Beautiful point, I didn't notice this before, thank you so much for sharing. Edit: Now I see why I haven't noticed it before, because every version I've ever looked at has the period in it. Interesting, thanks again.
Powerful and well explained. I've always appreciated "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" but better understanding the whole concept is much more satisfying.
Very well explained....very well explained. Just like in any paper, you give the thesis in the first paragraph - the founding fathers gave us the thesis for America. Our paper (government) should reflect that. Can we allow this to unite us. We should
Good video I would add that the phrase "self evident" provides evidence for believing that the Scottish School of Common Sense had a hand in the Declaration. Thomas Reid and Duggal Smith promoted the idea that some ideas are so true they are self evident. Reid makes the point that you can't go into a court room and say I am innocent of a crime because the world in not really here because it is self evident that it is here. Even if some clever person thinks he can prove the world is not here he is to be over ruled because it is self evident that it is here. And the same for our rights.
Please vote for whoever the elitists have selected to rule over you and then wonder why nothing ever gets better, but rather keep getting worse. Choice is an illusion because the majority doesn't get to select the candidates since the US is NOT a democracy. Voting is an act of violence because the government has no power without the ability to force people to obey. Take ownership of yourself, don't let other people run your life, don't be a sheep mindlessly following the herd.
@@livewire2759 Are you an anarchist? Do you model your thinking on Ted Kaczynski or is Timothy McVeigh more your style. Does Christopher McCandless inspire you? Was the Truman Show a revelation for you? Are you lost in The Twilight Zone? Did you follow Neo into The Matrix? Or did you fall down a rabbit hole and end up in a Wonderland with Alice. Has Dorothy lead you to Oz? Just Q ustions. Is there any part of civil society you like? Clean drinking water, electricity, dental care? Вы платный интернет-тролль?
@Aaron Lewis I'm guessing you don't live in a democracy. Maybe you're North Korean, Chinese or Russian. No I'm not a Marxist. If I had a political doctrine it would something like the song Imagine by John Lennon. But I realize that the human race has yet to have the emotional and intellectual maturity to live in a society where compassion, tolerance and kindness are core values. So I'm prepared to compromise and live in a democracy. Good luck with your future. 'Freedom, liberty and fraternity
Well put Professor. Too bad I think we are beyond hope in the US now, very sad. Too many deliberately undereducated. But maybe smaller newer nation-states can learn from this.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Our Founders and Framers understood that, with the GRACE of PROVIDENCE, as best as WE are able, it will be the RESPONSIBILITY of us all to HOLD and DECLARE such truths as self-evident, that is, such truths which define OUR culture and OUR democratic nation; whereby, in conjunction with our subsequently written federal Constitution --- our national "how-to" manual, regarding our UNION of Sovereign States --- we thereby "ordained and established" a federal govt by which our Union of States may then endeavor "to form that more perfect UNION" and etc. IOW, if we are not satisfied with our NATION --- our UNION of SOVEREIGN States --- then it is up to us to change our DOI; while, if we are not satisfied with how to run our FED GOVT then it is up to us to change our Constitution. Both of these statements, in clear English, are PLAIN TO READ, respectively, in our DOI and federal Constitution. Any RECOURSE, which we may desire, has been with us ... from our very beginnings. What more could be needed? Our Framers believed that, as humans, we were NOT and WILL NEVER BE ABLE to convey, in writing, a PERFECT Declaration. Given time, any phrase of any length, most likely, could and would be "misinterpreted". Our liberties are NOT FREE; they are NOT out of thin air and they do NOT simply materialize. In order to devise a system by which these liberties would be protected, our DOI established our recognition of our liberties, whereby, subsequently, our federal Constitution was established; where, nonetheless, an effort, by one and all, who love liberty for one and all, for the protection and preservation of same, IS required. For these reasons alone, our challenge is NOT with the structure of this sentence --- length, punctuation or otherwise --- rather, collectively, it is with We the People --- to whom this sentence, or, sentences, was directed --- who, are entrusted with the protection and preservation of our unalienable rights; which, for some reason, we, in numbers way too great, refuse to EMPLOY the "tools" already bequeathed to us --- regardless of whether such are of the 18th, or, any other century --- that is, those as outlined in our National Foundational Documents. Truth, whether "new" or "old" is Truth; and, as such, it is timeless; otherwise, it is neither.
Viewing that paragraph of the Declaration as one sentence, or as two, makes no difference as to the meaning of the paragraph. Either way, the only legitimate purpose of government is to secure the God-given rights of the individual. The people then have the right to alter or abolish any government that does not work to secure those rights.
1) it makes a difference as to the interpretation of the meaning, which is what matters, because the writers aren’t around to explain themselves. 2) rights aren’t god-given.
This part of the Declaration tells us that insurrection is a right when government becomes destructive toward our rights & liberties, something that governments are instituted among men to protect, not destroy..
@@tomlehr861 To bad leftists don't understand that all rights were what is now considered "negative rights" when the constitution was drafted. The government doesn't get in trouble for not granting you a positive right, it's not for them to grant, and it would take the rights from another to do so.
*"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." --Justice Louis Brandeis* *"The pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government." -- Paul Ryan, 2011*
The problem lies in this long-winded sentence, not the mistake of a printing company. A sentence that goes for the duration of a paragraph will undoubtedly be misinterpreted. George Orwell's "Politics and the English language" illustrates this point. Further, a document with policies relative to the 18th Century should be re-evaluated.
Given time, any phrase of any length, most likely, will be "misinterpreted". Our Framers believed that they and We, as humans, were NOT and NEVER WILL BE CAPABLE of conveying a PERFECT notion. They understood that forever it will be the RESPONSIBILITY of their posterity, that is, we the living, and our posterity, as best as We are able, with the GRACE of PROVIDENCE, to HOLD such truths "in order to form that more perfect UNION". Our liberties are NOT FREE; out of thin air, they do NOT simply materialize and "happen". An effort, by one and all who love liberty for one and all, IS required. For these reasons alone, the "problem" is NOT with the structure of this sentence --- length or otherwise --- rather, collectively, it is with We the People --- to whom this sentence was directed --- who, for some reason, refuse to EMPLOY the "tools" already bequeathed to us, by our birthright citizenship, and as outlined in our National Foundational Documents ... regardless of whether such are of the 18th, or, any other century. [Truth, whether "new" or "old" is Truth; and, as such, it is timeless; otherwise, it is neither.] PS: regarding Eric Blair, and his essay, "Politics and the English language": perhaps you and I are reading some different essays, but, Blair, in the essay "variant" which I read, focused on the "sins" of "staleness of imagery" and "lack of precision", neither of which are apparent in the DOI; unless you can "illustrate" otherwise specific instances.
The point is interesting, but when it comes to those who lead social change movements, comparing the Declaration to a users manual is incorrect. It doesn't matter in this case whether the Declaration of Independence is a living document or not. It holds only symbolic value, not legal value. Our Constitution is the law of the land, not the declaration of Independence, as incredible of a document it is.
WD ... wow! You really missed the point regarding the relationship between our DOI and Constitution! IOW, you do not understand the reasons for which the USA was intended and designed.
Why can’t people just read it and understand? It’s not complicated. To me, a period doesn’t change anything. To me the statement “a living Document” tells me all I need to know.
Your point is lacking. Sentences also start with capital letters like in the word "--That". But it really doesn't matter because the inalienable rights still remain; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness". Which unfortunately Democrats fail to understand that the pursuit of happiness does not mean the government is responsible for your happiness. Rather you, as an individual, can pursue your own happiness with all the trials and tribulations that go along with it. That is why individual freedom and capitalism are unalienable rights of the governed. The collectivism and socialism are not rights, but barriers to our rights.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are AMONG the inalienable rights, obviously implying that there are others, which unfortunately Republicans fail to understand.
