Moral authority? Around the world? By the time the news of the Proclamation made it around the world the war would have nearly been over, and slavery was already no longer acceptable in Europe. And English recognition of the Confed was hardly a given, and even if they had the likely effect is minimal.I strongly disagree with this, as do most historians. It was a crucial moment in the Civil War. As I have noted in the Civil War thread, the proclamation ended the chance of diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy by England, gave the Union moral authority around the world, and ultimately did lead the way to the freedom of African-Americans and the end of slavery as an acceptable western institution. Among the key documents both in American and world history, its importance cannot be understated.The most overrated document in the history of the US is the Emancipation Proclamation - freeing slaves in states currently in open insurrection, entirely meaningless. Slavery continued in the Union and it had no effect in the South.
I'd say that listing tidbits about American history is a little different than pulling grand fixes for the national/global economy out of one's ### and then passing it off on the internet as the "correct" way to proceed. That's just me though. Eagerly awaiting your next stellar attempt at humor using the PhD joke -sjacksonfanCareful Sea Bass, unless you can provide proof of a PhD in American History, sjacksonfan will have to ask you to stop talking about this subject.I have HBO too.After meeting Jefferson in Paris, Abigail Adams is said to have "taken a fancy" to Jefferson's writing ability. Most notably the Declaration of Independence.I am sorry that I don't have a link. It was unusual for a lady to post on fantasy football websites in her day.Can someone provide me with a link where someone actually called the DoI "cute"?
bill of rights and doi are not the same thing.Did the original poster leave them out on purpose?If you have to ask, you need to turn in your voter registration card.Where's the stuff about gun control and freedom of religion?Philly, 1776What's this from?
No one wrote it. It just was.Well yeah. In Texas, Jesus wrote it.That's what they teach the kids (except in Texas).Wait, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence?
Wow. Hard to believe you could be so wrong in such a few words:By the time the news of the Proclamation made it around the world the war would have nearly been over, and slavery was already no longer acceptable in Europe.Moral authority? Around the world? By the time the news of the Proclamation made it around the world the war would have nearly been over, and slavery was already no longer acceptable in Europe. And English recognition of the Confed was hardly a given, and even if they had the likely effect is minimal.I strongly disagree with this, as do most historians. It was a crucial moment in the Civil War. As I have noted in the Civil War thread, the proclamation ended the chance of diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy by England, gave the Union moral authority around the world, and ultimately did lead the way to the freedom of African-Americans and the end of slavery as an acceptable western institution. Among the key documents both in American and world history, its importance cannot be understated.The most overrated document in the history of the US is the Emancipation Proclamation - freeing slaves in states currently in open insurrection, entirely meaningless. Slavery continued in the Union and it had no effect in the South.
I am sorry, did you furnish your PhD in Replies for review? Because maybe you shouldn't be posting replies otherwise. That's just me though.I'd say that listing tidbits about American history is a little different than pulling grand fixes for the national/global economy out of one's ### and then passing it off on the internet as the "correct" way to proceed. That's just me though. Eagerly awaiting your next stellar attempt at humor using the PhD joke -sjacksonfanCareful Sea Bass, unless you can provide proof of a PhD in American History, sjacksonfan will have to ask you to stop talking about this subject.I have HBO too.After meeting Jefferson in Paris, Abigail Adams is said to have "taken a fancy" to Jefferson's writing ability. Most notably the Declaration of Independence.I am sorry that I don't have a link. It was unusual for a lady to post on fantasy football websites in her day.Can someone provide me with a link where someone actually called the DoI "cute"?
Im not going to continue to hijack the thread after this, but you said 'around the world'. Not 'around England and France'. Most people aren't mind readers. And while the telegraph was a key to communications in the Civil War, you might want to look up exactly when the transatlantic cable was actually finished.In response to your entire post: Mr. Timschochet, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.Wow. Hard to believe you could be so wrong in such a few words:By the time the news of the Proclamation made it around the world the war would have nearly been over, and slavery was already no longer acceptable in Europe.Moral authority? Around the world? By the time the news of the Proclamation made it around the world the war would have nearly been over, and slavery was already no longer acceptable in Europe. And English recognition of the Confed was hardly a given, and even if they had the likely effect is minimal.I strongly disagree with this, as do most historians. It was a crucial moment in the Civil War. As I have noted in the Civil War thread, the proclamation ended the chance of diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy by England, gave the Union moral authority around the world, and ultimately did lead the way to the freedom of African-Americans and the end of slavery as an acceptable western institution. Among the key documents both in American and world history, its importance cannot be understated.The most overrated document in the history of the US is the Emancipation Proclamation - freeing slaves in states currently in open insurrection, entirely meaningless. Slavery continued in the Union and it had no effect in the South.
Thanks to the telegraph, each new development in the Civil War was almost immediately known in England and France, the two countries I am concerned with. The Proclamation was known immediately.
