Below is my column in The Hill on the controversial remarks of Sen. Tim Kaine (D. Va.) denouncing a nominee who believed in natural law and the concept of God-given rights. By the end of the hearing, Kaine effectively lumped Alexander Hamilton with Ayatollah Khomeini in his statement at the committee hearing.
Here is the column:
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) this week warned the American people that a Trump nominee for a State Department position was an extremist, cut from the same cloth as the Iranian mullahs and religious extremists.
Riley Barnes, nominated to serve as assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor, revealed his dangerous proclivities to Kaine in his opening statement when he said that “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.”
It was a line that should be familiar to any citizen — virtually ripped from the Declaration of Independence, our founding document that is about to celebrate its 250th anniversary.
Yet Kaine offered a very surprising response in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” he said. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”
In my forthcoming book celebrating the 250th anniversary, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I detail how the Declaration of Independence (and our nation as a whole) was founded on a deep belief in natural laws coming from our Creator, not government.
That view is captured in the Declaration, which states, “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.”
Kaine represents Virginia, the state that played such a critical role in those very principles that he now associates with religious fanatics and terrorists.
In fact, Kaine’s view did exist at the founding — and it was rejected. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
Although the Framers were clear, Kaine seemed hopelessly confused. He later insisted that “I’m a strong believer in natural rights, but I have a feeling if we were to have a debate about natural rights in the room and put people around the table with different religious traditions, there would be some significant differences in the definitions of those natural rights.”
This country was founded on core, shared principles of natural law, including a deep commitment to individual rights against the government. The government was not the source but the scourge of individual rights.
This belief in preexisting rights was based on such Enlightenment philosophers as John Locke who believed that, even at the beginning when no society existed, there was law, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one,” he wrote. “And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind.”
Note that a natural law can also be based on a view of the inherent rights of human beings — a view of those rights needed to be fully human. Like divinely ordained rights, these are rights (such as free speech) that belong to all humans, regardless of the whim or want of a given government. They are still not “rights [that] come from our laws or our governments.”
The danger of legal positivism is that what government giveth, government can take away. Our prized unalienable rights become entirely alienable if they are merely the product of legislatures and courts.
It also means that constitutional protections or even the constitutional system itself is discardable, like out-of-fashion tricorn hats. As discussed in the book, a new generation of Jacobins is rising on the American left, challenging our constitutional traditions. Commentator Jennifer Szalai has denounced what she called “Constitution worship” and argued that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us. A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”
That chorus includes establishment figures such as Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley Law School and author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
Other law professors, such as Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale, have called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
That “reclamation” is easier if our rights are based not in natural law, but rather in the evolving priorities of lawmakers like Kaine. Protections then become not the manifestations of human rights, but of rights invented by humans.
Kaine’s view — that advocates of natural law are no different from mullahs applying Sharia law — is not just ill-informed but would have been considered by the founders as constitutionally blasphemous.
He is, regrettably, the embodiment of a new crisis of faith in the foundations of our republic on the very eve of its 250th anniversary. This is a crisis of faith not just in our Constitution, but in each other as human beings “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a best-selling author whose forthcoming“Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” explores the foundations and the future of American democracy.
As usual, Turley’s column is spot on. However, the response still leaves room for confusion from Kaine’s comparison to different religious views. To clarify, Kaine is relying on moral relativism which is subject to individual beliefs and perspectives. For clarification , our constitution relies on the absolute truth of a divine being. Whether Christian or a belief in the Brahman etc.
Double dip:
This is on topic but slightly off topic at the same time. We, here, are the people that actually vote. The left’s voter fraud, at least for now, is being dismantled, and as a result, they have abandoned any notions of even their precious ‘democracy’, which we aren’t and have never been. In 2025 the very term of ‘democrat’ is an oxymoron. There are people in my hometown now openly identifying as communists, because it as a supremely, utterly, and likely unchangeable blue place, any masks that were previously worn are gone. I no longer have the good faith to believe even that the remaining 17% of JFK dems that still view the DNC positively were ever anything but that, excepting a very small few, and to be fair, you all do exist.
