# Declaration of Independence



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

In about an hour from now (my time) it will be 4 July 2014. What better way to bring up this topic than during the annual observance of our Independence:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Is the Declaration of Independence "Law?"


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The Declaration of Independence is not law but it is a legal document which explains the reasons for breaking from England and the goals that were set for the new nation of separate but confederated states.
It has been used as supporting evidence in courts many times and has the weight of convention. So no it is not law but it carries great meaning when interpreting the constitution and laws that are enacted.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I read the Declaration of Independence yesterday...again. We saw the movie AMERICA too. Today God gave us the most glorious day, free from humidity and sunny as far as you can see. We took the top off the Rubicon and Mrs Slippy and I headed to the lake to see what the masses are doing. We were pleased that Americana is alive and well. We saw many men and women wearing things that they shouldn't be wearing. We even saw a guy with a top 5 mullet haircut but did not get a picture.

God has blessed us and God can Save this Once Great Republic. Happy 4th of July!


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PaulS said:


> The Declaration of Independence is not law but it is a legal document which explains the reasons for breaking from England and the goals that were set for the new nation of separate but confederated states.
> It has been used as supporting evidence in courts many times and has the weight of convention. So no it is not law but it carries great meaning when interpreting the constitution and laws that are enacted.


You obviously did not read the link. The Declaration of Independence *IS* law.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

The Resister said:


> You obviously did not read the link. The Declaration of Independence *IS* law.


Because you say it is?

It is not law. Don't go and give me a bunch of court decisions where it was quoted. The courts have also quoted foreign law (incorrectly). I know it is difficult for you, but try to use some common sense. How could the Declaration be law for a country that did not exist at the time it was written? Yeah, I know you are the anti-lawyer. That does not mean your opinion means anything more than mine. I do not need your resume ad nauseum again.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It is more than just words. It was more than just inspiration. 

There is more to a lot of things than what school taught us.

The lack of such a crafted document is one of the reasons why the Confederacy was destined to fail.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

The Resister said:


> You obviously did not read the link. The Declaration of Independence *IS* law.


No the Declaration is an idea...the Constitution is the law. If it were the law then imprisonment, the death penalty,slavery and many many laws on the books would be in violation of the law. Sorry R...the declaration is just an idea...not a law...not even close to it.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> No the Declaration is an idea...the Constitution is the law. If it were the law then imprisonment, the death penalty,slavery and many many laws on the books would be in violation of the law. Sorry R...the declaration is just an idea...not a law...not even close to it.


No, it was a legal document issued to the rest of the world, putting it on notice.

Take a minute to look at it; look at its structure. It was not just an idea.

Nobody ever looks beyond the idea of what they are taught in school.

Come on. It is the most important document on hand.

Your notion of that document is being applied to the constitution. Why?


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

No Denton...it preceded the laws we wrote...the constitution...If your theory holds true then there is by Law...a God. and All must acknowledge that fact or the declaration is irrelevant. Therefore it is illegal to kill anyone and to do so id murder..even if done by the states. Fore it is an unalienable right to life.....which means only the granter of life can take it..God...so if one item is not upheld then the document is void.....correct?


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> The Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It is more than just words. It was more than just inspiration.
> 
> There is more to a lot of things than what school taught us.
> 
> The lack of such a crafted document is one of the reasons why the Confederacy was destined to fail.


It is a legal document in British Common law. There was no United States at the time it was drafted so it cannot be a legally binding document in an American court. Yes, Resister will give me a list as long as my arm tomorrow where the Declaration was used in U.S legal precedence. They are wrong. The ONLY federal law is the Constitution and the Amendments.

I love the Declaration more than most that have read it. But at the end of the day, the Declaration was drafted 13 years before there ever was a nation called the United States of America. It cannot be a binding document for a country that did not exist for another 13 years after it was signed. At best, it can be used to try to understand the mindset of the framers of the Constitution.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

DONT FOLLOW THE LINK . It's just his not so clever attempt to drive up the numbers on his other webpage.


