Believe it or not, this article was edited down and revised three times, in order to make it as short as possible, but contain enough basic understanding of Natural Law with relationship to this issue that it be beneficial. It is not comprehensive and I recommend the reader make it a matter of thorough study to refer directly to the original documents.
Natural Law: Its Definitions And History
One definition of natural law is that everything on the earth is subject to the natural laws of science, having been created by the laws of such. This approach does not mean science and a belief in Deity are opposing. Rather, its emphasis is upon respect for the earth upon which all things were created, irrespective of the beholder’s belief that God is the founder of such laws of creation. It is simply the idea of acknowledging the natural order of things under the universe.
The other definition is a doctrine of philosophy that is based upon the idea that all creations, being of divine origin, are thus subject to and under the protection of that same creator for their existence. “Natural Law” is that law which governs the right to exist by virtue of being created by a being of Deity, whose power and authority to give life are beyond those of nature and mankind. In observance of nature and God, one can determine the law upon which mankind should be governed. It is, in a nutshell, the practice of pure equality.
Many philosophers touched upon the ideology of equality somewhat. But, not until Richard Hooker, emphatically, taught from the pen and the pulpit, did the idea that all persons deserved equal respect, irrespective of their religious affiliation. Hooker’s doctrine was provocative for an Anglican Priest, in the 1500’s, whose church and its strict observance in the culture/state were uniformly tied to observance and piety of a specific religion, as most societies were from ancient Rome forward.
(For your reference and study of the origins and evolution of Natural Law, here is a basic list of those philosophers who expounded, to some degree or another the philosophy of Natural Law: Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suarez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel Von Pufendorf, John Locke, and Emmerich de Vattel. The Founding Fathers were familiar with the treatise of these men and others.)
Hooker’s teachings were nearly diametrically opposed to the words of his contemporary, Machiavelli, who’s philosophy was based solely upon expediency to benefit the head of government without thought to the value of the individual’s—except in the role as servant-builder to the leader. And most of the grander empires espoused something short of Hooker and more in line with Machiavelli. But while Hooker’s words were attributed to modifying religious attitudes, and gained a measure of acceptance over time, it was not he who expounded upon the idea of Natural Law in the context of practicable civil law or societies, or to the measure it is now extolled. It was John Locke.
Locke was born nearly 200 years after Hooker. Taking from Hookers words about equality, Locke observed that laws are created to preserve and defend the existence of each person, equally in similitude of what was found in nature and scriptures, since God created all creatures and left a pattern of respect for mankind to follow. While Hooker advanced thought by influencing the Church’s view, Locke took those ideas and applied them to every conceivable circumstance, regardless of religious affiliation, but with acclamation to God for the law.
His premise for Natural Law explained that the main purpose of societies was not for the power, extravagance, preservation of a government or church, or individuals in power—or any other reason that can be thought, except to preserve the life of each individual in that society. Natural Law condemns a practice that allows one will to do completely as he/she pleases. (Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Ch.1-2; 7)
How Natural Law Works In The Context Of Societies
So, what does this mean to civil governments? And how does it work? How is it applied to those of one country who want to be part of another country, or even simply enter another country?
“Natural Man” is the term used by Locke to explain one’s right to existence. As a person created by Deity, he/she has the right to those things that will preserve their own life without interference. Locke explains that only God can take a life, as He is the only one that grants it. Thus, it is the natural state of all persons to desire to live and act for themselves. (Ch.1-2)
Since there are a multitude of conflicts from one person’s rights interfering with another, in order to “observe their own rights” societies are established to regulate and keep in balance rights of one individual over another. Laws were thus created to protect the cumulative good rather than just one person at a time.
In other words, putting this into context, let us use this analogy:
One man owns property, which is his duly given right by Natural Law. But his trees are growing to extend into his neighbor’s yard. Whose rights supersede, the man who has a right to grow what he wants on his own property? Or, is it the neighbor, who also has a right to do with his property as he wishes? Under Natural Law, the man with the trees does not have the right to encroach upon his neighbor’s property. To do so reduces his neighbor’s right to his own property to do with as he wishes because part of his property is now under control of the man with the trees. Under the doctrine of Natural Law, one has the right to himself so long as it does not interfere with the rights of another. He is not free to take any part of another person’s rights. That is not the doctrine of Natural Law. To use the first part of the equation and ignore the section part is to abuse the doctrine of Natural Law—wittingly or unwittingly.
