There are some approaches to natural law. The first conception assumes that it exists independently and does not need to be recognized, found by anyone or declared. On the other side, the positive law has to be approved according to certain procedural standards. The positive law is limited, while the natural law of God or of Reason is limitless and universal (Silving 477). In other words, they are of different origin and have different power and procedure of adoption.
These concepts fit into my understanding of the role of law in the community. Thus, it is well-known that there is a continuous process of development in nature and society. It occurs unusually rapidly during the last time period because mankind in the last millennium has already gained immense productive forces and resources not only in the material form of their existence but in the form of intellectual expression. But this development proceeds spasmodically and overcomes the devastating effects of disasters in nature and devastating effects of conflicts in the society. I believe that natural law prevails in society, while positive law aims to provide strict rules and limit social relations and activity of citizens in order to establish a certain order in the U.S.
The U.S. legal system is greatly influenced by natural law that is expressed in the Declaration of Independence. It claims “self-evident truths” about human equality, the necessity of consent, and the right to revolution (Moreno). Natural law prevails in the Constitutional Convention and during the ratification debates (Moreno). Decisions of the early Supreme Court often refer to natural-law arguments. For instance, in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) Justice Wilson claimed that a South Carolina citizen could sue the state of Georgia because he believed to be the “principles of general jurisprudence” upon which the Constitution rested (Moreno). The U.S. legal system is greatly influenced by natural law because it is the basic rule, which is limitless and can be applied to any situation, and official authorities cannot ignore it.
Amendment IV from the Bill of Rights describes the right of the people to be secure, which is connected to liberty and freedom of movement. Here concepts of privacy and liberty overlap (Baker 151). American society might currently be different if that right did not exist because a person's safety is the fundamental criteria for the implementation of all other constitutional rights and freedoms. It allows to find out disadvantages and critical situations, which potentially threaten the vital parameters of human existence. The latter would mean that in addition to the need to take urgent protective measures, official authorities should seriously revise state policy in the field of public relations and provide all possible steps to stabilize them.
There is a difference between a right and a liberty. For example, John Locke summarized basic natural rights, the American Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all individuals are equal and have certain inalienable rights. This means that all people have a choice do decide for themselves, and the freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, and to peaceably assemble, which are not privileges and no permission is needed to exercise these rights.
On the other hand, liberty depends on individuals who defend and maintain it (Oatsvall). The principle of freedom of the individual directly relates to the universal principles of law, which derive their meaning from the natural rights and freedoms. The universal principles of law are expressed through universal values such as freedom, equality, family, private property, dignity, faith in goodness and justice, oppression and resistance of others. Their protection should be the goal of each state.
Works Cited
Baciga, Ronald. "The Right of the People to Be Secure." 82 Ky. L.J. 145 , 1993,
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e18f/a234b71f0f68b64b85bb66883561c36a2fcb.pdf.
Accessed 27 Jan. 2017.
Baker, Thomas. ""The Right of the People to be Secure": Toward a Metatheory of the
Fourth Amendment". William & Mary Law Review, vol. 30, no. 4, 1989,
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2022&context=wmlr. Accessed 27 Jan. 2017.
Moreno, Paul. "The U.S. Supreme Court and natural law." NLNRAC,
http://www.nlnrac.org/american/u.s.-supreme-court. Accessed 27 Jan. 2017.
Oatsvall, Aj. "How to tell the Difference between a Right and a Privillege." Voices of Liberty,
2015,
https://voicesofliberty.com/2015/04/22/how-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-right-and-a-privilege. Accessed 27 Jan. 2017.
Silving, Helen. "The Twilight Zone of Positive and Natural Law." California Law Review,
vol. 43, no. 3, 1955,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3325&context=californialawreview. Accessed 27 Jan. 2017.