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

I won't bite.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> No Denton...it preceded the laws we wrote...the constitution...If your theory holds true then there is by Law...a God. and All must acknowledge that fact or the declaration is irrelevant. Therefore it is illegal to kill anyone and to do so id murder..even if done by the states. Fore it is an unalienable right to life.....which means only the granter of life can take it..God...so if one item is not upheld then the document is void.....correct?


Yes, it preceded the laws we wrote, if you mean it was written before the final drafting and adoption of the constitution is what you mean.

That's not what I am talking about. It is a legal document, written to officially inform the king of England as well a the rest of the sovereign nations of the world that we were breaking the chains from England. First, the document makes the case or why it is legal. It then makes it clear as to the reasons this breaking away of necessary, and that those reasons were never given redress by the crown. Then, the declaration that we were taking our rightful place in the world as a sovereign and free nation. The document was then signed.

Without that legal document, what happened would have been nothing more than a rebellion, rather than the formation of a sovereign nation.

I am not sure what you are suggesting, "by law, there is a God;" but that fact is self-evident. Not only that, but our rights were endowed us by that Creator, and He has authority over the government. That very clear fact is why government does not have authority to take away your right, unless you have refused to accept the responsibilities that accompany them (jail).

No, it is not illegal to "kill" as you are not defining the word properly. Thou shalt not kill is properly defined as murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of another life. That does not mean that a government does not have the authority to send a murderer to the chair. After all, isn't it stated that the government has a sword and for reason? It is.

No, all must not acknowledge there is a God; not under our law. You are confusing our country with Saudi Arabia, and Christianity with Islam. They are not the same.

Resister is not correct; the Declaration of Independence is not law, but it is a legal document, issued to the world, making it clear what was to be the foundation of our judicial system.

Our roots are in common law, and it was understood that we weren't breaking away from that which had been evolving since the Magna Carta; we were breaking away from the crown. This was well understood until early in the last century. You'll find that was when things started taking a turn for the worse with regard to your liberty and rights.


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

Denton said:


> ...It is a legal document...
> 
> Resister is not correct; the Declaration of Independence is not law, but it is a legal document, issued to the world, making it clear what was to be the foundation of our judicial system...


this cleared up my confusion with what you said lol. i agree with this. it IS a legal document, but that does not make it a law.

divorce papers are legal documents, but they are not laws.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

omegabrock said:


> this cleared up my confusion with what you said lol. i agree with this. it IS a legal document, but that does not make it a law.
> 
> divorce papers are legal documents, but they are not laws.


Exactly.

The declaration did more than simply declare a divorce from another entity; it explained why the colonies had the right to do so. The explanation explains the concepts upon which our government and judicial system would be based.

It is a wonderful document, and one that is not properly explained, anymore.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Denton said:


> Yes, it preceded the laws we wrote, if you mean it was written before the final drafting and adoption of the constitution is what you mean.
> 
> That's not what I am talking about. It is a legal document, written to officially inform the king of England as well a the rest of the sovereign nations of the world that we were breaking the chains from England. First, the document makes the case or why it is legal. It then makes it clear as to the reasons this breaking away of necessary, and that those reasons were never given redress by the crown. Then, the declaration that we were taking our rightful place in the world as a sovereign and free nation. The document was then signed.
> 
> ...


My main point in the entire debate is this...An "unalienable Right" meaning it can only be taken by the entity that gave it... So God gave us the unalienable right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...so therefore it can only be taken away by God...so anyone or any government attempting to take it is in violation of this document. If it were law then it would be unlawful to take away my Life, my freedom, or my pursuit of happiness under any circumstance...Only God has that authority...according to this document. Given the fact that the Constitution itself presents occasion for these to be taken and other laws support the right for the Government to take them...then by definition, the document is merely an idea and not law. Is it a legal document? sure...just as a Birth certificate is...but it is not law but rather the idea that our laws are based upon. It cannot be both a law and opposed to current laws on the books...so my position is...it is not a document of current laws.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The flaw is that the government doesn't have authority to take your life- under any circumstance. That, as I pointed out, was touched on in the New Testament.

