WE hold these Truths to be selfevident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

— The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

With President Bush’s policy toward Iraq swinging away from disarmament toward liberation, it’s worth a brief review of the governing laws. The focus on freedom and democracy for Iraqis has already been challenged by Prime Minister Chretien of Canada.” If you start changing regimes, where do you stop?” Mr. Chretien complained, according to a report in the National Post.

We’re tempted to point out that the Canadians didn’t go along with the original American regime change, back in 1776, either, and as a result still are subjects of the British monarchy. But Mr. Chretien’s objections are likely to be shared by others in the coming days, and are worth answering seriously.

There’s no more resonant answer to Mr. Chretien’s questions than the language the American founders used in their declaration. To the founders, it was self-evident that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. It was also self-evident to the founders that when the people are subject to a long train of abuses amounting to despotism, they have more than a right, but an actual duty to throw off their government.

Canada’s government, like America’s, derives its power from the consent of the governed. Saddam Hussein’s government, sham elections notwithstanding, does not. Among the people subject to the kind of “long train of abuses” the American founders described, the Iraqis under Saddam would have to be high on anyone’s list.

America may claim that its intervention in Iraq is legal under the right to self-defense in the U.N. Charter. This was the defense made in the 1989 invasion of Panama, which has some similarities. The U.N. Security Council’s resolutions on Iraqi disarmament today are flawed to the extent that they are issued by a group of governments such as Communist China and Bashar Assad’s Syria, which lack the consent of the governed. It’s one reason we’d prefer a war without backing of the U.N. Security Council.

The best legal basis for American backing of the Iraqis seeking to overthrow Saddam is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed in an overwhelming bipartisan vote in both houses of Congress. It begins with a statement of Congressional findings about the tyranny under Saddam and the desirability of regime change, was signed into law by a liberal Democratic president, and was cited in the October 11, 2002, war resolution also passed in a bipartisan vote in both houses, speaking of consent of the governed.