Constitutional conventions are rules of political practice which are regarded as binding by those to whom they apply, but which are not laws as they are not enforced by the Courts or by the House of Parliament- Explain & Illustrate.

Research Topic:
Q-01: Constitutional conventions are rules of political practice which are regarded as binding by those to whom they apply, but which are not laws as they are not enforced by the Courts or by the House of Parliament- Explain & Illustrate.
Answer:
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution.
Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution in that it would define how that organization is constituted.
A constitutional convention is an informal and uncodified procedural agreement that is followed by the institutions of a state. In some states, notably those Commonwealth of Nations states that follow the Westminster system and whose political systems derive from British constitutional law, most government functions are guided by constitutional convention rather than by a formal written constitution. In these states, actual distribution of power may be markedly different from those the formal constitutional documents describes. In particular, the formal constitution often confers wide discretionary powers on the head of state that, in practice, are used only on the advice of the head of government.
Constitutional conventions arise when the exercise of a certain type of power, which is not prohibited by law, arouses such opposition that it becomes impossible, on future occasions, to engage in further exercises of this power. For example, the constitutional convention that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom cannot remain in office without the support of a majority of votes the House of Commons is derived from an unsuccessful attempt by the ministry of Robert Peel to govern without the support of a majority in the House, in 1834-1835. Constitutional conventions are the same as formal constitutional amendments in that they are created over time, and it may be difficult or impossible to identify when a constitutional convention has come into effect or sometimes even what the constitutional conventions are.
Relevent Areas:
A constitutional amendment is a formal change to the text of the written constitution of a nation or state.
Most constitutions require that amendments cannot be enacted unless they have passed a special procedure that is more stringent than that required of ordinary legislation. Examples of such special procedures include super-majorities in the legislature, or direct approval by the electorate in a referendum, or even a combination of two or more different special procedures. A referendum to amend the constitution may also be triggered in some jurisdictions by popular initiative.
Constitutional conventions are not, and cannot be, enforced by courts of law. The primary reason for this, according to the Supreme Court in its 1981 Patriation Reference, is that, “They are generally in conflict with the legal rules which they postulate and the courts are bound to enforce the legal rules.”Supreme Court of Canada, ”Attorney General of Manitoba et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.” (Sept. 28, 1981) More precisely, the conventions make certain acts, which would be permissible under a straightforward reading of the law, impermissible in practice. The court ruled that this conflict between convention and law means that no convention, no matter how well-established or universally accepted, can “crystallize” into law, unless the relevant parliament or legislature enacts a law or constitutional amendment codifying the convention. This principle is regarded as authoritative in a number of other jurisdictions, including the UK.
Some conventions evolve or change over time; for example, before 1918 the BritishCabinet government requested a parliamentary dissolution from the monarch, with the Prime Minister conveying the request. Since 1918, prime ministers on their own initiative request dissolutions, and need not consult members of the cabinet. However conventions are rarely ever broken. Unless there is general agreement on the breach, the person who breaches a convention is often heavily criticised, on occasions leading to a loss of respect or popular support. It is often said that “conventions are not worth the paper they are not written on”, they are unenforceable in law because they are not written down. Whatever enforceability they have comes from history, tradition, symbolism and their cross-party support
Australia and the Republic of Ireland provide examples of constitutions requiring that all amendments are first passed by the legislature before being submitted to the people; in the case of Ireland, a simple majority of those voting at the electorate is all that is required, whereas a more complex set of criteria must be met in Australia (reflecting that country’s federal structure).
Denmark provides an example of multiple special procedures that must be complied with. After an amendment has been approved by parliament, a general election must be held; the new parliament must then approve the amendment again before it is finally submitted to a referendum. There is also a requirement that at least 40% of eligible voters must vote at the referendum in order for an amendment to be validly passed.
The special procedures for the amendment of some constitutions have proven to be so exacting that either few (Australia) or no (Japan) proposed amendments have been passed over a period of several decades. In contrast, the constitution of the US state of Alabama has been amended over 800 times since 1901.
Distinguish between Relevent and irrelevent facts:
By the irrelevent facts sort the recent patriation of the Canadian Constitution has been a fascinating process for constitutional lawyers. The role of the Canadian Supreme Court, in adjudicating on the legality and the constitutional propriety of the proceedings, has raised issues of great interest and importance. In accepting jurisdiction to pronounce on the existence of convention, the court removed a traditional barrier between law and convention: the former being applied and articulated in the courts, the latter being a matter of political practice, without authoritative definition. The majority judgments nevertheless place great weight on the orthodox distinction between law and convention, and the separation of legal and political principle which that distinction assumes. My purpose here is to question the court’s reasoning as regards both law and convention. I shall argue that recent developments in public law cast doubt, even if only indirectly, on the utility of the orthodox distinction. The view that courts do not ¡°enforce¡± conventions, though adequate for some purposes, may frustrate constructive thought. In any particular case in which convention is pleaded in aid of law, there are more useful and important questions to ask.
Also,by the relevent facts,The ConstitutionConstitutionA constitution is a set of laws that a set of people have made and agreed upon for government¡ªoften as a written document¡ªthat enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is.Currently in effect was enacted in 1987, during the administration of PresidentPresident of the PhilippinesThe President of the Philippines is the head of state and head of government of the Philippines. The president leads the executive branch of the Philippine government and is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.Corazon AquinoCorazon AquinoMaria Corazon “Cory” Sumulong Cojuangco-Aquino was the 11th President of the Philippines and the first woman to hold that office. Aquino was also the first popularly and democratically-elected female president and head of state in Asia ,s popularly known as the “1987 Constitution”. Philippine constitutional lawConstitutional lawConstitutional law is a body of law dealing with the distribution and exercise of government power.Not all nation states have codified constitutions, though all such states have a jus commune, or law of the land, that may consist of a variety of imperative and consensual rules.experts recognize three other previous constitutions as having effectively governed the country ¡ª the 1935 CommonwealthCommonwealth of the PhilippinesThe Commonwealth of the Philippines , also known as the Philippine Commonwealth, or simply as the Commonwealth, was the political designation of the Philippines from 1935 to 1946 when the country was a commonwealth of the United States. The commonwealth government was in exile from 1942 until 1945,Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, and the 1986 Freedom Constitution.
Application of relevent legal principles:
AustralianGovernors-General and Governors always act on the advice of their Prime Minister or Premier or other relevant minister in regard to particular powers they may exercise.
The six members of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that are chosen by the Parliaments of entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, should be chosen in a way as to establish the national balance, of “constituent peoples”, in the Court (two Bosniaks, two Croatians and two Serbs), although the Constitution does not have this requirement.
The Danish Constitution makes reference to the King in great detail. Apart from the fact that this is understood to include a Queen regnant as well, references to the King acting in a political capacity are understood to mean the Prime Minister, as the Constitution stipulates that the King exercises his powers through the Cabinet.
The Prime Minister of New Zealand will not ask for an early election unless he or she is unable to govern, or needs to seek the opinion of the electorate on an issue of major importance.
Demostrate indepent legal research:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature¡¯s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.  has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us,For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States,For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world,For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences,For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies,For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments,For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.  He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. 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 connection 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. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor and honor those honourable persons.
Bibiography:
Cambridge Journal
Oxford University press
Law reserch tools
Wikipidia
Google