And English recognition of the Confed was hardly a given
Anyone who has ever studied this issue will tell you that the Proclamation had a HUGE effect on the Confederacy failing to get recognition.
and even if they had the likely effect is minimal.
British recognition of the Confederacy would have resulted in a negotiated peace between north and south and the establishment of a new nation.
Hello Mr. Penguin!Im not going to continue to hijack the thread after this, but you said 'around the world'. Not 'around England and France'. Most people aren't mind readers. And while the telegraph was a key to communications in the Civil War, you might want to look up exactly when the transatlantic cable was actually finished.In response to your entire post: Mr. Timschochet, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.Wow. Hard to believe you could be so wrong in such a few words:By the time the news of the Proclamation made it around the world the war would have nearly been over, and slavery was already no longer acceptable in Europe.Moral authority? Around the world? By the time the news of the Proclamation made it around the world the war would have nearly been over, and slavery was already no longer acceptable in Europe. And English recognition of the Confed was hardly a given, and even if they had the likely effect is minimal.I strongly disagree with this, as do most historians. It was a crucial moment in the Civil War. As I have noted in the Civil War thread, the proclamation ended the chance of diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy by England, gave the Union moral authority around the world, and ultimately did lead the way to the freedom of African-Americans and the end of slavery as an acceptable western institution. Among the key documents both in American and world history, its importance cannot be understated.The most overrated document in the history of the US is the Emancipation Proclamation - freeing slaves in states currently in open insurrection, entirely meaningless. Slavery continued in the Union and it had no effect in the South.
Thanks to the telegraph, each new development in the Civil War was almost immediately known in England and France, the two countries I am concerned with. The Proclamation was known immediately.
And English recognition of the Confed was hardly a given
Anyone who has ever studied this issue will tell you that the Proclamation had a HUGE effect on the Confederacy failing to get recognition.
and even if they had the likely effect is minimal.
British recognition of the Confederacy would have resulted in a negotiated peace between north and south and the establishment of a new nation.
Fairly certain he was the smoke monster at that point.I believe that the writing style was inspired by John Locke.
http://theweek.com/articles/546457The troubling implications of believing our rights don't come from God
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo recently declared: "Our rights do not come from God." Then this week, Sen. Ted Cruz's assertion that "our rights don't come from man, they come from God Almighty" came under scrutiny when Meredith Shiner, a Yahoo reporter, tweeted: "Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?"
I am astounded by how many people in this country (and particularly in the media) don't believe the Declaration of Independence's assertion that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The Declaration of Independence also refers to "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Believing that our laws are God-given, and not man-made, has become something that secular liberals seem to take joy in openly mocking. As if there were something inherently funny or backwards about faith. As if there were something hollow and foolish about believing in God.
Obviously, I believe very strongly that the opposite is true.
This might sound like a pedantic point to make, but nearly all of our political discord comes down to fundamental differences in our worldviews. Two very good people can start out with two very different philosophies of life and inevitably come to two very different conclusions on a nearly innumerable amount of problems. Sometimes the consequences are profound. And that's the case here. Rejection of this foundational principle of God-given law would inexorably lead someone to come to vastly different conclusions about any number of things compared to someone like me who embraces this premise. When liberals and conservatives differ over whether or not the state has the right to usurp this or that right, dig deep enough, and you will often find the root of the disagreement lies here.
More Perspectives
I believe very strongly that our rights come from God. And I believe nearly as strongly that the implications of believing that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are granted by the state are potentially catastrophic. Ideas have consequences, and while some might see quibbling over such esoteric and grandiose ideas to be a waste of time, the truth is that where one comes down on such fundamental questions will likely predetermine where one comes down on a wide range of modern-day "hot-button" issues. When you consider how much of the current political debate hinges on fights about individual liberty and the size and scope of government, this makes sense.
Set aside religion and consider this: If our fundamental rights are merely granted by the state, then they can be taken away by the state. What is more, the state would have no moral compunction not to rob us of our rights. The state is not particularly moral or special or better than people. The state is people. If they don't have some larger, higher moral code that guides them, then assumptions about what constitutes the "good" are, at least to some degree, arbitrary. Absent an immutable standard, why wouldn't the law of the jungle rule? In nature, predators prey on the weak. Can we honestly convince ourselves that people are better than that? Some are, sure. But many are not.
Without an absolute law that transcends the whims of man, the very concept of "rights" metastasizes into a definition having more to do with the current and often capricious preference of the majority. Oppressed minorities have long found comfort (and, in fact, seized the moral high ground) by pointing out that there is a greater law, a universal sense of right and wrong, that transcends the will of the majority.
The majority can be wrong. The majority can be in the wrong. History is littered with examples of the folly of man-made law, of man-made injustice. (This is not to say people haven't done terrible things in the name of God — they have!)
Consider Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": "We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights," he wrote. "To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
More and more, the secular left seems to want to entrust human law to always be just. That's fine when it is. But what happens when it isn't?
