Declaration Of Independence: Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress?

The future of our Posterity depends on a proper understanding of the Source of our Rights.  I will explain four views; show you which one is true, and why the other three are false and lead inexorably to the destruction of any country which embraces them.

1.    Let us begin with what is true:   Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights come from God.   Our rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the U.S. Constitution.    The Declaration of Independence says:

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…

So these, then, are the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:

  • Our Rights are unalienable and come from God;
  • The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;
  • Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent;  &
  • Since the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People, the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the Constitution.

declaration of independenceBecause the Declaration of Independence identifies The Creator as Grantor of Rights, we look to The Bible – or the Natural Law – to see what those rights are.   The Bible – or the Natural Law – reveals many rights,  such as the rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness;  to inherit, earn, and keep property;  the right of self-defense;  the right and duty to demand that the civil authorities obey the Law;  the right to speak;  the right to live our lives free from interference from civil government;  the rights of parents to raise their children free from interference from civil government;  the right to worship God;  etc.

The distinguishing characteristics of all God-given or Natural Rights 1 are:

  • Each one may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other person; and
  • We can look them up for ourselves! They are not subject to someone else's interpretations.

2.    But many conservatives mistakenly believe that our rights come from the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution.    So they speak of  "our constitutional rights,"  "the bill of rights,"  our  "First Amendment right to free speech"; "our Second Amendment right to bear arms,"  and so forth.  But it is a dreadful mistake to think that our rights come from the Constitution.  I'll show you two reasons why this is such a pernicious error:

a) It is logically incoherent to say that our Rights come from the Constitution: Let us read the Preamble to the US Constitution:

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WE THE PEOPLE established and ordained the Constitution.   WE are the ones who created the federal government with its three branches:  legislative, executive, and judicial.  WE are the ones who gave the federal government permission to exist and told it exactly what it had permission to do, when WE assigned enumerated powers to each branch.

WE are the "creator" – the federal government is merely our "creature". (Federalist No. 33 (6th para), A. Hamilton.)

So!  The Constitution is about the Powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government.  The Constitution is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution!

b) Now look at Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1, U.S. Constitution:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution…"

Think carefully, for this is the hook:  If our rights come from the first Ten Amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution, then they "arise under the Constitution"; and that clause is what gives federal judges power over our rights!

When judges have power to determine our Rights, our Rights are no longer unalienable – we hold them at the pleasure of five judges on the Supreme Court.  But because so many of us, for so long, have believed and said that our rights come from the "bill of rights," those judges have seized on Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, to claim the power to determine the scope & extent of our rights!

So! Federal judges claim the power to regulate our political speech and religious speech.  They claim the power to determine & regulate our property rights in the fruits of our own labors.  They claim the power to control our retirements by forcing us to participate in social security!  They even claim the power to take Life away from unborn babies.

Thus, when we say our Rights come from the Constitution, we are, in effect, agreeing to the submission of our Rights to the tender mercies of federal judges, because Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, gives them power over all cases "arising under the Constitution."

This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source – Almighty God, the Natural Law – which transcends the Constitution! 2

And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that's us) grant to our "creature" (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights?   It makes no sense at all!

c) You might well ask, "Why did our Founders add the first Ten Amendments if they were such a bad idea?"

There was controversy over this! Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 84 (9th para) that a bill of rights would give a pretext for regulating to those inclined to usurp powers.   And he was right!   The Supreme Court has used the first amendment to regulate political speech and to ban Christian speech in the public square:  no prayers at football games, no nativity scenes on county courthouse lawns, and Judge Roy Moore is ordered to take down the Ten Commandments.

But some States refused to ratify the Constitution without them.

So, the proper way to look at the first Ten Amendments is this:  They are not the source of our Rights since our Rights come from God, and thus TRANSCEND the Constitution.  The first Ten Amendments is merely a partial list of things the federal government may not do (they can't take away our guns), and some things they must do (give accused persons a fair trial).

3. Judges on the supreme Court have claimed, in recent decades, that the source of our "rights" is the Constitution, as such "rights" are defined and discovered, from time to time . . . BY THEM!

I'll show you how they did it:    The original intent of the 14th Amendment (one of the "civil war" amendments) was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

But judges on the supreme Court have perverted the 14th Amendment to fabricate so-called "rights" which negate Rights God gave us and undermine the Moral Order!