@@upaya30 Yes, the "declaration of independence" does say "among these". The actual rights are listed in the constitution under the Bill of Rights, signed by all the representatives of the states of that time. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the grab bag of "free" stuff that the socialist party want.
@@wattsupwiththat1463 I was going to write something super snark, but in the spirit of of election day, I won't. I think you're totally wrong about the bill of rights. Those are the rights government gives us, not God.
@@upaya30 Well you are right that the Bill of rights are not God given rights, but many are based on our inalienable rights. And fortunately you are wrong about the government giving us the Bill of Rights. It is us that allows the government to exist and not the other way around.
@@wattsupwiththat1463 didn't mean to imply that the government was anything other than a tool that we the people have created. I still think the declaration of independence suggests more God given rights than it specifically mentions.
The most authentic copy of the Declaration, held at the National Archives, shows a period, not a comma, between "Happiness" and "That". She asserts (1:44) that the official printer got the comma right, but the copy at the National Archives contains a period. She does not support her argument that her preferred version is the correct version. By separating the two phrases with a comma she conjoins the rationale for individual liberty with political activism. This ignores the context of the Declaration, which is a people separating from another people and not the running of a government. She then goes on to talk about controlling the levers of government. She starts her talk with an argument by authority, while the most reliable version of the Declaration contradicts her point and undermines her authority. She seems more intent on individual social justice rather than the establishment of a just government. It is the Constitution that provides the levers of government, not the Declaration. This shift in emphasis is subtle, but it is significant, and it is away from the Constitution. This is consistent with Harvard's recent emphasis on social justice activism.
What do you mean by a living document? Is it. not important enough to your democracy that you should understand the first sentence, given that you base so much upon it? You seem to imply that she is making some kind of change or modification to the times. Instead she is correcting a misreading and oversimplification.
Seems like current Govt is not terribly bothered about the right to life... as in to continue to live the life you have, and not be shot in a mass shooting, killed by a mismanaged virus, murdered by law enforcement, sent to a pointless war, etc etc etc. Where is your liberty and freedom, really?
The average non-public school educated - because there were no public schools - colonist understood the Declaration. Are you saying you are not as smart as the average 18th century American? And why is Trump president, and you are not? Are you lacking?
I THINK HE UNDERSTANDS THEIR MEANING BETTER THAN ANY OF YOU LEFTIST ELITE LIBERALS DO. THINKING THAT WE POOR SLOBS AREN'T SMART ENOUGH SO PAT US ON THE HEAD AND LET THE GOVERNMENT TAKE CARE OF YOU. NO THANKS REAL ADULTS ARE RUNNUNG THINGS NOT PEOPLE WHO OFFER FREE EVERYTHING WITHOUT A PLAN TO PAY FOR IT ALL EXCEPT RAISING MY TAXES..
Would you know the difference if it was being read to you, that is the question...Title should be changed to how United States Citizens might misinterpret... Most "Americans" don't care to much about our declaration. Most "Americans" are not U.S citizens. Saying you teach this subject; you should be very precise; and detailed. It is pretty blunt statement. Easy to read, and understand. The document wasn't written with the intention to fool, or manipulate. A grade schooler can understand it. We can debate it, but without language manipulation over time it says what it says. I will say this I take freedom over rights any day! Evolution. Rights given to you by an individual, or group of is not freedom.
Automatic weapons are heavily regulated and almost impossible to buy. You must be thinking of semi-automatic firearms, which are indeed too easy to buy.
Don't you think that the REAL "big problem" is that somehow culturally the society seems to think that violence is a solution still? Guns are convenient. If people were killing each other by stoning (I know it still happens) do you really think criminalizing of stones would change the society that thinks violence is an acceptable solution? Certainly, disposing of all the stones isn't a realistic option for anyone. Humans will always figure out new and more efficient was to kill one another until we no longer think that killing is a proper response to conflict. Killing has solved things, but I don't imagine it was always the best choice even if it was the most convenient or efficient resolution.
