God and man in court - constitutional law; part 1 of debate

National Review, August 14, 1995 by Lino Graglia

Along this same line, Jaffa uses as an epigraph for one of his writings a quotation from Thomas Aquinas, "Good and being are convertible terms." Believers and skeptics regarding natural-law thinking can probably be distinguished by their different reactions to such a pronouncement. Believers think some savant has announced an important discovery; skeptics will realize that another deep thinker has become so fascinated by the magic of language that he has forgotten its function and limits.

My difficulty with Jaffa is not that he is interested in discussing such things as "the goodness of the created universe" but that he wants to make it sound as if he is discussing law. He is not a professional theologian or moral philosopher, but a political scientist who claims to instruct on constitutional law. While metaphysics and theology are beyond my ken, constitutional law is my field of professional interest. I find it necessary to point out, therefore, that it is not constitutional law -- or any form of human law, law created and enforced by government officials -- that he is discussing. Robert Bork and William Rehnquist are continually subjected to his spiteful attacks only because they rightly believe that "natural law," even if supposedly derived from the Declaration of Independence, is not a proper basis for judicial invalidation of policy choices made by the people's elected representatives.