easy question abt the declaration of independence (USA) (unless you happen not to be from the USA)

(xpost, yep)

Funny thing is, most Americans (who hadn't studied for a Green Card or whatsits citizenship test) probably wouldn't know it either!!!

so are the "articles" part of the constitution or the declaration?

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/jb/colonial/jb_colonial_hancock_2_e.jpg

The entire Declaration itself can be read as a preamble to the Constitution. As an American kid you always hear about the Declaration of Independence - 1776 - like it was the fucking monolith come from the sky to raise us out of our slavish torpor. I was very confused when I learned that it has, and had, zero legal force.

The Declaration of Independence: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/declaration_transcript.html

The U.S. Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_transcript.html

That's the flip side of an urban legend that periodically makes the rounds. According to it, the Lord's Prayer has X words, the Declaration of Independence has Y words, and a Dept. of Agriculture ruling on cabbage (or a French government document on the price of duck eggs, or a DoD request for proposals to supply chocolate chip cookies to the military) has (bigBigBIGNUM) words. These lengthy documents have legal force, and therefore must be written to close any foreseeable loopholes.

before gettysburg, ppl said "the united states are..."; afterwards they said "the united states is..."

As a result, the USA Declaration - used by progressives all over the world (lets forget the bit about Injuns) is in fact a document of a coup d'etat without democratic foundation.

Naturally, he takes a bit longer to make this ultimately rather banal point.

I'd say this shows Derrida's ups and downs - he's perceptive, but the key aspect here is that the declaration would have died had the people in who'se putative name it was made went 'fuck off' and rejected the call. They were happy (ish) to be created and to reside in the name of of the United States, though it wasn't as clear cut as Revolutionary myth would have it

Also, like many a colonial power, it gets all het up when people UDI and in its repressive reaction, drives people towards the UDIers. Has a colonial power ever gone 'yeah, whatever...' to a UDI and watched it die a death as a nascent independence movement?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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. 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. 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.

So, what about it?

Very Enlightenment Stylee.

The catch, of course, it that the People are very rarely able "to institute (a) 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", because the People rarely are in possession of a United Judgement or the Instruments necessary to make their Will effective.

Other than that, a great theory.

Why do Some words start With capitals and others Not? German influence?

IIRC, the capitalization fetish predates the importation of the stoutly germanic Georges of Hanover into the english court. It seems possible it was homegrown in England and transplanted to the New World.

Aimless, it says it is their right, not their destiny.

Unrealizable rights are not especially useful rights, howsoever they may exist in the realm of ideas. But, I would agree that, if they did not exist in the realm of ideas, the world would be a poorer place. Just recognizing the right to make a mostly futile attempt is something more than nothing.

As an American kid you always hear about the Declaration of Independence - 1776 - like it was the fucking monolith come from the sky to raise us out of our slavish torpor. I was very confused when I learned that it has, and had, zero legal force.

i had a professor make a big deal about the same point. i assume his point was that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't legally protected by the declaration, since it would seem redundant at this stage to need a law declaring that george iii has no right to rule over the 13 colonies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYhjBcYnzvU

http://graph.facebook.com/673371296/picture?type=largehttp://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/4761499290_11a1c8a469_b.jpg

is his name really "Dudley Tuttle"

nevermind it's an actual FB account. lol

xpost, watching 1776 now.