Matt doesn't explain how laws come from someone that doesn't exist.http://theweek.com/articles/546457The troubling implications of believing our rights don't come from God
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo recently declared: "Our rights do not come from God." Then this week, Sen. Ted Cruz's assertion that "our rights don't come from man, they come from God Almighty" came under scrutiny when Meredith Shiner, a Yahoo reporter, tweeted: "Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?"
I am astounded by how many people in this country (and particularly in the media) don't believe the Declaration of Independence's assertion that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The Declaration of Independence also refers to "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Believing that our laws are God-given, and not man-made, has become something that secular liberals seem to take joy in openly mocking. As if there were something inherently funny or backwards about faith. As if there were something hollow and foolish about believing in God.
Obviously, I believe very strongly that the opposite is true.
This might sound like a pedantic point to make, but nearly all of our political discord comes down to fundamental differences in our worldviews. Two very good people can start out with two very different philosophies of life and inevitably come to two very different conclusions on a nearly innumerable amount of problems. Sometimes the consequences are profound. And that's the case here. Rejection of this foundational principle of God-given law would inexorably lead someone to come to vastly different conclusions about any number of things compared to someone like me who embraces this premise. When liberals and conservatives differ over whether or not the state has the right to usurp this or that right, dig deep enough, and you will often find the root of the disagreement lies here.
More Perspectives
I believe very strongly that our rights come from God. And I believe nearly as strongly that the implications of believing that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are granted by the state are potentially catastrophic. Ideas have consequences, and while some might see quibbling over such esoteric and grandiose ideas to be a waste of time, the truth is that where one comes down on such fundamental questions will likely predetermine where one comes down on a wide range of modern-day "hot-button" issues. When you consider how much of the current political debate hinges on fights about individual liberty and the size and scope of government, this makes sense.
Set aside religion and consider this: If our fundamental rights are merely granted by the state, then they can be taken away by the state. What is more, the state would have no moral compunction not to rob us of our rights. The state is not particularly moral or special or better than people. The state is people. If they don't have some larger, higher moral code that guides them, then assumptions about what constitutes the "good" are, at least to some degree, arbitrary. Absent an immutable standard, why wouldn't the law of the jungle rule? In nature, predators prey on the weak. Can we honestly convince ourselves that people are better than that? Some are, sure. But many are not.
Without an absolute law that transcends the whims of man, the very concept of "rights" metastasizes into a definition having more to do with the current and often capricious preference of the majority. Oppressed minorities have long found comfort (and, in fact, seized the moral high ground) by pointing out that there is a greater law, a universal sense of right and wrong, that transcends the will of the majority.
The majority can be wrong. The majority can be in the wrong. History is littered with examples of the folly of man-made law, of man-made injustice. (This is not to say people haven't done terrible things in the name of God — they have!)
Consider Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": "We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights," he wrote. "To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
More and more, the secular left seems to want to entrust human law to always be just. That's fine when it is. But what happens when it isn't?
Yeah, and that's a tough one. But I do think our system is premised that our "rights" are inherent and not granted by man either. Call them intrinsic to our humanity if you will, but the idea that our fundamental rights, largely but not exclusively those in the Bill of Rights, are above the reach of even our own state and governments.Matt doesn't explain how laws come from someone that doesn't exist.http://theweek.com/articles/546457The troubling implications of believing our rights don't come from God
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo recently declared: "Our rights do not come from God." Then this week, Sen. Ted Cruz's assertion that "our rights don't come from man, they come from God Almighty" came under scrutiny when Meredith Shiner, a Yahoo reporter, tweeted: "Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?"
I am astounded by how many people in this country (and particularly in the media) don't believe the Declaration of Independence's assertion that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The Declaration of Independence also refers to "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Believing that our laws are God-given, and not man-made, has become something that secular liberals seem to take joy in openly mocking. As if there were something inherently funny or backwards about faith. As if there were something hollow and foolish about believing in God.
Obviously, I believe very strongly that the opposite is true.
This might sound like a pedantic point to make, but nearly all of our political discord comes down to fundamental differences in our worldviews. Two very good people can start out with two very different philosophies of life and inevitably come to two very different conclusions on a nearly innumerable amount of problems. Sometimes the consequences are profound. And that's the case here. Rejection of this foundational principle of God-given law would inexorably lead someone to come to vastly different conclusions about any number of things compared to someone like me who embraces this premise. When liberals and conservatives differ over whether or not the state has the right to usurp this or that right, dig deep enough, and you will often find the root of the disagreement lies here.
More Perspectives
I believe very strongly that our rights come from God. And I believe nearly as strongly that the implications of believing that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are granted by the state are potentially catastrophic. Ideas have consequences, and while some might see quibbling over such esoteric and grandiose ideas to be a waste of time, the truth is that where one comes down on such fundamental questions will likely predetermine where one comes down on a wide range of modern-day "hot-button" issues. When you consider how much of the current political debate hinges on fights about individual liberty and the size and scope of government, this makes sense.
Set aside religion and consider this: If our fundamental rights are merely granted by the state, then they can be taken away by the state. What is more, the state would have no moral compunction not to rob us of our rights. The state is not particularly moral or special or better than people. The state is people. If they don't have some larger, higher moral code that guides them, then assumptions about what constitutes the "good" are, at least to some degree, arbitrary. Absent an immutable standard, why wouldn't the law of the jungle rule? In nature, predators prey on the weak. Can we honestly convince ourselves that people are better than that? Some are, sure. But many are not.
Without an absolute law that transcends the whims of man, the very concept of "rights" metastasizes into a definition having more to do with the current and often capricious preference of the majority. Oppressed minorities have long found comfort (and, in fact, seized the moral high ground) by pointing out that there is a greater law, a universal sense of right and wrong, that transcends the will of the majority.
The majority can be wrong. The majority can be in the wrong. History is littered with examples of the folly of man-made law, of man-made injustice. (This is not to say people haven't done terrible things in the name of God — they have!)
Consider Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": "We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights," he wrote. "To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
More and more, the secular left seems to want to entrust human law to always be just. That's fine when it is. But what happens when it isn't?
- Al HamiltonI go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
- Noam ChomskyMagna Carta Messed Up the World, Here’s How to Fix ItThe “logic” of capitalist development has left a nightmare of environmental destruction in its wake.
In a few months, we will be commemorating the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta—commemorating, but not celebrating; rather, mourning the blows it has suffered.
The first authoritative scholarly edition of Magna Carta was published by the eminent jurist William Blackstone in 1759. It was no easy task. As he wrote, “the body of the charter has been unfortunately gnawn by rats”—a comment that carries grim symbolism today, as we take up the task the rats left unfinished.
Blackstone’s edition actually includes two charters: the Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest. The former is generally regarded as the foundation of Anglo-American law—in Winston Churchill’s words, referring to its reaffirmation by Parliament in 1628, “the charter of every self-respecting man at any time in any land.” The Great Charter held that “No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned,” or otherwise harmed, “except by the lawful judgment of his equals and according to the law of the land,” the essential sense of the doctrine of “presumption of innocence.”
To be sure, the reach of the charter was limited. Nevertheless, as Eric Kasper observes in a scholarly review, “What began as a relatively small check on the arbitrary power of King John eventually led to succeeding generations finding ever more rights in Magna Carta and Article 39. In this sense, Magna Carta is a key point in a long development of the protection of rights against arbitrary executive power.”
Crossing the Atlantic, the Great Charter was enshrined in the US Constitution as the promise that “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”
The wording seems expansive, but that is misleading. Excluded were “unpeople” (to borrow Orwell’s useful concept), among them Native Americans, slaves and women, who under the British common law adopted by the founders were the property of their fathers, handed over to husbands. Indeed, it wasn’t until 1975 that women gained the right to serve on juries in all fifty states.
The Fourteenth Amendment applied the “due process” provisions to states. The intent was to include freed slaves in the category of persons, but the effect was different. Within a few years, slaves who had technically been freed were delivered to a regime of criminalization of black life that amounted to “slavery by another name,” to quote the title of Douglas Blackmon’s evocative account of this crime, which is being re-enacted today. Instead, almost all of the actual court cases invoking the Fourteenth Amendment had to do with the rights of corporations. Today, these legal fictions—created and sustained by state power—have rights well beyond those of flesh-and-blood persons, not only by virtue of their wealth, immortality and limited liability, but also thanks to the mislabeled “free-trade” agreements, which grant them unprecedented rights unavailable to humans.
The constitutional lawyer in the White House has introduced further modifications. His Justice Department explained that “due process of law”—at least where “terrorism offenses” are concerned—is satisfied by internal deliberations within the executive branch. King John would have nodded in approval. The term “guilty” has also been given a refined interpretation: it now means “targeted for assassination by the White House.” Furthermore, the burden of proof has been shifted to those already assassinated by executive whim. As The New York Times reported, “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties [that] in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants…unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” The guiding principles are clear: force reigns supreme; “law” and “justice” and other frivolities can be left to sentimentalists.
Problems do arise, however, when a candidate for genuine personhood is targeted. The issue arose after the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was accused of inciting jihad in speech and writing as well as unspecified actions. A New York Times headline captured the general elite reaction when he was assassinated: As the West Celebrates a Cleric’s Death, the Mideast Shrugs. Some eyebrows were raised because Awlaki was an American citizen. But even these doubts were quickly stilled.
Let us now put the sad relics of the Great Charter aside and turn to the Magna Carta’s companion, the Charter of the Forest, which was issued in 1217. Its significance is perhaps even more pertinent today. As explained by Peter Linebaugh in his richly documented and stimulating history of Magna Carta, the Charter of the Forest called for protection of the commons from external power. The commons were the source of sustenance for the general population: food, fuel, construction materials, a form of welfare, whatever was essential for life.
