Is the U.S. Constitution a reflection or creation of justice?

There exists today two schools of Constitutional interpretation. The traditional perspective is that the Constitution reflects just laws and is therefore authoritative. The second is that the laws are just because they are protected by the Constitution. The former appeals to the Constitution’s conformity to objective truth. The sights the Constitution as the sole basis of legality.

This second perspective is dangerous because it views law as the synthesis of human creation. If laws are simply our creations of consensus, then we can recreate the laws from time to time. At root the question of Constitutional interpretation comes down to this question: “Do we recognized eternal truths or do we make up rules in accordance with consensus?”

The Founding Fathers, regardless of their religious commitments, seem to hold that the Constitution distilled an objective account of justice. They did not “create” the rules of justice though majority vote. Rather, they recognized the rights and laws given by the Creator.