from declaration of independence

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

so the pursuit of happiness is a right

but it is also the right of everyone else

so

you have the right to pursue happiness

but

you do not have the right to walk on others same right to do so

thank your once again sir

At issue are two quotations incorrectly attributed to Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, and popular among the tea-party sloganeers. “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself,” is said to be the comment from Franklin. From Jefferson: “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”

Mr Frank, having rummaged through the primary sources, can find no evidence that either was ever said by the founding father in question. The Jefferson apocrypha, according to his research, may be sourced to a 1980 tract on regulation, in which a similar comment appears as the author's interpretation of Jefferson's argument in an 1813 letter to John Adams. The fake Franklin quote seems to be a witticism that was in use as early as 1881, though not attributed to Franklin.


pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution, HAPPY is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution,,,,,its not a legal or constitutional concern really,,,,,

The U.S Declaration of Independence isn't the same kind of document that the U.S. Constitution is.
The latter defines legal rights of U.S. citizens, not the former.

still,it mentions the Rights later laid out in a more specific manner in the Constitution!

the declaration separated its writers from Grt Brtn,, and gave their reasons, relating to 13 colonies in 1776


the articles of confederation was then written in 177 for those 13 COLONIES

the constitution then was written in 1787 to lay out the 'government' for those 13 colonies,,,


after that, as the nation grew geographically, the constitution ( a living document, as they say) continued to be amended to adjust to the change in culture and populations,,,,



I say all that to say, the declaration had a finite specific purpose, to separate from gr brtn

whereas the constitution has a more infinite purpose to set a foundation and allow changes to the foundation based upon changes to the national cultures and peoples,,,,

ok?

The U.S. Constitution is "living" only in that it can be amended by specific constitutional means, not by legislating from the judicial bench.

the declaration of independence is the precursor to the constitution

the revolt was because of the unanswered grievances in the declaration of independence

the revolution was won thus along came the constitution

you do not say this is why we revolt then not honor those reasons after the revolution

you do create a more detailed way to enforce and support your declaration that you wrote as to why you seek independence thus a constitution is written

the constitution was written to expand and enforce the declaration of independence

the declaration of independence overrides the constitution

and neither ought to be any from the EXECUTIVE!

Good luck in finding a judge who agrees with that.

i would like to debate it with one not smart enough to understand it

hopefully there are none

Actually its purpose was to also take it a step further and remind citizens of the heart behind our constitution. As if to say, "This is why we rebelled, when this starts happening again, something is wrong."

Without going into too much detail, as i tend to get carried away with the subject, We the people must be willing to protest, and courageous enough to stand against our own government if it becomes too intrusive and no longer has our best interests at heart.

I guess one could say it outlines the first, last, and biggest check and balance in a system designed around these checks and balances. Power corrupts. This fact is timeless.

it could be said, being English that the law was 'based' in English laws , magna carta,, etc,,,yet these are not the same document as the one called the CONSTITUTION either, and what is constitutional or a 'right' in america is not determined by what is in these other documents either

odd that the declaration (or other british legal documents) were't just amended though

and that no one argues legally using the declaration or magna carta ,,etc,,, instead of the constitution

in lieu, the delcaration and the constitution becomes TWO SEPERATE documents

BRAVO!!!