Natural Rights

Henry VIII, King of England in the 1500s, believed in the Divine Right of Kings.  He threw off the Catholic Church because it wouldn’t submit to his vision of religion, and established himself as head of the Church of England.

King George III, King of England in the 1700s, inherited the position of head of the Church of England.  His subjects in the Colonies believed that he abused his position by refusing to acknowledge their Natural Rights — by refusing to acknowledge “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 peers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.  [Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776]

With the inauguration of America’s President on January 20, 2021, We the People were divided by a chasm deeper and wider than any chasm in recent history.  One side cherishes our Creator and our Natural Rights, as expressed in our Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.  The other side rejects the existence of our Creator and our Natural Rights, and, moreover, cherishes 1619 over July 4, 1776.

Rejecting Natural Rights is rejecting America’s raison d’être: Governments are instituted among Men, for the purpose of securing the unalienable Rights endowed by their Creator.

Prior to January 20, 2021, it would have been unimaginable (in my imagination), that any person who rejected America’s raison d’être would be a Supreme Court nominee.

In February 2022, America’s President nominated a Supreme Court Justice who rejects America’s raison d’être.  During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Ted Cruz asked her: “Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess Natural Rights, yes or no?”  She answered: “I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess Natural Rights.”  Half of the Committee voted against recommending her.  The half of the Committee that sits on the other side of the chasm voted to recommend her, extolling the fact that she has what they consider to be praiseworthy genitalia, gender identity, skin color, and broad smile.

We the People are waiting to find out whether our elected representatives in the Senate will or will not confirm a Supreme Court Justice who rejects America’s raison d’être.  Our Founding Fathers, King George III, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire also are waiting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.