That "natural Law" that John objects to, and Steven and Lucretia espouse, was given to us by God for the very purpose of ordering our lives to be in obedience to Him. The founders would be horrified to think that the Bill of Rights has been so casually discarded especially concerning the right to Life. Killing babies in the womb is the most severe violation of our laws, based on His law, and will earn the practitioners, doctors, women and men a special place in Hell reserved for this most heinous act imaginable. That said He also provided us with a means of repentance and salvation if only it is chosen. Mr Yoo needs to re-think his argument.
I believe you are correct, as far as you go. I would just remind you that, in addition to that “natural law” God gave us free will; including the freedom to do stupid, wrong, and even vile things.
John selected the Dobbs case in point intentionally, simply because it is a hot-button issue, and as such, will stimulate emotional arguement. He can then argue against, for instance, being ruled by a belief in God rather than against societal morality as it shapes the law - which is a little more difficult.
Arguing against the straw man is much simpler than confronting the problem directly, if one's position is weak and the topic is controversial.
"even to the point where written law which is inconsistent with their moral views are no laws at all."
Not just Steve and Lucretia:
" We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. "
-Frederic Bastiat
One wonders what Bastiat would have said about a body of law that permits torture. Perhaps
"But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. "
The U.S. Constitution lays out the limits, obligations, and operating principles for a government created by the people to serve as their agent. The nature of the people themselves is described (but not prescribed) in the Declaration of Independence first and in the Bill of Rights later. "The people" exist and operate under natural law which therefore takes precedence over constitutional law.
Furthermore, the Declaration is explicitly Christian in focus and nothing in the constitution either requires or refutes Christian morality simply because the founders did not want religious conflict to interfere in the normal operation of a government conceived as a tool put in place by the people to serve the people according to their understanding of right and wrong.
It seems highly likely, based on these and other documents produced by the founders, that they would be horrified to find Congress passing legislation contravening natural law as they understood it - and would undoubtedly have expected the public at large to react strongly against any attempt by Congress to do so.
I will ask the rhetorical question: aren't ALL laws based on SOME version of a moral principle, even the most trivial, petty laws? One might argue that the typical Omnibus Bill passed by the US Congress cannot possibly be based on a moral principle; to which I reply that Omnibus Bills are based on a moral principle stated by W. C. Fields in 1941: "Never give a sucker an even break."
That "natural Law" that John objects to, and Steven and Lucretia espouse, was given to us by God for the very purpose of ordering our lives to be in obedience to Him. The founders would be horrified to think that the Bill of Rights has been so casually discarded especially concerning the right to Life. Killing babies in the womb is the most severe violation of our laws, based on His law, and will earn the practitioners, doctors, women and men a special place in Hell reserved for this most heinous act imaginable. That said He also provided us with a means of repentance and salvation if only it is chosen. Mr Yoo needs to re-think his argument.
I believe you are correct, as far as you go. I would just remind you that, in addition to that “natural law” God gave us free will; including the freedom to do stupid, wrong, and even vile things.
absolutely correct, thus my ending "if only it is chosen". Thanks for your reply.
John selected the Dobbs case in point intentionally, simply because it is a hot-button issue, and as such, will stimulate emotional arguement. He can then argue against, for instance, being ruled by a belief in God rather than against societal morality as it shapes the law - which is a little more difficult.
Arguing against the straw man is much simpler than confronting the problem directly, if one's position is weak and the topic is controversial.
You have clearly articulated my objections to natural law jurisprudence. It’s just another ideology for elites to grab power.
Ideologues hate having to convince others of the moral justice of their ideology. Evangelization is hard. They prefer to impose it.
Casting Steve and Lucretia as liberal elite evangelists? Seems a little risky...
"even to the point where written law which is inconsistent with their moral views are no laws at all."
Not just Steve and Lucretia:
" We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. "
-Frederic Bastiat
One wonders what Bastiat would have said about a body of law that permits torture. Perhaps
"But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. "
Well, no.
The U.S. Constitution lays out the limits, obligations, and operating principles for a government created by the people to serve as their agent. The nature of the people themselves is described (but not prescribed) in the Declaration of Independence first and in the Bill of Rights later. "The people" exist and operate under natural law which therefore takes precedence over constitutional law.
Furthermore, the Declaration is explicitly Christian in focus and nothing in the constitution either requires or refutes Christian morality simply because the founders did not want religious conflict to interfere in the normal operation of a government conceived as a tool put in place by the people to serve the people according to their understanding of right and wrong.
It seems highly likely, based on these and other documents produced by the founders, that they would be horrified to find Congress passing legislation contravening natural law as they understood it - and would undoubtedly have expected the public at large to react strongly against any attempt by Congress to do so.
I will ask the rhetorical question: aren't ALL laws based on SOME version of a moral principle, even the most trivial, petty laws? One might argue that the typical Omnibus Bill passed by the US Congress cannot possibly be based on a moral principle; to which I reply that Omnibus Bills are based on a moral principle stated by W. C. Fields in 1941: "Never give a sucker an even break."