You are correct that it is not "law," but it is not the same thing as a birth certificate in that the birth certificate is a way for the government to catalog us, whereas, I believe I described the Declaration of Independence sufficiently, already.

The document is not the origin of our forefathers' understanding of our unalienable rights; that understanding, dating back much farther, was why the document was written as it was.

Current laws, you mentioned. I like that description. You, sir, are quite correct, except I prefer to refer to any pieces of legislation that does not abide by the mandates of the source of our government to be nothing more than statutes, and statutes are not necessarily constitutional and therefore not true law. Not in this country. Not as it should be. This is why we are slipping farther toward the edge of tyranny. We are already witnessing the arbitrary rule the founders feared would occur.

I don't mean to cross swords with you, sir.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Why Denton...I don't consider this a crossing of swords...more of a parsing of words...I think we are in agreement about most of this and we are simply asserting specifics to our points of view that we may each have variation on...and that sir is how we learn from each other. Vice screaming obscenities at one another for not being identically minded...


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If we had to be identically minded - I wouldn't have any friends at all... I tend to be a little warped sometimes - but not dangerously so!


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

PaulS said:


> If we had to be identically minded - I wouldn't have any friends at all... I tend to be a little warped sometimes - but not dangerously so!


"Warped"?!? You are one sick, twisted puppy! That is why I like you so much. :lol:


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

There is a theme on this thread that is fundamentally wrong. When you say the Constitution is not law it puts you at odds with someone higher than me.

You ignore the very words of the people who founded this country. Yes, the Declaration of Independence IS law. It is not a statute nor an edict; it is not case law nor an Executive Order. It might not be a regulation nor any other kind of law the rest of you deal with. But* it is law*. It's not law because I claimed such. *IF you had bothered to read the link* you would not be wasting your time with a fruitless debate just to wage another silly ass pissing match against me. Here is the link for those of you who started reading this at post number... whatever without checking the original link:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Is the Declaration of Independence "Law?"

Now allow me to quote the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"_The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man_."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821

In Thomas Jefferson's own words, the Declaration of Independence is the *"DECLARATORY CHARTER OF OUR RIGHTS*."

Sorry ladies and gentlemen. That would make it law.

"...*it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government*.'"

Cotting v. Goddard, 183 US 79 (1901)

You can't get an opinion any higher than the Supreme Court of the United States.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Old SF Guy said:


> No the Declaration is an idea...the Constitution is the law. If it were the law then imprisonment, the death penalty,slavery and many many laws on the books would be in violation of the law. Sorry R...the declaration is just an idea...not a law...not even close to it.


You, sir, are dead wrong. It's not because I said so, but if you read the link, you'll see WHY you are in error.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

_*"WE THE PEOPLE"*_


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

The Resister said:


> There is a theme on this thread that is fundamentally wrong. When you say the Constitution is not law it puts you at odds with someone higher than me.


I assume you wrote Constitution, when you meant Declaration?



The Resister said:


> You ignore the very words of the people who founded this country. Yes, the Declaration of Independence IS law. It is not a statute nor an edict; it is not case law nor an Executive Order. It might not be a regulation nor any other kind of law the rest of you deal with. But* it is law*. It's not law because I claimed such.


I promise you, I am NOT trying to get into a pissing match with you. I am trying to learn something from you or teach something to you. Either case is good with me.

I agree completely, the Declaration is not statute, edict, case law or Executive Order. It is simply a statement to the British government of the colonies intent to dissolve our commonwealth with them.

