Replies

That is NOT, most decidedly NOT, the LAW:

Blackstone’s Common Law Theory
William Blackstone, an 18th century British jurist and contemporary of James Wilson’s, set forth a common law model with two main categories--the law of nature and the law of revelation. In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone explains that the law of nature establishes a rule of moral conduct based on God’s law, which recognizes man as created in the image of God. This rule of moral conduct imposes a rule of action upon man that includes duties to God, self, and neighbor. "And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey."
Blackstone defines the law of nature as "the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions." The law of nature, therefore, sets up an objective standard of morality and right and wrong actions as dictated by God. This standard is based on the understanding that man is created in the image of God, and that he (man) has God-given intuitive knowledge by which he knows the objective standard, and is thus responsible for adhering to it.
Understanding the principle of the law of nature leads to the logical conclusion that man has no subjective right to do something that has been established as objectively wrong. Any act that violates the image of God in oneself or in other men is considered malum in se, or bad in and of itself. An action that is malum in se, therefore, violates not only one’s duty to God (to live life for His glory), but also violates duty to self in that it could potentially compromise one’s health and well-being. Therefore, the law of nature is the first standard by which an individual’s actions should be gauged.
A second standard by which an individual’s actions should be gauged is the standard of malum prohibitum, or bad because prohibited. This standard is established based on certain revealed laws seen in the law of nature and nature’s God. Government has the authority to pass laws that set forth a rule of civil conduct only, and such laws must be in accordance with the law of nature. Such laws would make certain actions malum prohibitum.[]
Blackstone saw that the role of government is not to enumerate rights, but to protect those rights already imparted to every individual by God. He states, "The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature." early American founders, including James Wilson, thus constructed a framing document that reinforced the truth of certain unalienable rights while defining and limiting the powers of government.

A government's laws must be in fidelity to natural law -- G-d's relevation, or they are naught. The law that allows murder or suicide is a foul law, and foul the judge that applies it. Such judges are OUTLAWS.

cite: http://www.neopolitique.org/Np2000/Pages/Essays/Articles/jan98-wilson.html

by Susan Richmond posted at NeoPolitique

Good post - There is a reason that the American system has endured these years. It was founded on eternal principles.

Which have been eroded little by little, and has now collapsed.

A government's laws must be in fidelity to natural law -- G-d's relevation, or they are naught. The law that allows murder or suicide is a foul law, and foul the judge that applies it. Such judges are OUTLAWS.

(Shrug) Go convince your representatives that a certain law is immoral, then. They are free to change the law. It is not the proper role of a judge to determine whether a law meets some religious standard.