On this celebration of our nation’s birth, it would be entirely fitting to praise the poetry of words and the perfect pitch of prose that is embodied in the glorious Declaration of Independence. The "Committee of Five" were assigned the task but, as all the members freely admitted, it was the creation of Thomas Jefferson, a mere 34 years old. And, though he had to sit through 5 agonizing days of debate and see his greatest political writing shredded by his fellow delegates, Jefferson truly produced a political miracle: a document that accomplished its desired purpose. The 2^nd Continental Congress approved this, their first governmental document, on July 2, 1776. It was signed into law by the delegates on August 2, 1776. Let us not go into why July 4^th has become our national " Day of Days." The journey is too long and the path too circuitous.

Thus, having dutifully praised the document that began the "American Experiment" in this week designated for us to display our national pride, I must take pause amidst the festivities to splash a bucket or two of water on the obligatory pyrotechnics. I wish to note the shortcomings (or, at least, the perceived ones) that exist in the Declaration itself. And with this exercise, I am forced to admit a painful observation. It is with great humility (and no small measure of personal embarrassment) as I pretend no friendship to the French of today that I declare this observation: the wording of the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" is more precise and less prone to misinterpretation than the American "Declaration of Independence." Please allow me to expand the argument.

There is no document - save the U.S. Constitution, itself - that has been more often misinterpreted and, in that unending process, inspired more mischief in American society and political thought than the Declaration of Independence. But, the difference between the two documents is immense and very fundamental. The Constitution was designed and was intended by its authors to be modified (through the amendment process) with the passage of time. Our Founding Fathers, God love ‘em all, knew that the needs of the people would change as the nation matured. And they, in their wisdom and prescience, made provisions for the Constitution to be modified in accordance to the will of the people. Thus, if a document (e.g. the Constitution) can be reinterpreted and changed, let the document be so modified, in accordance to the will of the people. Contrary to prevailing opinion, I am no Luddite. If the majority says no alcohol, then let us have such an amendment. If the majority later says: "That was stupid. Let’s amend that amendment," then so be it! When a majority in our democracy desires a change in the law - as formulated by the Constitution, the "Law of the Land" - let it be so. While I may rant and rave against the logic or need for changes in our Constitution - and I often do just that - I believe, above all else, that majority rules. In democracy, it must be thus. I will save the discussion as to whether the Supreme or the Federal District Courts, then, have the right to strike down the will of the people for another day.

In stark contrast to the Constitution, however, the Declaration of Independence has no provisions for amendments or other modifications. It cannot be fundamentally changed; it is what is originally was: an unvarying statement of grievance against Great Britain and why the United States should exist as a new country. The Declaration, therefore, remains static and unalterable though time wears away. However, it has been subject to "interpretation" - reading (through the murky lenses of over two centuries of hindsight) into the minds of those who originally formed the ideas and wrote the words it encompasses. As such, since it has been subjected to "interpretation," it has often been the source of chicanery, fallacious reasoning and bizarre sociopolitical machinations. The greatest mischief lies in the transmogrification conjured up by the reigning politicians and intelligentsia of the Declaration that can only rightly be viewed in situ and wholly ("Mama, Daddy’s talking Latin again!") prima facie. The words of Declaration of Independence says what it says, nothing more and nothing less. There is no reading of "meaning" into the words. Jefferson, plagiarist as he surely was, says what he means even if he, sometimes, fails to mean what he says.

The Declaration of Independence clearly and irrefutably states, in its Preamble, the following:

"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."

These 35 words have been the basis of more rhetoric and the foundation of more "good intentions" than any sentence ever composed in the English or any other language. And, despite their lofty tone and 18^th century grammar, the words are - to these tired, failing eyes - as clear as crystal. Allow me to give - as is my inalienable right - a more lengthy, 21^st century (and entirely personal) interpretation:

"We, the undersigned, believe we need to proof to assert that all men are created equal. They are granted by their Creator with three distinct rights that cannot be arbitrarily taken away from them by government. These rights are the right to the life that they choose and endeavor to have, the liberty to pursue that life to the best of their efforts, and the right to strive to be happy."

I ask you: Where can the mischief lie?

Unfortunately, in minds so inclined, there are endless and inexhaustible potentials for deviance. For instance, there are those extreme liberals nee socialists who would attempt to argue that what the Preamble really means is that "all men are created to be equal." Thus, they would embark upon the multitude of ways the government should assist in "leveling" men; that is to say, how can government make everyone become equal. To this fallacy (and absurdity of nature), I would argue that equal chances can never guarantee equal outcomes. We are, indeed, all created equally - in the eyes of the government and at the Hands of the Creator. What particular gifts and flaws nature gives us and what we choose to do with these facilities - from the point of conception forward - are not within the purview of the government.

