The nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, declares that government is established for one purpose – to secure our God-given, inalienable rights. “[W]henever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends,” the Declaration says, “it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”

Thomas Jefferson described the Declaration as “a reflection of the American mind.” The “American mind,” which included the mind of the Founders, believed, as George Washington and others stated, that “religion and morality” were necessary to our constitutional republic. Religious teachings give birth to a moral people, and a moral people exercise self-restraint. The Constitution presupposes that a free nation will exercise self-restraint, and that government will abide by immutable “self-evident” “truths” which are “endowed by [the] Creator.”

The rule of law, like moral principles, is no more subject to change than is the law of gravity. The law of gravity is the same today as it was on July 4, 1776, and it is no different than it was at the beginning of time. The rule of law is self-evident and not subject to change. Governments do change. If you were to chart history, government would look like an S-shaped line superimposed over the straight line of immutable law. Whenever the S-shaped line veers too far for too long away from “self-evident” “truths,” then the people must change their “form of government.”

The Founders tried to reform Great Britain but they were unsuccessful. So, they poured their souls into the Declaration, signed their names, and declared a revolution. It was not a time for celebration. The Declaration marked the beginning of intense struggle. Once the muskets were silent and victory won, the Founders warned that the revolution was not finished. The hardest part of the revolution remained – the revolution for the mind.

Last week’s decisions on the Ten Commandments reveals in the clearest way possible that a majority of the Supreme Court justices do not adhere to the rule of law. In response to Justice Scalia’s recitation of American history in which he documented the purpose and intent of the Founders and the First Amendment, Justice Souter’s reply was "so what". Souter admitted he and others would apply the Constitution in a manner “unanticipated” by the Founders. The majority admitted that they do not adhere to an immutable rule of law, that they have no agreed upon standard, and that they make up the rules as they go.

Last Friday’s announcement about Justice O’Connor’s retirements presents an opportunity to fill her seat with a judge who will uphold the rule of law, like Justices Scalia and Thomas. The battle is not over a politician who is beholden to any one party or predetermined result. If that were the case, the Supreme Court would become a political branch. The battle is to return the Court to the rule of law. That can be accomplished by appointing a justice who adheres to an immutable rule of law, who respects our Constitution and who will use it as the foundation for decision-making rather than as springboard for shifting ideological, personal views.

As the Declaration says, “it is our duty” to alter government whenever it fails to respect our God-given, inalienable, self-evident rights. Following the celebration of America’s break from tyranny, let us resolve to be fully engaged in the battle to return the Supreme Court to the rule of law. Filling Justice O’Connor’s seat with a justice like Scalia and Thomas will be a huge battle, but it is a battle we cannot lose.