• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Declaration of Independence is Law, it is U.S. Code[W:118]

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I know about the state of your mind is not the topic. Nor is your perception of my mood.

Where did I DEMONIZE the sainted founders saying anything untrue about them?

first ....the founding father is not the issue at all, you chose to launch out on them per your own, vindictiveness.

you are the one alleging something, I have an alternative agenda, so therefore you act as if you know something I don't.
 
The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law

Professor John Eidsmoe , Professor of Law at Faulkner University School of Law, writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America .

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'" (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

John Eidsmoe is a Christian theologian. So just like trying to prove that the earth is only 13,000 years old, Eidsmoe is going to use his legal cunning to twist into reality that God is a statute in American law. This entire thing is yet another attempt by Christian fundamentalist to subvert the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Therefore it is dismissed out of hand.
 
John Eidsmoe is a Christian theologian. So just like trying to prove that the earth is only 13,000 years old, Eidsmoe is going to use his legal cunning to twist into reality that God is a statute in American law. This entire thing is yet another attempt to subvert the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Therefore it is dismissed out of hand.


and your point is?

the man is correct, the declaration of independence is used in enabling acts.

Enabling Act
AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]
[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and Washington, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, respectively, as hereinafter provided.

SEC. 2. The area comprising the Territory of Dakota shall, for the purposes of this act, be divided on the line of the seventh standard parallel produced due west to the western boundary of said Territory; and the delegates elected as hereinafter provided to the constitutional convention in districts north of said parallel shall assemble in convention, at the time prescribed in this act, at the city of Bismarck; and the delegates elected in districts south of said parallel shall, at the same time, assemble in convention at the city of Sioux Falls.

SEC. 3. That all persons who are qualified by the laws of said Territories to vote for representatives to the legislative assemblies thereof, are hereby authorized to vote for and choose delegates to form conventions in said proposed States; and the qualifications for delegates to such conventions shall be such as by the laws of said Territories respectively persons are required to possess to be eligible to the legislative assemblies thereof; and the aforesaid delegates to form said conventions shall be apportioned within the limits of the proposed States, in such districts as may be established as herein provided, in proportion to the population in each of said counties and districts, as near as may be, to be ascertained at the time of making said apportionments by the persons hereinafter authorized to make the same, from the best information obtainable, in each of which districts three delegates shall be elected, but no elector shall vote for more than two persons for delegates to such conventions; that said apportionments shall be made by the governor, the chief-justice, and the secretary of said Territories; and the governors of said Territories shall, by proclamation, order an election of the delegates aforesaid in each of said proposed States, to be held on the Tuesday after the second Monday in May, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, which proclamation shall be issued on the fifteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine; and such election shall be conducted, the returns made, the result ascertained, and the certificates to persons elected to such convention issued in the same manner as is prescribed by the laws of the said Territories regulating elections therein for Delegates to Congress; and the number of votes cast for delegates in each precinct shall also be returned. The number of delegates to said conventions respectively shall be seventy-five; and all persons resident in said proposed States, who are qualified voters of said Territories as herein provided, shall be entitled to vote upon the election of delegates, and under such rules and regulations as said conventions may prescribe, not in conflict with this act, upon the ratification or rejection of the constitutions.


SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship
 
and your point is?

the man is correct, the declaration of independence is used in enabling acts.

Enabling Act
AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]
[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and Washington, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, respectively, as hereinafter provided.

SEC. 2. The area comprising the Territory of Dakota shall, for the purposes of this act, be divided on the line of the seventh standard parallel produced due west to the western boundary of said Territory; and the delegates elected as hereinafter provided to the constitutional convention in districts north of said parallel shall assemble in convention, at the time prescribed in this act, at the city of Bismarck; and the delegates elected in districts south of said parallel shall, at the same time, assemble in convention at the city of Sioux Falls.

SEC. 3. That all persons who are qualified by the laws of said Territories to vote for representatives to the legislative assemblies thereof, are hereby authorized to vote for and choose delegates to form conventions in said proposed States; and the qualifications for delegates to such conventions shall be such as by the laws of said Territories respectively persons are required to possess to be eligible to the legislative assemblies thereof; and the aforesaid delegates to form said conventions shall be apportioned within the limits of the proposed States, in such districts as may be established as herein provided, in proportion to the population in each of said counties and districts, as near as may be, to be ascertained at the time of making said apportionments by the persons hereinafter authorized to make the same, from the best information obtainable, in each of which districts three delegates shall be elected, but no elector shall vote for more than two persons for delegates to such conventions; that said apportionments shall be made by the governor, the chief-justice, and the secretary of said Territories; and the governors of said Territories shall, by proclamation, order an election of the delegates aforesaid in each of said proposed States, to be held on the Tuesday after the second Monday in May, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, which proclamation shall be issued on the fifteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine; and such election shall be conducted, the returns made, the result ascertained, and the certificates to persons elected to such convention issued in the same manner as is prescribed by the laws of the said Territories regulating elections therein for Delegates to Congress; and the number of votes cast for delegates in each precinct shall also be returned. The number of delegates to said conventions respectively shall be seventy-five; and all persons resident in said proposed States, who are qualified voters of said Territories as herein provided, shall be entitled to vote upon the election of delegates, and under such rules and regulations as said conventions may prescribe, not in conflict with this act, upon the ratification or rejection of the constitutions.


SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship

My point is; your pushing fundamentalist Christian subversive BS.
 
My point is; your pushing fundamentalist Christian subversive BS.


wrong.... I posted what the man said...that the declaration of independence is USED in enabling acts....

and I produced the statute to prove that as fact.

no where is anything Christian by me posted......

please do not try to subvert the thread, with your foolish assertions.
 
Last edited:
wrong.... I posted what the man said...that the declaration of independence is USED in enabling acts....

and I produced the statute to prove that as fact.

no where is anything Christian by me posted......

please do not try to subvert the thread, with your foolish assertions.

You're pushing a Christain agenda; case closed. Goodbye
 
first ....the founding father is not the issue at all, you chose to launch out on them per your own, vindictiveness.

you are the one alleging something, I have an alternative agenda, so therefore you act as if you know something I don't.

Another post from you which makes no sense. And again, what if we all agree with you about the Dec being law - then what? What is the other shoe that you will then attempt to drop?
 
I just wanted to sincerely thank you Ernst for what you've called to all our attention. I honestly say this is the first time I've heard of this. It is a bit of a game changer to consider the Declaration as part of law rather than solely a statement of intent.

Thus far I haven't seen any replies that counter the content of your argument and proof. Just the usual distractions.

Again, thank you.
 
I just wanted to sincerely thank you Ernst for what you've called to all our attention. I honestly say this is the first time I've heard of this. It is a bit of a game changer to consider the Declaration as part of law rather than solely a statement of intent.

Thus far I haven't seen any replies that counter the content of your argument and proof. Just the usual distractions.

Again, thank you.

You do realize that the same Annotated Code which recognized the Declaration also does the same for the Articles of Confederation. Does that make them the law of the land also? Or is this merely a past Congress honoring the documents in our history?
 
I agree with haymarket on this, but it's hard to see what the barkmanns of the world gain in "proving" that the DOI is a law. There is nothing enforceable in the DOI, no prohibition, no requirement, no penalties, nothing. More important, to whatever extent it was law, it was superseded by the Constitution, just like the Articles of Confederation were.

So, I guess there is some pitiful convoluted "Christian Nation" sentiment buried in this, but it has no effect.
 
Another post from you which makes no sense. And again, what if we all agree with you about the Dec being law - then what? What is the other shoe that you will then attempt to drop?

your launch on the founders, was a silly display, i dont even know why you had to go that direction, it was not called for or necessary.

as for the DOI ....all i did was put the truth out there, ....what congress did in history.......should we hid truth?

if you don't like it, well i am sorry for you....but that is what happened.
 
Last edited:
your launch on the founders, was a silly display, i dont even know why you had to go that direction, it was not called for or necessary.

as for the DOI ....all i did was put the truth out there, ....what congress did in history.......should we hid truth?

if you don't like it, well i am sorry for you....but that is what happened.

What did I say about the Founders that was not true?

Yes, what Congress did with the Annotated Code was indeed remembering history. But it was not making the Dec the law of the land. There is a huge difference.
 
But it may inspire legislators. That makes it a political document rather than policy document.

Whether it is political or policy is irrelevant to what the OP contends... "it has the force of law".

Does it?
 
But it may inspire legislators. That makes it a political document rather than policy document.

No doubt about it - it certainly was a highly political document. And it is a important part of US history. But it is not law.
 
What did I say about the Founders that was not true?

Yes, what Congress did with the Annotated Code was indeed remembering history. But it was not making the Dec the law of the land. There is a huge difference.

the idea of the founders even being brought into the discussion?...was puzzling., what was that all about, I posted about the document and congress....

I just said the DOI had legality to it, and has been used in law.
 
No doubt about it - it certainly was a highly political document. And it is a important part of US history. But it is not law.

yes it is law, but its non positive law.

but again it has legal standing, as does the internal revenue code, because it is non positive law also.
 
then the internal revenue code does not either, check title 26 of the code....its non positive law also.

Whether or not something has the force of law has nothing to do with whether it is positive or non-positive law. The only difference between the two is whether the text of the USC can quoted as proof positive that it is what the law says. In the latter case, one must reference the underlying legislative act in order to prove what the laws' text says.
 
Whether or not something has the force of law has nothing to do with whether it is positive or non-positive law. The only difference between the two is whether the text of the USC can quoted as proof positive that it is what the law says. In the latter case, one must reference the underlying legislative act in order to prove what the laws' text says.


we know congress voted on it after directing it be inserted in the revised statutes.

we know the DOI has already been used in federal law, so it must have a legal standing because it is part of..... several federal laws.
 
we know congress voted on it after directing it be inserted in the revised statutes.

we know the DOI has already been used in federal law, so it must have a legal standing because it is part of..... several federal laws.

"We"?
MadMagazine-WhatYouMeanWe.jpg
 
The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
 
the idea of the founders even being brought into the discussion?...was puzzling., what was that all about, I posted about the document and congress....

I just said the DOI had legality to it, and has been used in law.

Why would it be puzzling since it was YOU who introduced the Dec in the first place and its "principles". That then widely opened the door for an examination of the principles of the people who wrote it.
 
we know congress voted on it after directing it be inserted in the revised statutes.

we know the DOI has already been used in federal law, so it must have a legal standing because it is part of..... several federal laws.

Lots of things are used in federal law. That does NOT make them federal law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom