[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by s3779m

...the founding fathers wrote in the DOI that mankind had the right to overthrow and abolish a government,...

That's very nice, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the issue. That was a justification for the break with England. And the Declaration of Independence isn't law:

1. Secor v. Oklahoma (No. 16-CV-85-JED-PJC, N.D. Okla. Oct. 21, 2016), at 7-7:

   ...To the extent that the plaintiff premises any § 1983 claim upon the Declaration of Independence, such a claim is not recognized in the law. "The Declaration of Independence is a state of ideals, not law." Swepi, LP v. Mora County, New Mexico, 81 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1172 (2015) (quoting Schifanelli v. United States Gov't, 865 F.2d 1259 at *1 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 1988) (per curiam) (unpublished)). "[U]nder the constitution [the court] is bound by events subsequent to the declaration of independence." Id. (quoting Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657, 680 (1838)). Such "claims" under the Declaration of Independence are subject to dismissal with prejudice. Coffey v. United States, 939 F. Supp. 185, 190-91 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (The Declaration of Independence does not grant rights that may be pursued through the judicial system); Endl v. New Jersey, 5 F. Supp. 3d 689, (D.N.J. 2014); Hai T. Le v. Hilton Hotel, No. C09-4871 PJH, 2010 WL 144809, at *13 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); Morgan v. County of Hawaii, No. 14-00551SOM-BMK, 2016 WL 1254222, at *24 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2016) (Dismissing claim alleging denial of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because "[t]he Declaration of Independence is an important historical document, but it is not the law.").....

2. Craddock v. Beaufort County Sheriff Dept (No. 4:09-CV-92-D, E.D.N.C. Sep. 26, 2011), slip op at 18:

   ...As for plaintiffs' claim under the Declaration of Independence, "[t]he Declaration of Independence is a statement of ideals, not law." Schifanelli v. United States Gov't, 865 F.2d 1259, 1988 WL 138496, at *1 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 1988) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision). Therefore, plaintiffs' section 1983 claim based on the Declaration of Independence fails.....

3. Brodzki v. State (11-cv-248-slc, W.D. Wis. Apr. 26, 2011), slip op at 2:

   ...The Declaration of Independence identifies the pursuit of happiness as an "inalienable right," but "the Declaration of Independence is not binding law and cannot be enforced in the context of a § 1983 action." Borzych v. Frank, No. 06-C-475-C, 2006 WL 3254497, *8 (W.D.Wis. Nov. 9, 2006)....." [D] Johnson v. Marsiglia (CIVIL ACTION No. 18-2854 SECTION: "H", E.D. La. July 15, 2019), footnote 17: "...'the Declaration of Independence is not a federal law and is not part of the Constitution; therefore, it cannot give rise to a cause of action.' Epps v. Russell Cty. Dep't of Human Res., No. 3:15CV25-MHT, 2015 WL 1387950, at *4 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 25, 2015).....

The thing is, what the Constitution means and how it applies in not up to you.

1. As the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution, what the Constitution means and how it applies is up to the federal courts (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

   Section 1.
   
   The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....​
   
   Section 2.
   
   The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;...

   Judicial power is the power of a court to determine actual controversies arising litigants in courts..." Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed. In fact, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers: and of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.
   
   
2. So, as the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution, if there is disagreement about whether a law is constitutional, the matter is one within the province of the federal courts to decide. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177 -- 178): "...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each....."
   
   
3. See also Madison said in Federalist 39:

   .....the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated....

4. And Hamilton in Federalist 78:

   ...The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing....

5. What our Constitution says and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States (3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796)) appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803.
   
   
6. And indeed, it is a general principle in the United States that courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, unless unconstitutionality is determined (Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827); U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)).
   
   
7. So one understands what the Constitution means and how it applies in real life in the real world by understanding federal court decisions addressing those questions.