The time when the dems actually appeared to be a ‘party for the people’, and there was such a time, was lies, tangential, and over. It was a mere blip compared to the rest of their historical atrocity. I can forgive ageing hippies on death’s door – the rest? Nope. No way. you are either brain dead or privileged enough to not care, just as in 2008, 2020, 2024, ad nauseam. You all will have to live in the world you created, too. The rest of us are the ones ensuring your comfort in the future, and you will not be grateful, or at worst will take credit yourselves after you actively tried to destroy us, that much is clear. We no longer consider you serious people.
Communism is unconstitutional per Article 1, Section 8.
The absolute right to private property itself precludes most communism.
For example, Americans cannot be deprived of property; wage, price, and rent controls, non-discrimination laws, fair-housing laws, etc., deprive Americans of their private property, deny them their constitutional rights, and are all unconstitutional.
__________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
“… The danger of legal positivism is that what government giveth, government can take away. Our prized unalienable rights become entirely alienable if they are merely the product of legislatures and courts. …”
Agreed, and that’s the reason why somethings shouldn’t be Codified. Yet Laws that were an over-reach are still on the Books.
Laws that were at the time pertinent are now no longer tenable. Which substantiates the question, should the Law(s) been codified to begin with?
It is Machiavellian to employ “legal positivism is that what government giveth, government can take away.” as a sport of Man not God.
That’s the ‘risk’ of the SCOTUS’ Opinions and Congressional Legislature, We the People take under the Constitution.
Politics (political sport) clouds the Natural Order deluding Rights from inalienable to alienable rights.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) missive is proof that He is more interested in Political Sports (Playing Politics) rather than the protection of the Peoples God Given Rights. If Sen. Kaine chooses to play God, then He should find somewhere else to employ his dominion.
God Bless the United States of America. 🇺🇸
Ref. Google AI:
“Machiavellian” describes individuals or actions characterized by cunning, deception, and a manipulative focus on self-interest, often disregarding moral principles. The term originates from the political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli and the 16th-century book The Prince, where he advised rulers on how to seize and maintain power, suggesting “the end justifies the means”. In psychology, Machiavellianism is a personality trait within the Dark Triad model, marked by a lack of empathy and a cynical, calculating approach to achieving goals.
Even though Jefferson never quoted the Bible and wasn’t a Christian, this article has caused Christian-haters to show up and spread a lot of hate . . . even though their very liberties are guaranteed by what Jefferson and his contemporaries wrote.
These ignorant haters notably fail to engage with the actual topic of Professor Turley’s article.
What!? Jefferson quoted the Bible all the time and practically built the ‘wall’ of ‘separation’ betwixt the church and state (bless his heart). .. are you some kind of fanatic old man?
btw. The ‘Framing Founders’ might be a good name for a Rock&Roll band.
The Framing Founders clearly put their trust in God .. . that’s why they forbade Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
I meant in the Declaration of Independence, since that’s the topic. I should have been clearer on that.
oldman
I should have been clearer on that.
____________________
You were spot on. DG just likes to make noise.
That’s true. .. Jefferson never put the Bible in the Declaration of Independence.
*maybe a footnote.
Christian haters? You mean opposing views? Pointing out the flaw in Turley’s article and how he omits certain facts is not hate. Christian nationalists do believe in the same views the Ayatollahs hold in Iran in regard to goverment and religion. How is that hate?
“Christian nationalists do believe in the same views the Ayatollahs hold in Iran in regard to goverment and religion.”
Its not hate per se.
Its just a lie, born of hate.
George loves to make shlt up.
Per se LOL!
Your comments drip with hatred toward Christianity and Christians, you consistently use caricatures to portray them as the most evil people on the face of the earth, you even prove it in this very comment with your fantasy about “Christian nationalists” being the same as the Ayatollahs, when in fact if there is any such thing as a Christian nationalist, they believe in greater civil rights for everyone.
You want to be a Christian hater who uses distorted caricatures to hate on the people you don’t understand, fine, that’s your prerogative. But don’t be so dishonest about it . . . liar!