@horseman, the problem is that you rely on "fanciful and rhetorical" hypothesis; certainly NOT theory. Please inform us all: how DID life begin, and, by logical extension, man evolve? Here's a start: Richard Dawkins, and his kindred academics --- mind you, nothing, in principle, wrong with academics --- admit readily, that they DO NOT KNOW how life began. Regarding this matter, EVERYONE, like you and me is hypothecating. NO THEORY yet recognized. IOW, there is NO theory --- that is, NO proven physical model of any phenomena --- which explains the ORIGINS of any and all life on our planet. God remains an "option" ... as does every other person's fanciful and rhetorical metaphysical hypothesis.
Ms. Allen: Think global not just local (U.S.) How to bring happiness (and peace) worldwide. Because humanity, all living and non-living are connected in ways that we don't fully understand today, yet there is sufficient evidence to support it. Pursuit of local happiness can fail, especially if it comes at the cost of others. Your knowledge is too narrow.
I don't know that she disagrees with what you just wrote, she may believe precisely that, I happen to agree with you. However, she was answering a specific question not giving a lecture on the human condition. That question was specifically about the declaration of independence a US document. I agree with what you said, and she may as well, but that wasn't the point of this video.
@@Inazarab Yes, I understand that she is talking about the misinterpretation of that document. My point is that since her ultimate goal is about teaching people about their rights and responsibilities for attaining happiness through proper governance, her focus is *too narrow* on that perceived _extraneous full-stop_. There are other *more important* reasons why citizens are unhappy -- why they feel insecure against domestic and international terrorism (killing of Jews in Pittsburg, 9/11, ...), hate crimes, global climate change, collapse of financial markets (2008) that result in people's retirement savings disappearing, etc. Or, why there are family/societal issues causing stress, depressions, domestic violence, etc. Whether people read that document correctly or incorrectly, has little bearing on governance or happiness because that document text is insignificant in the larger scheme of things.
Beautiful point, I didn't notice this before, thank you so much for sharing. Edit: Now I see why I haven't noticed it before, because every version I've ever looked at has the period in it. Interesting, thanks again.
Powerful and well explained. I've always appreciated "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" but better understanding the whole concept is much more satisfying.
great message. Thank you.
Wonderfully expressed! Thank you.
How do you put sHow do you load a arrow stapler
Very well explained....very well explained. Just like in any paper, you give the thesis in the first paragraph - the founding fathers gave us the thesis for America. Our paper (government) should reflect that. Can we allow this to unite us. We should
In other words, it's really saying we need government to achieve the happiness?
Thank you!
This is the best video about a period I've ever seen.
period!
A good thing to know.
This was the subeject for a scene in an episode of "The West Wing", with "Toby" referring to a "smudge" of law...
Good video I would add that the phrase "self evident" provides evidence for believing that the Scottish School of Common Sense had a hand in the Declaration. Thomas Reid and Duggal Smith promoted the idea that some ideas are so true they are self evident. Reid makes the point that you can't go into a court room and say I am innocent of a crime because the world in not really here because it is self evident that it is here. Even if some clever person thinks he can prove the world is not here he is to be over ruled because it is self evident that it is here. And the same for our rights.
good vid
Please Vote and ask your family and friends to do the same.
It's vital for Democracy and it's the most Patriotic thing you can do.
Too bad it won't change anything. Nothing changes on an structural level no matter who's in charge.
Please vote for whoever the elitists have selected to rule over you and then wonder why nothing ever gets better, but rather keep getting worse. Choice is an illusion because the majority doesn't get to select the candidates since the US is NOT a democracy. Voting is an act of violence because the government has no power without the ability to force people to obey. Take ownership of yourself, don't let other people run your life, don't be a sheep mindlessly following the herd.
@@livewire2759 Are you an anarchist?
