Taken from the Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776); it was declared, “…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. see C. PRITCHETT, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM 5-6 (5th ed. 1981); Desmond, Natural Law and the American Constitution, 22 FORDHAM L. REV. 235, 235-36 (1953).
The phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was adopted directly from the natural law concepts of John Locke. Desmond, supra, at 236.
The United States Constitution and controlling case law provide as follows:
Article VI, Clause 2, the Supremacy Clause, declares:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; … under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ….”
A written constitution defines both the authority of government and the limits of that authority. Government is a creation of the Constitution; it may not exercise powers the Constitution does not grant, and it may not act in ways the Constitution forbids.
As Professor Philip Kurland explained: “The concept of the written constitution is that it defines the authority of government and its limits, that government is the creature of the constitution and cannot do what it does not authorize and must not do what it forbids. A priori, such a constitution could have only a fixed unchanging meaning, if it were to fulfill its function. For changed conditions, the instrument itself made provision for amendment which, in accordance with the concept of a written constitution, was expected to be the only form of change ….” —P. Kurland, Watergate and the Constitution 7 (1978).
Chief Justice Taney similarly stated that, so long as the Constitution remains in its present form, it speaks “not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent” as when it was framed, ratified, and adopted by the people of the United States. Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 426 (1857).
The Supremacy Clause further provides that judges in every state are bound by the Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it, “anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Accordingly, a court may not give effect to legislative acts that conflict with the Constitution. To do so would undermine the constitutional order itself.
As Chief Justice Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison: “[I]f … the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
He further warned: “Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law. This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory.”
Understanding the Covenant of Common Law
Within the constitutional memorandum, common law is regarded as ‘God’s covenant,’ illustrating its essential role in upholding morality and justice within society. This characterization emphasizes that the principles of common law are not merely constructed by human legislation but rather are seen as divinely ordained guidelines that all individuals are bound to respect. The moral underpinnings of common law establish an innate sense of right and wrong that transcends the written law, providing a compass for legal and ethical behavior.
The historical context in which common law developed is crucial to understanding its significance. During a time when feudal systems and localized governance prevailed, common law emerged as a unifying force that sought to standardize the resolution of disputes and promote equity. Its applicability to all individuals, regardless of status, highlights its foundational importance in promoting equality before the law. The principles of common law not only address interpersonal disputes but also shape the legal framework necessary for the functioning of a just society.
As a consequence, common law continues to play a vital role in today’s legal system. Its principles, derived from centuries of judicial interpretation and societal consensus, offer clarity and stability in a rapidly changing world. Therefore, an understanding of the foundations of common law is essential for realizing its enduring influence on contemporary jurisprudence and the pursuit of justice.
The Constitution an Embodiment of Principles
The Constitution was “an embodiment of the principles of that higher law which was to be presumed to be a standard by which human law could be judged.” L. BETH, supra, at 9.
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, ratified in 1868, expands the idea of equality to not only the federal government but also the states, as practiced today.
The 14th AMENDMENT-Section 1, states, “[…] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
The Consequences of Ignoring Constitutional Obligations
When officials do not practice or adhere to the Constitution, significant ramifications ensue. The failure to uphold the 14th Amendment can lead to abuses of power and a systematic infringement of rights. This may manifest in various forms, including discriminatory laws and inadequate protection for marginalized groups. Consequently, citizens may find themselves deprived of life, liberty, or property without a just legal process, undermining the very foundation of democracy.
Restoring Faith in Constitutional Protections
To address these failures, it is crucial for lawmakers and public officials to reaffirm their commitment to the Constitution. This involves not only compliance with the 14th Amendment but also actively promoting awareness and education regarding constitutional rights among citizens. By bridging the gap between legal theory and practical application, we can work towards ensuring that all individuals receive the equal protection of the laws, as mandated by our Constitution. Upholding the principles enshrined in the 14th Amendment is essential for a just and equitable society.
Help Restore the Children’s Civil and Human Rights. Click Here to Donate to the Stone’s Legal Fund.
