The declaration of independence is a list of grievances formulated by the political leaders at the time, to declare independence for the 13 colonies from great Britain. The first section of the document functions as an introduction, and essentially their “thesis”. While also presenting the justification by law for them to declare their independence, “…that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”.
The second section would function as a list of charges against the King of great Britain made by the colonies. The people would state he is breaking the laws made to protect their natural rights (Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness), as well as depriving them of the rights they have as citizens of the nation
The third section would be the overall summary and actual declaration of their separation from Great Britain. Presenting all the direct issues the British had placed upon them, and how they were mistreated. The writers would speak directly to all colonies and their former leaders that they are “The United States of America” and they would be made into independent states.
I found this document to be persuasive because it directly stated their reasons and claims as to why they were separating. They illustrated their reasons in a clear and effective manner, using philosophers ideas during that time period (John Locke) as way to add credibility and reason.
“The Framers claimed that with inalienable rights, you always retain the ability to take back any right that has been given up.” This quote would interest me because of the way the author, Randy E. Barnett, would differentiate between alienable and inalienable rights in relation to the declaration of independence. The colonies felt as though the rights they were being deprived of were inalienable, and are an essential to what a government should provide its people.
Okay. But how is the idea of inalienable rights relevant today?