Do you model your thinking on Ted Kaczynski or is Timothy McVeigh more your style.
Does Christopher McCandless inspire you?
Was the Truman Show a revelation for you?
Are you lost in The Twilight Zone?
Did you follow Neo into The Matrix?
Or did you fall down a rabbit hole and end up in a Wonderland with Alice.
Has Dorothy lead you to Oz?
Just Q ustions.
Is there any part of civil society you like?
Clean drinking water, electricity, dental care?
Вы платный интернет-тролль?
@Aaron Lewis I'm guessing you don't live in a democracy.
Maybe you're North Korean, Chinese or Russian.
No I'm not a Marxist.
If I had a political doctrine it would something like the song Imagine by John Lennon.
But I realize that the human race has yet to have the emotional and intellectual maturity to live in a society where compassion, tolerance and kindness are core values.
So I'm prepared to compromise and live in a democracy.
Good luck with your future.
'Freedom, liberty and fraternity
This is not a Democracy.
Well put Professor. Too bad I think we are beyond hope in the US now, very sad. Too many deliberately undereducated. But maybe smaller newer nation-states can learn from this.
I love you as my sister patriot.
Thanks you.
Para sa aking pilosopya at analohiya, paulit ulit ang giyera kung walang panibagong declaration ng America para sa " Individual independence".
Brava Danielle!!! A civics refresher for the country
Where does it say "Democracy"?
Does it make a difference?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
It's a petition
As of for us its better compared to now adays keep R&B alive along with Da Rap Game we accept piglatin along cherographer audition
The Atlantic? Ha ha ha ha ha .
Our Founders and Framers understood that, with the GRACE of PROVIDENCE, as best as WE are able, it will be the RESPONSIBILITY of us all to HOLD and DECLARE such truths as self-evident, that is, such truths which define OUR culture and OUR democratic nation; whereby, in conjunction with our subsequently written federal Constitution --- our national "how-to" manual, regarding our UNION of Sovereign States --- we thereby "ordained and established" a federal govt by which our Union of States may then endeavor "to form that more perfect UNION" and etc.
IOW, if we are not satisfied with our NATION --- our UNION of SOVEREIGN States --- then it is up to us to change our DOI; while, if we are not satisfied with how to run our FED GOVT then it is up to us to change our Constitution. Both of these statements, in clear English, are PLAIN TO READ, respectively, in our DOI and federal Constitution. Any RECOURSE, which we may desire, has been with us ... from our very beginnings. What more could be needed?
Our Framers believed that, as humans, we were NOT and WILL NEVER BE ABLE to convey, in writing, a PERFECT Declaration. Given time, any phrase of any length, most likely, could and would be "misinterpreted". Our liberties are NOT FREE; they are NOT out of thin air and they do NOT simply materialize. In order to devise a system by which these liberties would be protected, our DOI established our recognition of our liberties, whereby, subsequently, our federal Constitution was established; where, nonetheless, an effort, by one and all, who love liberty for one and all, for the protection and preservation of same, IS required.
For these reasons alone, our challenge is NOT with the structure of this sentence --- length, punctuation or otherwise --- rather, collectively, it is with We the People --- to whom this sentence, or, sentences, was directed --- who, are entrusted with the protection and preservation of our unalienable rights; which, for some reason, we, in numbers way too great, refuse to EMPLOY the "tools" already bequeathed to us --- regardless of whether such are of the 18th, or, any other century --- that is, those as outlined in our National Foundational Documents.
Truth, whether "new" or "old" is Truth; and, as such, it is timeless; otherwise, it is neither.
so how do we kill the woke and PC people ?
Our founding fathers didn’t have caps lock.
Viewing that paragraph of the Declaration as one sentence, or as two, makes no difference as to the meaning of the paragraph.
Either way, the only legitimate purpose of government is to secure the God-given rights of the individual. The people then have the right to alter or abolish any government that does not work to secure those rights.
