We wrestled with this question in class today, and here are some links that go further. Apparently there is debate on the issue, but the majority opinion seems to be that it isn't.
From Legal Lad:
The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.
However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Beyond these examples, and a handful of others, courts are generally hesitant to apply the Declaration as substantive law. This is true of both those justices considered conservative and liberal, such as current Justices Scalia and Breyer.
However, the general principles have been utilized by several political movements to support their positions.
The basic point is that the Declaration establishes no independent law, so it can;t be a legal document, but it can aid in the interpretation of the law.
Other links:
- Answers.com.
- The Declaration of Independence: A Constitutional Document.
- Legal Dictionary.
- The Declaration of Independence is not Law.
- The Legal Significance of the Declaration of Independence.