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part:

"…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"

The original intent of that clause was that States couldn't go around lynching freed slaves and taking away their freedom and property.

But not so long ago, a handful of supreme court judges looked at the word, "liberty" in that clause, and claimed to have "discovered" underneath that word,  a "constitutional right" to kill unborn babies ;  and another "constitutional right" to engage in homosexual contact.

We will soon see whether the Supreme Court also "discovers" underneath that word, a "constitutional right" to same-sex marriage.

When we substitute federal judges for God as the source of our rights, the entire concept of "rights" becomes perverted.   Literally.

4. The "liberal/progressives" say our Rights come from "government."   They say a "right" is an entitlement to goods or services produced, or paid for, by somebody else:   So, they speak of the "right" to medical care;  the "right" to a free public school education;  the "right" to housing;  the "right" to food stamps;  etc.

But it is a contradiction in terms to speak of "rights" to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people!  This is because it undermines our God-given or Natural Rights to private property, to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty.  To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others, is slavery.  Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the "right" to own the fruits of another man's labors.

To sum this up:

REMEMBER that clause in Our Declaration of Independence which states that our rights come from God, are unalienable, and that the purpose of civil government – the federal government – is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

Our right do not come from the first Ten Amendments; they do not come from the Constitution as interpreted by federal judges; and they do not come from Congress which purports to give to their parasitic constituency the "right" to live at other peoples' expense.

Our Rights were bestowed by God, and as such, they transcend, pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.

End notes:

1   "Natural Law" refers to that body of Law which is woven into the Fabric of Reality:  The laws of physics, economics, logic, morality,  etc.   Non-theists, such as the brilliant philosopher, Ayn Rand, saw Rights as inherent to the nature of man.  Either way, one comes up with essentially the same set of Rights.  And if you listen carefully to "liberals/progressives" as they speak on any topic, you will see that their war is against Reality itself – they reject altogether the concept of transcendent Law.  This is because they know no "law" but their own Wills.

2   Re the "tender mercies" of federal judges:  During Senator Tom Coburn's questioning of Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings, she refused to acknowledge the fundamental Principle stated in Our Declaration of Independence that our Rights pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.  Kagan in effect claims to sit on God's Throne and to decide what "rights" you have and what "rights" you don't have.

The only Document the Hard Left hates as much as the Bible is Our Declaration of Independence. 

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



About Publius Huldah
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah
  • Robert12Disqus

    i like articles on our constitution - they're so refreshing when compared against the criminal behavior of the three branches of government let alone the three letter agencies.

  • David Linton

    Excellent. The English common law, as reported by Sir William Blackstone, and our founding fathers presumed that the Natural Law, God's law, whether revealed in nature or in Scripture was the source of all rights. I invite you to the Blackstone Initiative:

  • Cymond

    "the right to live our lives free from interference from civil government; the rights of parents to raise their children free from interference from civil government;"
    "They even claim the power to take Life away from unborn babies."
    These two statements are contradictory. Either the gov't is permitted to interfere with us or it is not. Further, the court is not taking those lives, the women are.

    I see that you also speak out against gays. Ok, you don't like gay sex, and that's fine, but a pro-rights author should really take a much more pro-freedom stance. Many would argue that people have an inherent, natural right to love freely regardless of gender or genitals. You don't think they have "the right to live [their lives free from interference from civil government"?

    Oh, that's right, your view of our natural rights stems purely from your religious views. You fail to see that vesting rights in a religion leaves them just a vulnerable as vesting them in a governing body. If someone can argue against your view of God, then they can argue against your God-given rights. They can refuse to recognize your rights by simply refusing to recognize that you are right about religion. A non-theist "natural rights" approach is FAR more durable than rights with a basis in a specific religion. (And yes, I write this even as a Christian. I recognize that not everyone agrees with me, and we cannot expect to always hold the debate on our own terms & turf.)

    • Cymond

      I want to clarify, that if you believe in God, then God created nature, and therefore "natural" rights are God-given rights.
      If someone does not believe in God, or believes in a different god, then it is still hard for them to argue against the natural order of things, in which all creatures have certain instincts which cannot be denied. Any sentient creature will resist death, will run or fight back. Hence, all creatures have the right to struggle for the preservation of their own lives.

