united-states constitutional-law
Why is the Declaration of Independence not held as legally binding, under Art VI, cl I, of the U.S. Constitution?
<p>The Declaration of Independence was used as an instrument to approach foreign countries and interact on the world stage, prior to winning the Revolutionary War. Therefore, it was the ground on which the Confederation established loans, which were used to fund the war. As such, should it not be as valid, as the debts, for which it was used establish?</p>

<p>The declaration contains only one passage that purports to have legal effect:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are no credible challenges to any of this, so the question of whether it formally has legal force is not particularly consequential.</p>
<p>The passage at the beginning concerning rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among other concepts, is prefatory material serving to justify the colonies' claimed right to independence.  In other words, it establishes the colonies' authority to make the declaration quoted above.  It has no legal force in part because it does not purport to have legal force.</p>

<p>The Declaration of Independence was succeeded by the Articles of Confederation, which were succeeded by the Constitution.
Thus, they have been replaced TWICE now by later, more inclusive, laws.</p>
<p>Has nothing to do with &quot;international law&quot;, which is largely non-binding itself outside of treaties that more than one nation has agreed to and signed.</p>
