Introduction and Background

            The “Declaration of Independence” embodies the principle document that has governed the political tradition within the United Sates. Towards this end, articulates the overriding notions created the nation after emancipation from British rule-All men are created free and equal and possess the same inherent, natural rights. Legitimate governments must therefore be based on the consent of the governed and must exist “to secure these rights”[1].

The document containing the declaration is therefore symbolic of the democratic processes governing the country by protecting the rights of its citizens regardless of background. Cognizant of the fact that the Declaration of Independence officially declared America’s emancipation from the British Colonizers, it has effectively accomplished much more as evidenced by its current application. Its distinct amalgamation of universal principles as well as government theories, the Declaration has effectively created a lasting nation predicated on the respect for civil liberties and respect of diversity.  The unanimous declaration by 13 states led by the founding fathers is still applicable to date. The second paragraph of the declaration is the most current application in regards to basic principles driving the American government[2]. This submission will therefore critically deconstruct the “Declaration of Independence: by examining the rationale behind the each of its three sections, the current application as well as its relevance in regards to future perceptions.

Past Precedent

The Declaration of Independence begins by introducing the overriding intent of the fundamental document. Towards this end, it declares the reasons that compelled American colonist to seek independence from British Imperialists. The second introductory paragraph goes further to the principle idea upon which the provisions of the document are predicated upon -“all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”[3].  The understanding herein is that men form governments with a view to securing these rights and therefore any time mean the government engages in activities trained towards removing these rights, men (the governed) possess the right to dissent against the same[4].

The Declaration of Independence is divided into three distinct parts. Towards this end, it begins with the all-too familiar preamble-“all men are created equal,”- which affords unalienable rights, liberty, life as well as the “pursuit of happiness”. This initial section outlines the fundamental principles of the enlightened leaders espoused by the document.  The second part outlines the grievances that informed the development of the document[5].            Each of these sections was influenced by different factors, which shaped the thoughts of the drafters in this regard. To begin with, the need to create a government that was capable of securing certain unalienable liberties not granted by governments or else men per se but a supreme being-God.

This aspects greatly influenced the creation of the first section of the document and is referred the “appeal to Natural Law”. It was the therefore evident to the “Founding Fathers” that it was extremely important to for God to Play a significant role in the formation of a government led by man[6]. However, a review of the literature concerning this document, does not provide any details regarding the Nature of the God, the founding fathers refer to in this regard. Secondly, the creation of the document was informed by the fact that the colonist needed to exercise over the government in instances where the same failed to or took way the rights espoused by the beginning section.

In this regard, the first two sections were informed by the need to avail to the population a just cause of means of overthrowing the government or separating themselves from the same. This notion in regards to the right to remove a government and replace it with an appropriate one became revolutionary in the construction of America to what it is today despite the fact that the premise has been referred to by past philosophers such as John Locke for instance. In this regard, the Declaration of Independence however contends that despite the existence and guarantee of the right to rebel against government, the people cannot exercise this right over transient as well as light causes as human nature dictates to the contrary[7]. Towards this end, the British Imperialists were found responsible-and rightly so- of taking or else trying to take away these rights afforded by God himself thereby effectively justifying the resolve by the colonist to from the colonizer. The Founding Fathers therefore sated the principal before providing evidence to justify the creation of the document[8].

As noted above, the second section provides the grievances that informed the development of the document and as such avails an indication as to the happening during the period of drafting the “Declaration of Independence”[9]. In the opening section of the document, the philosophy on which the decision by the colonies to rebel against the colonizers is predicated upon is provided.  The main body of the document therefore avails the exact grievances leveled against the colonizers.

Key among these was the infringement by the British upon the God-given rights including but not limited to preventing the passage of different laws intended to promote the universal good, the disbanding of various legislative government bodies, convening legislative assemblies/bodies at a location determined due to its ability to curtail attendance of colonial administrators, the existence of if stand-by armies during periods of war; establishment of unconstructive trade laws; harassment of colonist by colonial officials, war against the colony, as well as the forceful recruitment of American sailors into the Colonial Navy. Additionally, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers contended that the British had done little address the grievances raised by the colonies despite the continuous expression of their dissatisfaction[10].

It is however imperative for one to appreciate that this grievances and indeed the Declaration of Independence was not primarily Targeted at King George, but rather the entire world. This was particularly important to the colonies as it was aimed at justifying their cause by enlisting the assistance of alien powers as well as acquiring the sympathy of commoners of British descent[11].

Current Application

Whilst the Declaration of Independence officially declared America’s emancipation from the British Colonizers, it has realized much more as evidenced by its current application. Its distinct amalgamation of universal principles as well as government theories, the Declaration has effectively created a lasting nation predicated on the respect for civil liberties and respect of diversity.  The unanimous declaration by 13 states led by the founding fathers is still applicable to date[12]. The second paragraph of the declaration is the most current application in regards to basic principles driving the American government. This is enumerated below:

“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; 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”[13].

