Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Natural Law
Our Ageless Constitution ^ | 2008 - 2nd Edition | Stedman & Lewis

Posted on 05/29/2011 9:58:52 AM PDT by loveliberty2

Natural Law -

The Ultimate Source of Constitutional Law

"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)

The Founders DID NOT establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator­ endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.

Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.."

Herein lay the security for men's individual rights - an immut­able code of law, sanctioned by the Creator of man's rights, and designed to promote, preserve, and protect him and his fellows in the enjoyment of their rights. They believed that such natural law, revealed to man through his reason, was capable of being understood by both the ploughman and the professor. Sir William Blackstone, whose writings trained American's lawyers for its first century, capsulized such reasoning:

"For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the...direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."

What are those natural laws? Blackstone continued:

"Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due.."

The Founders saw these as moral duties between individuals. Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."

Americas leaders of 1787 had studied Cicero, Polybius, Coke, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, among others, as well as the history of the rise and fall of governments, and they recognized these underlying principles of law as those of the Decalogue, the Golden Rule, and the deepest thought of the ages.

An example of the harmony of natural law and natural rights is Blackstone's "that we should live honestly" - otherwise known as "thou shalt not steal" - whose corresponding natural right is that of individual freedom to acquire and own, through honest initiative, private property. In the Founders' view, this law and this right were inalterable and of a higher order than any written law of man. Thus, the Constitution confirmed the law and secured the right and bound both individuals and their representatives in government to a moral code which did not permit either to take the earnings of another without his consent. Under this code, individuals could not band together and do, through government's coercive power, that which was not lawful between individuals.

America's Constitution is the culmination of the best reasoning of men of all time and is based on the most profound and beneficial values mankind has been able to fathom. It is, as William E. Gladstone observed, "The Most Wonderful Work Ever Struck Off At A Given Time By he Brain And Purpose Of Man."

We should dedicate ourselves to rediscovering and preserving an understanding of our Constitution's basis in natural law for the protec­tion of natural rights - principles which have provided American citizens with more protection for individual rights, while guaranteeing more freedom, than any people on earth.

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." -John Locke


Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987, Reprinted 2008) Part III:  ISBN 0-937047-01-5


TOPICS: Education; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: constitution; donttreadonme; education; founders; freedom; law; liberty; naturallaw
Potential presidential candidates for 2012 must be held accountable for focusing on restoring America's Constitutional foundation in Creator-endowed life, liberty, and law.
1 posted on 05/29/2011 9:58:56 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

If the answer to “whom is your favorite philosopher?” isn’t John Locke or St. Thomas Aquinas, your candidacy should be ended immediately.


2 posted on 05/29/2011 10:02:30 AM PDT by bigeasy_70118
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2
Link to original publication here.

For free reprint of this essay only, here and follow link.

3 posted on 05/29/2011 10:04:51 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

for later


4 posted on 05/29/2011 11:27:33 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

I am just getting around to reading this. Very good. But I have had a question for a long time. It is the Declaration of Independence that talks of the Creator and Natural Law. Why, when they wrote the constitution, didn’t they include some of these key phrases from the declaration in the body of the constitution?


5 posted on 06/05/2011 10:25:44 PM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa
Why, when they wrote the constitution, didn’t they include some of these key phrases from the declaration in the body of the constitution?

In reading the various state constitutions, I've noticed that the language used in the various articles and sections dealing with rights is often a combination of language from the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and other Natural Law founding era sources.

6 posted on 06/05/2011 10:36:23 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Ping to you, FRiend. ;-D


7 posted on 06/05/2011 10:38:58 PM PDT by Judith Anne ( Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Another great post. Thanks!


8 posted on 06/05/2011 10:45:47 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa
The Declaration of Independence is a philosophical document. It is a complaint, and apology (explanantion), and a justification for secession from an empire, and the formation of a new government. It offers almost nothing about the structure or function of that new government.

The Constitution of the United States is a practical document. It is a second effort at outlining and framing the specific form and function, powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the new government being established after the act of secession was made real.

DoI says nothing about specific form of government. It justifies the formation of one.

USC says nothing to justify the formation of the government. Such justification is assumed.

9 posted on 06/05/2011 10:55:02 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Good points. Although, I would assert that the founding paragraph of the republic, while being most certainly deeply philosophical and moral, is also eminently practical, in the same way that a cornerstone is practical. Take it away, and the entire edifice falls down, sooner or later.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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..."

Or, to use Frederick Douglass' nautical analogy, it is what keeps the pilot of the ship connected with the mast in the inevitable storms:

"I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the RINGBOLT to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in. all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain, broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day-cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight."


10 posted on 06/05/2011 11:08:54 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
USC says nothing to justify the formation of the government. Such justification is assumed.

Largely true. However, the Constitution does have a statement of purpose, one which reflects the moral principles of our charter:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

11 posted on 06/05/2011 11:12:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
That's all well and good, and I don't really disagree ...

