Is it used as precedent in federal/state court cases?
And by “Leagal” I mean “Legal”
It is phrased as a legal argument, but generally no, it carries no legal weight in US legal proceedings.
It’s not a legal document in the sense that I think you mean. It may be mentioned in passing as a historical reference, but it doesn’t carry the force of law and can’t be cited as precedent. You won’t get very far making an argument in court that your rights are being violated under the pursuit of happiness clause.
What others have already said. Even the preamble to the U.S. Constitution has been found to have no weight as a legal authority. It’s historic, hortatory and inspirational, but not binding.
I’m going to mildly disagree with the other posters. The writings of the founders of the nation and of the constitution provide the best look at their reasoning behind the actual laws and governing system that they put into effect. Now, when the US Supreme Court reviews cases of constitutional law, they use these secondary sources to help interpret the law.
So while not a “legal document” as such, it may have legal ramifications if it reveals something of import to the SCOTUS justices.
I guess it depends on how one interprets “legal document” but I in the same camp as Mr. Rat. From Answers.com:
If you peruse the history of Supreme Court opinions, you find many examples of the Court using the Declaration of Independence to bolster all manner of legal claims-- from the content of due process to the nature of the right to a jury trial. There’s a great article outlining the use of the Declaration by Charles H. Cosgrove. It’s in the 1998 University of Richmond Law Review (32 U. Rich. L. Rev. 107 for any dopers with access to such things).
Perhaps that does not make it a legal document in the sense you intend. Though I would suggest that what constitutes a legal document is actually a rather complicated legal-philosophical question. But putting aside that philosophical argument, there is no doubt that under any definition the Declaration is a legal document for at least some purposes. Namely, it is used as a legal document marking the creation of the United States. * See, e.g.*, Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830).
Also, if you include international law, the Declaration has legal force insofar as customary international law is concerned, and is cited for those purposes.
If the question is whether the Great Declaration is a legal document in the sense that it defines and establishes rights, duties and liabilities the answer must be that it does not. It is nothing more than what it claims to be, a formal announcement that the thirteen colonies of North America have separated from the UK and a recitation for the justification for the separation.
In terms of providing a philosophic foundation for the interpretation of later stuff that is clearly “law,” it is a very important legal document. Lincoln, for instance, looked to the Declaration to bolster his view of the proper form and function of the federal government and the nature of the American republic. Gary Willis book on the Gettysburg Address goes into this at some length.
But you can’t look to the Declaration as the source of an authorization to do or as a prohibition against doing anything.
Except the Decleration was written more then a decade before the Constitution, by somone who wasn’t present at the Constituional Convention, and only six of the people who signed the first document also signed the second.
I would personally argue that both groups of people were the founders of the nation. The first decided the intent, the second decided the how. But yes, I was aware of that.
Yes, Lincoln at Gettysburg is a great book (and deservedly won the Pulitzer Prize). The author’s name is Garry Wills, though.
IANA constitutional legal scholar, but I suppose the Declaration of Independence could be the legal authority for why the court is not following British laws (as opposed to why the court IS following U.S. laws, for which the legal authority is the ratified U.S. Constitution. The point being there’s nothing in British law that allows the adoption of a constitution).
Again, not that I think this argument is often if ever actually needed to be made in U.S. courts.
Whachu talkin’ 'bout?
Picking on such a small point is cole,man.
Of course, the Declaration of Independence, when it was written, was a thoroughly illegal document and, had the rebellion failed, the signatories would have been found guilty of High Treason and all hanged.
As the old poem by Sir John Harington has it:
Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeit, man. If someone wanted to look up the book, they might not find it without the correct title and with the author’s name twice misspelled, you dig?
“A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as ‘our rebellion.’ It is only in the third person - ‘their rebellion’ - that it becomes illegal.”
-Dr. Franklin in 1776
I was asking because I visit a small coffee shop where regulars will frequently discuss various political issues. The last time I was there the issue of abortion came up, and one member committed himself to the fact that the United States Declaration of Independence gives the right to life. Being the first time I had heard this particular argument I was looking for more information on its legal status.
No, it’s never cited for that purpose. As noted above, it’s generally the case that the Declaration has not been held to create any enforceable rights.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “life, liberty, and property” may not be taken away without due process, and that is enforceable law. That’s never been held to be a barrier to an otherwise legal abortion, however. I don’t know enough abortion law to know specifically why not.
Because the Fifth Amendment only applies to Persons. Neither dogs, nor cows nor human sperm cells have the right to life and liberty. For a long, long, long time, the law has held that Personhood (and rights appending thereto) does not begin until birth.
Which is basically the same reason that murder laws aren’t a barrier to an otherwise legal abortion and why miscarriages don’t require Death Certificates: no Person has died.