    • Susan

      Justice is a Virtue--the "Queen of Virtue" in Western Civilization. since Socrates. Natural Rights was developed in Ancient Greece by pagans. Natural Rights are Reason and Logic and Science (Laws of Nature/physics/biology). Vice---such as sodomy can not be promoted by "Just Law". It is irrational---and law must be Reasoned and by the very definition of Justice, Virtue. Objectification of human beings for use, is never ethical in Christian Ethics or Natural Law Moral Ethics which predates Christianity. Nor can we destroy innocent human life--abortion which is always a vice. "Rights" has nothing to do with licentiousness. There is no "Right" to sodomize others---to dehumanize the body in such irrational, evil, unnatural ways. Rights are "God-given" in the US Constitution and are unalienable. Ethics is essential in Virtue---and Virtue is Justice---which is essential for Law. To "teach" Pride in sodomy to kindergardeners is to promote Vice and irrational concepts (warps children's perceptions) and is unconstitutional---since Justice demands Virtue.

      As all the Founders stated and Socrates before them: Without Virtue, there can be no Free Republic. To teach Virtue is the only reason for education.

    • Cymond

      And yet, you seem to have missed my final point: your definitions of "justice" and "rights" rest heavily on your definitions of "virtue" and "vice". The critical point is that others will disagree with your definitions of vice and virtue.

      "Vice---such as sodomy can not be promoted by "Just Law". [...] Objectification of human beings for use, is never ethical in Christian Ethics or Natural Law Moral Ethics which predates Christianity."
      Just because you see butt-sex as a vice does not mean that others agree with you. Maybe your bit about 'objectification' is connected to sodomy. I fail to see how an act is either objectifying or not based purely on which hole is used. The porn industry clearly shows us that hetero-vaginal sex can be objectifying. I would argue that there is nothing objectifying about a loving couple that engages in sodomy. Objectification is a mentality, a viewpoint, an attitude - it is not a physical act.

      Likewise, I agree that it is wrong to take innocent life, but the ENTIRE abortion debate is centered around the definition of life! (really you mean human life, unless you think we should all be vegans). When does life begin? Presumably you believe it occurs at conception. Others would claim that it starts at the development of the brain, or the ability to feel pain, or the ability to survive outside the womb. I personally don't have a clear belief of when life starts, which is even more of a reason why I don't think I have the right to dictate to others. Even if I did have an opinion, I still recognize that my view may be wrong.

      We will disagree forever and I think I've made my point. When I first found this article (from an external link), I assumed "Freedom Outpost" was a website about ... well, you know, freedom. Instead it seems from the numerous religious references in the comments that this is some kind of religion-based political site that only endorses certain freedoms. Coming from a more libertarian perspective, I'm disappointed that "Freedom Outpost" seems to only support the freedoms that are acceptable to certain religions.

      As said, we will disagree forever. I'll never influence any of you, so I'm stepping out now. All of the comments are written in some kind of religious insider jargon, and I'm not a theologist or philosopher, so I can't really keep up a conversation here. Wow, I never realized how secular I am until just now ...

  • John Brookbank

    UNLESS some one is born yesterday, they should all know that it says it is a God given right and no black robed man can change the Declaration of Independence , i have no idea what they are teaching kids today but= i have known that one from the time in 2rd grade !!! teachers today should all teach our history correctly but seems as this generation missed out on our freedoms, to a point of not knowing our country !! we should fire ever teacher that has not taught our kids to know AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE !!

  • Steven

    God is the only POSSIBLE source of rights. Anything granted by men, is a PRIVILEGE. If man can grant it, man can revoke it. If man can revoke it, it CAN'T be a right.

  • R M

    The Constitution is ultimately a debt instrument. Look up the word "constitutor" ... to wit:

    CONSTITUTOR, civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

    Blacks law definition:

    What is CONSTITUTOR?

    In the civil law. One who, by a simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt

    Free Legal dictionary:

    con·sti·tute (knst-tt, -tyt)

    tr.v. con·sti·tut·ed, con·sti·tut·ing, con·sti·tutes


    a. To be the elements or parts of; compose: Copper and tin constitute bronze.

    b. To amount to; equal: " Rabies is transmitted through a bite; . . . patting a rabid animal in itself does not constitute exposure"(Malcolm W. Browne).


    a. To set up or establish according to law or provision: a body that is duly constituted under the charter.

    b. To found (an institution, for example).

    c. To enact (a law or regulation).

