights of others to disagree with me. That is why I opposed college speech codes and the radicals on college campuses who shout down opponents: Tom Tancredo at UNC.
Comment by Patt — July 6, 2009 @ 7:26 am
How is a "st patricks day parade" ( parading down public streets and supporyted by publically funded law enforcement, sanitation, etc) a "private organization"?
Comment by Kristen — July 6, 2009 @ 7:38 am
Most of the people who whine about an "activist court" are really only whining because A) the court isn't addressing THEIR pet issues and B) they're losing in court more often than winning. How many bemoaners of the "activist court" would be more than happy to see the court overturn Roe and maybe even make outlawing abortion federal law? How about mandating the illegality of same-sex marriage?
Comment by Kristen — July 6, 2009 @ 7:40 am
Kristen,
If a Gay group can have an R rated gay pride parade, why can't another group conduct a ST Patrick's day parade in a manner consistent with their orginizations principles ? Both are using the publically funded infrastructure ? What do you think the chances are that I can get a abstinence float entered in the Gay pride parade ? Or a raving hetrosexual float ? Liberal tolerance is a one way street.
Comment by John Kemp — July 6, 2009 @ 8:37 am
John,
Precisely what behavior are the gays marching in their pride parade engaging in that makes it "R rated"? If you see they're breaking actual public decency laws, you need to let law enforcement know. Just the fact that gays exist does not make them "R rated". You can see more public nudity at the pool.
I, for one, would absolutely love to see what a "raving heterosexual" float or an "abstinence" float looked like. How about this...you round up some sources referencing the gay community discriminating against those who want to participate in their parade. Until then, this is (much like the green house mandatory retrofit issue)hypothetical fantasy.
Comment by Kristen — July 6, 2009 @ 8:56 am
I'm just an uneducated redneck hillbilly and both of my arms are bare unless I cover them. The first thing you need to do is read the Constitution.
In the ninth and thirteenth posts, you do a good job of stating your beliefs. I am just thankful that we are governed by what the Constitution says instead of what you believe.
And no, your little fishing expedition didn't catch anything either. I don't happen to fall into any of your little groups. I do not believe in the entire Constitution, but until it is amended I sure do believe in sticking to it.
Now to the main issue. You said, "I don't know if the orginal comment was referring to some of these groups." My original comment was referring to your statements, not what someone else thinks or wants. You keep saying that the federal government should only handle national defense and foreign affairs. Why do you insist on changing the Constitution without amending it? You claim to "believe in the entire constitution", but your statements do not back that up. There are a lot of people who will profess to believe in anything and everything as long as things are going their way. Since national defense and foreign affairs seem to be the only responsibilities you are willing to delegate to the Federal Government, I do not believe you when you say you "believe in the entire constitution." Apparently things have not gone to suit you concerning "economic, educational and family issues". Fortunately, we do not get to pick and choose. If you do not like the way the Constitution is written, get it amended. Do not just try to ignore it.
Comment by allen bunch — July 6, 2009 @ 9:51 am
I mentioned the federal government's primary fucntions as defense and foriegn affairs. There are other limited issues for it to be involved. However, when some of the other areas that it has been involved in: education, war on poverty and soon running car companies, those things are not clearly federal functions. I actually carry a copy of the constitution and have a copy of the Federalist Papers in my library.
I am not changing the constitution. If you were to look at the early years of this nation, you would find most of the federal govenrment's activity was in defense and foreign affairs. I believe that before any new law or program is enacted, the constitutionality should be examined.
I believe in many things even when I don't always agree with the results. I support the 1st Amendment even if I don't agree with the speaker's message. Case in point, the mention of 'gay pride parades' and St Patrick' day parades. If some one has a gay pride parade and meets the permit issues: fine. I wounld not attend. If someone wanted to enter a float that said something like "you all deserve aids" and the organizers so no. I would support the organizers. Many of the St Patrcik's Day Festivals are sponsored by Catholic Groups. If another group that was offensive to them: Nazis, Homosexuals or Klansmen: wanted to take part, should n't the Catholic Groups 1st Amendment Rights be respected?
Over all the Court has done well in the past several years due to the five I mentioned earlier. I feel the court should continue in the same direction.
Does anyone disagree about the specifics of the 1st or 2nd Amendment?
The 1st allows groups to form like minded organizations and have equal access to public facilties. The 2nd confirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. Those have been the standard for 170 or years until a handful of leftist came up with new interpretations to fit their personal desires.
Comment by Patt — July 6, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
I think it would be appropriate, if the newspaper is going to reprint the Declaration, to print it in its entirety rather than using an edited, abbreviated version that most readers of the Times almost certainly failed to notice as incomplete.
Comment by Shawn — July 6, 2009 @ 1:15 pm