The American Conservative today features a book review of a new book by Hadley Arkes. Here is the Amazon link for the book: Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution The review by Tom Shakely can be found here: ‘Mere Natural Law’ and the Anchoring Truths of Constitutional Order
As an Agnostic, I’m always pointing to the wording “…endowed by their Creator.” The FF seemed keenly aware NOT to use God, or Jesus, or The Jesus God, even if they all agreed that’s what they intended! It’s a very subtle point, that leaves open the POSSIBILITY for other creators. Personally, I don’t know nor care what created us. I’m just glad they worded it that way.
(I’ll let it slide that the FF assumed they knew which rights were inalienable, as deemed by said creator)
Creation was a pretty much uniquely Christian concept in the 18th century, and remains so. There's no doubt that by invoking the concept of a Creator God they were invoking Christianity, although avoiding sectarian or other exclusionary language. There is nothing agnostic about the wording.
I would beg to differ with Mr. Suarez concerning the source of political authority. As a Christian, the Bible makes abundantly clear that the government's authority is from God, not man. Romans 13:1-2 establishes the source of government authority ("Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.").
Law, according to Suárez, is “a just and stable precept that is sufficiently well pr omulgated”. It is based on eternal law in the Augustinian sense. Natural law is preceptive divine law and positive divine law, as laid down in both Testaments. In its moral dimension it is simply a gradual clarification of natural law. He even states that Christian law adds no positive moral precept to natural law.
His social doctrine may still be of interest today: society is a community based on natural law; it follows that civil authority — as distinct from the authority of kinship — has its remote origins in God, but its immediate subject is the “association” as such. Explicit or tacit popular consent is required to establish civil society and the corresponding sovereignty of the people must be transferred to a specific type of political regime. Suárez’s consensus is radically different from Rousseau’s “contract” in terms of its philosophical and theological premises. Once a specific type of political regime has been established, the community cannot arbitrarily withdraw the authority conferred. It may do so only in extreme cases of tyranny or social anarchy. The goal of civil society, which is the temporal common good, in itself inherently restricts the authority of the State. An uprising against the tyrant, even if it leads to his death, is therefore legitimate since he can be deposed by the representatives of the community that vested him with authority.
Thanks. I was, of course, familiar with Cahill as a biologist but did not now of her advocacy for natural law. That makes total sense coming from a scientist, since the idea of purpose is fundamental to true science. Modern science, like modern law, has been transformed into an ideology and the rejection of a natural law understanding is at the heart of that as well.
Mark; This posting so well encapsulates what grounded this Country so successfully and, sorely lacking for reasons outlined, will be it's demise.
Particularly stunning is the revelation of a 'Uni-Party' result where both Liberal and Conservative operatives miss the mark. "...Arkes argues that Originalism—an emersion in the bare text of the Constitution—is an inadequate instrument to recover the vision of the Fathers." This so hurts my heart as we citizens are provided today's Republican/Conservatives for our representatives in a battle for a Constitutional Return. Without the understanding of Natural Law, aka Creator Endowed Rights, battles rage in which victory by today's "conservatives" will be for inadequate -if not destructive- causes.
Those who've read some of my rants know I believe without a return to a Foundational Constitution led Governance, the failure of this 'Experiment' will be unavoidable. It's very sad to think our battle is for the wrong solutions. Without a grounding in Faith, as many founding Fathers knew in Christianity, the will of man (and inherent failure) will be a false-guiding principal and lack hope of return to what made us the Beacon of Liberty and Freedom to the world. Blessings Mark and to all my fellow readers here as well. (WRH)
Thanks, Wayne. Here's the thing. We're all familiar with the kind of "uniparty" convergence of interests that arises from general corruption and pork barrel politics. Far more harmful for the long run is an ideological uniparty that rejects the foundational constitutionalism that you describe. That's the sickness of the soul that can take this country down, as we're seeing. It undermines all constitutional government. This is, IMO, what's behind the current crusade against individual justices starting, especially, with Thomas who recognizes the centrality of the Declaration to foundational constitutionalism.
As an Agnostic, I’m always pointing to the wording “…endowed by their Creator.” The FF seemed keenly aware NOT to use God, or Jesus, or The Jesus God, even if they all agreed that’s what they intended! It’s a very subtle point, that leaves open the POSSIBILITY for other creators. Personally, I don’t know nor care what created us. I’m just glad they worded it that way.