    3. To appoint to an office, dignity, function, or task; designate.

    So, the states ( as non-free colonies) defaulted on their war debt( which was bought by England from France) and since England then owned the paper- they then foreclosed on that debt and a Constitution was initiated by the Banking elites/ agents of the crown to set a Constitutional government thus providing a way for the debt to be repaid of another- the other being the fledgling united States of America. The United States then was formed( a corporation to oversee and administer this commercial default) then later walk the people back into control by slowly reveling the true intent of this "constitution".

    This is all based on commercial law which birthplace is England.

    "We the people" was not the common people of the land and citizens of the day rather, it was the elites( the constitutor) who where pointing out that THEY where setting up this obligation to repay for 'this group over here' ... a pejorative term notating the general population. Thus making rights into privileges and the corp state God and the virus was planted inside this worshiped document called the US Constitution( In retrospect, maybe the virus was planted inside the minds of the population to make them think they won and and are free). This debt instrument/Constitution was never signed- only witnessed-like you would witness a legal document but not be legally liable for its obligatory content thereof and unlike the Declaration of Independence .

    England probably knew at the time that it might take years to defeat the colonies- and at great cost so they just found a way to defeat us slowly over time while profiting off it all the way to it's conclusion. Smart, remember most people of the colonies where agrarian simple folk and didn't have the legal sophistication to truly interpret the meaning of what was really going on. Could that be why Thomas Paine and others walked out prior to it's formation in Philadelphia? Could it be that’s why the Philadelphia Inquirer was bought out by a New York banking concern and was basically mute during the "Constitutional proceedings" ( aka: debt obligation indenture enactment) as to squelch any telegraphing of true intent of these events to the general population?

    So when you say " I want my Constitutional rights" ....are you saying?:

    I want my rights under the debt obligation instrument which enslaves me and my progeny forever and gives the ones who set this little " agreement" up the ability to convert "rights" into "privileges" whenever politically expedient.

    It gets worse. The "reconstruction" under Lincoln and that commercial war debt default... and then FDR, with the depression and the government default. It's always commercial default that is the foundation of all of this activity.

    So, first they took away your true unalienable rights with the constitutors( US Constitution)....

    then they took away your American citizenship forcing you into a US citizen classification( 14th amendment)....Then lastly, they took away your lawful money of substance( Government default,bank holiday, FDR's gold nationalization/confiscation).....

    Whats left??

    Total slave status while being told we are free ..... brilliant!

    • Steven

      Even if your 'definition' is accurate, it is IRRELEVANT. It has NOTHING to do with the concept of a CONSTITUTION.

  • A_Nobody

    God. I wasn't put on this earth to be a slave to any man. That negates all others listed.

  • HongryHawg

    I'm not going to read this article. I am only only going to answer the question. Our RIGHTS, as they are chosen to be portrayed, come from God. Those who have a problem with my answer; please provide another. Rights are Rights, despite the lying efforts to portray them as privileges. If those that ask the question make the effort to understand, it is a no-brainer. And to those that do not get it, find the answer herein.

    • Snowman8wa

      "Rights are Rights, despite the lying efforts to portray them as privileges. If those that ask the question make the effort to understand, it is a no-brainer. And to those that do not get it, find the answer herein."

      (CAPS lettering changed for emphasis, (N/A) Not Applicable to the argument/debate here on “RIGHTS”)

      I would like to agree "HongryHawg", my response is for BOTH you and Mr.
      Weiland, as I believe we must go as far back as the BEGINNING (Book of Genesis) to find the answer, which isn't such a "no-brainer" as you must look
      at what God (Yahweh) has stated of Man's evil heart:

      "…for the imagination of man's heart IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH;”


      Not my words......God’s (Yahweh). But this is not the core of this rebuttal. Before I go further, I take a moment to address Mr. Weiland.

      Sir, we all understand God’s Commandments; though many today fail to associate with, follow and obey one iota of Genesis to Revelation, as it is written. I appreciate your emphasis on reminding and encouraging us to not take the Lord’s name in vain, but I don’t believe the majority here is intentionally using “God” or “Jesus” in disrespect to either our Creator or our Savior. We benefit by being reminded of Jesus’s condemnation to the Scribes and Pharisees because they have put complete emphasis on the literal EXACT LETTER of the LAW, thus forgetting the Spirit and MEANING of THE LAW of Yahweh.

