Dr. Dan UpdatesUS Constitution and Individual Freedom

Our Political Supreme Court

Our nation’s founding documents – the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – were written to specify and enshrine the basic principles under which our nation was to be governed.  Those documents refer clearly to inalienable “laws of nature and nature’s law” which we simplify as Natural Law Rights.  By definition, Natural Law Rights belong to each individual as a birthright from an almighty God in whose existence our founders believed.  In our Constitutional Republic, the rights of every single individual are protected from the whims of majority rule, which is the failure of “democracy” as a governing system.  If you accept that concept, you should also understand that the “laws” created by government are merely “rules”.  Furthermore, government-created “rights” are not inalienable and can be altered and eliminated as required by the expediency of politics. This distinction was clear in our founders’ minds as it should also be in ours. 

Government often enacts legislation and calls it a “right,” but it really is just a set of rules designed primarily to purchase votes from favored voting blocs.  When government creates rules and regulations it calls “laws”, we have the option to obey, disobey, or work to remove from office the mortal men or women who enacted them.  That is what elections are designed to accomplish.  As long as elections are fair, honest, and carried out in compliance with established rules, all citizens should accept the results as valid.  When the populace loses faith in the validity of the electoral process, the result is chaos and anarchy.   

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically require the federal government and the states to protect and secure the Natural Law Rights of individuals.  In the divided balance-of-power structure created by those documents, it is the Supreme Court that is tasked with verifying that Congress and the Executive Branch comply with those constitutional constraints.  The Supreme Court must protect the rights of the individual, regardless of pressure from power-hungry politicians to “constitutionalize” rules that restrict Natural Law Rights or that change the accepted policies by which we live our lives.  The Supreme Court must also resist the urge to comply with popular trends or to be swayed by the will of the mob that blackmails us with illegal mayhem and violence.

The Supreme Court cannot perform those critical functions, however, if justices are appointed and confirmed based on their political allegiance instead of their ability to uphold the written word of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  In our severely divided nation, the results of the presidential election will likely produce legal challenges that end up in the Supreme Court.  A court that is able to make decisions by a majority vote may be more likely to follow constitutional principles and avoid a national disaster.  

Show More

Related Articles


  1. Interesting. But you fail to reach the ultimate Truth: the guy with the most power wins. Next question: who is the guy with the most power? Answer: the guy who created everything we see. Therefore, if there is no Creator, then there are no “Natural Laws”.
    The Supreme Court is just a group of humans who must, by necessity, make decisions based on political agenda. “Balance of Power” is a nice term, but the truth is that our government is a huge, clumsy committee. This is by design. The whole purpose is to curtail any group, including the “majority”, from tyrannical rule. That effort is flawed. The “Jim Crow” laws are a prime example. However, over time, they have been abolished by the very government structure that enabled them.
    Every election is “The Most Important” because in each election we trim the sails and adjust the rudder of the Ship of State. Which returns us to the first point, the guy with the most power.
    It’s simply a question of what you choose to believe. Either there is a God or there is not. Every “Agenda” precipitates from the answer to that question. The concept of “Natural Law” means nothing to a person who does not believe there is a Creator. That person will claim that our Constitution is based on a lie.
    C. S. Lewis was correct when he argued that one cannot claim something is “unfair” if you refuse to accept the source of that which is “fair”.

  2. As long as we have a choice between 2 politicians who spent the most to get chosen by their party and dead people, illegal aliens, convicted felons and law abiding citizens get to vote in one of many different ways at least once and some many times I’m not so sure we can vote ourselves out of this mess we find our selves in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

Cart Summary

    Product Price Quantity Total

Cart totals

Subtotal $0.00
Tax $0.00
Total $0.00