So I assume you are all in favor of a "Living Constitution". And may I ask just whose "natural law" are you going to follow?
No, I dont favor a "living constitution," and the constitution cannot be amended by a Natural Law decision, (ie, if for example, a judge needed to stop a legislature from implementing death camps when he had no positive/written law venue to do so, there still would be no way for him to amend the text of the constitution/law, he could only declare such part of law void). Only in rare cases when a human life (an obvious natural right)is in danger and the positive law provides no protection for a human being, is the lawgiver obligated to stand up for the higher law. But we werent at that point yet, Bush still had Positive law venues to protect Terri, as the Thomas Moore Law Center, the 11th hour coalition, Klayman and Keyes all pointed out.
The alternative to natural law would be to bow down and worship whatever court decision or act of legislature is produced, be it Roe vs. Wade or Auschwitz. Remember Hans Kelsen, the foremost legal positivist in the 20th Century, said the Nazi death camps were "legal" and moral. He said we cant know what justice is (the relativist left always says we can know nothing, who knows what is right and wrong, so whatever "law" is validly innacted by the proper authorities is what we MUST live with).
I agree with you that the modernist "right of man" theory, detached from Christ, has been the source of a lot of abstract "rights" that the left uses the courts to push on us. But that is a bastardization, not the natural law real-deal that comes from St. Thomas and the Scholastics, and many of the Founding Fathers. But in these rare cases when a life is at stake, there has to be a better answer than "I was just following orders".