      Additionally, America already has a pResident who uses, as much as possible; on a daily/hourly basis, “I”, “ME”, “MY” etc…..JMHO, but at times, it comes across as grating; as when the pResident uses those terms, as presented; JMHO…..we all know you have a website, these blog sites allow for http:// pasting; just paste the address; your site will still get the activity you desire and we can go directly to what you are trying to convey. When you sound like a “commercial”, it detracts from the message.

      Now, “HongryHawg” I must agree with Mr. Weiland on the matter of “non-optional God-expected responsibilities”. First, are we ALL in agreement that God’s word (the Bible) is PERFECT and without error from Genesis to Revelation? If not then we have a problem. Those of us who continue to
      LEARN are as ignorant as the “Fool” who says there is No God.

      “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Proverbs 30:5

      Also, although for those here that may be “Christian”, BOTH Testaments are APPLICABLE; regardless of what you may think you understand.

      “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

      Matthew 5:17-18

      So, if we agree that The Bible is the perfect Word of God (Yahweh) then your argument of “RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS” is in error, as out of the 359 uses of the word “RIGHT” in the Bible, the Hebrew derivative of the word “mishpat”
      (Judgment Rights) used as in man’s definition of “RIGHTS” as in The Bill of
      Rights (WORTHY) is only noted 3 times in the context of “Birthrights”.

      You can see for yourself in Strong’s Expanded and Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

      Look at the 2nd Epistle of Peter, he devotes the Epistle to TRUTH as evident in
      1 Peter 1:24-25:

      “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

      Man cannot give you “RIGHTS” especially if they contradict God's Will:

      “For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." 2 Peter 2:18-19

      Even as you look at the Webster’s Definition, I put emphasis on definition[s] numbered 2; they revert BACK to ACCORDANT TO THE STANDARD OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE OR THE WILL OF GOD.

      “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. (RESPONSIBILITY)

      And the LORD God COMMANDED* the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (FREEDOMS AND PRIVILEGES):
      But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, THOU SHALL NOT EAT OF
      IT (COMMANDMENT): for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die(RAMIFICATION FOR DISOBEDIENCE-JUDGMENT).” Genesis 2:15-17

      The VERY FIRST “RULES OF LIFE” from God the Creator to his greatest Creation (man).

      “…God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them (PRIVILEGE*): and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” Genesis 2:19

      Take the word “commanded”,

      COMMANDED, pp. Ordered; directed; governed; controlled.

      The word “COMMANDMENT” means:

      1. A command; a mandate; an order or injunction given by authority; charge;

      Why do ye transgress THE COMMANDMENT of God. (Matthew 15).

      This is THE FIRST AND GREAT COMMANDMENT. (Matthew 22).

      A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another. John 13.

      2. By way of eminence, a precept of the Decalogue, or moral LAW, written on tables of stone, at Mount Sinai; one of the ten commandments. Exodus 34.

      The Decalogue (“the Ten spoken words”) are God’s STATUTES Commandments) and JUDGMENTS (ramifications). Moses tells us this in the “creation” of the Decalogue in Exodus and in the instructions to continue the Decalogue in Deuteronomy.

      The First 5 Books of the Bible; The Pentateuch-THE LAW. Nowhere is the term “Rights” used comparable to a Bill of Rights.

      “Behold, I have taught you STATUTES and JUDGMENTS, even as the LORD my God COMMANDED me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. KEEP THEREFORE AND DO THEM; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

      For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?

      And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so
      righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine
      eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life:

      Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.”

      Deuteronomy 4:5-10

      STATUTE, [L., to set.]

      1. An act of the legislature of a state that extends its binding force to all the
      citizens or subjects of that state, as distinguished from an act which extends
      only to an individual or company; an act of the legislature commanding or
      prohibiting something; a positive law. Statutes are distinguished from common
      law. The latter owes its binding force to the principles of justice, to long
      use and the consent of a nation. The former owe their binding force to a
      positive command or declaration of the supreme power. Statute is commonly
      applied to the acts of a legislative body consisting of representatives. In
      monarchies, the laws of the sovereign are called edicts, decrees, ordinances,
      rescripts, etc.

