-- Tom Hoefling
"When it comes to the right to life, and marriage, God has already decided. "You shall not murder." "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." So neither individuals, nor states, nor our national government, have any legitimate right to decide otherwise. All they have is DUTY. The absolute imperative DUTY to agree with nature, and nature's God, and through the laws, and the enforcement of those laws, to protect and preserve one man one woman marriage, and to provide EQUAL PROTECTION for the right to life of every single innocent human person. You may have the POWER to distort what God intended, but all you're doing when you exercise that illegitimate power is codifying injustice, and destroying your own form of republican self-government, and obliterating the very basis for the American claim to liberty."
-- Tom Hoefling
A decade prior to the Civil War there were two major political parties in the United States:
Democrats, who favored freedom of choice to own slaves; and Whigs, who tried to be a big tent party to stem the loss of members to the Know-Nothing Party.
In Ripon, Wisconsin, anti-slavery activists met for the first time on February 28, 1854, then held their first State Convention in Jackson, Michigan, JULY 6, 1854.
This new political party took a stand on social issues regarding the value of human life, being against slavery.
Also, in response to a movement in Utah to redefine marriage, this new party stood for marriage being between one man and one woman.
They named their party "Republican."
The chief plank of the Republican Party was "to prohibit...those twin relics of barbarism: POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY."
Those attempting to redefine marriage were denounced by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, December 4, 1871:
"In Utah there still remains a remnant of barbarism, repugnant to civilization, to decency, and to the laws of the United States...
Neither polygamy nor any other violation of existing statutes will be permitted...
They will not be permitted to violate the laws under the cloak of religion."
On December 7, 1875, President Grant stated:
"In nearly every annual message...I have called attention to the...scandalous condition of affairs existing in the Territory of Utah, and have asked for definite legislation to correct it.
That polygamy should exist in a free, enlightened, and Christian country, without the power to punish so flagrant a crime against decency and morality, seems preposterous...
As an institution polygamy should be banished from the land...
I deem of vital importance to....drive out licensed immorality, such as polygamy and the importation of women for illegitimate purposes."
Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes stated, December 1, 1879:
"Polygamy is condemned as a crime by the laws of all civilized communities throughout the world."
President Hayes stated December 6, 1880:
"The SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE and the FAMILY relation are the cornerstone of our American society and civilization."
Republican President Chester Arthur stated, December 6, 1881:
"For many years the Executive...has urged the necessity of stringent legislation for the suppression of polygamy...this odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom."
Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite, appointed by Republican Ulysses S. Grant, rendered the Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885, decision:
"Every person who has a husband or wife living...and marries another...is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished...
No legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth...than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of THE FAMILY,
as consisting in and springing from the union for life of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization;
the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
The stand against polygamy is in the comprehensive annotated John Quincy Adams-A Bibliography, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993, p. 41, entry #194, Essay on Turks, 1827):
"Mohammed poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy."
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, appointed by Republican President Abraham Lincoln, rendered the Davis v. Beason, 1890, decision:
"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries...
They...destroy the purity of the MARRIAGE relation...degrade woman and debase man...
There have been sects which denied...there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members...
Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow."
Justice Stephen Field concluded:
"The constitutions of several States, in providing for religious freedom, have declared expressly that such freedom SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXCUSE ACTS OF LICENTIOUSNESS."
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt stated to Congress, January 30, 1905:
"The institution of MARRIAGE is, of course, at the very foundation of our social organization, and all influences that affect that institution are of vital concern to the people of the whole country."
"One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.
...Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. ...A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.' It was 'illegal' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
"Utilitarianism has an appearance of wisdom. But over the long haul, it never proves to be utile. Being uncompromisingly principled often looks foolish to many. But over time, it works. Why? Because the God Who made this world made it in such a way that we reap what we sow. Everything reproduces after its kind. It's as certain as the effects of gravity."
-- Tom Hoefling
Alan Keyes explains why Okla. marriage decision is 'legalistic deception'
“We hold these truths to be self-evident … that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. …” (U.S. Declaration of Independence)
“But if there are certain actions that all human beings are obliged by lawful authority to undertake, then as all are under the same obligation all may invoke the authority of that obligation to justify their action, to prove that it is right. With all justly claiming the same authority to act, all have the right to do so. The ‘rights that everyone has’ are therefore connected with the duties and obligations imposed upon them by the law to which they are all subjected.” (my column “Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right”)
Most of my thinking about the crisis of America’s liberty has been predicated upon the evident fact that a substantial portion of America’s elite has rejected the fundamental premise of liberty and justice in the United States. There is no mystery about that premise. It was clearly articulated in the words with which the American people, as such, stepped onto the stage of history.
As stated in the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, quoted above, this premise has been at the heart of all the various struggles for justice and right that have advanced the true cause of liberty for people in the United States, as individuals and as a nation.
The Declaration’s logic provides the rational foundation for America’s institutions of government, including the Constitution of the United States. At its core, that logic depends on three essential concepts: self-evident truth, the existence and authority of the Creator, and the Creator’s endowment of unalienable rights, vested in every individual included in the name of humanity.
The elitists’ push to legalize, and forbid disapproval of, homosexual relations is the most telling evidence of their hostility toward America’s way of life. It is also the key, in principle, to their thus far successful strategy to overthrow America’s historically exceptional government of, by, and for the people; and to restore unchallenged rule by and for the advantage of, the most powerful elitist clique.