1) it makes a difference as to the interpretation of the meaning, which is what matters, because the writers aren’t around to explain themselves. 2) rights aren’t god-given.
Why are these comments so mean?
We the people are the only government, we don’t need another one.
It's not a "living Document". It is dead, it died as the ink dried.
Right. Because the moment it was written it never, ever changed. Ever. So much insight.
Slay queen. You go girl.
Work, work! (sorry, HamilTrash here, I had to)
"You can't see America without William Cooper's eyes" Eyeless
I don’t consent
she must be a very good teacher
She deep in the matrix
This part of the Declaration tells us that insurrection is a right when government becomes destructive toward our rights & liberties, something that governments are instituted among men to protect, not destroy..
Too bad trumps cult didnt read it
@@tomlehr861 To bad leftists don't understand that all rights were what is now considered "negative rights" when the constitution was drafted.
The government doesn't get in trouble for not granting you a positive right, it's not for them to grant, and it would take the rights from another to do so.
@@sirellyn so nobody has any rights
By definition, insurrection is not a right. If it was a right then it wouldn't be insurrection.
TL;DW something about america
*"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." --Justice Louis Brandeis*
*"The pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government." -- Paul Ryan, 2011*
“Unless you are a minority or you have a womb.”
Ohhhh... I've been reading it with that stupid little period! NOW I get it! Excuse me while I run down to change my political affiliation!
why does she seem like she's going to cry for the first half of the video
The problem lies in this long-winded sentence, not the mistake of a printing company. A sentence that goes for the duration of a paragraph will undoubtedly be misinterpreted. George Orwell's "Politics and the English language" illustrates this point. Further, a document with policies relative to the 18th Century should be re-evaluated.
Given time, any phrase of any length, most likely, will be "misinterpreted". Our Framers believed that they and We, as humans, were NOT and NEVER WILL BE CAPABLE of conveying a PERFECT notion. They understood that forever it will be the RESPONSIBILITY of their posterity, that is, we the living, and our posterity, as best as We are able, with the GRACE of PROVIDENCE, to HOLD such truths "in order to form that more perfect UNION".
Our liberties are NOT FREE; out of thin air, they do NOT simply materialize and "happen". An effort, by one and all who love liberty for one and all, IS required.
For these reasons alone, the "problem" is NOT with the structure of this sentence --- length or otherwise --- rather, collectively, it is with We the People --- to whom this sentence was directed --- who, for some reason, refuse to EMPLOY the "tools" already bequeathed to us, by our birthright citizenship, and as outlined in our National Foundational Documents ... regardless of whether such are of the 18th, or, any other century. [Truth, whether "new" or "old" is Truth; and, as such, it is timeless; otherwise, it is neither.]
PS: regarding Eric Blair, and his essay, "Politics and the English language": perhaps you and I are reading some different essays, but, Blair, in the essay "variant" which I read, focused on the "sins" of "staleness of imagery" and "lack of precision", neither of which are apparent in the DOI; unless you can "illustrate" otherwise specific instances.
The point is interesting, but when it comes to those who lead social change movements, comparing the Declaration to a users manual is incorrect. It doesn't matter in this case whether the Declaration of Independence is a living document or not. It holds only symbolic value, not legal value. Our Constitution is the law of the land, not the declaration of Independence, as incredible of a document it is.
WD ... wow! You really missed the point regarding the relationship between our DOI and Constitution! IOW, you do not understand the reasons for which the USA was intended and designed.
To me, the Declaration of Independence is the lens through which we ought to interpret the Constitution.
Why can’t people just read it and understand? It’s not complicated. To me, a period doesn’t change anything.
To me the statement
“a living Document” tells me all I need to know.
