Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Washington Politicians
I’ve mentioned the concept of natural law many times previously; most
notably: natural law as the basis of the civil rights movement led by the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Rand Paul’s apparent ignorance of
natural law; and Joe Biden’s contempt for natural law regarding the threat
it poses to Roe v. Wade.
America has gotten away from its natural law foundations, which had
been the foundation of western civilization and jurisprudence for well over
2,000 years.
“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.”
Legal theorists in America today reject natural law, as do the
Washington politicians; preferring to assert the authority of positive law
alone. But positive law, which is simply the legal decisions of a legislature
or court, must, according to natural law theory, live up to natural law.
Positive law cannot function properly in isolation from the context of
natural law.
As Dr. King pointed out, many years ago, quoting St. Augustine: “an
unjust law is no law at all.” In short, a positive law that violates the natural
law and the moral laws of the universe is a “law” that is null and void.
Positive law—the laws passed by legislatures and decided by court
decisions—must uphold natural law in order to be valid.
“[N]one of the [Roman] lawyers doubted that there is a higher law than
the enactments of any particular state. Like Cicero, they conceived of the
law as ultimately rational, universal, unchangeable, and divine, at least in
respect to the main principles of right and justice. The Roman Law, like
the English common law, was only in small part a product of legislation.
Hence the presumption was never made that law expresses nothing but
the will of a competent legislative body, which is an idea of quite recent
origin. It was assumed that ‘nature’ sets certain norms which the positive
law must live up to as best it can and that, as Cicero had believed, an
‘unlawful’ statute simply is not law. Throughout the whole of the Middle
Ages and well down into modern times the existence and the validity of
such a higher law were taken for granted.” (George H. Sabine: A History
of Political Theory, pp. 169-170)
Law is not—or should not be—simply the bare expression of the will of
any legislative or judicial body.
There’s an old and true saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Likewise, it
stands to reason that “If it is broke, then fix it.”
Although it’s often said that “we can’t turn back the clock” we can, if
we’re trying to get somewhere—like toward a more just society—get
America back on the right track if we’ve gotten ourselves on a wrong
track.
The will to power is a wrong track for America to be on. And the will to
power is nothing new either. It’s not some new, postmodern philosophical
development; it’s simply the same old personal, Sophistic interpretation of
justice that Socrates—and the Roman lawyers—rejected centuries ago.
Is it any wonder then that America is adrift today? By casting off the
legal anchor of natural law America has crashed upon the shoals of the will
to power; and American is nigh unto being totally destroyed if we fail to
return our great nation to the natural law foundation upon which it was
built.