I never suggested that we should ignore the words of the Declaration. I only stated that it, by itself, the Declaration is not law. It was written before there was a country to be the law of. It is absolutely invaluable to understanding the Founder's original intent of the Constitution. And understanding original intent is the job of EVERY American, not just the legal profession and certainly not just the Supreme Court. But, by itself, the Declaration is a matter of British Common Law and not U.S. law.



The Resister said:


> B]IF you had bothered to read the link[/B] you would not be wasting your time with a fruitless debate just to wage another silly ass pissing match against me. Here is the link for those of you who started reading this at post number... whatever without checking the original link:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Is the Declaration of Independence "Law?"


I do not follow links to long drawn out discussions between folks I do not know. This is NOT a personal attack on you. It is just something I do not do. I prefer almost real time discussions. If that forces you to repeat yourself, my apologies.



The Resister said:


> Now allow me to quote the words of Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> "_The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man_."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821
> ...


No, it does not. And I am pretty sure that Jefferson would be the first one to agree with me that no one man (even Jefferson) gets to declare what is law and what is not. The Declaration was Jefferson's assertion of our independence from the crown. It was also a list of reasons why we needed our indepence. But the country we now know as the United States did not come into existence until 1788 or 1791 (depending on whether you recognize the ratification of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as the official start).

If the Declaration were official law, then why aren't the Articles of Confederation also regularly considered? They were actually MUCH closer to Jefferson's view of what the country should be than the Constitution in 1788.



The Resister said:


> "...*it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government*.'"
> 
> Cotting v. Goddard, 183 US 79 (1901)


Absolutely! It is the job of every American to understand and follow the original intent of the Constitution and ALL of the Amendments (even the ones ratified illegally). The Declaration is invaluable in that pursuit. But that does not make it law; rather it make the Declaration back up documentation. Incidentally: I agree with you, several Amendments were ratified under suspicious circumstances. But for the time being we do need to follow them or roll them back.



The Resister said:


> can't get an opinion any higher than the Supreme Court of the United States.


We'll agree to disagree on this point. The supremes have gotten it wrong on several occasions and have reversed themselves on some of them. They are just men (and women), the same as you and me. They put their pants on one leg at a time, the same as we do.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

The Resister said:


> There is a theme on this thread that is fundamentally wrong. When you say the Constitution is not law it puts you at odds with someone higher than me.
> 
> You ignore the very words of the people who founded this country. Yes, the Declaration of Independence IS law. It is not a statute nor an edict; it is not case law nor an Executive Order. It might not be a regulation nor any other kind of law the rest of you deal with. But* it is law*. It's not law because I claimed such. *IF you had bothered to read the link* you would not be wasting your time with a fruitless debate just to wage another silly ass pissing match against me. Here is the link for those of you who started reading this at post number... whatever without checking the original link:
> 
> ...


Resister...First of all I am not waging a silly debate with you and in fact believe this is the first time I have posted directly to you in response to you. I don't have a pissing match with or against you. I am stating my "God Given right" of speech and thought. If the declaration of independence is the LAW of the land...Answer me this one question. How can the US Government Lawfully execute people or put them in Jail? That document you say is LAW states that it is God given and unalienable...which means only GOD can take it from me...correct? SO if in fact it is LAW...then any law that allows man to imprison me for anything...is in violation of this First LAW document of our country. Please don;t give me the "Your just too stupid to breath" response...answer my question as simply as you can...How can Man take from me what God gave me if it is in fact inalienable? and if it's not inalienable the the "LAW" is flawed and therefore invalidated.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

The Resister said:


> There is a theme on this thread that is fundamentally wrong. When you say the Constitution is not law it puts you at odds with someone higher than me.
> 
> You ignore the very words of the people who founded this country. Yes, the Declaration of Independence IS law. It is not a statute nor an edict; it is not case law nor an Executive Order. It might not be a regulation nor any other kind of law the rest of you deal with. But* it is law*. It's not law because I claimed such. *IF you had bothered to read the link* you would not be wasting your time with a fruitless debate just to wage another silly ass pissing match against me. Here is the link for those of you who started reading this at post number... whatever without checking the original link:
> 
> ...