Research Topic:

Q-01: Constitutional conventions are rules of political practice which are regarded as binding by those to whom they apply, but which are not laws as they are not enforced by the Courts or by the House of Parliament- Explain & Illustrate.

Answer:
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution.
Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution in that it would define how that organization is constituted.
A constitutional convention is an informal and uncodified procedural agreement that is followed by the institutions of a state. In some states, notably those Commonwealth of Nations states that follow the Westminster system and whose political systems derive from British constitutional law, most government functions are guided by constitutional convention rather than by a formal written constitution. In these states, actual distribution of power may be markedly different from those the formal constitutional documents describes. In particular, the formal constitution often confers wide discretionary powers on the head of state that, in practice, are used only on the advice of the head of government.
Constitutional conventions arise when the exercise of a certain type of power, which is not prohibited by law, arouses such opposition that it becomes impossible, on future occasions, to engage in further exercises of this power. For example, the constitutional convention that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom cannot remain in office without the support of a majority of votes the House of Commons is derived from an unsuccessful attempt by the ministry of Robert Peel to govern without the support of a majority in the House, in 1834-1835. Constitutional conventions are the same as formal constitutional amendments in that they are created over time, and it may be difficult or impossible to identify when a constitutional convention has come into effect or sometimes even what the constitutional conventions are.

