It is rare, however, to find a lawyer who understands or will argue unalienable rights, equality or religious liberty in light of the laws of nature, the Declaration or a written constitutional provision.  The preferred approach is to skillfully arrange judicial cases in support of the desired conclusion without regard to inconvenient principle.  Such an approach, however, demeans and politicizes the nature of law, the meaning of equality and the scope of unalienable rights.  Trampled in the fashionable process are at least five of the foundational principles that govern all religious liberty litigation.  These principles are examined infra in greater detail, but essentially include the ideas that:

1. certain rights are unalienable because they are directly given by God,

2. the free exercise of religion is an unalienable right,

3. every human being may exercise any unalienable right on an equal and absolute basis, free from the interference or regulation of civil government,

4. civil rights may not be expanded or contracted on account of religious practice or religious belief, and

5. civil acknowledgment of God the Creator in an oath or other official capacity, is not an unconstitutional religious test or establishment of religion.

This Article examines these principles in five sections.  Section I of this Article focuses on the supreme law of the American regime--the laws of nature and of nature's God.  It explains this law, its origins and its relevance for legal and Constitutional adjudication.

Section II highlights the Declaration of Independence as an expression of the laws of nature and nature's God.  It chronicles the Declaration's succinct restatement of America's first principles:  that all human beings are "created equal," they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," and civil governments are instituted to secure those rights.

Sections III and IV expand on the preceding analysis.  They explain how the People created a federal government, constitutionally limited its power, and adopted a Bill of Rights with the purpose of expressly forbidding the federal government from exercising its constitutionally limited power in such a way so as to deny or disparage equality or unalienable rights, including the unalienable right to the free exercise of religion.

Section V surveys contemporary religious liberty decisions handed down by the Supreme Court during the 1980's and early 1990's.  This section examines the Court's "case law" and its neglect of the laws of nature and of nature's God, and unalienable rights in general.  Section V also considers the Court's adoption of the flawed concept of balancing of rights against governmental interests.  It discusses how state balancing of rights is contrary to unalienable God given rights.  The section also discusses how state balancing of rights is contrary to the obligation of civil government to secure unalienable rights, and how balancing tends to nullify or marginalize such rights.  Finally, the section discusses some positive developments with the Court's fledgling recognition of equality in matters pertaining to religious rights and liberties.

It is hoped that this Article will impress upon the reader the legal rule that every person enjoys in equal measure the same unalienable rights from God as their fellow human being, irrespective of their differing religious belief or lack thereof.  But absent civil recognition and respect of both the principle of equality and unalienable rights, there can be no genuine liberty for any person or citizen.

Enforcement of equality without a regard for unalienable rights has the effect of reducing all people to a condition of oppressive servitude where none enjoy fixed rights except under the illusory pledge of civil indulgence.  Likewise, governmental regard for unalienable rights without an accompanying recognition of their equal endowment by God, has the fearful effect of justifying civil inquiry into a person's individual beliefs.  This inquiry is pretended to be justified in order to "protect" those persons whose beliefs, as it turns out, does not shall agree with that of the civil government or magistrate.  Neither approach, however, is consistent with the laws of nature, the principles of the Declaration, federalism or the object of the first amendment.

For a copy of this Article click on http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/7/ or e-mail Mr. Morgan at kmorgan@revivetherepublic.com if you are interested in a pdf copy of the complete Article.