Natural Law and the Constitution

A Tract Book Essay

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have argued previously that in the world of Reason, Natural Rights are based

upon Natural Law. One such right is Freedom of Speech, and its corollary, Academic

Freedom. The problem is that I hypothesize that there is also an older, less rational

Natural Law that still is at work in our Society. This Ancient Natural Law is not based

upon Reason, but instead upon conventional authority.

Objectively, what it means to be a Thomist, is that one follows the work of Saint

Thomas Aquinas which is in turn based upon the classical philosophy of Plato and

Aristotle. This is Reason based Natural Law. Some fundamentalist take a different

position, however. They argue that Natural Law is based upon authority, and, that a

Thomist is one who treats the conventional teaching of a particular Pope in the Roman

Catholic Church as normative Natural Law.

These two Natural Law systems are antithetical to one another. Reason and

conventional authority are often opposites, and, this is especially true in the area of

Freedom of Speech. Enlightenment Natural Law protects the Natural Right of Freedom

of Speech. This is protected both by the Liberty provision in the American Declaration

of Independence, as well as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Enlightenment Natural Law sees innovation a new ideas as a good and positive

occurrence which deserves protection.

 Natural Law based upon conventional authority, on the other hand, takes the

opposite view. Conventional Natural Law protects the status quo and opposes the

development of any new ideas. New ideas are considered bad. The author who comes

up with new ideas, which in any sense “rock the boat,” is considered a subversive. Thus,

Conventional Natural punishes authors who come up with something new. This is called

Penury. Various organizations such as the mafia, the Klu Klux Clan, the Nazi Party, and

the Communist Party all act to penure a “prophet” or an author who comes up with a new

social idea which transforms society for the better. If these organizations cannot get the

job done by themselves, then state, local, and federal government is used to penure an

author.

Penury for an author is typically punished by one year in prison, on a psychiatric

ward, in house arrest, or internment, or sequestrement. If the author survives penury,

then his or her ideas become accepted and incorporated into the conventional system.

The author is now a part of the system, and as long as the author does not come up with

any more earth shattering new ideas, he or she is safe from penury.

Obviously, from the point of view of the American Constitution, a penury

proceeding against an author is a violation of that author’s First Amendment Freedom of

Speech right. Organizational or governmental action implementing the penury of an

author is punishable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for civil damages and under 18 U.S.C.

section 242 for a criminal penalty.

If penury is allowed it should be done in the least pejorative manner, such as

house arrest or internment or sequestrement, with the cost of the confinement being paid
for by the government. I hope penury can be done away with, but if it can’t, then it

should only be applied in its mildest form.