Last year, I wrote a column rebutting Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D., Va.) attack on a nominee for expressing his belief in natural rights that derive from God, not the government. (He later backtracked after a public outcry). Now, MSNOW host Katy Tur seems to be echoing the same concern over Speaker Mike Johnson expressing his faith in natural rights at the “Rededicate 250” rally on the mall in Washington, DC.
Those voices have seeked to distort the self-evident truth that we know so well, that our founders boldly proclaimed in the Declaration: That our rights do not derive from the government. They come from you, our creator and heavenly father.
The line clearly caused Tur some alarm. The host raised it with the show’s panelists:
What about this passage from Mike Johnson declaring that our rights do not derive from government? They come from you, our creator and heavenly father. Is this him putting God over the Declaration of Independence?
It is an astonishing question given that express reliance on God as the source for the rights declared in that document.
In my new book, 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. Ours was the world’s first major Enlightenment revolution based on those very natural rights.
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.”
The view stated by Kaine 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.”
The irony is that the acknowledgment of natural rights does not “put God over the Declaration of Independence.” It is the very premise of that Declaration.
As I discuss in the book, the right of the colonists to rebel was a major question debated before the Revolution. Loyalists would often cite Romans 13, in which Paul the Apostle reminds Christians that they must obey civil authorities and be loyal subjects. It would be Reverend Jonathan Mayhew to put this argument to bed, using his pulpit at Boston’s Old West Church to explore the moral foundations for both fealty and rebellion for citizens:
“His published sermon “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers” was given on January 30, 1750, and proved to be one of the most significant publications leading up to the Revolution. Paine’s Common Sense would not be published for twenty-five years, and it was Mayhew who would lay out the moral right, if not obligation, to rebel when natural rights are denied. Mayhew gave the lecture on the one hundredth anniversary of the execution of Charles I, who was experiencing a revival in the minds of many as a martyr.
Mayhew would have none of it and laid out the “general nature and end of magistracy” for a people denied the rights given to them by the Creator. He directly took on the oft-cited biblical authority for those demanding blind loyalty to the King: Romans 13. In the chapter, Paul the Apostle reminds Christians that they must obey the civil authorities and be loyal subjects. The use of this passage, he argued, was a blasphemy in suggesting that a tyrant violating the very natural laws set by God could be treated as “God’s Minister.” To the contrary, there is a moral obligation to oppose such tyrants in defense of God-given rights.”
The Revolution was fought over natural rights that belonged to colonists as human beings, bestowed by God and defended by the American Revolution. The Constitution created a system that guaranteed the protection of those rights contained in the Declaration of Independence.
Speaker Johnson was speaking directly to the foundation of this Republic in reaffirming his faith in natural rights. Of course, the rejection of natural rights in academia and politics is consistent with the view that our rights evolve with a “living Constitution.” What the government giveth, the government may taketh away.
The debate reflected in Tur’s comments could not be more timely or elemental on our 250th anniversary. We must again decide not just who we were then but who we are now as Americans. There are many who want to decouple our system from natural rights as they “reimagine” American democracy and “trash” the American Constitution. It is the same Siren’s Call heard at the founding. That is precisely why Franklin was right that this remains our Republic “if [we] can keep it.”
The core flaw of the absolute natural rights argument is that a right does not practically exist if there is no legal mechanism to enforce it.
Turley believes freedom of speech is a natural right. But throughout history and even in the Bible no such ‘natural right’ exists.
Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Black Americans theoretically possessed the “natural right” to equality and liberty. However, state governments routinely stripped them of these rights via Jim Crow laws. The “Creator” did not step in to restore them; the federal government had to pass legislation and deploy federal troops to enforce those rights.
When a politician claims rights come from a “Creator” and not the government, they open the door to a dangerous question: Which interpretation of the Creator’s will wins? That’s why those who usually claim such rights are almost always religious zealots.
In the 19th century, Southern theologians and politicians frequently used the Bible and “natural law” to argue that slavery was a natural, God-ordained hierarchy. Conversely, abolitionists used the exact same religious framework to argue that slavery was a sin against the Creator. When rights are tied to divine authority rather than human consensus, the group with the most political power gets to decide what God wants.
Turley argues that rejecting natural rights means believing “what the government giveth, the government may taketh away.” This is a false dichotomy. A “living Constitution” does not mean the government arbitrarily deletes your freedoms; it means our understanding of human dignity expands over time.
For example, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “equal protection of the laws.” In 1868, the government did not interpret this to mean women had the right to vote or that interracial couples could marry. Through decades of legal evolution and societal growth, the Supreme Court re-interpreted those words to expand freedoms (e.g., Loving v. Virginia). This expansion relied on judicial interpretation of text, not a sudden revelation from a Creator.
Jonathan Turley’s argument conflates a philosophical foundation with a legal framework. While the Declaration of Independence uses the rhetorical framework of a “Creator” to justify rebelling against a king, the U.S. Constitution—the actual supreme law of the land—is a secular document that derives its authority strictly from “We the People,” not a deity.
