Controversy Over Thomas

In response to “Unnatural Brawl Over Natural Law,” by Michael Moore, Commentary, Sept. 3:

Moore aptly describes the role of “natural law” in the Constitution: “. . . the legal right to equal protection of the laws under our Constitution derives its content from the pre-existing moral right to equal treatment that all persons possessed before the 14th Amendment became the law of the land.”

Where his analysis breaks down, however, is his assumption that every time an appellate court renders a decision with natural law overtones, it is based upon principles of natural law. Rather, courts are obliged to make findings which happen to coincide with basic notions of natural law only to the extent that such principles may be derived from a reading of the code which they are interpreting.

Robert Bork was not rejected for the Supreme Court because he did not believe that citizens possessed natural rights, such as liberty or privacy, but because, as a strict constructionist, he believed that those rights must be found in the Constitution in order to be recognized by the court as legally enforceable.

A pure natural law theorist, on the other hand, would assert that, while the Constitution would ideally integrate all natural rights, in the event that one is at stake and a reasonable reading of the Constitution fails to support it, the natural law supersedes man-made law, and must be protected by the court.

J.B. JOHNSON, Santa Ana