﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <copyright>Macmillan Holdings, LLC. Legal Lad, Legal Lad's, QDnow, and Quick and Dirty Tips are all trademarks of Macmillan Holdings, LLC.</copyright>
    <description>Does the Declaration of Independence protect your right to party?</description>
    <item>
      <author>Brandon</author>
      <category>legal</category>
      <description>First of all, the Declaration of Independence has no authority whatsoever in regards to legislation or judicial precedent (as Legal Lad stated); it was simply a document drawn up to, of course, declare independence from Great Britain.

Furthermore, it is true that, under the First Amendment, the people have the right to "peaceably assemble" and, under the Fourth Amendment, a reasonable right to privacy. Nevertheless, these rights must also be tempered with society's welfare... In other words, people can party at home privately as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's right to peace and quiet or cause unnecessary disturbances in the community. These "time, place, and manner" restrictions are often used to justify when, where, and how people can or cannot party, protest, or assemble for any reason.

As Legal Lad also mentioned, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments speak of "life, liberty, and property" drawing on John Locke's natural rights philosophy of inalienable rights, just as Jefferson did when drafting the Declaration. The difference is that Jefferson tweaked it a bit by substituting Locke's original mention of "property" with "the pursuit of happiness" with the intention of describing a right that is truly "inalienable", or can never be taken away. The government can take your property away... for just compensation. It's true. It's called eminent domain, and it's also in the Fifth Amendment. Check if you don't believe me. :D</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/pursuit-happiness.aspx?commentid=17567#Comments</guid>
      <link>http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/pursuit-happiness.aspx?commentid=17567#Comments</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:43:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>Brandon</title>
    </item>
    <item>
      <author>Scott</author>
      <category>legal</category>
      <description>As a citizen of America, I can say that the declaration of Independence and the Pursuit of happiness is a legal right. I am happy for after a wars and century America became free from anything. And as the history says, One of the essential attributes of a state under international law is external sovereignty-that is, the right to exercise freely the full range of power a state possesses under international law. Recognition of a state as independent necessarily implies that the recognizing states have no legal authority over the independent state, and definetly these implied of our social life. The status of a fully independent state should be contrasted with that of dependent or vassal states, where a superior state has the legal authority to impose its will over the subject, or inferior, state.</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/pursuit-happiness.aspx?commentid=17387#Comments</guid>
      <link>http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/pursuit-happiness.aspx?commentid=17387#Comments</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:11:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>Scott</title>
    </item>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:43:20 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <link>http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/pursuit-happiness.aspx</link>
    <managingEditor>feedback@quickanddirtytips.com (Managing Editor)</managingEditor>
    <title>Is the Pursuit of Happiness a Legal Right?</title>
    <webMaster>feedback@quickanddirtytips.com (Webmaster)</webMaster>
    <language>en-us</language>
  </channel>
</rss>