In thirteenth-century England, the forest was no primitive wilderness. It had been carefully nurtured by its users over generations, its riches available to all. The great British social historian R. H. Tawney wrote that the commons were used by country people who lacked arable land. The maintenance of this “open field system of agriculture…reposed upon a common custom and tradition, not upon documentary records capable of precise construction. Its boundaries were often rather a question of the degree of conviction with which ancient inhabitants could be induced to affirm them, than visible to the mere eye of sense”—features of traditional societies worldwide to the present day.
By the eighteenth century, the charter had fallen victim to the rise of the commodity economy and capitalist practice and moral culture. As Linebaugh puts it, “The Forest Charter was forgotten or consigned to the gothic past.” With the commons no longer protected for cooperative nurturing and use, the rights of the common people were restricted to what could not be privatized—a category that continues to shrink, to virtual invisibility.
Capitalist development brought with it a radical revision not only of how the commons are treated, but also of how they are conceived. The prevailing view today is captured by Garrett Hardin’s influential argument that “Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.” This is the famous “tragedy of the commons”: that what is not owned will be destroyed by individual avarice. A more technical formulation is given in economist Mancur Olson’s conclusion that “unless the number of individuals is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests.” Accordingly, unless the commons are handed over to private ownership, brutal state power must be invoked to save them from destruction. This conclusion is plausible—if we understand “rationality” to entail a fanatic dedication to the individual maximization of short-term material gain.
These forecasts have received some challenge. The late Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2009 for her work showing the superiority of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes and groundwater basins. The historical review in her study, Governing the Commons, ignores the Charter of the Forest and the practice over centuries of nurturing the commons, but Ostrom did conclude that the success stories she’d investigated might at least “shatter the convictions of many policy analysts that the only way to solve [common-pool resource] problems is for external authorities to impose full private property rights or centralized regulation.”
As we now understand all too well, it is what is privately owned, not what is held in common, that faces destruction by avarice, bringing the rest of us down with it. Hardly a day passes without more confirmation of this fact. As hundreds of thousands of people marched in the streets of Manhattan on September 21 to warn of the dire threat of the ongoing ecological destruction of the commons, The New York Times reported that “global emissions of greenhouse gases jumped 2.3 percent in 2013 to record levels,” while in the United States, emissions rose 2.9 percent, reversing a recent decline. August 2014 was reported to be the hottest on record, and JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association predicted that the number of 90-degree-plus days in New York could triple in three decades, with much more severe effects in warmer climates.
It is well understood that most of the world’s fossil-fuel reserves must remain in the ground if an environmental disaster for humankind is to be averted, but under the logic of state-supported capitalist institutions, the private owners of those reserves are racing to exploit them to the fullest. Chevron abandoned a small renewable-energy program because its profits are far greater from fossil fuels. And as Bloomberg Businessweek reports, ExxonMobil announced “that its laserlike focus on fossil fuels is a sound strategy, regardless of climate change.” This is all in accord with the capitalist doctrine of “rationality.”
A small part of the remaining commons is federal land. Despite the complaints of the energy lobbies, the amount of crude oil produced from onshore federal lands in 2013 was the highest in over a decade, according to the Interior Department, and it has expanded steadily under the Obama administration. The business pages of newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post are exultant about “the boom in American energy production,” which shows “no signs of slowing down, keeping the market flush with crude and gasoline prices low.” Predictions are that the United States will “add a million more barrels of oil in daily production over the next year,” while also “expanding its exports of refined products like gasoline and diesel.” One dark cloud is perceived, however: maximizing production “might have a catastrophic effect” in “the creation of a major glut.” And with climate-change denier James Inhofe now chairing the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and others like him in positions of power, we can expect even more wonderful news for our grandchildren.
Despite these long odds, the participants in the People’s Climate March are not alone. There is no slight irony in the fact that their major allies throughout the world are the surviving indigenous communities that have upheld their own versions of the Charter of the Forest. In Canada, the Gitxaala First Nation is filing a lawsuit opposing a tar-sands pipeline passing through its territory, relying on recent high-court rulings on indigenous rights. In Ecuador, the large indigenous community played an essential part in the government’s offer to keep some of its oil in the ground, where it should be, if the rich countries would compensate Ecuador for a fraction of the lost profits. (The offer was refused.) The one country governed by an indigenous majority, Bolivia, held a World People’s Conference in 2010, with 35,000 participants from 140 countries. It produced a People’s Agreement calling for sharp reductions in emissions, as well as a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth. These are key demands of indigenous communities all over the world.
So, as we commemorate the two charters after 800 years, all of this gives us ample reason for serious reflection—and for determined action.