Your point is lacking. Sentences also start with capital letters like in the word "--That". But it really doesn't matter because the inalienable rights still remain; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness". Which unfortunately Democrats fail to understand that the pursuit of happiness does not mean the government is responsible for your happiness. Rather you, as an individual, can pursue your own happiness with all the trials and tribulations that go along with it. That is why individual freedom and capitalism are unalienable rights of the governed. The collectivism and socialism are not rights, but barriers to our rights.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are AMONG the inalienable rights, obviously implying that there are others, which unfortunately Republicans fail to understand.
@@upaya30 Yes, the "declaration of independence" does say "among these". The actual rights are listed in the constitution under the Bill of Rights, signed by all the representatives of the states of that time. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the grab bag of "free" stuff that the socialist party want.
@@wattsupwiththat1463 I was going to write something super snark, but in the spirit of of election day, I won't. I think you're totally wrong about the bill of rights. Those are the rights government gives us, not God.
@@upaya30 Well you are right that the Bill of rights are not God given rights, but many are based on our inalienable rights. And fortunately you are wrong about the government giving us the Bill of Rights. It is us that allows the government to exist and not the other way around.
@@wattsupwiththat1463 didn't mean to imply that the government was anything other than a tool that we the people have created. I still think the declaration of independence suggests more God given rights than it specifically mentions.
The most authentic copy of the Declaration, held at the National Archives, shows a period, not a comma, between "Happiness" and "That".
She asserts (1:44) that the official printer got the comma right, but the copy at the National Archives contains a period. She does not support her argument that her preferred version is the correct version.
By separating the two phrases with a comma she conjoins the rationale for individual liberty with political activism. This ignores the context of the Declaration, which is a people separating from another people and not the running of a government. She then goes on to talk about controlling the levers of government.
She starts her talk with an argument by authority, while the most reliable version of the Declaration contradicts her point and undermines her authority. She seems more intent on individual social justice rather than the establishment of a just government. It is the Constitution that provides the levers of government, not the Declaration.
This shift in emphasis is subtle, but it is significant, and it is away from the Constitution. This is consistent with Harvard's recent emphasis on social justice activism.
Wow, thanks for the video commie
It is NOT a living document. Otherwise, interesting video.
What do you mean by a living document? Is it. not important enough to your democracy that you should understand the first sentence, given that you base so much upon it? You seem to imply that she is making some kind of change or modification to the times. Instead she is correcting a misreading and oversimplification.
@@marshhen He's just giving his opinion as if it's fact to persuade you to be deceived.
@@jerrymander4112 Nailed it!
Seems like current Govt is not terribly bothered about the right to life... as in to continue to live the life you have, and not be shot in a mass shooting, killed by a mismanaged virus, murdered by law enforcement, sent to a pointless war, etc etc etc. Where is your liberty and freedom, really?
Liberty disappeared around the same time the income tax was established...
@@livewire2759 Maybe even back to the Civil War.
@@michaelschaefer1904 Well, that was the first time the US govt. levied an income tax... so yeah.
Problem is, Trump can't read. Maybe a puppet show can help.
kabuki, pantomime, School House Rock
Lmao trump can read yet he has a his company worth bilion of dollar while you have nothing.😂😂
Ryan lex I don't know, I never saw a tax return.
@@Saiputera ... Lol i agree ...what a goon !
The problem actually is that Trump hasn't read. On the other hand, Hillary can read, but chooses to ignore the text.
You have to have good reading comprehension skills and intellectual curiosity to interpret such important documents ......... Trump lacks all.
The average non-public school educated - because there were no public schools - colonist understood the Declaration. Are you saying you are not as smart as the average 18th century American? And why is Trump president, and you are not? Are you lacking?
I THINK HE UNDERSTANDS THEIR MEANING BETTER THAN ANY OF YOU LEFTIST ELITE LIBERALS DO. THINKING THAT WE POOR SLOBS AREN'T SMART ENOUGH SO PAT US ON THE HEAD AND LET THE GOVERNMENT TAKE CARE OF YOU. NO THANKS REAL ADULTS ARE RUNNUNG THINGS NOT PEOPLE WHO OFFER FREE EVERYTHING WITHOUT A PLAN TO PAY FOR IT ALL EXCEPT RAISING MY TAXES..