George has been doing that here for years.
Yet X still claims he’s not the slow and dumb one.
Oldmanfromkansas, how is pointing out that there are extremists within the Christian community hate? There are Christian nationalists, those who want the nation to abide by Christian values, their Christian views, not those who are “not real Christians” according to them.
Your dismissal of Christian nationalists is part of the problem. They exist and are part of what was once the “moral majority” they just go by different names now. The ideas they hold have never gone away. They have just been re-imagined into a softer, kinder version of their past inflammatory views.
“ when in fact if there is any such thing as a Christian nationalist, they believe in greater civil rights for everyone.”
Really? Did they support Gay marriage? Equal rights for gays and lesbians? How about women’s rights? Pretty sure they were against those ideas and they fought hard to paint those groups as un-American and un-Christian and anyone who supported those rights.
Christian nationalists, far right
Evangelicals to be exact do want to push a more Christian form of government and do want their interpretations of the Bible to be the dominant views. It’s people like AG Ken Paxton and Oklahoma sec. of Education Walters. They are pretty extreme Christian zealots. Describing them as such is not hate or hateful. It’s describing them as who they are.
Labeling me “hateful” because you are offended by their description, a correct one I might add, is your hatefulness at those who point out the obvious. You would be one of those who would gladly bring back blasphemy laws. Because you are easily offended.
George,
Please define perjury
I missed the flaw in Turley’s article that you pointed out. What was it? Additionally, if “Christian Nationalists” share those same beliefs as you believe they do, then they would rightly be called out for it. Same for any other ideological subset in our body politic that deviates from the foundational principles that justify our constitutional republic. Even our founding generation desired and petitioned the king and parliament to honor their Magna Carta rights as subjects. It wasn’t until those pleas were ignored and the long train of abuses of their natural rights became untenable did they declare they were no longer subjects of the Crown, but a free and independent people. Today, sheer ignorance has put us on the path to become subjects and not citizens of the state. That long arc of history will eventually repeat itself with the same conclusion, if we continue to FAFO!
Olly – left wingers love to mention “Christian nationalists” and characterize their beliefs as extreme, but they never name a single one or quote anything from them to back it up. The only public figure I’ve seen who admits that maybe he might be a Christian nationalist is Douglas Wilson, who then gives a great explanation of why being a “nationalist” is better than a globalist or communist, and what he understands a Christian nationalist would believe. And it’s invariably more freedom for everyone, including expressive freedom and religious freedom, within a system of law and order – the exact opposite of what the ignorant leftists like X portray.
Strange. I find the comments here more often reflect a hatred for Islam and Muslims in particular.
By Islam, I don’t, necessarily, mean Iran, Yemen or the Axis of Evil. .. any more than I would believe Israel is the nation-state of Judaism, or any of the Prophets of old.
God ain’t got no nation-state .. . the whole world is His Oyster.
*btw. as an erstwhile student of the Quran, I might likely be labeled an ‘Apostate’ in some of those ‘Muslim countries’ .. . and you know what happens to Apostates!
DGS – people don’t hate Islam, they hate the effort by many people who practice Islam to conquer the world and make everyone else bend to their way of life. It’s happening in Europe right now, and elsewhere in the world in many places.
With Christians, there is no counterpart effort. No honest person would claim there is. People hate Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism) because its universal truth claims are inconsistent with the autonomy they want, not because Christians are trying to conquer the world and make everyone else bend to their way of life.
They have all the rights they need to live how they want, but Christianity won’t agree that all of their behavior is okay. To them that is more of an offense than people trying to conquer the world by violence. There is no better proof of this than “Gays for Palestine.” Israel is the most protective of homosexual rights, whereas in Gaza, Hamas would throw them off a building. Yet the Judeo-Christian truth claims are more of an offense to them than a violent death. So they hate on Israel and love on Hamas.
@DGSnowden: Israel isn’t “Judaism itself,” but it is the Jewish nation-state today, rooted in covenant, peoplehood, and history. To deny that link is to deny both Jewish memory and Jewish self-determination. If the Arab states destroyed Israel tomorrow, it would become another Muslim state, but for the Jewish people, it would still remain their home and the keeper of their history. That’s the difference between a passing government and a people bound to their land for thousands of years.
Oldman, I’m never persuaded by the constant drumbeat of identify politics. Far too many see their identity as belonging to one of two teams in a zero sum game of power. I’ve done the work to understand what led us to our declaration of independence and it wasn’t accomplished because the “Christian” team beat the “Atheists”. It was won by a team of “Subjects” that understood the Crown no longer recognized their inherent and unalienable rights. It’s precisely that arc of history we’re repeating.
https://nationalconservatism.org/national-conservatism-a-statement-of-principles/
Section 4: “Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private.”
National Conservativism is Christian nationalism.
Clearest example: Mandating that the 10 Commandments be posted on classroom walls.
The despotic left sees the Constitution as a mote in the eye, a constant irritant. They long for the m.o. of the EU or Canada where human rights can be abridged or canceled at will and one can be imprisoned for expressing un PC un woke thoughts or commentary. Even an atheist must realize that human rights are not bestowed my governments or human rulers .
“The idea that laws “come from the government” is the basis of what is called “legal positivism,” which holds that the legitimacy and authority of laws are not based on God or natural law but rather legislation and court decisions.”
The Bible even made that distinction. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).”
“Note that a natural law can also be based on a view of the inherent rights of human beings — a view of those rights needed to be fully human. Like divinely ordained rights, these are rights (such as free speech) that belong to all humans, regardless of the whim or want of a given government. They are still not “rights [that] come from our laws or our governments.”
So where in the Bible does it say free speech is a natural right? Clearly the right to free speech was frowned upon when Christianity ruled with an iron fist and burned heretics for exercising…free speech. If such a right was “divinely ordained” is certainly was not accepted by the Church or any of the other religious powers at the time. Heresy has never been abolished by the Church or any other religion in this country. The only reason you cannot be prosecuted or tried for heresy is because of the 1st amendment. If it’s a natural right as professor Turley alleges why was it not more prevalent during the dark ages when the Church ruled with an iron fist? Free-speech is antithetical to religion. Blasphemy laws are still on the books of some states. They are not enforceable, thanks to the 1st amendment. Ironically the First Amendment was ratified in 1791. That didn’t stop Blasphemy laws from being enforced until they were ruled unconstitutional in 1952!. Free speech wasn’t much of a “natural law” protecting blasphemers.
George
Natural rights dont come from the Bible, dum dum.
Everything else you said is equally garbage.
Now, tell us again the definition of perjury?
The Bible is the word of God. Are you saying that is not true?
Christians disagree with your view. Especially the crazy power hungy ones in government.
I am saying natural rights dont come from the Bible. You made that shlt up.
Are you some kind of retard, George?
Liar. You made that up.
Hungy ones?
Please cite to where Jefferson quoted the Bible in framing the Declaration, or STFU with your left-wing anti-Christian hatred and zealotry. Your comment completely misses the mark.
In their own words / actions, liberals, progressives, woke, or Democrats are leading America down the devil’s path to hell. America’s view that rights originate from our Creator originate from Judeo-Christian beliefs; not radical Islam that is fundamentally transforming western civilization.
In regard to Tim Kaine–remember that he is NOT a native Virginian. Kaine is from Minnesota by way of Kansas City and Harvard Law where he met his future wife, Anne Holton, the daughter of former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton (R). The couple moved to Richmond where he began his political career. A liberal progressive Catholic, Kaine had the support of the majority black Richmond City Council and voters. Whether Kaine ever understood Virginia thinking and history, or cared to study it, has always been a question. However, he brought his brand of liberalism to the Commonwealth which found favor with the non-native suburbs and exurbs of Washington. This vote is so large and so overwhelmingly that it tilts the entire state to the left. It is no mystery that Kaine takes issue with the words of the Declaration of Independence that our unalienable rights come from our Creator. He is NOT a Virginian and never was. His views of our founding documents cast doubt on everything the man says.
