Here are a few excerpts from Justice Thomas on the role of the Declaration in interpreting the Constitution. If you can find it, I also recommend an article he wrote titled "Towards a Plain reading of the Constitution" from the Howard Law Jouranl around 1987 or so. While the Declaration maynot be a controlling legal document, I think a proper understanding of it and the Lockean/Enlightenment principles that underly it is vital to a proper understanding of the Constitution.

SPEECH BEFORE THE KIWANIS CLUB, WASHINGTON, JAN 14, 1987"

AS DR. KING MAINTAINED, AMERICAN POLITICS AND THE AMERICANCONSTITUTION ARE UNINTELLIGIBLE WITHOUT THE DECLARATION OFINDEPENDENCE, AND THE DECLARATION IS UNINTELLIGIBLE WITHOUTTHE NOTION OF A HIGHER LAW BY WHICH WE FALLIBLE MEN ANDWOMEN CAN TAKE OUR BEARINGS. THAT IS WHAT I GREW UP ACCEPTING.""

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: CURE OR CONTRADICTION?" CENTERMAGAZINE, NOV/DEC. 1987.

"THE RULE OF LAW IN AMERICA MEANS NOTHING OUTSIDECONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTIONALISM, AND THESEARE SIMPLY UNINTELLIGIBLE WITHOUT A HIGHER LAW. MEN CANNOTRULE OTHERS BY THEIR CONSENT UNLESS THEIR COMMON HUMANITY ISUNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF TRANSCENDENT STANDARDS PROVIDED BYTHE DECLARATION'S "LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD."NATURAL LAW PROVIDES A BASIS IN HUMAN DIGNITY BY WHICH WECAN JUDGE WHETHER HUMAN BEINGS ARE JUST OR UNJUST, NOBLE OR IGNOBLE."

SPEECH AT FEDERALIST SOCIETY FOR LAW AND POLICY STUDIES,UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, MARCH 5, 1988 (THEEMPHASIS IS THOMAS'S)

"HARLAN'S RELIANCE ON POLITICAL FIRST PRINCIPLES [ASEXPRESSED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE — SEEPRECEDING PARAGRAPH] WAS IMPLICIT RATHER THAN EXPLICIT, ASIS GENERALLY APPROPRIATE FOR SUPREME COURT OPINIONS. HEGIVES US A FOUNDATION FOR INTERPRETING NOT ONLY CASESINVOLVING RACE BUT THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION AND ITS SCHEME OFPROTECTING RIGHTS. ... THE HIGHER LAW BACKGROUND OF THECONSTITUTION, WHETHER EXPLICITLY APPEALED TO OR NOT,PROVIDES THE ONLY FIRM BASIS FOR A JUST, WISE, ANDCONSTITUTIONAL DECISION."