Steve Deace on Gab: 'The Declaration of Independence is part of the "organic law" of the United States, meaning it's an essential foundation since organic means "derived from" or "sourced from." Thus, all of our understanding of law in the United States is to be derived or sourced from the Declaration as if it were a mission statement. One could even argue it was the original foundation, the cornerstone if you will, since its the founding document of the country -- no other organic law can possibly precede it. The Declaration is predicated on "the laws of nature and nature's God" as the supreme revelation of law upon the earth. The case that is then made is that revolt against the King of England is justified morally and lawfully, on the grounds he is in gross violation via "a long train of abuses" (which are itemized) of that very highest law. The founders then itemize those abuses specifically, and at the end appeal to the same God who has revealed that natural law they claim to be upholding to act as "Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." In other words, they are saying if we have wrongly interpreted and applied your revelation in declaring this revolt, judge us accordingly instead. This is foundational to understanding the law, the source of law, and the debate over the law in our post-modern/progressive (or pagan) society. What we practice nowadays is not natural (revealed) law as was intended, but a Frankenstein that goes by many names and comes in many forms. For now, we'll go with legal positivism, or the idea that whatever human institution is seen as having the power to determine the law gets to make the law. Legal positivists will scream that's not what it means, but a thing means what it actually does, not what it otherwise claims. In other words this is pure humanism, which is in complete contradiction to the legal schema that inspired the very founding of this country. Your laws have to be based (or derived or sourced) on something. They will either be based on humanism (pagan) or "the laws of nature and nature's God" (revelation). Those are the only two options, ever, and for all-time. Not surprisingly, humanistic (pagan) theory leads to humanistic (pagan) conclusions. Many of which, sadly, have permeated the American Right these days as well. Pagans throughout the ages love them some child sacrifice, so not surprisingly they craft so-called laws to make it "legal." Unfortunately, many people claiming revelation are helping them just the same. For example, federalism wasn't adopted to allow states to defy the natural law, but to uphold it and even allow them to defy the federal government if/when it chooses to violate the natural law. You don't ever have a right to do that which the natural law (God) says is wrong. Since our rights come from God in the founding vision of the country, He then logically also determines what is or isn't a right. He said you don't have a right to murder, see the 10 Commandments we posted a portrait of at the US Supreme Court as a reminder of the source of that highest law, hence we made laws against it in alignment with His. So the original question to wrestle with here as it pertains to abortion is whether or not it is murder. If it is, then any government that God permits to exist on this mortal coil has a moral mandate to uphold the "laws of nature and nature's God" against it. From there, can you argue what is the most efficient means of doing so? Proper jurisdictional application? Do we have local, state, and federal jurisdictions to prosecute murder currently depending on the situation? Sure, but these are all arguments that are to be debated from the premise of the best way to uphold "the laws of nature and nature's God" which clearly state "thou shall not murder." Not to actually grant any human or any human body the right to murder, under the "will of the people" or any other such humanistic (pagan) drivel. That is many things, but none of them are "federalism" or "constitutional" -- for that doctrine and that document are quantifications of how "the laws of nature and nature's God" are to be enforced and play out in our society. They are meant to uphold that natural law, not desecrate it -- as any government-sanctioned murder would and does. If you are using the Constitution to commit or even permit egregious violations of "the laws of nature and nature's God" you are not acting in accordance with it, but in violation of it, for humans have no power nor authority to violate "the laws of nature and nature's God." We are not gods, even when we claim and act otherwise. You can couch it in whatever clever language or nuance you want, even dress it in the flag and call it "populism," but it is still evil and still a lie. And when we do such things, as we are now, there are egregious consequences. The generations that founded the country were sinners, too, and some of them thought they were able to make chattel slavery "constitutional." Their sinfulness eventually plunged this nation into a civil war, and racial divisiveness/idolatry that we are still wrestling with today. Along the same lines, on the authority of God's Law and our own history, God will punish our generation's wickedness via baby killing as well. And it is quite likely many of the current laments across the ideological spectrum we are wrestling with are confirmation of such truth. We don't have to ask a holy God to judge the rectitude of our intentions, it is in His nature to do so. "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."'