      2. A special act of the supreme power, of a private nature, or intended to operate only on an individual or company.



      JUDG'MENT, n. The act of judging; the act or process of the mind
      in comparing its ideas, to find their agreement or disagreement, and to
      ascertain truth; or the process of examining facts and arguments, to ascertain
      propriety and justice; or the process of examining the relations between one
      proposition and another…….(Definitions 1-7 (N/A to argument)

      In Scripture, the spirit of wisdom and prudence, enabling a person to discern
      right and wrong, good and evil.

      Give the king thy judgments, O God. Psalm 72.

      8. A remarkable punishment; an extraordinary calamity INFLICTED BY GOD ON SINNERS.

      Judgments are prepared for scorners. Proverbs 19. Isaiah 26.

      9. The SPIRITUAL GOVERNMENT of the world.

      The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son. John 5.

      10. The righteous statutes and commandments of God are called his judgments. Psalm 119.

      11. The doctrines of the gospel, or God's word. Matthew 12.

      12. Justice and equity. Luke 11. Isaiah 1.

      13. The decrees and purposes of God concerning nations. Romans 11.

      14. A court or tribunal. Matthew 5.

      15. Controversies, or decisions of controversies. 1 Corinthians 6.

      16. The gospel, or kingdom of grace. Matthew 12.

      17. The final trial of the human race, when God will decide the fate of every
      individual, and award sentence according to justice.

      For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it
      be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12.

      JUDGMENT OF GOD. Formerly this term was applied to extraordinary trials of secret crimes, as by arms and single combat, by ordeal, or hot plowshares, &c.; it being imagined that God would work miracles to vindicate innocence.

      Here is the definition of “Right” according to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

      a. rite. [L. rectus, from the root of rego, properly to strain or stretch, whence straight.] Properly; strained; stretched to straightness; hence,

      1. (N/A)



      3. & 4. (N/A)


      If there be no prospect beyond the grave, the inference is certainly right, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

      6. Correct; PASSING A TRUE JUDGMENT; not mistaken or wrong.

      You are right, justice, and you weigh this well.

      7.& 8. (N/A)

      9. Properly placed, disposed or adjusted; orderly; WELL REGULATED.

      10.- 13. (N/A)

      RIGHT, adv.

      1. (N/A)

      2. ACCORDING TO THE LAW OR WILL OF GOD, or to the standard of truth and justice; as, to judge right. (NOTE: refer to 2. above)

      3. (N/A)

      4. According to fact or truth; as, to tell a story right.

      5. & 6. (N/A)

      RIGHT, n.

      1. CONFORMITY TO THE WILL OF GOD, OR HIS LAW, THE PERFECT STANDARD OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE. In the literal sense; right is a straight line of conduct, and wrong a crooked one. Right therefore is rectitude or straightness, and perfect rectitude is found only in an infinite Being and his will.

      2. Conformity to human laws, or to other human standard of truth, propriety or
      justice. WHEN LAWS ARE DEFINITE, right and wrong are easily ascertained and understood. In arts, there are some principles and rules which determine what is right. In many things indifferent, or left without positive law, we are to
      judge what is right by fitness or propriety, by custom, civility or other

      3. Justice; that which is due or proper; as, to do right to every man.
      (NOTE: refer to all item[s] 2. above)


      5. (N/A)

      6. Just claim by courtesy, customs, or the principles of civility and decorum. EVERY MAN HAS A RIGHT TO CIVIL TREATMENT. The magistrate has a right to respect.

      7. Just claim by sovereignty; PREROGATIVE. God, as the author of all things, has a right to govern and dispose of them at his pleasure.


      PREROG'ATIVE, [L. proerogativa, precedence in voting; proe, before,
      and rogo, to ask or demand.] An exclusive or peculiar PRIVILEGE; A royal
      prerogative, is that special pre-eminence which a king has over all other
      persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his regal
      dignity. IT CONSISTS IN THE POSSESSION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS WHICH THE KING (in this argument; YAHWEH) MAY EXERCISE to the exclusion of all participation of his subjects; for when a right or privilege is held in common with the subject, it ceases to be a prerogative. Thus the right of appointing ambassadors, and of making peace and war, are, in Great Britain, royal prerogatives.


      8. That which justly belongs to one.

      9. Property; interest.

      10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment
      of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by
      jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil,
      political, religious, personal, and public.

