What is the right to life? Define "life." Is there any circumstance under which man is entitled to take life? If so, what are those circumstances? Self-defense? I am sure that ought to be one, but self-defense connotes the taking of the life was reasonably necessary in order to defend one's self. So, now we delve into what constitutes excessive force. So, where does this inquiry end? I suppose it has to end some place where we no longer have to use weasel words, like "reasonable" and "excessive." Otherwise, it lacks the specificity required to enable us to follow this so-called law as an absolute, moral imperative and leaves us delving into moral relativism and the constant debates over what is "right," "just" and "fair" – which is no different than the flawed process of forming and operating governments.

What is "liberty?" Certainly, we all agree liberty can be abridged. This, we say, is permitted, provided due process is followed. But what is "due process?" Does it require a trial by jury? If so, does it require 6 jurors, 12 jurors or some other number? What happens if the judge admits certain evidence in error? Does it call for automatic reversal and a new trial, or do we need to evaluate the effect of the erroneous admission of the evidence? It seems many of us would recognize that the answer depends on the type of evidence that was erroneously admitted. Was it material? Did it have a tendency to cause an improper verdict? Was it prejudicial to the objecting party? Here, once again, you can see the weasel words, "material," "improper" and "prejudicial." Where is the natural law, so we can see it and avoid human fallibility in making these decisions? There must be a universal absolute out there. After all, it is natural LAW. So, what does this law say? If only we knew, we could take judges and corruption out of the process and leave the inquiry to mere computers in order to solve the inquiry in a scientific way.

What about the right to property? Does this mean that all taxation violates this right? If so, how do we fund governments? If not, what process must a government use to take our property? Does simple majority rule? Should a super-majority be required? Or are there some cases where the protection of the individual's property is so important that not even unanimity ought to be allowed? If there are scenarios under which each of these procedures are appropriate, what distinguishes them? When you attempt to delve into this, you will find yourself resorting to more weasel words.

So, where is this natural law? Who has a superior claim to knowledge of it? If I say natural law is X, and you say it is Y, where is the natural law that lets us know which of us is correct? Supposing you claim knowledge of this latter law, what if I say you are wrong there, too? Where is the law that will, once again, tell us who is right in this latter respect? And the conundrum, you can see, may continue indefinitely.

Locke's law of nature is also distinct from divine law in that the latter, in the Christian tradition, normally referred to those laws that God had directly revealed through prophets and other inspired writers. Natural law can be discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God's special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound..this seems to cover your Myra Bradwell example since the justices evoke the Creator and gender versus reason. Reason eventually overcame injustice (government suppression of liberty) w/regards to gender.

When Locke emphasized the right to life, liberty, and property he was primarily making a point about the duties we have toward other people: duties not to kill, enslave, or steal. Most scholars also argue that Locke recognized a general duty to assist with the preservation of mankind, including a duty of charity to those who have no other way to procure their subsistence (see Locke's Two Treatises).

Both of those declarations cite these first principles: "the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America…are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent" and "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…"

You also want me to believe "we" can all agree on what the Constitution means, but it is impossible to ascertain what those who wrote and ratified it were? Documents like the two declarations noted above, the Articles of Confederation, James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, the official convention notes, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the notes from the ratification debates in each state explaining what nearly each word was to mean lead us to understand what was accepted (through a majority vote) as the intent and authority of the U.S. Constitution. The majority vote bound the conventions. Misunderstanding the original understanding of the Constitution occurs due to a lack of education on the subject, not due to a lack of evidence.

While certainly the Constitution fell short of its grand ideals (slavery), it is clearly founded in the laws of nature. However, our founders left us w/a way tackle future issues…Article V.

All I am saying is that the Devil is in the details. The Constitution was meant to be simple, but life is much more complicated. I think it is easy to come to consistent and clear understandings in some regards, but in many others, I think the gaps and conflicts are plainly evident. For example, compare the comity (full faith and credit) clause to the argument that marriage and divorce laws ought to be solely within the province of the various states. If State A allows gay marriage and divorce, and State B disallows it, what happens when gays are divorced in State A and one of the divorcees moves to State B to avoid a State A court's property division order? Must State B give full faith and credit to State A's property division and enforce the order against its new resident? Would your answer change if State B enacted a law that stated, "No person in this state shall be divested of his property by virtue of any order arising from the dissolution of a marriage between persons of the same sex?" Or would that law, itself, violate the full faith and credit clause?

This is but one example. There can be countless other examples spanning a vast array of subjects. And as to a great many of these, I am sure we (more or less "Originalists") would hold opinions all over the board.

