Question

Opinion paragraph on Declaration of Independance

Answer 1

In the Declaration of Independence, we find perhaps the most concise expression of those very honest ideas and beliefs of people. The Declaration is clear: the Founders believed in individual liberty, defined by the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, secured by a government created for that purpose, gaining its legitimate power from the consent of the governed.

The Declaration of Independence contains two powerful implications: 1) The individual is the sovereign unit, equal with and independent of everyone else. 2) Any restrictions on a person's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness are in some sense violations of what the Creator intended.

This idea of human equality could be extended far beyond the society of white male property owners for whom Jefferson and the Congress wrote. It could be extended to the powerless poor, to enslaved blacks, to women, to gays, to children.

The meaning of the promise of the Declaration of Independence has been a central theme of American history. The principle embodied in that document can serve as the ideal basis for a truly democratic and multicultural America


We Hold these Truths to be Self-evident

Here, in the first line, the authors let us know that reason provides the source of the propositions to follow. They say the truths that follow are self-evident, which is to say they are deductible through reason. This indicates that the Founders are working within the philosophical tradition of natural rights. This viewpoint holds that there is a higher law of right and wrong that can be used to derive just laws.

That all Men are Created Equal

This phrase tells us that the Founders rejected the hierarchical views held by many at the time-- including some natural rights theorists-- claiming that some people deserve different legal treatment because they are superior to others. Instead, the Founders hold that we all have equal natural rights; therefore, before the law, we should all be treated the same. This statement does not argue for equality of outcomes (such as equal incomes), which is the sort of egalitarianism that became fashionable during the past century. To argue for egalitarianism is to argue that we do not all have equal natural rights because, in order to achieve an egalitarian outcome, assets, or the product of ones labor, need to be taken from some and given to others, which is to argue that some, those redistributed to, have superior rights to those redistributed from.

At this point, the source of the argument, reason, and the first premise, that we are all equal, have been put forth.

That they are Endowed by their Creator with certain Inalienable Rights

Here we are told the source of our rights. They are not given to us by the government; rather, we are born with them. This puts the power in the hands of the people, to be granted only as they see fit. This follows clearly from the "state-of-nature" idea. Humans exist first, and then create governments. If our rights came from government, humans existing before government would not have rights that are inherent to being human, which is impossible.

That among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

There are an infinite number of rights that can be summed up in one right: the right to be free. This sentiment is captured in this phrase, which points out that "among" our inalienable rights are the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." These words add further strength to the distinction between rights and values.

That to Secure these Rights, Governments are Institute among Men

Here is the first we hear of the existence of government ”after a world based on truths derived from reason, and based on equal treatment and the right to be free, has been drawn. And it is clear why the government has been created: "to Secure these Rights." Now that the Founders have moved from a state of nature to a state of government.
Deriving their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed

With the power to protect the rights naturally vested in the people, the government can only legitimately exist if some of those rights are consensually handed over by the people. As mentioned earlier, when subjective decision of where one's rights begin and another's end, the need for the third party arbiter arises. Questions arise here as to how much power is legitimate for the government to exercise once this consent has been given.