      11. Authority; legal power. We have no right to disturb others in the enjoyment of their religious opinions.

      12. In the United States, a tract of land; or a share or proportion of property, as
      in a mine or manufactory.

      13. (N/A).

      (this is defined as created by ”man” NOT God, therefore they are NOT GOD GIVEN RIGHTS)

      To set to rights,

      To put to rights, to put into good order; to adjust; TO REGULATE WHAT IS OUT OF ORDER.

      Bill of rights, a list of rights; a paper containing a declaration of rights, or the
      declaration itself.


      1. To do justice to; to relieve from wrong; as, to right an injured person.

      2. (N/A)

      As I said, not so simple as “RIGHTS are RIGHTS”…………Thus Mr. Weiland is more accurate in that God EXPECTS US to follow HIS COMMANDS and COMMANDMENTS. In doing so, God (YAHWEH) at HIS PREROGATIVE and through Covenants, EXTENDS CERTAIN PRIVILEGES for our positive behavior; and WHEN WE FAIL HE WILL PASS JUDGMENT UPON US, for which there are RAMIFICATIONS. REGARDLESS of what you think you have.
      Comparable to how we raise our children; like CHILDREN we HAVE NO RIGHTS with God, for he has no respect of persons. As a man sows so shall he reap.........

      HIS (God's/Yahweh's) WILL BE DONE………ON EARTH…….as it is in Heaven……

      Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

  • 25_20


    You insist that our rights come from God, not from the government, which is our
    creature. The real question, however, is not where the rights come from, but
    who will discern what the limits of those rights are. If we have, for example,
    the right of liberty, and we choose to exercise that right by killing babies,
    some person, institution or government must tell us that our exercise is right
    or wrong.

    Historically, we have chosen the government, i.e., the courts, to exercise that power. 

The problem comes when the courts decide the limits of liberty in a manner that is
    unacceptable to a majority of citizens. At that point, those aggrieved will
    have to exercise a right to challenge the courts within the system (if there is
    such a right) or if there is no such right, they will have to decide whether
    the court's decision is an occasion to exercise their right to overthrow the
    government whose interpretation of liberty is not to their liking.

    If one insists that God-given rights cannot be interpreted by courts, one is
    insisting on anarchy, for one cannot name a right which may not be interpreted
    in some way by its owner that is deleterious to society.

    Bill Lafferty

    • Snowman8wa

      "The real question, however, is not where the rights come from, but
      who will discern what the limits of those rights are. If we have, for example,
      the right of liberty, and we choose to exercise that right by killing babies,
      some person, institution or government must tell us that our exercise is right
      or wrong. "

      You must look at the definition of "RIGHT" as was used.

      (bold text added for emphasis):


      3. Fit; suitable; proper; becoming. In things indifferent, or which are regulated

      Therefore, as it is written:

      "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
      Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:5-6

      I could cross reference more that ties in to the ORIGINAL creation of the "death penalty" for murder; how other scripture associates the same punishment for infanticide, but that would make my answer far too lengthy and drive others here to misdirect the comments into tangents that, while may be related, are not what the article is exactly about.

      Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

  • Ted R. Weiland

    While I appreciate Hulda's sentiments, the problem is the Bible knows nothing of optional rights. Instead, it is replete with non-optional God-expected responsibilities. As such, the entire concepts of rights have helped sell us down the river. For example, take the Second Amendment. Even with the phrase "shall not be infringed," the Second Amendment is the most infringed, licensed, and limited amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, our posterity are very likely to see it someday repealed. This is the inherent nature and danger of optional rights, unlike God-expected responsibilities, such as the following one the Apostle Paul dictated to Timothy:

    "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)

    For more, listen to "The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight" (delivered last March at the Springfield, Missouri, Firearms and Freedom Symposium). Click on my name, then our website. Scroll about half way down our home page to our Featured Messages. At the same location, you'll also find a radio interview Larry Pratt (Executive Director of Gun Owners of America) conducted with me on the same subject. I think you'll find Mr. Pratt's remarks especially interesting.

    If you prefer to read, go to our Blog and scroll down to the titles "Rights, Rights: Everyone Wants Their Rights" and "You Can't Win Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight."

    • Steven

      While I appreciate Hulda's sentiments.

      You BEGAN your comment with a flat out LIE. You consistently prove you DO NOT appreciate ANYTHING positive about the USA.