Finally Sir I will say this...every thought or letter of a President or even a founding father is not fact or law...it is opinion. So just because Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter about it to Samual Adams stating his beliefs does not in fact make it law....Kings can do that...Presidents cannot. If that were actually true then Monica Lewinski would now be a territory...since Bill planted his flag (Cigar) and laid claim to her nether regions. Basing law off of letters from Presidents is exactly what got us into this whole separation of CHurch and state shit that is not constitutional. And your attempt to obfuscate the issue by adding in the document we agree is the law of the land "The Constitution" does not add to your argument...One could rewrite that statement ...it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government...by saying... it is helpful to read the constitution while considering the ideas presented in the Declaration of independence....


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

Resister is just looking to picking fights in this thread cause I am kicking his ass in the other. :lol:


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Like I said earlier, DON'T FOLLOW THE LINKS to his website. He is constantly trying to get people to go to his website to get the numbers up. If he has something to say, he can say it here.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Old SF Guy said:


> Resister...First of all I am not waging a silly debate with you and in fact believe this is the first time I have posted directly to you in response to you. I don't have a pissing match with or against you. I am stating my "God Given right" of speech and thought. If the declaration of independence is the LAW of the land...Answer me this one question. How can the US Government Lawfully execute people or put them in Jail? That document you say is LAW states that it is God given and unalienable...which means only GOD can take it from me...correct? SO if in fact it is LAW...then any law that allows man to imprison me for anything...is in violation of this First LAW document of our country. Please don;t give me the "Your just too stupid to breath" response...answer my question as simply as you can...How can Man take from me what God gave me if it is in fact inalienable? and if it's not inalienable the the "LAW" is flawed and therefore invalidated.


Your question is irrelevant since it presumes that I said the Declaration of Independence was the law of the land. It is not. The Declaration of Independence is a *DECLARATORY CHARTER*. As such, our laws must be consistent with the words and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

The Bill of Rights is simply a codification of the Declaration of Independence. When interpreting the Bill of Rights, the courts are compelled to rely on the Declaration of Independence and not majority rule in making their decision. Why? Because I said so? Because Jefferson said so? No, because the Declaration of Independence is law and it appears in the United States Code Annotated - not because of historical significance, but because it is legally a DECLARATORY CHARTER.

You would be well served to read the link.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Inor said:


> I assume you wrote Constitution, when you meant Declaration?
> 
> I do not follow links to long drawn out discussions between folks I do not know. This is NOT a personal attack on you. It is just something I do not do. I prefer almost real time discussions. If that forces you to repeat yourself, my apologies.


So, essentially, you responded to this thread without looking at the link?

"_He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him_." Proverbs 18: 13

One cannot repeat every point on another site when it is lengthy and relies on other links. But, to sum it up, the Declaration of Independence is law for many reasons. *SOME* of them would be:

1) The Declaration of Independence is contained in the United States Code Annotated. Those are the official laws of the United States

2) The Declaration of Independence has been used in controlling precedent in over 100 federal cases, up to and including, the United States Supreme Court (which unilaterally declared itself the final arbiter of what the law is)

3) The Bill of Rights is the Declaration of Independence codified. One has little relevance without the other.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

The declaration of independence would certainly be a legal document in the British courts of that era, as it would certainly be used as the basis for the formulation policy in regards to the colonies. In that sense it is a legal document, pretty sure the Brits took it to be one. 