This is nothing but mental masturbation. God could exist and god could have granted those rights. But it comes down to men to enforce the rights anyway. So it doesn't really matter where they came from. If it actually mattered, priests wouldn't molest little kids.Yeah, and that's a tough one. But I do think our system is premised that our "rights" are inherent and not granted by man either. Call them intrinsic to our humanity if you will, but the idea that our fundamental rights, largely but not exclusively those in the Bill of Rights, are above the reach of even our own state and governments.Matt doesn't explain how laws come from someone that doesn't exist.http://theweek.com/articles/546457The troubling implications of believing our rights don't come from God
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo recently declared: "Our rights do not come from God." Then this week, Sen. Ted Cruz's assertion that "our rights don't come from man, they come from God Almighty" came under scrutiny when Meredith Shiner, a Yahoo reporter, tweeted: "Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?"
I am astounded by how many people in this country (and particularly in the media) don't believe the Declaration of Independence's assertion that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The Declaration of Independence also refers to "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Believing that our laws are God-given, and not man-made, has become something that secular liberals seem to take joy in openly mocking. As if there were something inherently funny or backwards about faith. As if there were something hollow and foolish about believing in God.
Obviously, I believe very strongly that the opposite is true.
This might sound like a pedantic point to make, but nearly all of our political discord comes down to fundamental differences in our worldviews. Two very good people can start out with two very different philosophies of life and inevitably come to two very different conclusions on a nearly innumerable amount of problems. Sometimes the consequences are profound. And that's the case here. Rejection of this foundational principle of God-given law would inexorably lead someone to come to vastly different conclusions about any number of things compared to someone like me who embraces this premise. When liberals and conservatives differ over whether or not the state has the right to usurp this or that right, dig deep enough, and you will often find the root of the disagreement lies here.
More Perspectives
I believe very strongly that our rights come from God. And I believe nearly as strongly that the implications of believing that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are granted by the state are potentially catastrophic. Ideas have consequences, and while some might see quibbling over such esoteric and grandiose ideas to be a waste of time, the truth is that where one comes down on such fundamental questions will likely predetermine where one comes down on a wide range of modern-day "hot-button" issues. When you consider how much of the current political debate hinges on fights about individual liberty and the size and scope of government, this makes sense.
Set aside religion and consider this: If our fundamental rights are merely granted by the state, then they can be taken away by the state. What is more, the state would have no moral compunction not to rob us of our rights. The state is not particularly moral or special or better than people. The state is people. If they don't have some larger, higher moral code that guides them, then assumptions about what constitutes the "good" are, at least to some degree, arbitrary. Absent an immutable standard, why wouldn't the law of the jungle rule? In nature, predators prey on the weak. Can we honestly convince ourselves that people are better than that? Some are, sure. But many are not.
Without an absolute law that transcends the whims of man, the very concept of "rights" metastasizes into a definition having more to do with the current and often capricious preference of the majority. Oppressed minorities have long found comfort (and, in fact, seized the moral high ground) by pointing out that there is a greater law, a universal sense of right and wrong, that transcends the will of the majority.
The majority can be wrong. The majority can be in the wrong. History is littered with examples of the folly of man-made law, of man-made injustice. (This is not to say people haven't done terrible things in the name of God — they have!)
Consider Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": "We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights," he wrote. "To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
More and more, the secular left seems to want to entrust human law to always be just. That's fine when it is. But what happens when it isn't?
What means this? Words funny order are in.Still awesome IMO still the real constitution of our country or at least part of it.
Ha. Let me translate (hey it was the 4th...).What means this? Words funny order are in.
- It will also be shown on HBO's Youtube channel.The Words That Built America
Celebrating Independence Day, and narrated by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David McCullough (John Adams), The Words That Built America is an unabridged reading of the authentic words of our founding fathers.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither,
These don't get mentioned much, but transparency, immigration and trade are founding principles of our nation.For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
LEGAL immigration dammit!These don't get mentioned much, but transparency, immigration and trade are founding principles of our nation.
I agree with that, that was their point, I think.LEGAL immigration dammit!
Do you know if the YouTube channel is free? Don't want to set up a huge party and then be disappointedFor those of you L.O.V.E the D.O.I., HBO will be showing this on 7/4 at 700 pm:
- It will also be shown on HBO's Youtube channel.
From what I understand yes it's free.Do you know if the YouTube channel is free? Don't want to set up a huge party and then be disappointed
TLDRIN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
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.
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. 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. — 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 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.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
The principles of the Declaration ultimately helped lead to the abolition of slavery and other steps towards racial equality, even despite the hypocrisy of Jefferson and many of the other founders.I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects…. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them…
They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.
They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, every where.
That's sad, and also weird that these people are so paranoid and ignorant. Or they're anti-democratic.NPR tweets the DOI and some people get offended.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/we-hold-these-alternative-truths-to-be-self-evident?bftw&utm_term=.avMWmxpoq#.vk5mdqY0o
Out of all the Declaration of Independence tweets, this is the quote that got retweeted the most:
NPRVerified account @NPR
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
12:14 PM - 4 Jul 2017
The problem with natural justice is that you have to be held by a coherent center. I'm not sure if this is a Trump thread, and I don't want it to be, but on the Fourth, the problem with the wording in the Declaration of Independence, which I hold deeply, becomes problematic.That's sad, and also weird that these people are so paranoid and ignorant. Or they're anti-democratic.
