Why the Declaration of Independence still matters – Part 3: The Declaration vs. the Constitution

July 08, 2019

Anthony Garand / Unsplash

By July 9, 1776, a copy of the Declaration of Independence reached New York City, where British naval ships occupied New York Harbor. Revolutionary spirit and tension were running high. George Washington, commander of the Continental forces in New York, read the Declaration aloud in front of City Hall. The crowd cheered wildly, and later that day tore down a statue of King George III. They melted down the statue to make 42,000 musket balls for the ragtag American army.

America's separation from Great Britain was officially in writing. Now came the hard part.

The Declaration of Independence defines who we are, what we believe, and what we aspire to be. It is a mission statement. But no one said it would be easy to implement.

The Declaration was not simply an official announcement of our split from Great Britain. If it was just that, it could've been a lot shorter. It was also an announcement that we're starting a new company, and here's what we're basing it on. It didn't just declare independence — it declared principles. It declared how we were going to organize ourselves once we were out on our own, and it set up guardrails to help ensure we didn't end up like the country we were leaving in the first place.

The Founders set us up for success, but America is now fumbling it away, largely thanks to our dangerous drift from the original blueprints.

In our national discourse, it's hard to find agreement even on fundamentals like the Declaration of Independence anymore. There's no time for old-fashioned things like the Declaration when social media can fuel our outrage around the clock.

We have lost touch with our national DNA.

How often do we jump to outrage before we have any kind of perspective on a matter? In 2017, President Trump had only been in office for one month before over 100 activists rewrote a version of the Declaration of Independence, rewording it with Trump in the King George III role. Trump had been in office for a single month. The focus has shifted from unity to partisan winning at all costs. We have lost touch with our national DNA.

Our basic knowledge of the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights is so weak that we don't have a clue how they relate to each other. As of late 2017, 37 percent of Americans could not name any of our First Amendment rights. And 33 percent of Americans could not name any branch of our government.

Here's another example of our painful misunderstanding. In a Psychology Today article written before the 2016 presidential election, Dr. Mark Goulston was trying to figure out a way to understand Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This is what he came up with:

Trump represents the Declaration of Independence. Clinton represents the U.S. Constitution.

He tries to explain that Trump supporters are eager to declare their independence from the political swamp system. For the Constitution side of things, he wrote:

It [the Constitution] may have stood the test of time for so long because it was drafted following a long, costly and awful war that the founding fathers wanted to prevent from happening again. That intention possibly enabled them to create a document that was relatively free from special interests and personal agendas. [Hillary] Clinton is more like the Constitution than the Declaration of Independence and appears to be more about getting things done than declaratively taking a stand.

Besides being a completely bogus way to interpret Hillary Clinton, this comparison makes your brain hurt because it so fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution. They are not rival documents.

He says the Constitution has stood the test of time because the founders wrote it to prevent another long, costly war. What? No. It stands the test of time because it was designed to protect the “unalienable rights" of the Declaration.

He goes on to say that we need a new Constitutional Convention because, “We may just need to retrofit it to fit modern times."

This is the primarily leftist idea that America is up against today — that the founding documents worked well for their time, but that they now need an overhaul. Progressives seem to live by the motto, if it ain't broke, fix it anyway. Rather than “fixing" things, however, when we understand the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights as they already are, we discover that they still work because they're tied to universal principles, not a specific point in time.

Here's one way to think about the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The Declaration is our thesis, or mission statement. The Constitution is the blueprint to implement that mission statement. And the Bill of Rights is our insurance policy.

Aside from the practical business of separating from Great Britain, the gist of the Declaration is that humans have natural rights granted us by God, and that those rights cannot be compromised by man. The Constitution, then, is the practical working out of how do we design a government that best protects our natural rights?

The creation of the Constitution did not give us rights. The existence of our rights created the Constitution. The Constitution just recognizes and codifies those rights, clarifying that the government does not have authority to deprive us of those rights.

The Founders were extremely paranoid about corruption and abuse of power. They designed a system to avoid as much of that as possible.

