Calvin Coolidge speaking on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, in Philadelphia, Pa.:
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter.
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.
Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121539001883731235.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Maybe it's just too early Monday morning and my mind's a little slow, but I don't believe I've noticed that characteristic of the Declaration before - certainly not with the clarity and brevity presented by Mr. Coolidge.
Came across the above during my customary morning reads and coffee, and had one of those "That nails it!" moments.
The Declaration of Independence is not law. In this it is different from the Constitution which establishes, defines, and limits (Ah! Would that it were so!) the national government. Rather the Declaration is a statement of philosophy, of almost religious principle. Really, there's nothing legally binding at all in the Declaration. Yet it is hard to conceive of understanding the Constitution except from the philosophical light of the Declaration.
Ruminating on this, and being constrained by the posting rules to give some direction to the thread, I find myself considering the phrase: "all men are created equal". Two points of departure come to mind.
1. There is nothing in the Constitution (as first written) which explicitly requires that all persons be treated equally before the law. Indeed the Constitution in the onerous dispicable "three fifths of all other Persons" clause explicitly treats persons unequally. Any explicit constraint on the national government to treat persons equally before the law comes only in later Ammendments.
Let us here abjure the misogynist interpretation and stipulate that "all men are created equal" is intended to include homo sapiens of both sexes.
2. Declaration poorly states the signers' intended meaning. That meaning would be that all persons are created equal insofar as endowment with inalienable rights by their Creator, not that the national government should legislate equality of outcome among all citizens.
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter.
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.
Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121539001883731235.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Maybe it's just too early Monday morning and my mind's a little slow, but I don't believe I've noticed that characteristic of the Declaration before - certainly not with the clarity and brevity presented by Mr. Coolidge.
Came across the above during my customary morning reads and coffee, and had one of those "That nails it!" moments.
The Declaration of Independence is not law. In this it is different from the Constitution which establishes, defines, and limits (Ah! Would that it were so!) the national government. Rather the Declaration is a statement of philosophy, of almost religious principle. Really, there's nothing legally binding at all in the Declaration. Yet it is hard to conceive of understanding the Constitution except from the philosophical light of the Declaration.
Ruminating on this, and being constrained by the posting rules to give some direction to the thread, I find myself considering the phrase: "all men are created equal". Two points of departure come to mind.
1. There is nothing in the Constitution (as first written) which explicitly requires that all persons be treated equally before the law. Indeed the Constitution in the onerous dispicable "three fifths of all other Persons" clause explicitly treats persons unequally. Any explicit constraint on the national government to treat persons equally before the law comes only in later Ammendments.
Let us here abjure the misogynist interpretation and stipulate that "all men are created equal" is intended to include homo sapiens of both sexes.
2. Declaration poorly states the signers' intended meaning. That meaning would be that all persons are created equal insofar as endowment with inalienable rights by their Creator, not that the national government should legislate equality of outcome among all citizens.
Last edited: