Start Date
18-3-2025 12:45 PM
End Date
18-3-2025 2:00 PM
Level of Education
Doctoral
Keywords
natural law, legal interpretation, jurisprudence, constitution
Abstract
The judicial branch of the American government is tasked with interpreting and applying the law, including determining whether laws and executive actions are constitutional. This is the essence of judicial review.
Throughout our nation’s history, various judicial philosophies have shaped how judges have interpreted the Constitution. However, recent criticisms of the judiciary have become increasingly aggressive, with calls for court packing, and even the abolishment of judicial review. These solutions miss the mark. The answer lies in returning to our founding principles. This paper advocates for a judicial philosophy that synthesizes the best elements of various approaches to jurisprudence.
This paper proposes Natural Law Originalism as the ideal judicial philosophy. Aligned with the American tradition of law, natural law originalist jurisprudence integrates the immutable truths of human nature with the exercise of judicial review, particularly in interpreting ambiguous positive law. Under this philosophy, judges are called to interpret ambiguous laws through the lens of universal truths inherent in human nature while remaining faithful to the Constitution’s clear textual mandates.
This paper explores the historical development of natural law jurisprudence, tracing its influence through the history of the Western legal tradition, from Cicero and Aquinas to Blackstone and the American founders, most notably James Wilson. It examines how natural law informed early constitutional debates. Ultimately, it contends that a judiciary informed by natural law principles ensures justice, preserves human dignity, and safeguards the republic by aligning legal interpretations with timeless moral truths, bringing positive law more into alignment with morality.
Finally, this paper demonstrates how a return to judicial review grounded in natural law and the Christian ethic can resolve the flaws in modern case law on contentious social issues, including the role of the Church, parental choice, same-sex marriage, abortion, and “transgender rights.”
Novus Ordo Seclorum: Making the Case for Natural Law Originalism
The judicial branch of the American government is tasked with interpreting and applying the law, including determining whether laws and executive actions are constitutional. This is the essence of judicial review.
Throughout our nation’s history, various judicial philosophies have shaped how judges have interpreted the Constitution. However, recent criticisms of the judiciary have become increasingly aggressive, with calls for court packing, and even the abolishment of judicial review. These solutions miss the mark. The answer lies in returning to our founding principles. This paper advocates for a judicial philosophy that synthesizes the best elements of various approaches to jurisprudence.
This paper proposes Natural Law Originalism as the ideal judicial philosophy. Aligned with the American tradition of law, natural law originalist jurisprudence integrates the immutable truths of human nature with the exercise of judicial review, particularly in interpreting ambiguous positive law. Under this philosophy, judges are called to interpret ambiguous laws through the lens of universal truths inherent in human nature while remaining faithful to the Constitution’s clear textual mandates.
This paper explores the historical development of natural law jurisprudence, tracing its influence through the history of the Western legal tradition, from Cicero and Aquinas to Blackstone and the American founders, most notably James Wilson. It examines how natural law informed early constitutional debates. Ultimately, it contends that a judiciary informed by natural law principles ensures justice, preserves human dignity, and safeguards the republic by aligning legal interpretations with timeless moral truths, bringing positive law more into alignment with morality.
Finally, this paper demonstrates how a return to judicial review grounded in natural law and the Christian ethic can resolve the flaws in modern case law on contentious social issues, including the role of the Church, parental choice, same-sex marriage, abortion, and “transgender rights.”
