The “Statutes at Large” are the published laws of the USA. In fact, they take precedence over the United States Code in the event of conflict. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/112

So, quick question, all you twitter con law geniuses: what appears on page 1 of volume 1 of Statutes at Large?

Here’s the link: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=124

As Abraham Lincoln said, when debating Stephen Douglas, “
If the Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it?”

But that doesn’t make it law? Okay, then what does?

-That it was adopted by a legislature? Declaration was.

-That it have some kind of legal consequences? Declaration did.

-That it be recognized as law by citizens & other sovereigns? Check!

-That it command someone to do something? But not all laws command. Some specify what powers & duties officials have, or lay out boundaries, or specify how things (wills, marriages, etc., are made). The Declaration does these things.

If the law creating, say, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is a “law,” then the Declaration’s a law.

But it’s hortatory? Aspirational? Many laws are. That doesn’t make the Declaration not a law.

Oh, but you disagree with it? Well, that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t a law.

But courts don’t enforce it? Doesn’t mean it’s not law. And courts do, in fact, enforce it. In the obvious example, courts recognize July 4, 1776 as the date upon which American sovereignty became separate from British sovereignty.

(This is often relevant in cases involving common law, or even cases tracing the ownership of property or treaty rights.)

What grounds are there for denying the Declaration is law? Hostility toward natural law theory is really the only reason.

And that’s a pretty terrible reason, bc the Declaration’s self-evident truths are in fact true, and do indeed limit the reach of legitimate sovereignty.

Ah, but it can’t be law bc its terms limit the power of majorities, and whatever the majority wants just *is* the law? (Believe it or not, this was Scalia’s view.) Well, let’s assume that that’s true. How and why is THAT the law?

For precisely the same reasons that I assert the Declaration to be law: because of the truth (or falsehood) of the assertion itself, nothing more. The Declaration’s nature as law derives ultimately from the fact that its moral claims are indeed correct, and the contrary

view is incorrect. You may disagree with me on that, but you cannot deny that the reasons I am advancing are the same KIND of reasons you advance for saying that the will of the majority is law. In other words, you MUST meet the Declaration on its own terms—you

CANNOT evade the issue by simply pronouncing it somehow outside the boundaries of “law.”

Anyway, for more on this read my book: https://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Constitution-Declaration-Independence-Liberty/dp/1939709695

Or the works of my mentor, Harry Jaffa, especially this one: https://www.amazon.com/Original-Intent-Framers-Constitution-Harry/dp/089526496X

and this one: https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Over-Constitution-Harry-Jaffa/dp/0739100416