Do American legal rights come from God, Congress or the Supreme Court?
Spoiler alert: None of the above.
NOTE TO READERS: The eclectic All Predictions Wrong appears in this space every Friday, joined by Tuesday Morning Quarterback during football season. I hope you’ll subscribe – every subscription is two-for-one.
Occasionally there are also free short essays on items in the news. This is one.
Two days ago an Internet-enabled dustup began when Heidi Przybyla, a reporter for Politico, declared on MSNBC that Christian nationalists “are not really Christians,” then objected that this group believes “our rights as Americans don’t come from Congress or the Supreme Court, our rights come from God.”
Bishop Robert Barron, a Catholic prelate active on social media, called Przybyla’s statements “one of the most disturbing and dangerous things I have ever seen,” countering that rights come from God because the phrase “endowed by their Creator” is prominent in the Declaration of Independence.
Before we advance -- have you ever met anyone who calls himself or herself a “Christian nationalist?” I haven’t, and I was raised in the Bible-beating Baptist tradition in working-class Buffalo, New York.
But suddenly the term is out there – “Christian nationalist” has appeared in the New York Times 27 times in the past year, versus 25 times the previous three years combined.
Because “Christian” has a positive connotation – anyone Christ-like is peaceful and forgiving – saying “Christian nationalist” adds the negative flavor the MSM craves.
Surely the reality that many evangelicals back Donald Trump has something to do with this phrase cropping up. Trump is twice divorced and was unfaithful to all his wives: Jesus forbid divorce and infidelity. Why do evangelicals find Trump appealing?
Be that as it may, two things about this controversy are disquieting.
First is that Przybyla claimed to know who’s “really” Christian. Unless she’s a mind-reader, this statement is ridiculous. Those claiming to know which people or groups are “really” this religion or that have caused a large share of the sorrow in human history.
Second is that both Przybyla and Barron are wrong about the origin of American rights.
This is setting aside how to understand “natural law,” the notion that the existence of a Creator can be inferred from study of the found world. Most of the Framers were Deists who accepted some form of natural law. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is the perfect distillation of the idea.
But separation of church and state forbids government from resolving questions by calling on faith. Natural law may be an inspirational ideal, cannot be employed in public policy.
Why are both Przybyla and Barron wrong?
Barron cites references to God in the Declaration of Independence, which is among the most important documents ever written – but is not law. Our rights do not come from the Declaration of Independence. The United States didn’t even exist when it was signed. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is a beautiful phrase: is not law.
Przybyla says our rights come from “Congress or the Supreme Court.” God help us if this were true! Fortunately it’s not. If rights came from “Congress or the Supreme Court” they could be altered at any time based on political whims.
Robert Barron. Photo courtesy Word on Fire.
An American’s rights do not come from the Declaration of Independence or from Congress or from the Supreme Court. Rights are those stated in the Constitution.
The United States Constitution, oldest continuously enforced constitution in the world, is the wellspring of our liberty and the leading achievement of the Enlightenment. (Here is my love poem to the Constitution.)
Courts may interpret the Constitution, but don’t make up the enumerated rights (they’re not supposed to, anyway) and can’t delete said rights. Legislatures are bound by the limits the Constitution imposes.
That the Constitution is so strong, and names our rights, is why the United States, for all its manifest faults, remains the bright hope of the human family.
The Constitution might be amended to remove rights – many on both political fringes would like nothing better. But the Constitution is, by design, difficult to change: only 27 ratified amendments in 235 years.
That the Constitution names our rights and resists alteration of those rights is why Americans enjoy freedom and prosperity.
It’s fashionable in elitist circles to look down the nose at the Constitution because its first version contained the odious three-fifths clause. But that clause was deactivated by amendment in 1865. It hasn’t mattered in 159 years.
The Constitution is the foundation of our rights and laws. Persons such as Heidi Przybyla and Robert Barron should know that. Trump and Joe Biden too.
It is also important to note that rights are not (or should not be) limited to those actually listed in the Constitution. The whole point of the Constitution is what powers are granted to the government, not what the people are allowed to do.
Why do so many commentators not have the first clue (seemingly) as to the actual working of US Governance but feel emboldened to declare their ignorance and not get called on it. I can understand confusing "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" with the "source of rights", but I don't get at all that rights are given by "congress or supreme court". Why do ignoramuses not get called on this stuff, ever?
Excellent column.