Guest column: Keeping true to the Declaration of Independence is a matter of ethics

Celebrating the Fourth of July is recognition of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 by members of the Second Continental Congress. Actually, to achieve its goals, there were five more years of warfare (plus two years after that) before the peace treaty was signed in 1783 ratifying our independence from Great Britain. But the Declaration served not only as a justification for our revolt from the mother country, it also defined the real purpose of the struggle: independence and the ability to form our new nation.

It had been over 14 months since the initial confrontations at Lexington and Concord, and, in the opinion of John Adams, only about one-third of Americans were eagerly in favor of independence. In fact, many historians believe the reason the Declaration blamed all the grievances on King George III was because, by omitting Parliament’s role, a doorway might still have been left open through Parliament to settle matters peacefully.

Political scientists like to use Thomas Jefferson’s arguments in the Declaration to explain the theory of “natural rights” and the idea of a “social contract.” Jefferson borrowed heavily from John Locke, the 17th-century Enlightenment philosopher, who maintained that all people were entitled to life, liberty and protection of their private property. To accomplish these goals, as the theory went, primitive societies had agreed to set up basic governments by signing agreements, “social contracts,” with qualified leaders in order to protect and maintain these “natural rights.” Hence, George III, having broken the contract (Jefferson lists 27 violations) its obligations were no longer binding on the colonists.

The Declaration, being simply a philosophical statement, however, required promulgation of fundamental law designed to achieve its goals. This was supplied by the U.S. Constitution, ratified and put into effect with the establishment of our initial government in 1789. Because of the brilliance of the document, providing for three branches with checks and balances, coupled with the sharing of powers with the states and the people, many assumed it would guarantee a democratic republic in perpetuity. The oldest delegate, Benjamin Franklin, to the Constitutional Convention was not so sure. When asked what the convention had created, he answered, “a republic, if you can keep it.”

How do we keep faith with Jefferson, Franklin and the other founders? Due to the imperfections in human nature, there is no foolproof way, but a good plan would be to have all levels of our government — national, state and local — adopt ethical training similar to that of elective office holders here in California. Periodically, they must participate in ethics training which assumes there are universal ethical values consisting of fairness, loyalty, compassion trustworthiness, and responsibility that transcend other considerations and should be adhered to. This training consists of biannual computer sessions in which they must solve real-life problems based on the aforementioned ethical values.

I believe a real danger for elected officials and voters as well is the idea that certain societal values are so vital, so crucial, that they transcend normal ethical practices. This might be termed an “ends — means philosophy,” the idea that the ends justify the means. Mohandas Gandhi, former leader of India, observed that “the means are the ends in a democracy and good ends cannot come from questionable means.”

No matter how exemplary our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, we are still relying on human beings to fulfill their promise. Ever since the Supreme Court took the power of judicial review — the power to tell us what the Constitution means and, in the process, affirm certain laws by declaring them constitutional or removing others by declaring them unconstitutional — the judgement of nine people has had a profound effect on our society. Was the Supreme Court correct in 1973 by saying the Ninth Amendment guarantees pregnant women the right to an abortion, or was it correct in 2022 by saying it didn’t?

In the final analysis we must conclude that it will be well-intentioned, ethical citizens and their elected and appointed representatives who will ensure the equitable future of what Abraham Lincoln referred to as our “ongoing experiment in self-government.”

Ed Jones is a former member of the Thousand Oaks City Council and a former Ventura County Supervisor.

This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Keeping true to the Declaration of Independence is a matter of ethics