In his 2008 book "Taking Rights Seriously," the late professor Ronald Dworkin explored the origins and governmental treatment of human liberty. He argued that Thomas Jefferson – who wrote the Declaration of Independence – and James Madison – the scrivener at the Constitutional Convention and the author of the Bill of Rights – were clear in their articulations that the premise of America at its birth is that our rights are personal and natural because they come from our humanity, not from the government.

Dworkin also recognized that government, which is essentially the negation of liberty, is only moral and valid when it enjoys the consent of the governed, respects individual rights as inalienable and interferes with them only after it proves fault to a jury at a fair trial.

The Dworkin thesis is obviously not novel, but he wrote it toward the end of his illustrious career as a bulwark against those in government and academia who argued to the contrary. These folks claimed – and do so today – that the law is whatever those in power say it is, and the dead hands of the framers cannot control the living hands of those whom the people have elected. To these folks, the majority rules, even when it is tyrannical toward a minority.

This argument – that a popularly elected government can trump individual liberties – is utterly repugnant to the concept of natural rights and accepts as somehow lawful the horrific acts of popularly elected governments for which the 19th and 20th centuries are well known. This view also rejects the plain language and – since 1803 – consistent judicial recognition of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.