But this rings true:
It’s an appeal to reason, not to God. But nice try.The problem with natural justice is that you have to be held by a coherent center. I'm not sure if this is a Trump thread, and I don't want it to be, but on the Fourth, the problem with the wording in the Declaration of Independence, which I hold deeply, becomes problematic.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
I love it.
But what about it is self-evident other than an appeal to God? Empiricism? Doesn't hold. Hope? Doesn't hold? God. Only God.
God Bless the Fourth.
I'd like to leave Trump out as well. I thought the story was interesting. Amazing to me anyone could take affront to a retweet of the words of the DOI. And frankly there are issues in the DOI, like immigration (yes) and executive power, which are relevant today. But the DOI is not temporal IMO.The problem with natural justice is that you have to be held by a coherent center. I'm not sure if this is a Trump thread, and I don't want it to be, but on the Fourth, the problem with the wording in the Declaration of Independence, which I hold deeply, becomes problematic.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
I love it.
But what about it is self-evident other than an appeal to God? Empiricism? Doesn't hold. Hope? Doesn't hold? God. Only God.
God Bless the Fourth.
I was going to respond to the above comment but you did it better than I could. We can't even agree on common definitions of words if not for God.I'd like to leave Trump out as well. I thought the story was interesting. Amazing to me anyone could take affront to a retweet of the words of the DOI. And frankly there are issues in the DOI, like immigration (yes) and executive power, which are relevant today. But teh DOi is not temporal IMO.
I go back and forth on this and yes I'd say 'God' is the answer here (for me, and likely for the Founders) but considering this a universal document even in a godless universe I believe these rights belong to mankind first, foremost and only. - eta - I agree with the point above that it's an 'appeal to Reason' and I also think that it's impossible to divorce the DOI from the Enlightenment which it was born in. - eta2 - Then again for me reason and God are not really necessarily divisible in the first place.
I always say “God had nothing to do with this”, because if he does, than God really loves to punish people. God in the bible sure knows how to do thatIt’s an appeal to reason, not to God. But nice try.
Job. Ever see A Simple Man by the Coens? Not a great movie, but a Job-esque movie.I always say “God had nothing to do with this”, because if he does, than God really loves to punish people. God in the bible sure knows how to do that
I'm familiar with natural law. I had an uncle who had a JD in canon law and he wrote papers on it.I was going to respond to the above comment but you did it better than I could. We can't even agree on common definitions of words if not for God.
Natural justice, or that which we based our constitution on, is God. The person above is wrong. In law school, even, that's an accepted and correct answer. I heard it once.
Questioner: What is natural justice?
A: Justice delivered by God.
Questioner: Correct.
It's fundamental, actually, that we've been founded upon natural justice that depends on God.
Unless you're Jefferson and loving the French Revolution.
Yeah, I'm not trying to make it theist/atheist debate, but God always lingers in the background. I don't even like the God debate. I'm agnostic. But what holds the center?I'm familiar with natural law. I had an uncle who had a JD in canon law and he wrote papers on it.
The DOI refers at the top to:
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"...
But then immediately states:
"a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare...".
So the rights exist inherently, but it is up to mankind to recognize and declare them.
Note also that is not 'a god' but Nature's God.
I think it's us at the center.Yeah, I'm not trying to make it theist/atheist debate, but God always lingers in the background. I don't even like the God debate. I'm agnostic. But what holds the center?
An aside: I used to spend my Fourths memorizing the Declaration. I had it down once.
Once upon a time...now, no longer.
But SID, hoist one for me or reflect on the greatness of the Enlightenment and our government.
First bolded: That's some faith. I believe you're right.I think it's us at the center.
I got to spend some time in New England and I enjoyed the 4th parades, that was great stuff, like real patriotism. I've seen the events where a guy dressed as a town crier reads out the DOI, ladies with apple pie on the square, presenting the flag, fifes and drums, all that. I love it. It's like a whole other country. I've got my flags out today, but I'm not sure I see a lot of others and there are no parades down here. and I'll be toasting a few actually with some BBQ to spare. Happy 4th, Rock.
I'm not wrong. Natural law, as essential element for Enlightenment philosophy (including the DOI), may appeal to the divine or supernatural but does not necessarily do so. Natural law is about what is - both morally and phenomenally. I understand you want even this to be a necessary appeal to the Judeo-Christian God but it simply isn't. For example, many (most?) pagans adhere to natural law.I was going to respond to the above comment but you did it better than I could. We can't even agree on common definitions of words if not for God.
Natural justice, or that which we based our constitution on, is God. The person above is wrong. In law school, even, that's an accepted and correct answer. I heard it once.
