I liked this presentation By The Volkh Conspiracy.....A fellow blogger.....I decided to reproduce the way they describe the Declaration with annotations......but, wanted to color the annotations to make it a bit more clear......Enjoy!
1.
“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.”
This first sentence is often forgotten. It asserts that Americans as a
whole (and not as members of their respective colonies) are a distinct
“people.” To “dissolve the political bands” revokes the “social
compact” that existed between the Americans and the rest of “the People”
of the British commonwealth, which resumes the “state of nature”
between Americans and the government of Great Britain, and “the Laws of
Nature” are then the standard by which this dissolution and whatever
government is to follow are judged. “Declare the causes” indicates they
are publicly stating the reasons and justifying their actions rather
than being thieves in the night. The Declaration is like the indictment
of a criminal that states the basis of his criminality. But the
ultimate judge of the rightness of their cause will be God, which is why
the revolutionaries spoke of an “appeal to heaven”—an expression
commonly found on revolutionary banners and flags. As British
political theorist John Locke wrote: “The people have no other remedy in
this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on earth, but to
appeal to heaven.”
2.
“Decent respect to the opinions of mankind.
”
This might be viewed as a kind of an international public opinion test.
Or perhaps, the emphasis is on the word “respect.” The obligation to
provide the rest of the world with an explanation others can evaluate
for themselves. Again, like the presentation to the public of an
indictment stating legal and factual grounds for incarcerating an
individual.
3.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The most famous line of the Declaration. On the one hand, this will
become a great embarrassment to a people who permitted slavery. On the
other hand making public claims like this has consequences—that’s why
people make them publicly. To be held for account. And this promise
will provide the heart of the abolitionists case in the Nineteenth
Century, which is why late defenders of slavery eventually came to
reject the Declaration.
What are “unalienable,” or more commonly, “inalienable rights”?
Inalienable rights are those you cannot give up even if you want to and
consent. Unlike other alienable rights that you can consent to transfer
or waive. Why inalienable rights? The Founders want to counter
England’s claim that by accepting the colonial governance, the colonists
had alienated their rights. The Framers claimed that with inalienable
rights, you always retain the ability to take back any right that has
been given up.
The standard trilogy throughout this period was “life, liberty, and property.” For example, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress (1774)
read: “That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America,
by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English
constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following
RIGHTS: Resolved, 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty and
property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a
right to dispose of either without their consent.” Or, as John Locke
wrote, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or
possessions.”
Perhaps the most commonly repeated formulation was found in the
Virginia Declaration of Rights of May 15, 1776 drafted by George Mason:
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have
certain inherent rights, . . . namely the enjoyment of life and liberty,
with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and
obtaining happiness and safety.” The switch from property to “pursuit
of happiness” came at the last minute of the drafting process. The
exact reason for change is not clear.
4.
“That to secure these rights
, Governments are instituted among Men. . . .
” Another
overlooked line, which is of greatest relevance to our discussion of
the first underlying assumption of the Constitution: the assumption of
natural rights. Most emphasis today is placed on “the consent of the
governed” passage that follows. But both parts of this sentence need to
be reconciled. This part identifies the end of governments as securing
the natural rights which the previous sentence affirms is the measure
against which all government—whether of Great Britain or the U.S.—will
be judged.
5.
“. . . deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
”
Today, there is a tendency to focus entirely on this portion of the
sentence to the exclusion of the first part, but we should recognize
both parts are there and do not mean the same thing. Although the
ultimate criteria of legitimate governance is the protection of natural
rights, this affirms that particular governments only gain jurisdiction to
protect these rights by the consent of those who are governed. The
“consent of governed” is a different idea from protecting rights. It is
how to get government up and running. But it is a problematic idea in
terms of rights. If you emphasize consent and de-emphasize rights,
government gets empowered to do anything in the name of the people, so
long as it can claim the “consent of the governed,” which is never going
to be the actual consent of each and every person. So there is a
tension between the first and second parts of the sentence.
One way this tension was later resolved was with the concept of presumed
consent. The people can only be presumed to have consented to what was
actually expressed in the written constitution; conversely, absent a
clear statement to the contrary, they cannot be presumed to have
consented to surrender any of their natural rights. So to interpret the
meaning of what must be an amorphous “popular” consent, we must know
what natural rights the people have.
6. “
That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
People have the right to take back power from the government. Restates
the end—human safety and happiness—and connects the principles and
forms of government as means to this ends.
7. “
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Affirms at least two propositions: On the one hand, long established
government should not be changed for just any reason. The mere fact that
rights are violated is not enough to justify revolution All
governments on earth will sometimes violate rights. But things have to
become very bad before anyone is going to organize a resistance.
Therefore, the very existence of this Declaration is evidence that
things are very bad indeed.
8.
“But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their
future security.” Revolution is justified only if there “is a long
train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object.”
Evidence of what amounts to an actual criminal conspiracy by the
government against the rights of the people. The opposite of “light and
transient causes,” that is, the more ordinary violations of rights by
government.
9.
“Such has been the patient sufferance
of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them
to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present
King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an
absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be
submitted to a candid world.” What follows is a bill of
indictment. Several of these items end up in the Bill of Rights.
Others are addressed by form of the government established, first by the
Articles of Confederation, and ultimately by the Constitution.
The assumption of natural rights expressed in
the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following
proposition: “first comes rights, then comes government.” According to
this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any
government, but preexist its formation; (2) The protection of these
rights is the first duty of government; and (3) Even after government is
formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is
measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights —
or its systematice violation of rights — can justify its alteration or
abolition; (4) At least some of these rights are so fundamental that
they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to
one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another
even if one consents to do so. This is powerful stuff.