So how does Natural Law apply punishments to those who break the law? Does one who has taken a life, clearly in violation of Natural Law, have the right to keep his own, avoiding capital punishment? Does anyone violating a law, regardless of how minor it may seem have a right to live, according to Natural Law Doctrine? The answer is no. Any crime of robbing another of his/her right to life or livelihood is punishable to that degree that would safeguard the rest of mankind from the same loss. Hence, death as a punishment/deterrent is absolutely considered in Natural Law, if that is the measure that will keep one person from taking another’s right to life and living in any degree (Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, ch. 2). Locke expounds:
Sec. 3. POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with
penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and
preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the
execution of such laws, and in the defence [sic.] of the common-wealth from
foreign injury.
Locke further explains:
…there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses…Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully [sic.], by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
Note here, the use of the word “competition” above is another way of saying “threat.” Locke explains that under Natural Law, one is not bound to observe the rights of another over one’s own. If there is a threat to his/her own life, one has the right to preserve it by stopping the threat. He continues:
And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing
hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth (sic.) the peace
and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that
state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the
transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the
law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in
vain [sic.].
Understanding the premise under which the Natural Law exists, then educates us that there is no excuse for ignoring the law. Correct laws are those that support Natural Law whereby all share an equal portion under their laws. If one in a society breaks the laws, and goes without punishment, the society is then broken.
Are there bad laws, then? Yes, there are bad laws. Not all laws are designed with respect to Natural Law. Laws intended to benefit one over another in their natural state or preservation within their own society, are certainly bad, already explained, quite simply, above. And Natural Law includes the respect for differences in governments--societies--like one ecosystem respects another. The fish in the sea, whose natural state is in water, and a specific region of it, certainly have no power or right to run like the horse. The elephant, try, as it might, cannot swim like a dolphin. The fish would dry up and vanish on what surely it would consider a parched environment. The elephant would not only lack the grace of the dolphin, it would drown in what the dolphin would consider the shallow end of the sea! Even among similar forms, the rights of one are limited to its sphere: the south deserts of Utah, home to Mustang horse, would not be amiable territory for the bread Quarter horse of Kentucky. No matter how alike the two are in species, their natural states are vastly different. Indeed, the quarter horse would not flourish in an environment that does not, by nature, welcome it.
Likewise it is with cultures, civilizations, and governments. One has no authority to trespass on the other, lest peril come. The premise behind the laws of nature is justifiable reasoning in governments, civilizations, and countries. One, who tries to enter an area foreign to his/her birth, must oblige the laws of the new area. If the person cannot—irrespective of why—he/she will not thrive and is not welcome. The bottom line is that unless they can adapt to the laws of the new society, they have no natural right to it. (Locke, ch. 2) They must either adapt, or stay to their natural area.
Hence, members of one society, on the simple grounds of being a creature of a different natural state, are in violation of Natural Law because the territory they covet is not their natural state.
But societies are not a natural state, but an organization that people agree together to join, vesting authority to legislate on their behalf to protect their natural state as a group. They band together for the sole purpose of protecting their natural rights against others who would take them. Locke:
Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England, France or Holland,
are to an Indian, but like the rest of the world, men without authority: and
therefore, if by the law of nature every man hath not a power to punish offences
against it, as he soberly judges the case to require, I see not how the
magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country; since, in
reference to him, they can have no more power than what every man naturally may
have over another. [Locke, ch. 2:9].
Because of this “innocence standard” it is imperative to include in the laws of any country rules of citizenship and a border policy prohibiting violation of trespass. Mayhem would exist with out them. Note that Locke clearly connotes a difference between countries that have a power and those that do not. If power is given to the government to punish a foreigner, i.e.: laws are created, then that foreigner has no right to ignore the authority. At that moment, the alien is no longer innocent and unable to reason trespassing, without penalty of the laws of the foreign country. While there are many laws, in many lands with such a standard, the only country that was designed to use the doctrine of Natural Law to its fullest capacity is the United States of America.
As a premise to what was coming, the Declaration of Independence uses the terminology, nearly verbatim, from Locke’s Treatise of Civil Government, lists ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as the three endearing qualities of a truly free society.+ It must be noted here, that “pursuit of happiness” was originally written as “pursuit of property” but in discussion and debate, the term was broadened to happiness as the definition of property ownership, whether in fee simple (meaning purchased without restraint) or by leasehold (renting which still gives full right to use, so long as the landlord’s right to preserve his/her property are not diminished).
Natural Law Applied To Illegal Immigration And Arizona SB 1070
From an understanding of Natural Law we can state the following with respect to the illegal immigration issue:
Firstly, illegal aliens cannot justify crossing into either the property of an individual citizen of the United States, or onto federal lands, (as the collective individuals of the nation own those). In both circumstances, Natural Law stipulates that the illegal alien is taking away the rights of the owner to do with the property as he/she wishes.
