One will immediately notice that what this egregious hack has linked to nowhere says liberty comes from the Declaration. Scratch's shadow is cast yet again. All that does is point out that this is where they are mentioned, and their unalienability is stated as a first principle.
Our unalienable liberties come from our creator. They are inherent endowments, independent of and preexisting the state. The state exists only to guarantee and preserve those rights, and for no other fundamental reason.
One will immediately notice that what this dumb ass par excellence is advocating is the natural law approach, which encourages judges to impose their personal moral value judgments on interpreting the Constitution---and which leaves the widest possible latitude for judicial activism, is inconsistent with the strict constructionism he has implied he believes in and all lawyers supposedly do not, and contradicts his uninformed rants about "case law."
The first, the Natural Law approach, equates law and morality, stating that an interpretation is legally permitted only if it is morally appropriate. Adler used the example of speed limit laws to show the pitfalls of this philosophy- are there any moral explanation as to why the speed limit should be 65 miles per hour? This philosophy is also subject to the current societal codes, which can change over time. Adler used the example of interracial marriage, which was once considered by the majority of American society to be a moral wrong and is now legally permissible by the legal system, to show the flaws in this ideology.What Does that Really Mean: Constitutional Interpretation
Natural law makes the best possible case for reading a fundamental right to marry into the Constitution, since natural law is based on a judge's concept of higher morality that trumps positive law. But it would require actually knowing something and thinking about things to realize this, instead of parroting what you heard on AM radio the other day.
And he still has not acknowledged that the 5th and 14th Amendments vest "the people" with a Constitutional right to liberty, which requires an interpretation of what "liberty" means.