... and still he's the president. Maybe the problem is that he is human, which I'm guessing you are too.
Too bad trumps rioters cant read
Would you know the difference if it was being read to you, that is the question...Title should be changed to how United States Citizens might misinterpret... Most "Americans" don't care to much about our declaration. Most "Americans" are not U.S citizens. Saying you teach this subject; you should be very precise; and detailed. It is pretty blunt statement. Easy to read, and understand. The document wasn't written with the intention to fool, or manipulate. A grade schooler can understand it. We can debate it, but without language manipulation over time it says what it says. I will say this I take freedom over rights any day! Evolution. Rights given to you by an individual, or group of is not freedom.
That copy error is not a big problem; the big problem is that you can now buy in USA even semi automatic weapons in any shopping center,,,,
Automatic weapons are heavily regulated and almost impossible to buy. You must be thinking of semi-automatic firearms, which are indeed too easy to buy.
Hi @@georgethompson3763 ! For me they are both so bad that in the limit they are of the same kind. But you are right, indeed.
Don't you think that the REAL "big problem" is that somehow culturally the society seems to think that violence is a solution still? Guns are convenient. If people were killing each other by stoning (I know it still happens) do you really think criminalizing of stones would change the society that thinks violence is an acceptable solution? Certainly, disposing of all the stones isn't a realistic option for anyone. Humans will always figure out new and more efficient was to kill one another until we no longer think that killing is a proper response to conflict.
Killing has solved things, but I don't imagine it was always the best choice even if it was the most convenient or efficient resolution.
Meanwhile, we've had 60 million abortions. Only a few communist nations do it better.
The problem is that man was not created he evolved. Jefferson's metaphysics is a fanciful and rhetorical with no basis in fact.
@horseman, the problem is that you rely on "fanciful and rhetorical" hypothesis; certainly NOT theory. Please inform us all: how DID life begin, and, by logical extension, man evolve? Here's a start: Richard Dawkins, and his kindred academics --- mind you, nothing, in principle, wrong with academics --- admit readily, that they DO NOT KNOW how life began. Regarding this matter, EVERYONE, like you and me is hypothecating. NO THEORY yet recognized.
IOW, there is NO theory --- that is, NO proven physical model of any phenomena --- which explains the ORIGINS of any and all life on our planet.
God remains an "option" ... as does every other person's fanciful and rhetorical metaphysical hypothesis.
@@johnk2452 yes there is we have the theory of evolution
We need to get rid of the constitution and the government, period.
Ms. Allen: Think global not just local (U.S.) How to bring happiness (and peace) worldwide. Because humanity, all living and non-living are connected in ways that we don't fully understand today, yet there is sufficient evidence to support it. Pursuit of local happiness can fail, especially if it comes at the cost of others. Your knowledge is too narrow.
I don't know that she disagrees with what you just wrote, she may believe precisely that, I happen to agree with you. However, she was answering a specific question not giving a lecture on the human condition. That question was specifically about the declaration of independence a US document. I agree with what you said, and she may as well, but that wasn't the point of this video.
@@Inazarab Yes, I understand that she is talking about the misinterpretation of that document. My point is that since her ultimate goal is about teaching people about their rights and responsibilities for attaining happiness through proper governance, her focus is *too narrow* on that perceived _extraneous full-stop_. There are other *more important* reasons why citizens are unhappy -- why they feel insecure against domestic and international terrorism (killing of Jews in Pittsburg, 9/11, ...), hate crimes, global climate change, collapse of financial markets (2008) that result in people's retirement savings disappearing, etc. Or, why there are family/societal issues causing stress, depressions, domestic violence, etc. Whether people read that document correctly or incorrectly, has little bearing on governance or happiness because that document text is insignificant in the larger scheme of things.
Trump 2020
Odor isn't everything.