The Progressive and postmodern idea that rich white guys founded America as an exclusive country club for enriching themselves doesn't hold water. If that had been their true intent, they seriously handicapped themselves with the emphasis on rights and the checks on power that they included in these three documents. Any honest reading of the Constitution, and of the massive ratification debates that dragged on in individual state legislatures, makes one thing very clear — the Founders were extremely paranoid about corruption and abuse of power. They designed a system to avoid as much of that as possible.

Still, this Declaration-Constitution-Bill of Rights-trifecta thing is just a conservative line, right? It's just something we say because we're stuck in the past and we're in denial about the new and improved, diverse, post-gender, postmodern America, right?

As the Declaration puts it, “let facts be submitted to a candid world."

In 1839, on the 50th anniversary of George Washington's inauguration as the nation's first president, the New York Historical Society invited former president John Quincy Adams to deliver a speech. As the son of John Adams, John Quincy wrote a speech about something near and dear to his — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He said:

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government… it had been working itself into the mind of man for many ages… but had never before been adopted by a great nation in practice…

Even in our own country, there are still philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the Declaration, as self-evident truths — who deny the natural equality and inalienable rights of man — who deny that the people are the only legitimate source of power – who deny that all just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed… I speak to matters of fact. There is the Declaration of Independence, and there is the Constitution of the United States — let them speak for themselves.

They can, and they do. They don't require any interpretation or updates because our inalienable rights have not changed.

Progressives and Democratic Socialists believe our rights come from the government, but the Declaration emphasizes that our rights are inalienable and are granted to mankind by God. By the way, we usually only use the word “inalienable" now when we're talking about the Declaration of Independence, so we often don't even understand the word. It means something that is not transferable, something incapable of being taken away or denied.

We don't know our founding documents anymore and we're witnessing the disastrous results of this deficiency. We've lost sight of what made the American Revolution so unique. It was the first time subjects who had colonized new lands, rebelled against the country they came from. Government by the people and for the people is a principle that changed the world. Most countries fall apart after their revolutions. We thrived because of the firm principles of the Declaration, and the protection of those principles in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's a unique system with a remarkable track record, in spite of our human frailty. But this system is not inevitable — for it to continue to work, we must understand and protect it.

Horror on Park Avenue: Is America’s mental health crisis out of control?

New York Daily News / Contributor | Getty Images

The Park Avenue shooter wanted us to study his brain. But will we study our culture?

Late Monday afternoon in Midtown Manhattan, the summer heat clung to the glass and steel of Park Avenue, usually a quiet street save for the occasional honking horn or blaring siren. But as the sun dipped behind the towering skyscrapers, violence erupted.

A 27-year-old man, whose name I won't bother mentioning, stepped out of a black BMW he had double-parked near 51st and 52nd Streets. His movements were calm, deliberate. In his hands, he carried an AR-15 rifle. His target was 345 Park Avenue, a tower of wealth and power, housing the offices of Blackstone, the National Football League, and Rudin Management. The idea of chaos here, in this building, felt foreign — until it wasn’t.

If we don’t get back to the root causes of violence, we’re doomed to continue spiraling into chaos.

The shooter made his way into the building lobby, where he shot in the back 36-year-old New York City Police Officer Didarul Islam, whose wife was about to give birth to their third child. The gunman then gunned down a woman hiding behind a pillar, her life taken in an instant.

The footage shows him moving with a chilling calm, methodical and relentless. A guard behind a desk became his next victim. Then another man, an NFL employee, was shot and is still in critical condition.

The shooter made his way to the elevators, and, strangely, as one opened, a woman stepped out. He let her pass. Why? We’ll never know. But she will likely ask herself that question for the rest of her life.

He continued to the 33rd floor, where Rudin is located. There, in the quiet hum of fluorescent lights and the soft chatter of cubicles, he began “to walk the floor, firing as he traveled.” Another victim fell, another family destroyed.

And then, in a final act, he turned the rifle on himself.

NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch confirmed that the scene was contained. But the damage was done. Four people were dead: one officer, one security guard, and two civilians. Several more were wounded.