(I’ll let it slide that the FF assumed they knew which rights were inalienable, as deemed by said creator)
Creation was a pretty much uniquely Christian concept in the 18th century, and remains so. There's no doubt that by invoking the concept of a Creator God they were invoking Christianity, although avoiding sectarian or other exclusionary language. There is nothing agnostic about the wording.
Why didn’t they use the word God? (Exp answer: “they didn’t have to”)
I would beg to differ with Mr. Suarez concerning the source of political authority. As a Christian, the Bible makes abundantly clear that the government's authority is from God, not man. Romans 13:1-2 establishes the source of government authority ("Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.").
Suarez and the other scholastics was a lot smarter than you appear to think, and also a better Christian.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/57jnv9.htm
Brief excerpt:
Law, according to Suárez, is “a just and stable precept that is sufficiently well pr omulgated”. It is based on eternal law in the Augustinian sense. Natural law is preceptive divine law and positive divine law, as laid down in both Testaments. In its moral dimension it is simply a gradual clarification of natural law. He even states that Christian law adds no positive moral precept to natural law.
His social doctrine may still be of interest today: society is a community based on natural law; it follows that civil authority — as distinct from the authority of kinship — has its remote origins in God, but its immediate subject is the “association” as such. Explicit or tacit popular consent is required to establish civil society and the corresponding sovereignty of the people must be transferred to a specific type of political regime. Suárez’s consensus is radically different from Rousseau’s “contract” in terms of its philosophical and theological premises. Once a specific type of political regime has been established, the community cannot arbitrarily withdraw the authority conferred. It may do so only in extreme cases of tyranny or social anarchy. The goal of civil society, which is the temporal common good, in itself inherently restricts the authority of the State. An uprising against the tyrant, even if it leads to his death, is therefore legitimate since he can be deposed by the representatives of the community that vested him with authority.
We must return to a natural law position globally. Another compelling advocate for this position is Irish Professor Dolores Cahill. She is a renowned molecular biologist but also a natural law advocate. This interview she did with Dr Tess Lawrie is probably the best summary of her concept of natural law. https://rumble.com/v1x96yo-dr-tess-lawrie-talks-with-dr-dolores-cahil-about-why-the-legal-system-is-no.html
Thanks. I was, of course, familiar with Cahill as a biologist but did not now of her advocacy for natural law. That makes total sense coming from a scientist, since the idea of purpose is fundamental to true science. Modern science, like modern law, has been transformed into an ideology and the rejection of a natural law understanding is at the heart of that as well.
Very true. Law, science and spirituality have all been corrupted to humanity’s detriment.
Mark; This posting so well encapsulates what grounded this Country so successfully and, sorely lacking for reasons outlined, will be it's demise.
Particularly stunning is the revelation of a 'Uni-Party' result where both Liberal and Conservative operatives miss the mark. "...Arkes argues that Originalism—an emersion in the bare text of the Constitution—is an inadequate instrument to recover the vision of the Fathers." This so hurts my heart as we citizens are provided today's Republican/Conservatives for our representatives in a battle for a Constitutional Return. Without the understanding of Natural Law, aka Creator Endowed Rights, battles rage in which victory by today's "conservatives" will be for inadequate -if not destructive- causes.
Those who've read some of my rants know I believe without a return to a Foundational Constitution led Governance, the failure of this 'Experiment' will be unavoidable. It's very sad to think our battle is for the wrong solutions. Without a grounding in Faith, as many founding Fathers knew in Christianity, the will of man (and inherent failure) will be a false-guiding principal and lack hope of return to what made us the Beacon of Liberty and Freedom to the world. Blessings Mark and to all my fellow readers here as well. (WRH)
Thanks, Wayne. Here's the thing. We're all familiar with the kind of "uniparty" convergence of interests that arises from general corruption and pork barrel politics. Far more harmful for the long run is an ideological uniparty that rejects the foundational constitutionalism that you describe. That's the sickness of the soul that can take this country down, as we're seeing. It undermines all constitutional government. This is, IMO, what's behind the current crusade against individual justices starting, especially, with Thomas who recognizes the centrality of the Declaration to foundational constitutionalism.