    • David Hodges

      How much appreciation do you have for Psalms 19: 7--"The law of the Lord is perfect..."?

    • Ted R. Weiland

      I see you're, once again, usurping Yahweh's place as God by attempting to read my heart--something only He can do.

    • Snowman8wa

      Responded above to both You and HongryHawg.....
      Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

    • Ted R. Weiland

      Snowman82wa, thank you for your response.

      Trust me, I aware of sounding like a commercial. However, for some reason this and a few other blogs will not post my response if I include a URL, even though sometimes they allow others to do so.

      Also, not only have I never accused anyone of taking Yahweh's name in vain for using God or Jesus, I don't even believe doing so constitutes doing so. I do believe the English translators made His name vain/void when they removed the Tetragrammaton and replaced it with the LORD and GOD (when all in caps) in nearly 7,000 locations in the Old Testament.

    • Snowman8wa

      I understand, got into it with one of your objectors a few weeks ago who was insisting I was wrong on the "One Nation under Allah" argument.
      I read your explanation awhile ago regarding Rights and Obligations etc. and re-read the first three Chapters of Genesis....When you compare the English Scripture to the Hebrew and Greek Texts, we get the gist of what was being said, Government is misleading; the more we learn, the more we understand; the uglier our Constitutional History looks. If you get some time, Dr. Joel McDurmon has a book "RESTORING AMERICA, One County at a Time' the website as the book with YouTube presentations and it is interesting how he shows Biblical Teaching to running your Government and HOW to get it back.
      Yes, now I sound like that dreaded commercial, but this is offered freely through American Vision, TRUTH is Power; at times we have to expand upon the accusation and a "simple answer" isn't so easy when it comes to God's Word.
      Thank you for your work,

      Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

    • Ted R. Weiland

      I've met Joel on a couple of occasions and appreciate much that he has to say. I'm pleased, that like his father-in-law, he's seen through the seditious Constitution. I just wish they were both more consistent with their response to it. They seem to want to hang on to it to one degree or another whenever (they think) it's advantageous to do so. In my opinion, that's like employing the religion of Baal whenever it's advantageous.

      I read most of Joel's pre-publication articles when initially posted. I thought they were very well done. I do take exception to his position on elections. I believe they are another instance of where the framers thought they knew better than Yahweh.

      That said, I believe in election--Yahweh's and His means of accomplishing it (Deuteronomy 17:15, Acts 1:23-26, etc.) Commercial time: If you haven't already read it and are interested, you'll find more on this in Chapter 4 "Article 2: Executive Usurpation."

      By the way, my response above should have read "...for some reason this and a few other blogs will NOT post my
      response if I include a URL, even though sometimes THEY allow others to
      do so." The words "not" and "they" were missing until I just edited it. I'm not smart enough to fix this. Perhaps, you would have some suggestions.

    • Snowman8wa

      You know, I also get issues on some of my postings too, either "your comment is awaiting moderation" and/or it doesn't post. Seriously? What in my posting required scrutiny???
      This happens when I am logged onto my DISQUS account. I try to only use DISQUS, as I have issues with being required to have 200 different passwords. I'm past 50....I have certain passwords, all 128k encrypted......leave me ALONE with the passwords......
      I know that long posting violated 7 out of 10 of your tips, but when the Spirit moves me......well......who am I to argue.
      I'll go to the site and do that, thank you.....
      Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

    • Ted R. Weiland

      I'd love to send you a free copy of the "Primer" of "BL vs. USC." If interested, go to our website and provide your name and address via our contact button on the bottom of the home page.


  • R.Young

    This depend upon who you are asking this question of. If you ask Congress they will tell you they come from Congress. If you ask the Supreme Court they will tell you they come from the Regime. If you ask the majority of the people (the voter) they too would tell you they come from the Regime and that the Constitution is just a set of guide line the Regime is supposed to follow in granting it's subjects their "Rights". If you could ask the Founding Fathers they would tell you flat out our RIGHTS come from God, the Creator, the Gerat Spirit, etc. and that the Constitution is the Guidlines from the People to the Government!

  • agbjr

    "I recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow."

    John Jay, 1826

    "Earnest hope that the peace, happiness, and prosperity enjoyed by our beloved country may induce those who direct her national counsels to recommend a general and public return of praise to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend."

    John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.