Relevent Areas:
A constitutional amendment is a formal change to the text of the written constitution of a nation or state.
Most constitutions require that amendments cannot be enacted unless they have passed a special procedure that is more stringent than that required of ordinary legislation. Examples of such special procedures include super-majorities in the legislature, or direct approval by the electorate in a referendum, or even a combination of two or more different special procedures. A referendum to amend the constitution may also be triggered in some jurisdictions by popular initiative.
Constitutional conventions are not, and cannot be, enforced by courts of law. The primary reason for this, according to the Supreme Court in its 1981 Patriation Reference, is that, “They are generally in conflict with the legal rules which they postulate and the courts are bound to enforce the legal rules.”Supreme Court of Canada, ”Attorney General of Manitoba et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.” (Sept. 28, 1981) More precisely, the conventions make certain acts, which would be permissible under a straightforward reading of the law, impermissible in practice. The court ruled that this conflict between convention and law means that no convention, no matter how well-established or universally accepted, can “crystallize” into law, unless the relevant parliament or legislature enacts a law or constitutional amendment codifying the convention. This principle is regarded as authoritative in a number of other jurisdictions, including the UK.
Some conventions evolve or change over time; for example, before 1918 the BritishCabinet government requested a parliamentary dissolution from the monarch, with the Prime Minister conveying the request. Since 1918, prime ministers on their own initiative request dissolutions, and need not consult members of the cabinet. However conventions are rarely ever broken. Unless there is general agreement on the breach, the person who breaches a convention is often heavily criticised, on occasions leading to a loss of respect or popular support. It is often said that “conventions are not worth the paper they are not written on”, they are unenforceable in law because they are not written down. Whatever enforceability they have comes from history, tradition, symbolism and their cross-party support
Australia and the Republic of Ireland provide examples of constitutions requiring that all amendments are first passed by the legislature before being submitted to the people; in the case of Ireland, a simple majority of those voting at the electorate is all that is required, whereas a more complex set of criteria must be met in Australia (reflecting that country’s federal structure).
Denmark provides an example of multiple special procedures that must be complied with. After an amendment has been approved by parliament, a general election must be held; the new parliament must then approve the amendment again before it is finally submitted to a referendum. There is also a requirement that at least 40% of eligible voters must vote at the referendum in order for an amendment to be validly passed.
The special procedures for the amendment of some constitutions have proven to be so exacting that either few (Australia) or no (Japan) proposed amendments have been passed over a period of several decades. In contrast, the constitution of the US state of Alabama has been amended over 800 times since 1901.

Distinguish between Relevent and irrelevent facts:
By the irrelevent facts sort the recent patriation of the Canadian Constitution has been a fascinating process for constitutional lawyers. The role of the Canadian Supreme Court, in adjudicating on the legality and the constitutional propriety of the proceedings, has raised issues of great interest and importance. In accepting jurisdiction to pronounce on the existence of convention, the court removed a traditional barrier between law and convention: the former being applied and articulated in the courts, the latter being a matter of political practice, without authoritative definition. The majority judgments nevertheless place great weight on the orthodox distinction between law and convention, and the separation of legal and political principle which that distinction assumes. My purpose here is to question the court’s reasoning as regards both law and convention. I shall argue that recent developments in public law cast doubt, even if only indirectly, on the utility of the orthodox distinction. The view that courts do not ¡°enforce¡± conventions, though adequate for some purposes, may frustrate constructive thought. In any particular case in which convention is pleaded in aid of law, there are more useful and important questions to ask.
Also,by the relevent facts,The ConstitutionConstitutionA constitution is a set of laws that a set of people have made and agreed upon for government¡ªoften as a written document¡ªthat enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is.Currently in effect was enacted in 1987, during the administration of PresidentPresident of the PhilippinesThe President of the Philippines is the head of state and head of government of the Philippines. The president leads the executive branch of the Philippine government and is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.Corazon AquinoCorazon AquinoMaria Corazon “Cory” Sumulong Cojuangco-Aquino was the 11th President of the Philippines and the first woman to hold that office. Aquino was also the first popularly and democratically-elected female president and head of state in Asia ,s popularly known as the “1987 Constitution”. Philippine constitutional lawConstitutional lawConstitutional law is a body of law dealing with the distribution and exercise of government power.Not all nation states have codified constitutions, though all such states have a jus commune, or law of the land, that may consist of a variety of imperative and consensual rules.experts recognize three other previous constitutions as having effectively governed the country ¡ª the 1935 CommonwealthCommonwealth of the PhilippinesThe Commonwealth of the Philippines , also known as the Philippine Commonwealth, or simply as the Commonwealth, was the political designation of the Philippines from 1935 to 1946 when the country was a commonwealth of the United States. The commonwealth government was in exile from 1942 until 1945,Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, and the 1986 Freedom Constitution.

Application of relevent legal principles:
AustralianGovernors-General and Governors always act on the advice of their Prime Minister or Premier or other relevant minister in regard to particular powers they may exercise.The six members of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that are chosen by the Parliaments of entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, should be chosen in a way as to establish the national balance, of “constituent peoples”, in the Court (two Bosniaks, two Croatians and two Serbs), although the Constitution does not have this requirement.The Danish Constitution makes reference to the King in great detail. Apart from the fact that this is understood to include a Queen regnant as well, references to the King acting in a political capacity are understood to mean the Prime Minister, as the Constitution stipulates that the King exercises his powers through the Cabinet.The Prime Minister of New Zealand will not ask for an early election unless he or she is unable to govern, or needs to seek the opinion of the electorate on an issue of major importance.

Demostrate indepent legal research:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature¡¯s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.  has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us,For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States,For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world,For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences,For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies,For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments,For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.  He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. 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 connection 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. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor and honor those honourable persons.
Bibiography:
Cambridge JournalOxford University pressLaw reserch toolsWikipidiaGoogle