We tend to focus on the more or less "obvious" issues (for good reason, since they are more or less obvious). But there is far more that remains in issue than can possibly be imagined. Our task, so far, has been relatively simple in comparison to arriving at a complete understanding of proper Constitutionalism. The Constitution was penned rather crudely. It is a nice blueprint, but it left much to be desired for the contractors and artisans who followed and who actually had the privilege of continuing to construct our Republic.

My point, in reference to the article, is that it is loaded with a fair bit of rhetoric and not a lot of guidance. If one can only declare something which already exists – i.e., war must exist before it can be declared, that does not tell us what the conditions of war are. If the President is traveling abroad and a spectator throws his shoe at him, can this suffice as a condition to declare a state of war? Most would say not. What if a rogue group from abroad send 200 kilos of opium seed into our borders illegally? Probably not. What if they come here and set off some bombs? Hmmmm. It gets more interesting. It's a rogue group, but their government did not stop it and isn't showing us they are doing all they can to prevent this sort of thing. Now, we can start arguing what is sufficient. And so, here we are….. Of what use is it to the argument to merely state, "We don't make war when we declare it; we declare it only because it exists."

Along similar lines, we see the sentence: "The declaration of war power requires the government to obey the law of nature that that no individual or group may initiate force against another." Here we go… back to the laws of nature. Who will argue that initiating this type of force is bad? Nobody. It is rhetoric. The real debate will always surround the question, "Who started it?" Right?

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 states in part:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…keep Troops…in time of Peace…or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Since this clause prevents the States from maintaining a standing army, without the consent of Congress, in times of peace, the State force contemplated in Article 1, Section 10 is the State militia.

The States, under the direction of their commander in chief, the governor, have the constitutional authority to use their militia to protect their borders independent of the federal government. Thus, a State or States could be engaged in war without a congressional declaration of war.

Mexican troops aiding the drug cartels on State soil could trigger this provision if a governor had the guts to pull the switch.

The governors of Texas and Arizona, and maybe New Mexico, forget California, should send the Mexican government a little courtesy note alerting Mexico of this power with a copy to Obama. Then after the Mexican government and Obama claimed it was a bluff, send National Guard (the organized militia) troops with tanks and planes to the border.

Then when the feds opened their mouths, these States could ask Obama and his minions…what do you think of federal supremacy now bitches?

As we know, the Constitution was ratified by many, and along the way, even more had differing opinions, concerns and understandings as to what some of its provisions authorized, entailed and meant. And now, over 200 years later, we have a bunch more of us with ideas and understandings of our own. Inevitably, the process of construction and interpretation require the injection of one's opinion into the issue and a pretense that the person making the contention can accurately project his views onto long-dead founders as if these founders could still talk, and presuming they could, that would all talk with a single voice….. my voice.

"Originalism" is a useful theory, but we cannot pretend it is all it is cracked up to be. It is a flawed approach, like any other.

I have no problem construing a document "as we understand it today." As long as "we" understand it in unison and agree to our understanding, then, the document, as construed, serves all of our purposes.

On a side note, "Natural Law" is a crock. It is whatever you want it to be, and for me, it is likewise, whatever I want it to be. It is as amorphous as the dictate, "Do unto thy neighbor…"

It is best to recognize the flaws in the concepts, because the more skepticism you can take to the table, the more you will be capable of ascertaining BS from the sublime. Most of it is BS, and likewise, most of us think our own BS is more infallible than that of others – me included. It's just the way the mind works.

For more on so-called "Natural Law" read about the "natural law" regarding a woman's station in life, in the age-old case of Myra Blackwell, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_Bradwell

Once you see how these "phophets" into God's will mold their arguments and can learn to spot BS, you soon come to realize that "Natural Law" is a sham, and "Originalism" a bit less profound that its disciples make it sound.

And, yes, I'm a Tenther all the way. I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of moral relativity embedded into our theories.

You must read the Constitution as it was understood (including historical context) in the late eighteenth century, not as we may read and undestand it today.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8 cl. 11:
The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

A Letter of Marque & Reprisal against Al-Qaeda and specifically against Usama bin Laden (eventhough he wasn't actually wanted by the FBI for 9/11) would have been a perfectly legal method for dealing with the situation. This is especially true in the fact we sent US military assassins into a Neutral Nation to whack him, a blatant violation of the US Constitution (Due Process), US Statutory Law (no assassination), treaties the US is a party to AND International Law (assassination is a no-no as well as initiating aggressive war upon another nation).