The Declaration of Independence was issued to declare and to justify a violent revolution, an overturning of a reigning legal order. It seems far from a document advocating the rule of law. Indeed, that has been a critique raised against it from time to time — the Declaration is said to be too radical, too disruptive of legal order, too encouraging of lawlessness. The great legal theorist William Blackstone — who, for the most part invoked the same political philosophy endorsed in the Declaration — omitted the so-called "right of revolution" from his treatment of fundamental political principles, considering it too disruptive of the established rule of law.
Looking to the Declaration's text, we can see there is something to this complaint. The document presents a series of propositions, the conclusion of which is the famous line, "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish" governments the people deem unworthy of support or obedience. It appears to encourage not compliance with the law, but a negative or challenging attitude toward authority. It fosters, or at least tolerates, an attitude of resistance to both law and government.
And yet, even though Blackstone thought it too radical to include among his set of philosophical fundamentals, we ought to note the Declaration's curiously cautious approach to revolution. Immediately after pronouncing the revolutionary right, it appeals to that un-radical virtue — prudence — which will "dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." Experience, the Declaration continues, shows that mankind has taken this counsel of prudence to heart, being "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing" the governments to which "they are accustomed." Prudence does not get the last word, however, for "when a long train of abuses" aiming at a "Despotism" is inflicted upon them, it is not merely the people's right, but "their duty, to throw off such government."
And who judges whether that sort of "long train of abuses" is upon them? Well, it appears that judgment belongs to the very people whose rights and duties are being spoken of. But are people suffering what they consider a "train of abuses" more likely to be moved by that sober virtue prudence, or by the anger prompted by their perceived oppression? Perhaps Blackstone had a point.
And yet, most of the Declaration's text is given over to a long list of "repeated injuries and usurpations," meant to show that even prudence would support the Americans in their resolve to throw off the extant government. Given its appeal to the law in its opposition to these illegal actions, perhaps there is a good reason to treat the Declaration as a document deeply related to the rule of law.
So where, ultimately, does the Declaration come down on the matter?