Natural rights: Do they exist? Where do they come from? Are they relevant today?

Do you realize you're simply spouting assertions without apparent awareness that they aren't accepted by most legal scholars today? Yes, we know that's your opinion and how it was believed to be back in the good old days. But that doesn't make it so.

 

I don't plan to respond to any more of your posts until you can come up with reasoned arguments backed by evidence or somebody else posts something. The Federalist Society doesn't count.

 

Do you realize that is how interloping and usurping works!
You clearly seem to agree that the government has the right to trample our rights by machination.

 

No logic there. The USA seems to be going strong, under a Constitution that doesn't endorse natural law. You seem to be confusing that with the Declaration of Independence, and seem to be confusing the rhetoric of that document with reality.

 

Sez you!

 

Sorry but "its not recognized" does not count for a rebuttal when it comes to the 'intent' of law.
Your rebuttals dont count, they dont even address the substance of the question!
I on the other hand do address the substance of the question, Im sure readers will recognize the difference!
Why make a thread if you dont want to drill down to the core of the issues like I am doing?

 

Feel free to make your case to the contrary if you have one.

 

Equity - Government Finance Officers Association
https://www.gfoa.org › equity[/QUOTE]The Government Finance Officers' Association? This is supposed to be the last word on natural law. Get real! They're certainly right that we have a body of rules called equity. It's used all the time in granting injunctions and equitable remedies. Technically, it isn't law. It certainly isn't natural law.

 

Congratulations! You just derailed another thread. I'm out here!

 

100% nonsequitur
Natural rights are endorsed by the bill of rights that was incorporated into the constitution.
going strong has nothing to do with natural rights, so did the Qing Dynasty, so what?
I said nothing about the declaration so far.
I have no idea what you are talking about?
Is there a reason you want to bring this up?

 

Technically?
Sez who?

What is equity in the law?

equity. n. 1) a venerable group of rights and procedures to provide fairness, unhampered by the narrow strictures of the old common law or other technical requirements of the law.

equity - Legal Dictionary | Law.com
https://dictionary.law.com › Default



Six equitable maxims explain equity's procedural rules: (1) equity acts in personam; (2) equity will not aid a volunteer; (3) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands; (4) equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent; (5) one who seeks equity must do equity; and (6) equity delights to do justice, and not by ...Sep 19, 2019

The Equitable Maxims: A Primer - American Bar Association
https://www.americanbar.org › the_brief › summer › the-...

 

Equity vs. Law: Understanding the Difference - Law Offices of Bart J. Eagle
http://www.differencebetween.net/mi...stitutions/difference-between-law-and-equity/
Difference between Law and Equity | Law vs Equity
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/LawOrEquity-011217.pdf

 

Historically 'Natural Law' (that you claim does not exist) has been adjudicated using laws/maxims of equity.

 

Historically, when? Natural law used to be used in U.S. Courts, until it wasn't. Those were the days,my friend! Nobody doubts people used to believe in it.
See Stuart Banner, The Decline of Natural Law; How Americans Once Used Natural Law and Why They Stopped.

 

I have not seen an equity case in years,

"Adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938 merged law and equity into a single civil jurisdiction and established uniform rules of procedure.2"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt7-2-3/ALDE_00013445/

They pulled equity under 'civil', civil is not the same as natural.

We should not pretend they are the same!


What is the difference between natural law and the civil law made by mortals?

Positive Law. The theory of natural law believes that our civil laws should be based on morality, ethics, and what is inherently correct. This is in contrast to what is called "positive law" or "human law," which is defined by statute and common law and may or may not reflect the natural law.

Natural Law in Ethics - Investopedia
https://www.investopedia.com › terms › natural-law

 

Bravo!
Natural rights are adjudicated in equity.
You are trying to argue 3 levels of synthesis beyond the core.
Your topic title appears to desire to address the core, since it questions existence.

 

I have cited the basis of natural law before but you seem to not pay any attention to it.

Madison believed the state could not meddle in an individual's relationship to God
James Madison believed that the individual’s relationship to God existed prior even to his or her entry into society; individuals were directly responsible to God, and the state had no authority to meddle in this relationship. The right to the free exercise of religion would be furthered by maintaining the separation of church and state. At the same time, the government had no right to suppress the right of expression to which religious and political freedom were linked.

[Well they certainly did in the Kline and Sullivan cases!]

First Amendment serves as a form of natural law
In some respects the provisions of the First Amendment serve much like natural law: both are a form of “higher” law, superior to laws that governments might make. Natural Law



Natural Rights | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
https://www.mtsu.edu › first-amendment › article › natu...
The natural rights of the First Amendment lead to the "preferred position" doctring ... Rights embodied within documents are constitutional, or civil, rights, ...

Some provisions in the Bill of Rights are man-made; others are natural rights

It appears to me that natural rights most certainly exist, I have not seen you make a case otherwise.

A government cannot take away your inherent natural rights, only oppress and violate them.

 

Hate to break it to you, but Natural Rights are not "endorsed' by the Bill of Rights. They influenced the Bill of Rights, but no endorsement.

Unlike the Qing dynasty, ours is a country of flourishing democracy, where people enjoy legal rights protected by a representative government. Folks where I live aren't groaning under tyranny.

I have no idea what you have no idea about.Is there a reason you want to bring this up?[/QUOTE]Confusing the Declaration of Independence with reality? Of course there is. As Justice Scalia told us.in Troxel v. Granville, "The Declaration "is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts."

Why make a thread if you dont want to drill down to the core of the issues like I am doing?[/QUOTE]You don't seem to be drilling down to the core of any issues. You seem to be making assertions as though they settle the matter when they're simply matters of opinion.

 

The "preferred position" reflects the beliefs of Justices Black, Douglas and other liberal justices that they were more important than the others. It does not make the first amendment natural law.

 

I never claimed otherwise, whats your point?