The root issue: Mental illness

As details emerged, we learned more about the gunman’s background. He had driven cross-country from Las Vegas to New York. By trade, he was a security guard at a Las Vegas casino, and he held a concealed carry permit. Yet his history of mental illness, coupled with a backpack full of ammunition, medication, and his clear intent, painted a grim picture.

We also learned that his real target was the NFL, not Rudin. The shooter, suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease common in high-contact sports caused by repeated head collisions, blamed the NFL for his condition.

He had played football in his youth, but never at the professional level. His note, found on his body after he shot himself, said he wanted his brain studied, to contribute to the understanding of his condition.

This wasn’t just an ordinary act of violence; it was a tragic collision of a mentally unstable man and a gun.

A growing crisis

America is in the midst of an unprecedented mental health crisis. As I walk through cities like New York, I am confronted by the increasing number of unstable individuals teetering on the brink of violence. Not long ago, my wife and I were walking through Manhattan when a man on a bike circled us, looking me directly in the eye, saying, “I’m going to kill me a white man today. Today is the day.”

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

The man was clearly unhinged. Fortunately, he noticed the armed security behind us, and he quickly rode away. But what if they hadn’t been there? What if he had been someone who wasn’t aware of the people around him?

The world we live in today is one where violence is erupting in public spaces, fueled by mental illness, societal breakdown, and a lack of accountability — and it’s becoming a national trend. This isn’t just about guns or laws — it’s about what’s happening inside the minds of those who perpetrate these acts.

A wake-up call

It’s easy for people to point fingers. To blame social media, to blame the media itself, to call for more laws. But this crisis is about much more than that. It’s about a loss of morality, family, social cohesion, transcendent purpose, genuine human connection, and so much more that comes with a society whose values are rooted in God’s truth.

I’m not a mental health expert, but surely the degeneration of these social goods and the historic rise in mental disorders, especially among young people, are not coincidental. We can’t keep turning a blind eye to such things and pretend that new laws or more regulations will fix it.

This isn’t just about changing laws; it’s about changing hearts. If we don’t, we’ll keep losing those we hold dear.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The DARK truth behind the Macrons' absurd lawsuit

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

While the media obsesses over elite scandals, Glenn is having a field day exposing the Macron lawsuit farce—and the twisted truth it tries to bury.

The era of unchecked narratives is coming to an end. We're reclaiming reality, one scandal at a time.

On his show, Glenn couldn't hide his glee over French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte suing Candace Owens for claiming she's really a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux. Glenn called Brigitte the "Jeffrey Epstein of France" for grooming a 15-year-old Emmanuel when she was his 40-year-old teacher, and speculated that she is pressuring her husband to silence the rumors. Glenn also mocked the blatant overkill, which included childhood photos, birth announcements, and a desperate proclamation that Brigitte is "a woman."

But it goes deeper: The liberal elites have long proclaimed that transitioning is "wonderful," so why sue over the insinuation? It's hypocrisy—elites demanding silence on grooming while forcing conformity. This isn't about truth; it's control, proving no one's above scrutiny.

Want to see the absurd lawsuit firsthand? Download the Macron v. Owens lawsuit PDF here and see the evidence for yourself.

Download the PDF here.

BREAKING: Top-secret 2020 House Intel report on Brennan's ICA revealed

Brooks Kraft / Contributor | Getty Images

The following oversight report from the House Intelligence Committee examines the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) rushed out by the Obama administration before leaving office in January 2017.

This report has never been released to the public. Until now.

The House Intelligence Committee’s review began in 2017, shortly after the ICA’s release, and continued through 2020, paralleling a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, which concluded in fall 2020.

Before its declassification by President Trump and public release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, this report was among the U.S. government’s most highly classified documents. Its sensitive level of compartmentation prohibited storage on top-secret computer networks. Only five physical copies existed, all secured in safes under strict protocols. This extreme classification suggests the Obama administration sought to prevent the public from learning the extent of its alleged deception.

Download the PDF here.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.