Secondly, border laws, and laws of naturalization provide duty to the alien to oblige the new culture’s laws. If there were no border policy, and no law concerning immigration, the alien would have a right to cross the border at will, (if he/she could somehow find a place to cross that was not violating the first precept, above), because there would be no power to enforce. Once laws are authorized (vested power), the illegal party must respect the law, according to Natural Law. The Constitution, following these premises, vests power.
Thirdly, those who are not here by obliging our laws, and consequently are still under the auspices of their own natural state—not ours, cannot lay a claim to any rights of this country as it is not theirs to possess. It would be like the elephant’s mother getting mad at the fish in the sea, because her elephant son drowned trying to live in a state that was not his naturally. Were the elephant and his mother able to adapt by following the rules of the new environment, (which would require, at a minimum, sprouting gills and loosing some weight), then the elephant would be welcome in the new environment. And only at that point would the mother, perhaps have reason to believe her elephant son should have survived. This has been done: we call it selective evolution, and it takes sometimes centuries, even millenia to accomplish. Likewise, an individual from outside one country cannot use that countries laws for rights it does not possess. The act and idea is as ridiculous as an elephant going after the fish because the second echo system did not oblige the invader of it. The term “naturalization” is derived from Natural Law. The Constitution uses it where someone born to another country, thereby another natural state, is properly vested rights to our society.
Additionally, since the Founders were quite aware of how Natural Law works and had concerns if non-citizens were allowed to cross into the country unaccounted and unregulated, Article I, Sec. 8, clauses xiv-xv and xviii, respectively, state that the Congress is responsible for protecting the states from invasion. It reads that the Congress is:
To make Rules for the government and Regulations for the land and naval Forces
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
To make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and All other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Invasion is not classified by degree, where a certain number entering without permission is expressed. Invasion is invasion, whether by one or 10,000,000. The degree of invasion is more an indication that Natural Law is not being observed and the laws regarding those crossing illegally are being ignored; or, that the punishment is not equal to the violation sufficient to “hinder it”, thereby protecting the rights possessed by the U.S. Citizenry, as required under the Constitution and, thereby, Natural Law.
Note above that within the Article is the precise wording of powers with respect to making laws. The Founders knew that the Constitution must vest powers else Natural Law would allow crossing the borders, or any other act by a non-citizen. Chaos would rein, which, as stated above, would render Natural Law void, as well as the membership of the country.
Understanding Natural Law And The Constitution
Terms such as “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” “inalienable rights,” “vested powers,” “naturalization,” and so forth all came by way of Natural Law as found in the Second Treatise of Civil Government, by John Locke. There was a day and time in our country’s history that the citizens knew and understood their Constitution. In fact, the Constitution itself states that all public offices must require of its servants to take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Note in the following from the Constitution, the clear determination to uphold Natural Law as Locke, Hooker, and others prescribed:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Member of the several State Legislatures, and all executive Officers, both of the Untied States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Art. VI, Sec 3)
There is much to be studied and understood with respect to the doctrine of Natural Law—more than can be reasonably tackled in one discussion. We have only scratched the surface with a discourse on how Natural Law affects the Constitution. Suffice to say that Natural Law is profusely used in the Constitution as a prevailing ideal and directive equal to the Bible, since the paradigm of Natural Law is from the “ two greatest commandments” found in the New Testament.
It would be incumbent upon all citizens of these Untied States to make it a matter of in-depth study, using the The Federalist Papers (Madison Hamilton & Jay), The Law, (Bastiat), and refer back and forth with both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in that study.
It is an American imperative. Something, if we understood thoroughly, would eliminate the issue of Illegal immigration and the insult to such states as Arizona* in preserving their naturally rising rights. **+
*The latest law, AZ SB 1070, under attach by those who would wish to ignore America’s rights, is not exclusive the Arizona. The current Federal border and immigration laws are nearly identical to those just enacted in Arizona, (except that they are actually stricter). California has the same laws on its books as well (CA Penal Code 834b).
** See this link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/may/15/audio-interview-la-city-councilman-attacks-ariz-la/ for an interview article on this subject. It will indicate the level of education about the laws of the land and the state of the Constitution and observance of Natural Law.
+ The good student of the Constitution should also read The Law, by Bastiat. It is found, or can be ordered, from among the Classics division in any bookstore or online at a nominal cost. Additionally, The Constitution Kit, a published DVD including over 50,000 documents about the Constitution is available and should be in every American’s library, for ready reference and study of their American heritage. Tha author of this post is not in any way connected with royalies or any payment in lieu of promoting the work.
Sources for this article include Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke; US Constitution; The Law, Bastiat.