Natural law and religiosity DO predate government/laws and legal positivism.
Speaking for myself, it appears that Kaine is conflating formal religion with basic morality (the latter which can be found in both prehistoric man as well as animal kingdoms -without laws or government,- and which constitutes a part of “natural law”). It is morality, not religion, that is the nucleus.*
It was not until prehistoric hunter-gatherers/”cavemen” (who enjoyed individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) were forced to share land and resources and unify their skills for survival (e.g., it took several hunters to bring down a large dinosaur for food) that unwritten social compacts were formed, -later to be followed (through evolutionary advancement) with written societal constructs such as government and law.
———————
*(before posting this, I went back and looked up a good definition of “moral” as to better support my opinion. Morality being premised upon emotional pathos or ethos engaging “sympathy and compassion, kindness, tolerance, and patience, and also their negative counterparts such as anger, indignation, malice, and spite”, as well as “a sense of what is fair and what is not.” (The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 519–546.)
(sometimes my writing appears “formal;” sorry, I try to lighten up by drinking chocolate milk instead of alcohol.)
Lin
Whereas I always enjoy your legal musings, you should give back your anthropology degree, lol.
“(e.g., it took several hunters to bring down a large dinosaur for food)”
The last non avian dinosaurs predate man by some 60 million years.
Apparently lin is a creationist who believes the earth and everything else was created 6,000 years ago, and that humans co-existed with dinosaurs.
We can safely ignore anything she has to say on any topic.
Stooge^^^^
Ignore.
Many Creationists views have evolved just as yours have, dum dum.
Atheists once also believed the sun orbits the earth.
Sorry, I am not that old and have no personal recollection of being fed dinosaur meat as an infant.
I guess I was relying on more erudite sources, such as this published about 18 months ago ( 2023):
“Ancient human ancestors actually did live with dinosaurs, according to stunning new research.”
https://www.earth.com/news/human-ancestors-coexisted-with-dinosaurs-yes-according-to-shocking-new-research/
and this:
“Which groups of animals were found to have co-existed with dinosaurs?
Primates – includes human lineage
Lagomorpha – includes hares and rabbits
Carnivora – includes cats and dogs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/66044011
And a further reference in Discover magazine, entitled “Did-humans-and-dinosaurs-ever-live-together?’
(from the Discover Magazine article: The Sciences
“A 2023 study suggests that early mammals, including ancestors of humans and placental mammals like dogs, rabbits and cats, lived alongside dinosaurs before a massive asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs. This discovery challenges previous beliefs about the timeline of mammal evolution and suggests that mammals thrived after the extinction of the dinosaurs, leading to the diverse mammalian world we see today.”
Whats mammals got to do with humans hunting together?
early humans hunted avian dinosaurs, which coexisted.
Birds are not “large dinosaurs” that need to be hunted in packs.
clown, why don’t you read all the comments? Some Avian dinosaurs DID NOT FLY, were OFTEN 12 FEET OR TALLER, and weighed HALF A TON.
And were never hunted by humans in packs.
lin
The claim “Ancient human ancestors actually did live with dinosaurs, according to stunning new research.” is technically correct, but very misleading.
The earliest known ancestor of modern primates is Purgatorius mckeever, which was a small shrew-like placental mammal. It was a few inches long and weighed about 2 ounces.
This mammal co-existed with dinosaurs
This archaic mammal gave rise to the lineage that eventually led to the emergence of modern primates many tens of millions of years later.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/02/24/our-earliest-primate-ancestors-rapidly-spread-after-dinosaur-extinction/#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20age%20of,and%20lived%20alongside%20large%20dinosaurs.
However, to claim that the ancestors of primates and humans co-existed with dinosaurs is misleading if you think that this means bi-pedal hominids resembling modern primates and humans existed at that time.
Try to stick to material you actually know something about, which apparently is very, very little.
from Wikipedia
“The historical and ongoing coexistence of humans and avian dinosaurs (birds) is well established and documented.”
