The definition of: “natural law, in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.”
The idea of Natural Law goes way back to Greek times, but the idea was reintroduced by great thinkers like Thomas Jefferson and John Locke. Jefferson was inspired by Locke and even implemented some of the Natural Law principles into the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
“All men are created equal,” “inalienable rights,” “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
-Declaration of Independence
First Amendment: Freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press, the right to assemble, the right to petition government.
Second Amendment: The right to form a militia and to keep and bear arms.
– The Bill of Rights
Not everyone was supportive of Natural Law and or the Bill of Rights during the American Revolution. Alexander Hamilton and his gang of Federalist not only rejected Natural Law but also did not support the Bill of Rights being added to the constitution. Hamilton stated;
Bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. It is evident, therefore, that…they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people…Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.
Bills of rights…are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
Not only did Hamilton reject the Bill of Rights but also supported a monarch system of government that mirrored the British government.
It may be said this constitutes an elective monarchy! Pray, what is a monarchy? May not the governors of the respective states be considered in that light? But by making the executive subject to impeachment, the term ‘monarchy’ cannot apply.” “Give therefore to the first class [i.e. the wealthiest people] a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second [i.e. everyone who is not wealthy], and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy -Alexander Hamilton, 1787.
Thankfully the majority of the congress did NOT support Hamilton’s proposal for returning to a monarch system of government. The states demanded the Bill of Rights be added before they would ratify the constitution. But Hamilton and his Federalist goonies still added traitorous language in the constitution, that violated natural law, statements like addressing it’s citizens as, “subjects” and other slave-like language.
No country has given its courts such extraordinary power. Not Britain, where an act of Parliament binds the courts. Not India…Not even West Germany or Ireland, where the power of judicial review is established but exercised on a narrower scale. The President is elected. State legislators and Governors are elected. Supreme Court Justices are not elected: they are appointed for life – Archibald Cox (The Court and the Constitution)
The tyranny continued in 1798 with the Alien and Sedition Acts. These Acts made criticism of federal officials a punishable offense. The Constitution served to strengthen the powers of the wealthy aristocratic class in America. It possessed few benefits for the average citizen and ultimately legalized widespread acts of confiscation and extortion. As Thomas Jefferson once remarked: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” The point is emphasized by Constitutional scholar and author Kenneth W. Royce: -Michael Tsarion
If analyzed in contrast to history since 1787, it appears that the Constitution was purposely laden with several components designed to nearly guarantee the gradual expansion of the Federal Government – at the expense of the States and the people – Hologram of Liberty
The phrase “direct and immediate allegiance” is something right out of feudal law…Americans who became “U.S. citizens” have transposed themselves from one system into another fundamentally different from the first…Americans have unknowingly joined a modern feudal system in which they must render a percentage of their toil to their federal master – Kenneth W. Royce
The non-federal state Citizenship became virtually unknown as millions of state Americans were tricked out of their sovereignty and into federal citizenship – and thus into federal jurisdiction. Today, the states have been all but replaced by corporate, federal overlays…There’s probably not enough left of the original states for Americans to resume state Citizenship – Ibid
Some Americans are uncomfortable with this language and want to scrap the document as a whole. But I believe the constitution can be reformed to encompass Natural Law principles. I feel most of the constitution is properly written and feel no need to completely trash it, but rather improve upon it.
Scraping the whole constitution would NOT be popular with the general American populace; instead I suggest we improve on it and remove traitorous language laid out by Hamilton and his federalist gang and others with similar intent.
In my book, “A Patriot’s Rebirth” I write about a clause that can be added to the constitution that not only compliments Natural Law but also protects individual rights from being voted upon.
“If the activity does not violate another’s constitutional rights, it may not be voted upon or violated.” (A Patriot’s Rebirth pg. 244)
My book also suggests that the two party system needs to be abolished to prohibit either party from continuing the practice of dividing an American’s basic rights. For example drugs and guns. Neither party should have any power to impose on the rights that already have been clearly protected by the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
In fact many of the forefathers especially the Anti-Federalist party believed the two party system was a bad idea because nothing would get done with the Republican and the Democrat parties always fighting. After 240 years we can clearly see they were correct by the never ending corruption and perversion brought forth by the Democrat and Republican Parties and their failure to faithfully represent their electorate.
natural law – Natural law in the Enlightenment and the modern era | Britannica
Constitutional Rights Foundation (crf-usa.org)
The Constitution Con – michaeltsarion
Why We Should Be Thankful Hamilton Lost the Bill of Rights Argument – Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)
Declaration of Independence
The Bill of Rights
A Patriot’s Rebirth by K.W.H. Olin
Archibald Cox (The Court and the Constitution)
Kenneth W. Royce