The People's Proclamation of Sovereignty

Being a natural viewpoint of the people, as children will learn over time to favor the blood of their parents and their own families, so will the nameless and faceless tend towards elevating those stars in their society to celebrity status.   In determining the far ends of this political spectrum, as the nameless and the faceless will lean towards honoring and praising a prince by valuing him more so than even his kingly father, or else; on the other end of it, from their opposing point of view, tyranny will lean towards dishonoring and condemning a mere son of man, with him being the male offspring of uncomely ones, by valuing him less so than even those nameless and faceless of whom he ushered from.  
In contrast, our Founders were more than just our American representatives when addressing tyranny, as they acted together in fellowship for the sake of these kinds of nameless and faceless, for the sake of a whole 'one people,'  and, indeed, even for the sake of the complete inclusiveness of  'all men.'   Therefore, as our Founding Fathers were so envisioned during the age of Enlightenment to lower themselves from their high social-statuses of rightful aristocratic gentlemen, indeed, it does say within this formal document that: we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor, so do we the American people proclaim the highest of sovereign power, as James Madison himself once said that we possess, standing today as representatives of the very least among us, with these being the out castes, the untouchables, and beyond even these miser souls towards that Great Burden they have within them, with this Truth being the one true king of kings.

As a declaration is made by someone acting in submission to a higher authority, in comparison, a proclamation has to usher forth either directly or indirectly from the highest of authority.  As a king would not have had to elaborate on any of the short proclamations that he authorized to be handed down to his subordinates, in contrast, our Founders, in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence, created an extensive natural law, a whole new order so to speak, pausing to both reduce towards an unalienable conclusion and then to also analyze that conclusion rationally in self-evident, linguistic terms.

Following the list of grievances documented towards the heart of The Declaration of Independence with these concerning the behavior of king George III., our Founders concluded:  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.
  
Aside from our Founders being righteous in divorcing "a free people" out from the persecutions of tyranny, for no other reason, as mentioned above, than such contempt would have never been committed by a rightful ruler, they were further justified by the way they reduced towards our Civil Purpose in a rational way towards "one people," and then further justified by the way they added an analysis that further elaborated: "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 . . .." 



Again, as a natural law requires two forms of justification with one of them being a process of narrowing conclusively towards one undeniable collective, bipartisan heart, it requires another form of a linguistic analysis to be included as well one which is rational to the extent that, after further elaboration of the incomprehensible reduced conclusion, it won't then be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconveyed by the partisan mind.  

In other words, in order to keep the king from claiming ignorance, our Founders within The Declaration of Independence substantiated the natural law by including both a narrowed down conclusion and a clear analysis elaborating on that conclusion.

Lest anyone doubt this natural law, with this being the new order that our Founding Fathers established for us as our American Civil Purpose, I refer to the very opening of The Declaration of Independence itself:

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, . . ..

Clearly, as they attempted an incredible achievement within the formal document towards a society of "one people" and later, lest anyone misunderstand them, towards the inclusion of "all men," so it wasn't our Founders original intentions to include, as the lawyers have since deemed it so, just some of the people and some of the men - with the term men here, or mankind, being an expression of both male and female; but, regarding the establishment of our Civil Purpose, there existed a proliferation of confusion before, during, immediately following, and ever since our Founders gathering together in fellowship to sign their names to The Declaration of Independence. 

  


















    
Under Construction