The terminology self-evident is currently employed to describe the aforementioned liberties as they embody the acknowledgement as well as affirm the liberties intrinsic to human nature[14]. Understanding this meaning as presently constituted with respect to equality is the premise on which “self-evident” truths are understood and applied currently. However, it must be appreciated that the concept of equality does not in any way or form ensure equality in regards to capacity and therefore it does not require a communistic condition or result equality.  Despite the differences underlying the present American society, the document has continued to ensure that legitimate governments have been created based on the “consent of the governed”  based on a concise understanding of  equality as it relates to the overriding provision of the “Declaration of Independence” relating to profound human truths-“ no one is born to rule or be ruled”[15].

The declaration continues to ensure that the existence of the government is predicated upon its ability to guarantee the protection of human rights in regards to liberty, life as well as the “pursuit of happiness”. Its current application towards this and ensures that the rights of diverse Americans occurs in a manner that is lawful and does threaten the life of others by guaranteeing freedom in respect political coercion[16].

The obligation to freedom espoused by the drafters is embraced by all Americans to date and as such, it forms the focal point of what Thomas Jefferson referred to as the “Spirit of 76”- the profoundly accepted notion that every American possesses the right to determine their respective decisions regarding their respective lives as long as these freedoms do not infringe upon the liberties of others to enjoy their human rights as stipulated by the “Declaration of Independence”[17].

Nonetheless, the current application of the “Declaration of Independence” surpasses the mere demand for freedom. Towards this end, there and aspiring quality of the sustainability of the spirit held by the “Founding Fathers” as the current society as presently constituted is not only interested in carrying its own weight but also making positive contributions to societal progression[18].  In this regard, Americans are principally concerned with sustaining the freedom to engage in various activities including working collaboratively in the creation of just communities predicated on the respect for rules as well as diversity. A case in point is the current debate concerning placing a moratorium on illegal immigration where most Americans are of the view that that children born of immigrant communities under American laws are afforded the same rights as native children[19].

Further, as provided for in the concluding section of the “Declaration of Independence”  America still exercises the right to protect its citizens from any threats emanating either externally or internally by waging war against enemies; making peace; contracting alliances; establishing trade; as exercising any sovereignty accorded to independent threats. After the 9.11 attacks, the country waged a war against the terrorist group-Al Qaeda- deemed at the time to be the greatest threat facing the nation’s sovereignty[20]. The United States has also been instrumental in making peace throughout the world with a view to ensuring the safety of its citizens in accordance with the provisions of the declaration. In addition, the country is a critical player in different global alliances key among them the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that seeks to promote peace with the intention of creating partnership that promote world peace and therefore the safety of the country[21]. This confirms the fact present previously in regards to the understanding that the document and associated grievances were not targeted at British colonizers but rather establishing constructive as well as mutually beneficial global associations.

The development of the document was informed by the need to avail to the population a just cause of means of overthrowing the government or separating themselves from the same. This notion in regards to the right to remove a government and replace it with an appropriate one became revolutionary in the construction of America to what it is today. In this regard, the Declaration of Independence still contends that despite the existence and guarantee of the right to rebel against government, the people can exercise over sate matters. Although the initial idea was to revolt against unconstructive regimes, the notion has been transformed and as such the country is now enjoys democratic process of replacing governments deemed incapable of promoting civil rights through universal suffrage as well as the right to demand explanation and appropriate remedial actions in event of profound infringement of civil liberties.

The “Declaration of Independence” has in this respect enhanced equality among women as well as men and this is demonstrable today by the effects presented by the preamble- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”[22]. However, it is important to take cognizance of the fact that the current application of the “Declaration of Independence” differs in a number of aspects from the original thoughts held by the drafters[23]. Towards this end, the political class in its incessant pursuit of power has turned the noble ideas of the document up-side-down as they obviously hold the conviction that the power afforded to the government by the citizenly should be more significant as opposed to individual rights.

In this regard, political discourse has degenerated into unconstructive discussions pertaining to government-determined winners as well as losers as opposed to a people-driven process. This has effectively resulted into and over-politicized as well as over-regulated nation that has effectively curtailed the rights of citizens[24]. A case in point is the disregard of fundamental rights as well as liberties during periods of turmoil like war which is a period largely determined by the government as opposed to the population from which the executive authority held by the government originates.

The Future Perception of the Declaration of Independence

If the “Declaration of Independence” is to remain relevant going forward, it must address some crucial deficiencies in terms of application. These inconsistencies stem from the fact that it markedly differs in a number of aspects from the original thoughts held by the drafters. This is due to the fact that the political class in its incessant pursuit of power has turned the noble ideas of the document up-side-down as they obviously hold the conviction that the power afforded to the government by the citizenly should be more significant as opposed to individual rights. In this regard, political discourse has degenerated into unconstructive discussions pertaining to government-determined winners as well as losers as opposed to a people-driven process. This has effectively resulted into and over-politicized as well as over-regulated nation that has effectively curtailed the rights of citizens[25].

