Apparently, the Brits and Americans are going to battle over the Declaration of Independence again.
This time, however, there will be no guns, and maybe only a little bit of violence. It appears that several very bright legal minds from both sides of the pond are getting together to argue whether the Declaration of Independence was legal. This should be a very interesting little exercise.
The preview of the Americans’ argument has us particularly interested. It is partially based in natural law and it pertains to so much of what people have been protesting around the world. The concept that there are natural states of being really follows things like #OWS, the Facebook protests in the Middle East, and even the Tea Party because they are a visceral reaction to a situation or set of laws. In other words, people may be attempting to restore order to a system that has fallen into a bit of chaos. We think that if the arguments put forth justifying the Declaration of Independence are persuasive and publicized enough, maybe it could give the most recent set of protesters some more focus.
The counter argument to be made by the British barristers is obvious as they can argue from a point of security since the Colonies rebelled against the king. Further, parliament decreed that a set of laws which were summarily broken by the Americans. So, technically, we should all still be citizens of the United Kingdom right now.
We should be privy to some innovative arguments made with the advantage of a little bit of hindsight, or at least that is the hope. The attorneys and judges involved in making these arguments could innovate just a bit and craft their arguments with open minds. For Americans, these arguments start at the very beginning of our legal history and they are an opportunity to look back so that we might see a clear way forward.