Would America Be Different if the Rights of the Declaration of Independence Were in the Constitution?

Consider the fundamental question: What is the purpose of government? You will not find the answer in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence. That should not be too surprising as the Constitution is mostly an organizational and procedural document defining the three branches of government, their powers and how those powers are applied. The Declaration of Independence is America’s national substantive document; stating that the purpose of government is to secure the people’s rights and enshrining democracy as the ruling political practice of American government.

Specifically, the Declaration states, “all men are created equal…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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….” (My emphasis.) So, 1) the purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people and, 2) the powers of government originate with the people. “Consent of the governed” is a statement of the individual right to power exercised to grant government the powers to secure the rights of the people through a representative democracy.

Power is not discussed by politicians or by media as a fundamental right. But then those in power have seldom been uninhibited egalitarians. The right to power means that every person has the right to participate in the political decisions of his or her country and has the right to join with others and make decisions affecting the nation. The word, “democracy”, means, “people rule.” Governments “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” is another way of saying that every individual has the right to participate in democracy.

The first stated right of the Declaration states is equality (“all men are created equal”). Equality is the foundation of justice and fairness and the Baker v. Carr concept of “one person, one vote.” One wonders whether the term “equal protection of the laws” of the 14th amendment would have been necessary if the right to equality had been in the Constitution almost from its inception. Would the Civil War have been ignited even earlier had there been a constitutional confrontation over the right to equality? Would the difference in compensation for the same work by men and women be as wide as it is had Americans been aware of the right to equality since 1791?

The Declaration next refers to the “inalienable” rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What these three rights mean is, not surprisingly, open to interpretation. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has not had 200 years to wrestle with these fundamental rights’ meanings and applications. The course of American social and cultural history might have been changed had the right to life been interpreted to mean effectively that capital punishment was prohibited by the Constitution or that the right to life exists for a human embryo.

Would the right to liberty have been interpreted to mean that music and the creative arts would have had a greater share of the federal budget or that music and art would not have been the classes cut first in educational budget crunches or that more government funds would have been allocated to Research and Development if the right to Liberty would have been equated with innovation and experimentation? Would marijuana have been legalized if the right to liberty were viewed as a right to one’s culture or lifestyle? Would the “pursuit of happiness” have been interpreted to mean that every person has a right to a lifelong education?

The Declaration of Independence states that governments should be organized around the people’s safety and happiness. Had our Supreme Court been interpreting the right to safety since the eighteenth century, it is conceivable that the Katrina governmental malfeasance might never have occurred. It is also possible that the right to safety might have been interpreted to mean that each person has the right to medical coverage and that the plight of 45-50 million Americans without adequate health care would not exist. It is possible that America’s infrastructure would be regularly maintained if there were a constitutional right to safety.

My opinion is that the right to happiness is a goal achieved when all of the rights of the individual are encouraged and secured. This topic will be covered in a later blog.

By my count, only one of the rights of the Declaration is recognized directly in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and only one right, the right to power, is implied. The right to alter or amend the form of government is stated—with strict requirements – in Article V of the Constitution which states the procedures for amending the Constitution.

In conclusion, it is likely social attitudes and laws would have been different had the rights of the Declaration of Independence been recognized by the Constitution. Arguably, the rights of the Declaration are included in the Constitution by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, but the Supreme Court has not yet dealt with this issue. If one is sincere about including the rights of the Declaration in the Constitution, the only logical choice is to amend the Constitution.

Posted on 4th February at 4:18 pm

 Email This Post