“Yes, early humans did hunt avian dinosaurs like the moa to extinction, primarily through overhunting and habitat destruction. This event highlights the significant impact of human activity on vulnerable species.”
so what?
a bird is not a large dinosaur that needs to be hunted in packs
clown, why don’t you read all the comments? Some Avian dinosaurs DID NOT FLY, were OFTEN 12 FEET OR TALLER, and weighed HALF A TON.
Made up nonsense.
There is no evidence of humans hunting moa’s, moron
Note the words “prehistoric human activities,” clown.
“This research analyzes the archaeological significance of moas in New Zealand, highlighting the relationship between these extinct birds and early human hunters. The investigation focuses on various archaeological findings that inform our understanding of prehistoric interactions with moas, including hunting strategies and the subsequent impact on moa populations. Additionally, the study addresses how these historical insights contribute to the broader context of New Zealand’s ecological and cultural history.””https://www.academia.edu/806117/Prodigious_birds_moas_and_moa_hunting_in_New_Zealand
“Bones identified from archaeological sites show that most species of land birds and populations of seabirds on those islands were exterminated by prehistoric human activities. The loss of birdlife in the tropical Pacific may exceed 2000 species (a majority of which were species of flightless rails) and thus represents a 20 percent worldwide reduction in the number of species of birds. The current global extinction crisis therefore has historic precedent.
Want more? I can keep on givin’
Good Lord, I came back to this (my original comment) and I’m hit with Anonymouses picking apart my comment about prehistoric human hunters and dinosaurs? Not a word about my reference to TIm Kaine and morality?
The fact that these Anonymouses read my comment and visualize a tyrannosaurus shows the limiting effect.
Indeed, my statement about early humans learning to hunt large prey together was premised on one of my magazine subscriptions that highlighted scientific efforts to bring back the AVIAN DINOSAUR known as a MOA.
About 12 feet high and weighing half ton. Took more than ONE hominid to bring it down.
Do you have anything critical to say about my comments regarding Kaine? Thanking you in advance.
Not according to the documentary “Caveman” with Ringo Starr.
or 1 million years BC starring Raquel Welch
Dinosaur was an inhabitant of another world brought here on a chunked up piece of landmass from another planet. It died upon arrival. Man was delivered later. Some are still being delivered. People come from various planets sort of stranded and no one has been back this way to pick them up.
Lin
The existence of man did not coincide with era of dinosaurs, you’re thinking of the era of great mammals. I would tend to believe that the distinct bands of Paleolithic humans wandering about were all related to one another, much like plains Indians. These bands relied on each other for survival at times but would also fight each other over resources. Different groups traded and came together to exchange goods and trade of women to inject different DNA into their bands. The Amazon basin tribes practiced this method not too long ago. I am sure they had little concerns of fair as their focus would be on survival.
Hello Not-so-Madman:
No, I was referring to the non-flying avian dinosaurs (moa) that I had read about in a magazine article (scientists trying to use DNA to bring it back from extinction). I was not referring to the Rex-like genus that we mostly think of. The article (not me) referred to them (moa) as a class of dinosaurs.
But enough of that! Had so little to do with the substance of my original comment, but thanks for your explanation.
You’re still golden with me Lin. I always enjoy your posts. I have always been a science nut. Bad nerdy childhood digging fossils 🤣
Dinosaurs tasted like chicken.
Although he is an adrift and disoriented modern day democrat, I think it might be safe to assume that Tim Kaine is not so clueless as to have understood fully what Riley Barnes meant when he said, “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.” I expect (at least hope) Kaine understood full well that the comment was in reference to inalienable rights that inhibit and restrain overreaching governments.
Yet Kaine seized the moment as yet another opportunity to align all things and persons Trump with authoritarianism. Afterall, that has been the go-to mantra of the Democrat Party’s leadership from the moment Trump first galvanized the Nation to relentlessly malign him and his policies at every turn regardless of any merit and advantage. If only that leadership had had the wisdom and wherewithal to all along negotiate and reconcile with Trump, the Democratic Party’s prospects might well be in much better shape today.
I take no comfort in having to consider it, but while the leadership of the Democratic Party may look like idiots and talk like idiots don’t let that fool you. They really are idiots.