By framing modern critiques of “natural rights” as an attempt to “trash” the Constitution, Turley overlooks a fundamental historical reality: the concept of natural rights has frequently been used to exclude marginalized groups, and our legal rights only became real when they were explicitly codified, interpreted, and enforced by the government.
Turley heavily relies on the Declaration of Independence to prove his point. However, he omits the fact that the Declaration is not a legal document. It holds no weight in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution, which is the law, consciously omits any mention of God, Jesus, or a Creator. The Framers explicitly rejected a divine mandate for the state, establishing instead a government built on a social contract.
To further my point, Turley praises the Founders’ vision of natural rights but leaves out how narrowly those rights were applied. If rights were truly universal, self-evident, and endowed by a Creator, they should have applied to everyone in 1776. In practice, “natural rights” only protected property-owning white men. For enslaved people, Indigenous populations, and women, “natural rights” provided zero protection until the government intervened with constitutional amendments and statutory laws.
The concept of natural rights is absurd. They do not come from the bible. They did not appear until the late 1700s. Rights exist because people fight for them.
It’s sad that the Enlightenment seems to have eluded Sally. It’s sad that Sally doesn’t support the Declaration of Independence. It’s sad being Sally. Don’t be Sally.
How about a debate, John Locke vs Sally. Well actually almost any sentient being against Sally would be a rout.
Not fair Sally would be brining a knife to a gunfight.
Simply this: Katy Tur=moron
A perfect example of the cultural divide that will eventually lead to an uncivil War. If these Marxists do not win control of the Legislative Branch in November, watch the level of violence and bizarre behavior increase….. Time will tell.
Professor Turley, So what did the panelists say and what was Tur’s reaction?
The rejection of natural rights is a thinking distortion. You cannot reject reality. The rejection is necessary only for their lame communist revolution to proceed through the legal sytem.
Equality under the law is not the same as equality in general as there’s always someone smarter or better than you in some way and leftys like to confuse the two to capture the simple minded.
Equity eliminates human self-determination as there no up anymore so why try at all. It’s the reason communist systems fail, they decimate human greatness.
Our natural rights are in writing and that one trick ruins all their anti-human schemes.
Where are natural rights written down? Who wrote them?
Wow, Sally is mining the depths of stupidity today. She wants to know who wrote down that human beings have natural rights?!?!?!? Well I guess it isn’t as well documented as let’s see… The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf or Mao’s little Red Book. All three of which assisted in the killing of about 100 million people.
Spot on professor. My highest regards.
“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” –Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
“The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124
Maybe those people should do some more reading on the subject
More reading? They have and conclude that natural rights do not exist in reality. Suggest you should do more reading.
Ok guys, Wayne N. says it’s not true, wrap it up, close it down, we are done here, the idiot king has made a declaration needing no analysis.
One needs only to corner or threaten a powerful undomesticated free animal to discover natural laws.
His logic threw you for a loop eh whig? Kept you from showing off here. Too bad. BTW, what about property, land rights? All natural you think? Gov. giveth, gov taketh away. One comment and you throw a tantrum…. you child.
Gov doesn’t “giveth”, Gov only takes away.
Are you Wayne N.’s lawyer?
So quoting just Jerrerson makes you a believer in natural rights? Then how come a driver’s license is considered a privilege and revoked by humans?
Because the unalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator do not include a right to operate a motor vehicle on a road owned and maintained by the government. On your own property you can drive to your heart’s content and you don’t need any sort of license, registration, or insurance.
What is a creator?
Ever talk to a Muslim about those inalienable rights? An atheist?
Own property you say, drive without gov. approval? Try it and let me know how that works out for you.
“drive without gov. approval?” Sorry no one is suppressing your rights or the rights of the blind to drive undisciplined. you can go do it far away from civilization all you want.
Not every person has the discrimination skills driving requires so we regulate it for everyone’s safety; the reason for government.
Driving without those skills is not a right because you do not possess those natural skills, that’s natural law. We are not letting you perform brain surgery either unless you are qualified.
are not letting you perform brain surgery either unless you are qualified…. an still humans do it.
Ah, finally an argument worthy of intellectual debate and the leftys are stuck on “the natural right to drive a car doesn’t exist which proves natural rights don’t exist.”
So sad. OK, OK, you have the natural right to drive a car without the requisite skills to do so, BUT WE have the natural right to lock you up for it. OK???
Driving if it is a right isnt a natural right. It is one of many rights we surrender to the govt in exchange for health, safety and an orderly society. Our Natural Rights cannot be taken or surrendered. ( See Rousseau ‘s Social Contract.)
This is getting hilarious… you fools think tossing out names make for a definitive argument?
Natural right? Whatabout suicide? How natural can that be eh?
Anonymous is mad because he never read Locke, Rousseau, Hobbs, Aristotle, the Founders or anything other than Salon and the Guardian.
Ironic coming from a lemming…
Ball four, wide left!