Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

Of course it was illegal. The Brits took the colonies by force of arms and the colonies threw the Brits out the same way. Legality had nothing to do with it. That's how it works. As Napoleon supposedly said, "Right goes to the side with the largest cannons."

It was totally legal within the British tradition and Common Law, made clear by Magna Carte, The Declaration of Arbroath, the English Civil War culminating in Parliament deposing and then trying and executing the king for treason, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The American War of Independence wasn't even a revolution. It began with the duly elected legislatures and executives of the 13 Chartered autonomous American colonies asserting their constitutional autonomy against the ever increasing criminal usurpations by the British Parliament. (Under the charters of all 13 colonies, Parliament had absolutely no authority over them other than to set general trade policy for the empire: customs duties could not be imposed on goods imported from any other part of the empire, and whatever duties were placed on the imporation of goods from outside the empire had to be uniform (i.e., they couldn't tax iports to the colonies at a higher rate than they did imports to Great Britain.) The colonial governments held only of the king, like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann today. The colonial goverments did their job and duty in enforcing the rule of law and defending their chartered privileges against Parliament. Parliament -- despite the extremely vocal and passionate objections of the minority, most especially Edmund Burke -- responded by landing regular troops including a large contingent of foreign mercenaries (an act of tyrants only, and utterly forbidden by British Common Law and their Constitution) to coerce their submission. They colonial governments responded by by doing their duty: they called out their militias, resisted the invasion of their countries, and appealed repeatedly to their mutual sovereign to abide by his coronation oath and the terms of the charters (his compacts) with the colonies to intervene and put a stop to Parliament's criminal incursions. When he refused and sided with White Hall, he was in breach of his coronation oath and the royal charters with all 13 colonies. They responded by deposing him, as was their constitutional right and duty. By comparison, if the UK Parliament started enacting legislation for Australia or the Bahamas today (both of them having Queen Elizabeth as their sovereign and head of state), placing their own apointees and bureaucrats in those lands to enforce those laws, levying and then forcibly collecting taxes on these countries, and then landed troops when the citizens refused to submit, would anyone think it illegal if their governments declared war on Parliament and - if the Queen refused to denounce its actions - deposed her and declared themselves a republic?

Yes its illegal because Al Gore and Barack Obama never signed it in 1776, aparently they both feel we need to first apologize to the Queen for being American.

Any illegality was cured when the King signed the Treaty of Paris.

If it's illegal are we planning to hand the country over to British? I don't think so. So no point discussing this as I believe.

An interesting debate. Of course, this must be debated with the stipulation that the circumstances be constrained to the laws, customs, events, and history that were in place at the time the Declaration of Independence was drafted. You cannot use any knowledge, foresight, social customs or beliefs which took place or evolved in the times after that date to form any arguments for or against it. Why? Because this is what the colonies and the British Empire had to work with at that time, which is what would have determined whether or not that action was illegal. Also, one must separate the concepts of "legal" and "moral" as well. Just because something is legal or illegal does not also make it moral or immoral...and vice versa. At any rate, it seems to me that such a debate is only good for entertainment value and, perhaps, as a point of legal/moral debate with respect to human behavior. After all, it's not as if it was any more illegal than, say, all the efforts that went into establishing a planetary empire so large that 'the sun never sets on it'. :):)

This question was inspired by a little exercise that the BBC covered in the article above. Silly me for posting it and thinking anyone would check the link.