Ron A. Hoffman posted the above, not Anonymous.
Ron – thanks for posting what Barnes said, and his obvious meaning. Again, here’s what Barnes said:
“We are a nation founded on a powerful principle, and that powerful principle is that all men are created equal, because our rights come from God our Creator — not from our laws, not from our governments.”
There is an anonymous commenter here trying to justify Kaine by saying that Barnes said that all rights of whatever nature come from god and never from laws. That is clearly not what Barnes said, but this commenter says that because Barnes used the term “rights” instead of “some rights,” he meant all rights. The interesting thing is that this troll then turns around and interprets Kaine’s rejoinder that rights come from government as valid because he clearly meant that only some rights come from government. That’s intellectually dishonest.
That right there!!
That anon is a stooge, and not a very bright one.
No, its not “intellectually dishonest.”
BARNES says our rights come from God, not from our laws or our governments. That is an absolute statement. If rights do not come from our laws or governments, then BY DEFINITION, NONE come from laws or governments. That is how the English language works.
KAINE then says that Barnes thinking is akin to theocracy because he doesn’t think that rights can come from law or government. He is responding to the absolute statement made by Barnes.
What is “intellectually dishonest” is to ignore the context of Kaine’s response.
If ignoring the context and meaning is dishonest, you are the dishonest one to pretend Barnes said that no rights of any type come from government. Any reasonable listener knows that’s not what he was saying. You are the dishonest one for attributing that absolutist meaning to Barns, but refusing to do so to the same language used in response by Kaine. I’ve proven that up down and all around, so you have no credibility left. Cut your losses, dishonest anonymous Soros mindless troll.
I read Chemerinsky’s book and I don’t think there is anything in it challenging the concept of natural rights. Rather, he addresses a number of Constitutional provisions which he believes are problematic, such as the Electoral College system for electing Presidents. His clear preference is to revise these provisions through the amendment process. Although I don’t agree with all of his arguments, there is nothing subversive or even radical about seeking Constitutional amendments. We’ve already adopted 27 amendments to the Constitution and the Founders themselves clearly contemplated that the Constitution could be amended.
What it would be, at this point in history, is a waste of time. It would not be ratified. Do you condone wasting time?
The Constitution remains an excellent document. It did leave out the Bureaucracy.
What a bloated budget.
The ill-educated, self-aggrandizing, intolerant Progressive Leftists, are making a mockery of our founding documents. They have adopted the Labour Party of England assumptions that governments dole out individual rights. I’ll quote a party leader from the past, Baron Passfield: “First let me insist on what our opponents habitually ignore, and indeed, what they seem intellectually incapable of understanding, namely the inevitable gradualness of our scheme of change.”: in the United States they have abandoned any perception of Natural rights to the whims of man’s government. Maybe H.G. Wells had it right “Human history becomes more a race between education and catastrophe.”
Kane is completely correct. The laws and rights in the US have zero basis is religion, nor should they. To say otherwise is to imposes theocrocy.
Rights come from the people who fought for them.
Wowsa, watch as the drunken fool shouts that there is no such thing as gravity…
^ Soros mindless drone paid to stir the pot. Ignore ^
*. Quite a heady topic today, PT.
Should I say the unspeakable? Blacks reject and hate the Constitution because it was in grievous error in its regard for Africans.
What a shame. And to think this guy was just one stolen election away from the Vice Presidency. He just broke his oath to uphold our laws and the Constitution. Begone, you evil clown.
This may be a case of most people being in violent agreement. Interestingly, Sen Kaine also stated that he was a believer in Natural Rights. In his statement he seems to conflate “… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …” with, pronouncements by some high prelate of a specific faith tradition leaving those of different faith traditions out of luck. Few Americans, share the vision that Natural Rights are defined by the current pronouncements of some lofty religious prelate. I certainly hope that his concept of Natural Rights is not Legal Positivism.
You might want to read Romans 13. While I detest Kaine, he has a point. Jefferson didn’t place much truck in what the Bible had to say.