The latest case in point is the ruling of U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern regarding same-sex marriage, overturning the amendment by which Oklahomans restricted the State’s recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples. Though the decision contained nothing new, both its content and the manner in which it was argued by both sides illustrate the deadly legal chicanery by which the elitist faction means to dissolve the moral, legal and institutional basis for just government, i.e., government aimed at securing the God-endowed unalienable rights of the people.
Nowhere in his judgment does Judge Kern refer to this fundamental purpose of government. This omission is the key to understanding the deadly legalistic deception his decision carries on. So is the fact that he pretends to talk about rights, but ignores the special natural prerogative that gives rise to the institution of marriage.
He pretends to see no rational basis for restricting the legal recognition of marriage to couples that are, in principle, capable of natural procreation. (In principle, means, of course, with respect to their God-endowed nature as human beings, not their incidental circumstances or intentions.) Yet the unalienable right of marriage depends on the special prerogative (natural command or rule of the Creator) of procreation. Members of a same-sex couple cannot humanly procreate with one another in the natural way. So they have no basis on which to claim the right rationally connected with the special prerogative of procreation.
Judge Kern purports to discuss natural procreation, but he omits to discuss its connection with natural right.
Read this story at WND.com ...
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own."
-- James Madison, Essay on Property, 1792
Forty years of lawlessness
Well, it's been forty years since the infamous court opinion we call Roe vs. Wade. An entire generation has now slaughtered their posterity.
Under the color of "law."
Of course, rightfully, Roe is no more relevant than Dred Scott vs. Sanford.
As Augustine said long ago:
"An unjust law is no law at all."
And Roe was not a law anyhow. It was a lawless court decision in a particular case, one which can only rightfully be ignored by decent Americans. Constitutionally, only Congress can make laws, and they can only make laws that are in accord with the Constitution if they are to be considered legitimate.
The Constitution explicitly and imperatively says:
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Abortion is illegal. Always has been, always will be. Anyone who tells you otherwise is completely deceived, or outright lying.
"Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever...This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
The ultimate stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to...our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The reason all human government exists, according to our founders:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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..."
by Tom Hoefling
The sight of the representatives of various national gun groups sitting down to negotiate with the Vice-President of the United States over more firearms restrictions was infuriating.
What were they even doing there? What is there to negotiate? The terms of surrender?
Why do these people always think they need a "seat at the table"?
Don't they realize that there are some tables you should never sit at?
Sorry, but what Sam Adams called the first law of nature is not negotiable. We either maintain our God-given, unalienable, natural right to self-defense or America has ceased to be.
America's Founders on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. … it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”
– Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them.”
– Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (February 6, 1788)
“... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...” – Samuel Adams, Constitutional Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788 (also attributed to A Federal Farmer, the anti-federalist)
“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
– George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress; Federal Hall, New York City (January 8, 1790)
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity...will respect the less important and arbitrary ones... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishment, 1764; translated by Jefferson and copied into his Commonplace Book of great quotations.
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms ...”
– Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for Virginia; June 13, 1776
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them …”.
– Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
“...in this country, every man is a militia-man...”.
– Thomas Paine, The American Crisis series, # 9, dated June 9, 1780
“...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” “No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, from debates during the Constitutional convention (later quoted with approval by George Washington), as quoted in Elliot’s Debates, 1836
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry (in the Virginia ratifying convention)
“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”
– James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, Federalist # 46
“[A] government resting on a minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”
-- James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution
“...the loyalists in the beginning of the late war, who objected to associating, arming and fighting, in defense of our liberties, because these measures were not constitutional. A free people should always be left... with every possible power to promote their own happiness.”
- James Monroe, President of the United States
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 28
“Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped...” “...an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 29
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people.”
– George Mason, from debates during the Virginia state ratifying convention
“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-- George Mason
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to the unjust and oppressive.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (October 17, 1787)
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. The Constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include...all men capable of bearing arms. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” “... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Letters From The Federal Farmer (1788)
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit.”
– Richard Henry Lee, proposed by the Virginia delegation to the Constitutional Convention (defining the phrase “well-regulated militia” which was used exactly in the final draft of the Second Amendment); and suggested in their state ratification debates, June 1788, to clarify the right.
“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.”
– Fisher Ames, letter to F.R. Minoe (June 12, 1789)
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals...”.
– Samuel Bryan, during debates on ratification of the Constitution in the Pennsylvania assembly
“The power of the sword is in the hands of Congress? My friends and countrymen, it is not so; for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the Militia? They are not ourselves as politicians and lawmakers. They are those who have elected us into our positions and entrusted us with the power of preserving and carrying out their wishes. Congress has no power to disarm the Militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the Federal or State governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
– Tenche Coxe, letter to James Madison during adoption of the Bill of Rights in the United States Congress (1789)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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..."
-- The Declaration of Independence
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."
-- Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained."
-- George Washington, 1789
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."
-- William Blackstone
William Blackstone: "No human legislature has power to abridge or destroy the natural rights to life and liberty"
"The public good is in nothing more essentially interested than in the protection of every individual's private rights."
"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."
-- William Blackstone
"There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained."
-- George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1789
"No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God's authority from the beginning: "Increase and multiply." Hence we have the family, the "society" of a man's house -- a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State."
-- Leo XII Rerum Novarum, (12), MAY 15, 1891
America's Principles in Public Policy
“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’”
— Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Dial in to talk to