To remedy this and maintain its relevance, the country must appreciate that within a highly diverse country like the United States, a permanent majority is an erroneous conception as everyone benefits when all rights espoused by the document are respected as well as protected. This them means that enduring relevance as well as political in addition to social cohesion can only be realized by first respecting freedoms as well as civil liberties as noted by Abraham Lincoln when he protected the Union by issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” through which he contends that: “I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence”[26].

Moreover, concerted efforts must be made to re-align the declaration to Bill of Rights as this has been obviously overlooked over the years. By doing so, the country will have effectively entrenched its future relevance by re-confirming that the Bill of Rights is the product of the same. This can be done by ensuring that the specific provisions in the Bill of Rights as confirmed the initial Ten Amendments of the Constitution are applied in a manner that does not infringe on the rights of the population on the one hand while ensuring that the people are not limited in terms of exercising their fundamental liberties[27]. For instance, the ongoing debate regarding gun regulation should be done in a way that protects the right to “bear arms” on the one hand, while protecting the population from gun-related violence.

Conclusion

This submission sought to critically deconstruct the “Declaration of Independence: by examining the rationale behind the each of its three sections, the current application as well as its relevance in regards to future perceptions.  Towards this end, it has confirmed that indeed the document containing the declaration is symbolic of the democratic processes governing the country by protecting the rights of its citizens regardless of background. Cognizant of the fact that the Declaration of Independence officially declared America’s emancipation from the British Colonizers, it has effectively accomplished much more as evidenced by its current application. Its distinct amalgamation of universal principles as well as government theories, the Declaration has effectively created a lasting nation predicated on the respect for civil liberties and respect of diversity.  The unanimous declaration by 13 states led by the founding fathers is still applicable to date. The second paragraph of the declaration is the most current application in regards to basic principles driving the American government.  However, the exercise has also established that  there are inconsistence in the application of the initial idea behind the “Declaration of Independence” which bring into question its relevance going forward. It is therefore important for the country to address the same so that the document does not become the sources of limitation to the very freedoms it seeks to protect.

Bibliography

Allen, Danielle S. Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2015.

Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence A Global History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of The American Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2012.

Burgan, David. The Declaration of Independence. Routledge, 2015.

Grafton, John. The Declaration of Independence and Other Great Documents of American . Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications, 2000.

Herbert, Garry. A Philosophical History of Rights. New York, N.Y: Transaction Publishers, 2003.

Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen. A History of an Icon and His Idea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York, N.Y: Routledge, n.d.

McQuillan, Martin. Deconstruction Reading Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Senatore, Mauro. Performatives after Deconstruction. London: Continuum, 2013.

Syrotinski, Michael. Deconstruction and the Postcolonial At the Limits of Theory. Liverpool : Liverpool University Press, 2007.

Thomson, A. J. P. Deconstruction and Democracy: Derrida’s Politics of Friendship. London: Continuum, 2007.

[1]              Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence A Global History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2007.

[2]               Ibid.

[3]               Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence A Global History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2007

[4]               Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of The American Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2012.

[5]               Grafton, John. The Declaration of Independence and Other Great Documents of American . Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications, 2000.

[6]               Herbert, Garry. A Philosophical History of Rights. New York, N.Y: Transaction Publishers, 2003.

[7] Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York, N.Y: Routledge, n.d.

[8] Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence A Global History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2007.

[9] Ibid

[10]              McQuillan, Martin. Deconstruction Reading Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

[11]             Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen. A History of an Icon and His Idea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

[12]             Allen, Danielle S. Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2015.

[13]             Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence A Global History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2007.

[14]             Senatore, Mauro. Performatives after Deconstruction. London: Continuum, 2013.

[15]             Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence A Global History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2007.

[16]             Burgan, David. The Declaration of Independence. Routledge, 2015.

[17]             Allen, Danielle S. Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2015.

[18]             Herbert, Garry. A Philosophical History of Rights. New York, N.Y: Transaction Publishers, 2003.

[19]             Burgan, David. The Declaration of Independence. Routledge, 2015.

[20]             ibid

[21]             Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of The American Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2012.

[22]             Syrotinski, Michael. Deconstruction and the Postcolonial At the Limits of Theory. Liverpool : Liverpool University Press, 2007.

[23]             Senatore, Mauro. Performatives after Deconstruction. London: Continuum, 2013.

[24]             Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of The American Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2012.

[25]             Thomson, A. J. P. Deconstruction and Democracy: Derrida’s Politics of Friendship. London: Continuum, 2007.

[26]             Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence A Global History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2007.

[27] Burgan, David. The Declaration of Independence. Routledge, 2015.