Funny that only you libtards use that passage to justify anything. Christians dont believe that the authority of the Ayatollahs or the Taliban comes from God.
Paul was writing to the church in Rome. He wrote in Greek, to people who didnt speak Greek. And your version is translated to English.
Real Christians also dont believe that wives are subservient to their husbands, or that slaves should “obey their masters”.
Give it a rest, stooge.
Christians use the passage to justify their belief that government authority comes from God. It doesn’t matter if it was just a letter to the Church. I matters that it’s in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God. That is how it works for the extremists and religious zealots.
Oh, you’re one of those – left-wing extremist Christian-haters we’ve seen here before who, when a schoolgirl says “God is love” or “let your light shine,” you cry, “Mommy, the inquisition! Mommy, the Crusades!”
P.S. Please cite to where Thomas Jefferson quoted or otherwise drew from Romans 13 when writing the Declaration of Independence.
Here comes George again to interpret what Christians believe for us.
And again he is just making shlt up, because no modern Christian American believes that we should still be under the rule of Kjng George, because his authority came from god.
Just making shlt up.
To be valid, the laws of Congress must be subordinate to natural law, meaning if they violate natural law they are invalid. With Kaine’s view, that could never happen, even if Congress – together with enough statute legislatures – passed a constitutional amendment reinstating slavery for Blacks, for example. One would think even the progs would think the people should be protected against those kinds of potential laws.
What is natural law? Where is it defined and written down?
There are many books on the topic. I suggest you read one if you’re really that curious.
The Declaration of Independence memorializes what our Founders considered the most important facets of natural law touching upon the rights of man and the legitimate purpose of government. That doesn’t mean the Declaration covers all aspects of natural law. It was never meant to be a treatise on the subject.
But again, if you’re genuinely curious (as opposed to just trying to trip me up), good books on the topic are not all that difficult to find, especially with the Internet at your fingertips.
Where have you looked?
Classical Roots
Aristotle spoke of a “law of nature” grounded in reason and the purposes of human life.
Cicero defined it as “true law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting.”
Christian & Medieval Development
Thomas Aquinas taught that natural law comes from God, but is accessible to human reason.
Aquinas described it as humanity’s participation in the eternal law of God, guiding what we ought to do.
Enlightenment & American Founding
John Locke argued that natural law grants individuals inherent rights — life, liberty, and property.
We could come at this from a different direction. What do you believe is your source of rights? Where is defined and written down?
When you call someone an idiot for not knowing something, but then proceed not to provide them with what they ought to know, because, you know, you’re a genius who knows everything, then you’re the idiot.
Now go change your evil ways.
^^^^ Idiot
Dear Prof Turley,
All glory is fleeting. The arc of the universe long.. . but it bends towards justice.
.. . When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
@dgsnowden: Is there any particular reason you left out the first 3/4 of the second paragraph, which begins with:
“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, deriving their just powers 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Not only is the first sentence the most germane to Mr. Turley’s post, but the phrase which *immediately* follows it shows what the founders believed to be the only right, fitting, and proper purpose of government: to secure the very rights that Mr. Kaine denounced. There’s no way Mr. Kaine could possibly be ignorant of those words. I believe his denunciation to be founded in a much darker animosity than simple ignorance. I also, then, attribute the same or similarly dark intentions to anyone who voices support for his position which is patently, facially anathema to our nation’s founding, and therefore it’s very present day existence.
Yessir, the omission of that part of the Declaration was glaring. I would hope you did not leave it out disingenuously.
We declared independence from. A oligarch democracy, We are a Republic.
AI is that same treaty of verona oligarchy.
@ KyDave
Turley covered that part of Declaration in his article. .. as I did in my comments @ “and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”
I wanted to point out the specific grievances against the King of England listed in the Declaration – which sound familiar even today.. . and that ‘a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’
Like this post kydave
@dgsnowden
I actually appreciate that you are a real person and not just a troll, so thanks, but no. Just no. And this does not make me or anyone else here, unless stated, ‘right wing’ (I am a lifelong independent). You guys have just utterly lost the plot.