"the pursuit of happiness" is more decorative than meaningful

"The pursuit of Happiness" is beautifulProfessor Lucas, in his article The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence, writes: "[T]he preamble is a paradigm of eighteenth-century Enlightenment prose style...Not one word can be moved or replaced without disrupting the balance and harmony of the entire preamble... “Thomas Jefferson, draftsman of the Declaration, was a diligent student of rhythm, accent, timing, and cadence in discourse... [H]e consciously composed for the ear as well as for the eye--a trait that is nowhere better illustrated than in the eloquent cadences of the preamble in the Declaration of Independence.” (1) Even today, the words of the preamble are used in everyday art and poetry (2). For example, one blogger calls it "poetic brilliance", singling out the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness" as especially resonant (3). Jefferson was chosen to draft the Declaration on account of his writing skills. John Adams recalled that "Writings of [Jefferson's] were handed about, remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression." and that when Jefferson asked why he should draft the Declaration, Adams said, "You can write ten times better than I can." (4) A common rhetorical device in speeches is the tricolon, or hendriatis, where three words or phrases are used together. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is often held up as a classic example of this sort of figure of speech (5,6). "Life and Liberty" would not have had nearly as much aesthetic impact on its own. The Burden of Proof The rhetorical power of "the pursuit of Happiness" is obvious. However, Con has not explained what it means. In fact, he has conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used." He argues that he does need to provide a meaning. However, when the phrase is obviously decorative, and no meaning is provided, then the resolution stands: it is more decorative than meaningful. Redundant rights Con said that "most humans have the 'pursuit of happiness' as a purpose to resume living". He argues that Paine (does he mean Jefferson?) simply wrote down a right that people were seeking at the time. The Declaration was adopted when the American colonies were at war with Great Britain. The Americans were defending their rights to Life and Liberty in the face of death and coercion. They were not defending things that could not be taken away from them. For instance, they were not defending a right to be affected by the Earth's gravity, because that is something that cannot be removed. And they were not defending a right to want to be, or try to be happy. Because no foreign nation can affect such things. Defending such rights really would be meaningless. Rules vs rights Con argues that there is no difference between rules and rights, but there obviously is. Compare the US right to bear arms (Amendment II, US Constitution), with a rule that obliged people to bear arms, which would be a gross imposition. the US national character The resolution is written in the present tense ("is"), because meanings can change over time. In the introduction, I elaborated on this idea, referring both to the meaning that was originally intended, as well as the way it's understood in the modern US. Con argues that these explanations are not "obligatory". However, as I have already pointed out, the decorative nature of the phrase - both now and when it was written - has been established. Its meaning has not. The resolution stands. "The pursuit of Happiness" is more decorative than meaningful. (1) http://www.archives.gov...; (2) http://prezi.com... (3) http://lexfridman.com... (4) http://www-tc.pbs.org... (5) http://grammar.about.com... (6) http://en.wikipedia.org...