Skip to main content

The Declaration of Independence: First Principles



 


Natural Rights, Consent of the Governed, and the Moral Case for Liberty

“Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”

— Thomas Jefferson

Before there was a Constitution, before there were political parties or a Supreme Court, there was a simple but radical statement: “All men are created equal.” The Declaration of Independence, signed in 1776, was more than just a list of grievances against King George III. It was a clear articulation of first principles—truths that would define the American experiment.

And we’ve forgotten them.

Natural Rights: Not Granted, but Recognized

Jefferson didn’t claim that governments give us rights. He said our rights exist before government—and that governments are formed to secure them. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness weren’t policy goals. They were birthrights. And to the men who signed the Declaration, these rights were not negotiable.

That’s the foundation: Rights don’t come from kings. They don’t come from Congress. They don’t even come from the Constitution. They come from the Creator, and they belong to us by virtue of simply being human.

This truth has been so diluted in modern America that many now believe their “rights” are whatever a court or politician says they are. But if rights can be given by man, they can be taken away just as easily. The Founders knew better—and we must too.

Consent of the Governed: Power from the Bottom Up

Another forgotten principle is that legitimate power flows upward, not downward. The Declaration makes clear that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Not from tradition. Not from coercion. Not from unelected agencies or activist judges.

That means when government operates without our consent—by bypassing laws, silencing dissent, or ignoring constitutional limits—it becomes illegitimate. That wasn’t just a throwaway line in 1776. It was justification for revolution.

Today, consent has been replaced with compliance. Citizens are told to accept mandates, executive orders, and regulatory overreach as normal. But a free people don’t exist to serve the government. The government exists to serve the people. That principle isn’t outdated—it’s been abandoned.

The Moral Case for Liberty

Finally, the Declaration isn’t just a political document—it’s a moral one. Jefferson appealed to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” to justify America’s independence. This wasn’t relativism. It was a belief in objective truth—that liberty is not just preferable, but right.

Liberty is not the absence of restraint. It is the space to live out one's purpose without tyranny. It’s moral because it assumes responsibility. Freedom without virtue leads to chaos. But freedom rightly ordered—rooted in eternal truths—builds civilizations.

Our culture no longer defends liberty as a moral good. It often sees liberty as a threat to equality or safety. But the Founders believed the exact opposite: that liberty is the precondition of both. Without it, there is no justice, no dignity, and no future.

Where We Go from Here

This isn’t just a history lesson. It’s a call to remember what we’re supposed to be. The Declaration laid the moral groundwork for the entire American project. If we don’t reclaim those first principles—natural rights, consent of the governed, and the moral case for liberty—then the documents that followed will mean little.

In the next post, we’ll explore the Constitution itself—and why structure was seen as the only way to preserve freedom from the very start.

Comments

Post a Comment

I welcome respectful, thoughtful feedback—especially from those who care about education, history, and the values that shape our society. Whether you’re an educator, student, parent, or curious reader, feel free to leave a comment or question below. Let’s keep the conversation sharp, civil, and grounded in truth.

Popular posts from this blog

Order Lost: The Silent Erosion of Authority in Our Schools

  Across the country, the authority that once anchored public education is quietly eroding. Classrooms that were once centers of learning are now often battlegrounds of defiance, disrespect, and disruption. Teachers are undermined, administrators are paralyzed by flawed discipline reforms, and parents increasingly act as adversaries rather than allies. Meanwhile, students who come prepared to learn are forced to endure environments defined more by chaos than by opportunity. Order Lost: The Silent Erosion of Authority in Our Schools examines how inconsistent discipline, administrative avoidance, cultural shifts, and the collapse of parental accountability have combined to create a behavioral crisis that threatens the very foundation of public education. Restoring order is not an optional reform—it is the essential first step toward reclaiming schools as places where real learning, growth, and respect can occur. Order Lost: The Silent Erosion of Authority in Our Schools “I don’t give...
Post a Comment
Read more

How Laws Are Supposed to Be Made

  What It Means When That Process Is Ignored “It will be of little avail to the people… if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 62 Most Americans have no idea how a bill becomes law—and that’s not entirely their fault. Somewhere between the civics textbook version and today’s backroom legislating, the process has become bloated, bypassed, or buried under bureaucracy. But if we don’t know how laws are supposed to be made , we won’t notice when they’re being written in the dark, rushed through without debate, or handed off to unelected agencies. A republic depends on law that is open, accountable, and deliberate —not law by fiat. This post walks through the real legislative process as the Constitution designed it , and highlights where modern politics has drifted—and why that drift threatens liberty. The Constitutional Blueprint: Deliberate and Accountable The Founders placed lawmaking i...
Post a Comment
Read more

When One Judge Blocks the Nation: Rethinking Judicial Power in America

  Imagine a single federal judge in one state issuing a ruling that halts immigration reform, stops pandemic response measures, or freezes student loan relief for the entire country. Sound extreme? It's already happening. This growing judicial tool is called a nationwide injunction—a court order that blocks a federal law or executive action across all 50 states. In recent years, lower court judges have used this power to halt presidential actions under Obama, Trump, and Biden. These rulings didn’t come from the Supreme Court or even appellate courts, but from district-level judges, often appointed to serve a single region. That’s not how the judicial branch was designed to work. Lower Courts Have a Job—But It’s Not to Govern the Country Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts have the power to interpret laws and resolve disputes. Lower courts (district and circuit courts) are essential to this process. They hear cases, apply precedent, and enforce rights within their ...
Post a Comment
Read more