It's true significance is that it laid the framers intentions to break with the English and form a new nation. The fact that they followed through with those intentions and were true to the Declaration (did what they said they would), is quite amazing, doubly amazing by todays standards.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Just so everyone is on the same page the United States has had three governing Bodies since 1776. the first was the Second Continental Congress that acted as the "de Facto" government that waged the Revolution. The Second was the Confederation of the United States (with the governing documentation the Articles of Confederation) and the third was our current Government as laid out in the constitution.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> Why Denton...I don't consider this a crossing of swords...more of a parsing of words...I think we are in agreement about most of this and we are simply asserting specifics to our points of view that we may each have variation on...and that sir is how we learn from each other. Vice screaming obscenities at one another for not being identically minded...


I appreciate those words, brother. Still, I am afraid I come across as being a know-it-all, a nit-picker or a sword-crosser a lot of times. I truly don't mean to be that way.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

The Resister said:


> There is a theme on this thread that is fundamentally wrong. When you say the Constitution is not law it puts you at odds with someone higher than me.
> 
> You ignore the very words of the people who founded this country. *Yes, the Declaration of Independence IS law.* It is not a statute nor an edict; it is not case law nor an Executive Order. It might not be a regulation nor any other kind of law the rest of you deal with. *But it is law. * It's not law because I claimed such. *IF you had bothered to read the link* you would not be wasting your time with a fruitless debate just to wage another silly ass pissing match against me. Here is the link for those of you who started reading this at post number... whatever without checking the original link:
> 
> ...


Resister you said it was law several times. as reference to the "Bolded" comments above. However I was initially just responding to the first post which had your link...Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Is the Declaration of Independence "Law?" ...and my response was....No...it is not Law as written...But I agree that it is the principal that was used to get our Constitution and the Bill of rights...As I stated I believe it was the Idea or you could rephrase that to say the guiding principal. I simply state that based on my opinion that a document that describes our basic rights as being given to us by our creator and that they are inalienable...cannot be as written, accepted as the "Law"...a founding principle...yes...a Guiding Charter...yes....But "Law"....no...because our current Law allows the Government to take What our Creator has given us, so therefore they aren't inalienable...blah...blah..blah...You know what I said before....I admit I am not a Lawyer...I am not a judge...I am not even a paralegal....I'm and old paratrooper and I'm just stating my view on that document. It's one of the single most important documents in our history and I honor it and those who drafted it. I really wish you would have answered my question though. Saying it is irrelevant because you didn;t say it was Law...when you did refer to it several times as "Law" seems like you don;t want to answer it or you think I'm not worth the discussion. Either way is OK...but I really would like to hear your thoughts on this. Maybe there is a distinction between Law and Law of the land, and Charter. I'm willing to listen and learn.

OSFG



The Resister said:


> Your question is irrelevant since it presumes that I said the Declaration of Independence was the law of the land. It is not. The Declaration of Independence is a *DECLARATORY CHARTER*. As such, our laws must be consistent with the words and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is simply a codification of the Declaration of Independence. When interpreting the Bill of Rights, the courts are compelled to rely on the Declaration of Independence and not majority rule in making their decision. Why? Because I said so? Because Jefferson said so? No, because the Declaration of Independence is law and it appears in the United States Code Annotated - not because of historical significance, but because it is legally a DECLARATORY CHARTER.
> 
> You would be well served to read the link.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

While the Declaration of Independence is not a "law" like a statute or a regulation, it is law. It has been cited as authority over a hundreds times including, but not limited to the federal courts. Here is an example: 

I guess that you Resister never wrote this?

Course it comes from your link in your first post to this thread.

Guess you have changed your mind?


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

how does the Declaration of Independence relate to this?
based on this simple definition, a law is something that sets rules or regulations that are punishable if broken. maybe i missed that part, but i don't remember the Declaration having any

Law | Define Law at Dictionary.com


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

it doesn't, it's just that the OP had a link to his other cite where he made that statement


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> it doesn't, it's just that the OP had a link to his other cite where he made that statement


sorry, that was directed towards resister lol.


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

The Resister said:


> Your question is irrelevant since....


You sir... are irrelevant.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Resister: DNPWWOC


----------