Questioner: What is natural justice?
A: Justice delivered by God.
Questioner: Correct.
It's fundamental, actually, that we've been founded upon natural justice that depends on God.
Unless you're Jefferson and loving the French Revolution.
Ugh. This is going to sound awful, but can we agree to disagree for today?I'm not wrong. Natural law, as essential element for Enlightenment philosophy (including the DOI), may appeal to the divine or supernatural but does not necessarily do so. Natural law is about what is - both morally and phenomenally. I understand you want even this to be a necessary appeal to the Judeo-Christian God but it simply isn't. For example, many (most?) pagans adhere to natural law.
Sure.Ugh. This is going to sound awful, but can we agree to disagree for today?
The "ugh" is directed at me. I'm just too tired to have this debate today.
That's pretty cool of you. Just...tired, watching the Sox play the Nationals and keeping it light. We can revisit when I'm more on the top of my game.Sure.
I hear that Fredrick Douglas is getting recognized more and more these days.The Declaration of Independence and the case for a polity based on universal principles
Today we celebrate the anniversary of American independence. But we too often forget a crucial way in which the principles of the Declaration of Independence contrast with those of virtually all modern independence movements. Unlike the latter, the Declaration did not assert that Americans have a right to independence because of their ethnic, cultural, religious, or linguistic distinctiveness. Instead, the Declaration justifies independence on the basis of universal human rights. I highlighted the contrast in this 2009 post, which may be even more relevant today:
One of the striking differences between the American Revolution and most modern independence movements is that the former was not based on ethnic or nationalistic justifications. Nowhere does the Declaration state that Americans have a right to independence because they are a distinct “people” or culture. They couldn’t assert any such claim because the majority of the American population consisted of members of the same ethnic groups (English and Scots) as the majority of Britons.
Rather, the justification for American independence was the need to escape oppression by the British government – the “repeated injuries and usurpations” enumerated in the text – and to establish a government that would more fully protect the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The very same rationale for independence could just as easily have been used to justify secession by, say, the City of London, which was more heavily taxed and politically oppressed than the American colonies were. Indeed, the Declaration suggests that secession or revolution is justified “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends” [emphasis added]. The implication is that the case for independence is entirely distinct from any nationalistic or ethnic considerations.
By contrast, modern international law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights assigns a right of “self-determination” only to “peoples,” usually understood to mean groups with a distinctive common culture and ethnicity. If the American Revolution was justified, the ICCPR’s approach is probably wrong. At the very least, secession should also be considered permissible where undertaken to escape repression by the preexisting central government….
The Declaration establishes a new nation based on universal principles of individual right rather than the supposed collective rights of a particular racial or ethnic group. Its new government could not justify its powers because it represents the interests of a specific cultural group. Rather, it must be judged by the same principles that the authors of the Declaration applied to the British government: the protection of the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” regardless of the racial, ethnic, or cultural background of those oppressed.
To be sure, the Declaration does refer to “one people” seeking “dissolve the “to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another.” But in this context, the “people” does not refer to a culturally or ethnically distinct group. The Americans were not distinct, in that respect, from the people of Britain. The “people,” in this case, is simply a group that voluntarily comes together to establish a new nation.
Obviously, the Americans of 1776 fell far short of fully living up to these principles. “How is it,” Samuel Johnson famously complained, “that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, owned slaves all his life, even though he was well aware that doing so contradicted his principles. The Declaration’s high-minded reference to the “consent of the governed” were in part belied by the injustices many state governments inflicted on the substantial minority who did not consent to independence, but instead remained loyal to Britain.
Later generations of Americans have not fully lived up to the Declaration’s universalist ideals either. Racial and ethnic oppression, xenophobic discrimination against immigrants, and other similar injustices have been all too common in our history.
On the other hand, it would be a mistake to assume that the Declaration’s ideals were toothless. Even in their own time, the Enlightenment principles underlying the Declaration helped inspire the First Emancipation – the abolition of slavery in the northern states, which came about in the decades immediately following the Revolution. This was the first large-scale emancipation of slaves in modern history, and it helped ensure that the new nation would eventually have a majority of free states, which in turn helped ensure abolition in the South, as well.
As Abraham Lincoln famously put it:
The principles of the Declaration ultimately helped lead to the abolition of slavery and other steps towards racial equality, even despite the hypocrisy of Jefferson and many of the other founders.
The universalist ideals of the American Revolution also helped establish a nation that provided freedom and opportunity to immigrants and refugees from all over the world. Lincoln, who was a strong supporter of immigration, put this point well, too:
When [immigrants] look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”; and then they feel that that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences their relation to those men… and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration; and so they are.
The principles of the Declaration are a sharp contrast to the dangerous ethnic nationalism and zero-sum identity politics that have gained ground on both the left and the right in recent years. If we want to “make America great again,” we would do well to remember the universal principles that made it great in the first place.