But that's not what I meant by "practical".

"We hold these truths &c" gives a justification for forming a government, but doesn't specify what form of government should be established.

A good monarchy is as capable of securing the three "inalienable rights" as a good republic. A bad republic is as capable of infringing those rights as a bad monarchy.

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "

That's commonly understood in America to refer to a democratically elected Republic ... but it could also refer to a popularly acclaimed king.

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, "

I'll just let that thought hang in the air for a moment ...

"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."

And that is really all it says about forming a new government. Nice ... but how do you form a government based on that?

The authors of the Articles of Confederation, and later of the Constitution both attempted to answer my question.

History will judge the efficacy of their efforts.

12 posted on 06/05/2011 11:26:04 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
However, the Constitution does have a statement of purpose,

Sure ... but it's not the focus of the thing, and the authors wisely kept it very brief. I see it not so much a justification, as a reference to the justification in the DoI. They met to "alter or abolish" the form of government established in the Articles of Confederation, and "institute a new government". I think the phrase "more perfect Union" tells us a lot about their thinking. A less perfect union already existed; their purpose was to improve on it. The focus is on outlining what the "new form of government" would look like.

13 posted on 06/05/2011 11:33:43 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

No offense, but Duh? That is obvious. You have not addressed my question. Why did they not carry the philosophy of the DoI into the USC?


14 posted on 06/06/2011 7:20:51 AM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa

I see in post #13 you have more closely addressed my question. What I see as having happened over the years, through judicial rulings, is the distancing from the DoI in order to separate the Creator out of government and make it more about WE THE PEOPLE. This has, over time, and we are seeing it in spades now, opened the road to abolishing rule of law and replacing it with situational ruling. When there are no absolutes, there is freedom to slide the standards in any way necessary to meet the objective at hand.

The constitution is a beautiful document, but it is flawed, in my opinion, in this one fact alone. The FF did not formally and matter-of-fact, put in the stop-block that they acknowledged to exist in DoI and in so doing, left room for an equally tyrannical type government to develop over time.


15 posted on 06/06/2011 7:35:16 AM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa

Duh! Right back. They didn’t “carry it over” because it was assumed,and repeating it at length would have been supeefluous.


16 posted on 06/06/2011 7:35:33 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Yes, wisely so. Sadly, judicial ruling has almost, and is actively and creatively, putting the last nails in the coffin related to state’s rights. Soon, no state constitution will have any weight at all.


17 posted on 06/06/2011 7:40:38 AM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

Hum. Well it’s not assumed now, is it? Open your eyes.


18 posted on 06/06/2011 7:42:13 AM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa

Well, in the case of the protection of the God-given, unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property, the U.S. Constitutions and the several state constitutions are all in perfect accord.


19 posted on 06/06/2011 7:46:15 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; daisy mae for the usa
Thanks to both of you for your posts in response to this thread.

daisy mae of the usa has raised an interesting point regarding the DOI and the US Constitution's lack of specific wording such as that contained in the Declaration.

One document which is available to us today and which traces the happenings of the founding period is John Quincy Adams' New York City speech, "The Jubilee of the Constitution. . . ," delivered on April 30, 1839, at the invitation of the New York Historical Society. In it, he traces the ideas and the history of the Constitution, pointing out that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate for accomplishing the great philosophy of the Declaration, but outlining why the 1787 Constitution did. It is available here.

This man, whose father was instrumental in getting the Declaration adopted when JQA was only 9 years old, served in numerous capacities in the new government, including as President. His historical record should be one that is consulted frequently as an authentic statement of the meaning of our documents.

In one portion of this lengthy history, Adams states:

"But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion, which even in the ages of heathen antiquity, was denominated the queen of the world: and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained.

"Now the virtue which had been infused into the Constitution of the United States, and was to give to its vital existence, the stability and duration to which it was destined, was no other than the concretion of those abstract principles which had been first proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence - namely, the self-evident truths of the natural and unalienable rights of man, of the indefeasible constituent and dissolvent sovereignty of the people, always subordinate to a rule of right and wrong, and always responsible to the Supreme Ruler of the universe for the rightful exercise of that sovereign, constituent, and dissolvent power.

"This was the platform upon which the Constitution of the United States had been erected. Its VIRTUES, its republican character, consisted in its conformity to the principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, and as its administration must necessarily be always pliable to the fluctuating varieties of public opinion; its stability and duration by a Re overruling and irresistible necessity, was to depend upon the stability and duration in the hearts and minds of the people of that virtue, or in other words, of those principles, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Constitution of the United States."

Another history of the ideas underlying American's founding may be found at this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" can be read on line.

This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.

Although "daisy mae's" question is not fully answered within these two documents, they do address some of the underlying issues implied in the question.

20 posted on 06/06/2011 12:49:47 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson