The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

 The Law is Not All

As sentient, conscientious, intelligent beings, we all have Natural Rights. If we did not have Natural Rights, then any rights that we may have would be endowed by society or governments. And anything that society or government can give can be taken away. This would make humans subservient to society and governments and not allow for any freedoms or liberties. The aphorism “Might Make Right” would be the law of the land, and nobody would have protections for their persons, family, and property. Murder, slavery, theft, cruel and unusual punishments, and a host of other indignities would be commonplace. And it would usually be inflicted by the mighty upon the weak. A hierarchy of might would be utilized to organize society and governments. This is how animal societies are organized. But man is not a beast and should not govern themselves as a beast does. The common man should not be become common chattel, to be used and discarded as the mighty see fit. To do so would mean that Law would be arbitrary and used for the purposes of the mighty.

However, with Natural Rights, the Law is made by man to protect the Natural Rights of an individual person and to organize society in a manner that assures an orderly and just society for the protection of its citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic that would violate our Natural Rights. No person, no group, no society, no government, and no law may encroach on the Natural Rights of a person. Any government which allows for the violation of Natural Rights is not a just government, and therefore an illegitimate government. The law resides below Natural Rights, and it is made in support of Natural Rights. Any law that violates these Natural Rights is null and void by its very violation. This is how we achieve “A Just Government and a Just Society”. But just obeying the law is not enough; as I explained in my Chirp “10/14/19 Doing Nothing Illegal”. Morality and Ethics are needed to supplement the Law, as the Law cannot conceivably cover all human interactions and situations. So, Morality and Ethics sit beside the law in support of Natural Rights. We cannot punish people for immoral or unethical actions, for punishment is reserved for violations of the Law. We can, however, judge them in our personal and public opinions for immoral or unethical actions. We can also decide to make egregious immoral or unethical actions illegal in the future, but not ex post facto if we determine they violate Natural Rights.

The question then is ‘What are these Natural Rights?’, and ‘How can the law protect these Natural Rights?’. So, what are the Natural Rights of each person? Philosophers, Theologians, Scholars, Judges/Lawyers, Politicians, Men, and Societies have grappled with these questions for millennia with no definitive answers. We, as Americans, can start with the Declaration of Independence in that it states “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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. We can also look to the Bill of Rights in our Constitution for more Natural Rights as I have outlined in my articles “Natural Rights” and “The Meaning of the Thirteenth through Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. I have also written an Article, “Natural Rights”, that explores this issue.

That Natural Rights are not definitive nor fully articulated is not a reason to deny or disparage Natural Rights. Just as morality and ethics are not established is no reason to deny the existence of or to disparage morality or ethics. Humanity must continue to explore Natural Rights, morals, and ethics to reach a fuller understanding and effectuation of Natural Rights, morality, and ethics. And the Law must evolve to incorporate our discoveries from this exploration. To ignore this until they are definitive or fully articulated is to say we can ignore the law until it is definitive and fully articulated, which of course, is an absurdity. It is equivalent to saying that we can ignore science until science can answer all our questions. Just as science cannot answer all questions, the questions of Natural Rights may never be fully answered. But these questions must be asked, explored, and be acted upon while we discover the answers.

The best way to protect Natural Rights is to acknowledge they exist and then to enshrine them in our deeds and laws. Let no one violate our Natural Rights, and do not violate anyone’s Natural Rights. For if anyone successfully violates another’s Natural Rights, then no one’s Natural Rights are safe. We must continue to struggle with the question of what entails Natural Rights and to incorporate our Natural Rights into our Constitution, Laws, Rules, and Regulations.  In America, we have struggled with this concept since our founding. The largest struggle was in slavery and civil rights. We initially got it wrong, and some of our founders recognized it was wrong. But in America, we had the capability to recognize our wrongs and to put them right. Slavery was put right through a Civil War, while Civil Rights were put right through legislation and judicial rulings. We must continue to recognize where we may be wrong and to put it right through Legislation and Judicial rulings; otherwise, we may have to put it right through a civil war (i.e., the Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling was put right by the Civil War). May God help us if we have to resort to a civil war.

And remember that the Law is not all, for Natural Rights needs Law, Morality, and Ethics for the protection of Natural Rights.