Government’s mandate is, should you be called before a court or appear at a voting booth, to hold you as equal to all others who appear in similar circumstances. However, it is not the duty of the government to guarantee that you drove there in a equivalent car or that you can afford an equivalent suit of clothes or that you acquired the same level of education or that you perform the same job for the same salary. These are personal choices that are within your purview.

There are also many active liberals who would try to convince us that equality before government is simply not what the Founding Fathers envisioned. That there is a still greater "equality" that can and should be legislated. This new "leveling" would be, in the words of the late John Rawls and disciples of his manifesto, true "fairness" of equality rather than merely "formal" (governmental) equality. In his book, A Theory of Justice, Rawls asserts, that it is not enough to merely be "created equal." Government - and an appropriately coerced society - should assure that all men attain and maintain equality within society as well. To translate, we should do away with this silly, archaic system of being paid based on our individual skills, talents and work ethic and just make all of us the same: same standad of living, same income, same possessions, etc. As a similar social planner asserted a century before Rawls, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This, gentle reader, is the philosophy of Rousseau, Marx and Lenin. In a word, it is socialism.

[Nota Bene: I would be remiss in my intentions if I did not bring to your attention that, for his "noble" quest for cosmic justice, Dr. Rawls was bestowed the National Humanities Medal in 1999 by one of his adoring students, President William Jefferson Clinton. At the time of the presentation, then President Clinton said: "John Rawls is perhaps the greatest political philosopher of the 20th century. In 1971, when Hillary and I were in law school, we were among the millions moved by a remarkable book he wrote, "A Theory of Justice," that placed our rights to liberty and justice upon a strong and brilliant new foundation of reason."] [Emphasis mine]

To counterpoint Dr. Rawls’ (and, apparently, the Clintons’) grand pronunciamento, let us return to planet earth and end our ignoble and impossible quest for cosmic justice. Let us use an example to illustrate how equality of chance differs from the equality of outcomes as sought by Rawls, the Clintons, et al. I borrow, now, from Thomas Sowell , who gets my nomination for "the greatest political philosopher of the 20^th century" :

"A fight in which both boxers observe the Marquis of Queensberry rules would be a fair fight, according to traditional standards of fairness, irrespective of whether the contestants were of equal skill, strength, experience or other factors likely to affect the outcome - and irrespective of whether that outcome was a hard-fought draw or a completely one-sided beating. This would not, however, be a fair fight within the framework of those seeking "social justice," if the competing fighters came into the ring with very different prospects of success - especially if these differences were due to factors beyond their control."

This is the world of the Founding Fathers and not the world of Marx, Rawls or, apparently, President and Mrs. (Sen.) Clinton. It is the world that existed in 1776 and it is the world I - and millions like me - live, function and, yes, compete in today. Our government and the laws it establishes (with our acquiescence) should and must be fair. Unfortunately, people and the society they comprise are not and never will be completely and infallibly "fair." That is the nature of man: prejudiced, judgmental and not universally reasonable. Therefore, if society denies us an equal opportunity because of whatever prejudice - be it race, religion, sex, or whatever - to fairly compete with our fellow citizens, then it is the duty of government to intervene.

If, on the other hand, we do not adequately or sufficiently prepare ourselves to compete within society (for example, by dropping out of high school or comitting a crime against our fellow citizens) and we fail to thrive in society to the degree we expect, then this is not a problem that the government need address. We are, truly, "created equal" and should expect to be treated equally in the eyes of government. We, however, should not expect - nor do we deserve - to receive or achieve equal outcomes for our efforts. That "societal fairness" is beyond the scope of a reasonable governmental system. But, still, there are those who seek Utopia and achieving societal eudaemonia. These are the quests of foolish men.

Similarly, there are also those who would have you believe that the Preamble says something profoundly different about the rights bestowed upon man by the Creator. For example, those who oppose the death penalty would have you believe that the Preamble - by putting "inalienable" and "life" in such proximity in the same sentence - would be an argument by Jefferson and the Founding Fathers against capital punishment. To this, I would say: "Horse feathers!" Capital punishment surely existed under English Common Law which predates by centuries the Declaration and was the prevailing system in the minds of the Founding Fathers. To suggest that the Founding Fathers were against capital punishment after due process of law is patently absurd.

To end this discourse and to, finally, get to the thesis statement that the French were less obscure in their "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen," I quote the following and beg anyone so inclined to offer any contradictory "interpretation":

"All the citizens, being equal in [the eyes of the law], are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents." [From Article VI]

Now, there is a clear and precise statement of the rights of citizens. There are no distinctions before the government "other than that of their virtues and their talents." The French Revolutionaries - despite the failure of their endeavor and their ultimate ignominiousness - at the very least could write without obfuscation. That has to count for something, right?

Happy Independence Day, 2007! God Bless America.