Constitutional Rights

Introduction

The Constitution of the United States is an enduring document that has been the subject of much analysis and interpretation. The document establishes the framework for the federal government and guarantees certain rights and privileges to citizens. These protections have been interpreted in a variety of ways over the years, and there is still much debate about their meaning and application. One way to analyze the Constitution is through the lens of higher law philosophy. This approach emphasizes the importance of natural law and unalienable rights. It holds that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of these principles, rather than simply as a set of rules or regulations. Another common way to analyze the Constitution is through the lens of contemporary legal views. This approach focuses on the current understanding of constitutional law and strives to apply it to 21st century challenges. Both of these approaches have merit, and they can provide insights into the meaning of the Constitution. Yet when it comes to understanding Constitutional Rights, there continue to be problems regarding how society interprets universal principles of morality and justice.[footnoteRef:2] The problem is that much of modern society has moved away from a Biblical understanding of these principles, and therefore people assert their own personal and subjective definitions of truth, dignity, morality, and so on. It is a situation in which moral and legal chaos portends a disintegration of meaning as it pertains to the notion of Constitutional Rights. For if society cannot even agree on what is morally good and what is not, how can it agree on how the Constitution should be interpreted? This paper will evaluate the relationship between higher law philosophy and contemporary legal views as they pertain to the issue of Constitutional Rights and show why a Biblical perspective is needed for structural purposes. [2: Brauch, Jeffrey A. "Preserving True Human Dignity in Human Rights Law."Capital University Law Review, Forthcoming(2022), 116.]

Higher Law Philosophy

The universal principles of higher law philosophy are those legal principles that are derived from natural law or morality, as opposed to positive law. The concept of higher law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the man-made laws enacted by legislature or other government bodies. Many philosophers and legal theorists believe that there is a higher law that exists independently of positive law, and that this higher law should take precedence in cases where the two conflict. Proponents of higher law often argue that it provides a more just and moral foundation for the legal system, as it is based on objective principles rather than the whims of legislators. As such, the universal principles of higher law philosophy are an important part of many legal systems around the world.

There are a number of different philosophies that fall under the umbrella of higher law. But there are also some universal principles that can be found across all of these philosophies. One of the most important is the idea that there is a higher authority than human laws whether that be God, nature, or reason. This higher authority is what gives human laws their validity and importance. Another universal principle is the idea of natural rights the belief that all human beings have certain inherent rights that must be respected by any just legal system. This includes things like the right to life, liberty, and property. Finally, another key principle is the idea of justice the idea that everyone should be treated fairly and equally under the law. These are just a few examples of the universal principles of higher law philosophy. But they provide a good starting point for understanding this complex and important area of thought.

The main problem is that in spite of this common understanding of a higher law under the higher law umbrella, there is still a great deal of disagreement among the philosophies that govern the perspectives under that umbrella. For instance, God-based higher law (such as that of Christianity) is much different from rationalism or naturalism, which can have very different principles and meanings for human dignity, purpose of life, happiness, goodness, the common good, and so on. The God of the Bible has clear laws for humanitybut rationalists and naturalists would not necessarily deign to accept these laws as applicable in modern society. For example, naturalists and rationalists might see no reason divorce should not be permitted in society (or perhaps why marriage should even be necessary),...

…created their legal system starting with the US Constitution. Contemporary views offer myriad takes on the problem. One view is that the Constitution protects certain individual rights, such as the right to free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms. Another view is that the Constitution protects collective rights, such as the right to form a union or the right to vote. There is also the view that the Constitution does not protect any rights at all, but instead establishes limitations on government power. These views are not mutually exclusive, and many legal scholars hold more than one view. However, these three views are predominant in contemporary legal thinking on Constitutional Rights along with the idea of living constitutionalism. Underneath these views, however, is a shifting bed of sand in which there is no anchor for thought and no cause for commonality. It is the problem of a society once moored by Christianity, no adrift at sea attempting to maintain order but acknowledging no external system or law of higher origin but that which emanates from the individuals own mind.

Conclusion

Christianity has had a significant influence on the development of Western civilization, but its impact on the American legal system is minimal when compared to the impact of Enlightenment philosophy, naturalism, and rationalism. Christianity, naturalism, and rationalism could be lumped together under the umbrella of higher law philosophybut they are also vastly different in terms of understanding morality and what constitutes the moral law. Many of the Founding Fathers were revolutionaries, and their beliefs shaped their views on government and the role of law. For instance, the belief that all people are equal was a central principle in the fight for independence from England, but the law that they devised essentially was Orwellian in the sense that only certain people were equalblacks and women for instance were not held as equal to white land-owning men. Today, there is the concept of a living constitutionone that evolves as society changes. The idea that laws should be interpreted in light of contemporary values is a reflection of the fact that society has no common belief mooring it in placenot like it did when Christianity was the recognized religion of the West.

Bibliography

Brauch,…