I am completely against the notion that man passed laws can trump natural rights. Ownership of private property is a foundational principle of our society, and if I regard it beyond the authority of federal courts, I most certainly regard it as beyond the authority of state courts.
3...
2...
1...
But since you criticize the Kelo decision then you seem to believe that it isn't beyond the authority of the Federal courts. That the U.S. Supreme Court should have stepped in and issued a decision which, by the way, would impact every other state in how they use their eminent domain powers. And if you grant the Federal Government authority over eminent domain then how can you criticize it when it takes authority over marriage and abortion and what have you?
Man has a natural right of liberty, to name one cited in the Declaration, but we imprison large numbers of people. Man has a natural right of life, but we execute people. People have a natural right to the "pursuit of happiness," but if driving at 150 mph is what makes you happy, you're going to have a hard time of it.
The fact is the "natural rights"--a slippery term that tends to mean whatever one wants it to mean--are trumped by laws all the time. Society is based on compromising natural rights--the "state of nature" where, we are told, life is "nasty, brutish and short" in order to enjoy the benefits and security that society offers.
THE right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.(…)And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to, rather than to dispose himself to peace. --Hobbes, Leviathan