Of Rights and Privileges
On September 3, 2025, Senator Tim Kaine gave startling remarks in a Foreign Relations Committee hearing for the nomination of Riley Barnes to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. In response to Barnes’ view that rights come from our Creator, Kaine argued “The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator—that’s what the Iranian government believes… the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”1 Of course he said more than that in his four-minute monologue, he even claimed to believe in “natural rights”—but that begs the obvious question: what makes government-derived rights ‘natural,’ Senator?
While an accurate understanding of the Iranian government isn’t required for Senators, it might be useful to serve on the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee. Tim Kaine isn’t just mistaken about Iran’s regime, but America’s own governing principles—which he should know. By reducing our “unalienable rights” to little more than privileges, he fractures the foundations of our Constitution and our Declaration. If this is truly his position, it violates his oath of office and pushes the limits of Article VI as well.
The Iranian Model
Iran’s regime doesn’t glean its laws from religious texts in a neutral theocratic manner; it claims to arbitrate the divine will itself—enthroning its leaders as the god-like source of the people’s rights—or lack thereof. This regime’s model is disturbingly similar to Senator Kaine’s, where the people’s “rights” are granted—or revoked—top-down by the whim of the state. In this type of government, rights don’t exist; there are only privileges; which renders our Bill of Rights meaningless. Kaine’s equivalence between a “Creator” endowing us with rights and some mediated theocracy is a house of cards.
Our Constitution’s Model
Where does the government get its legitimacy—its authority? Our Constitution answers decisively from the start: “We the People…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.2a” The Constitution rests on the choice of the people; it wasn’t given to them by accident or force. Yet if Senator Kaine is correct—that rights come from laws and government—this invalidates the Constitution’s very source of authority. A people stripped of their God-given rights have only permission, not authority. Where does that leave our Constitution?
The Declaration of Independence drives it home as well: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”3 The text not only debunks the Senator, but it foreshadows our Constitution’s answer: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”3 This isn’t just noble-sounding pageantry, it is the very cornerstone of our United States of America. It is the “consent” of the people by which the government has legitimacy; Kaine’s casting aside of these core principles is no trivial thing. It’s a stance that subjugates us all to political whim; leaving government accountable to—well—no one.
What’s left without consent?
Our First Amendment’s Petition Clause—“the right of the people…to petition their government for a redress of grievances”—codifies this “consent” in law, Kaine’s model for government just casts it aside. Our Ninth and Tenth Amendments preserve the rights and powers of the people, but in Kaine’s approach the people are an afterthought. Article V provides a means for altering our government by consensus and consent, yet Senator Kaine’s structure undercuts this as well. His ideal of governance is the very kind the framers rejected, fought, and bled to break away from. They built a system where the government gets its authority from the People, is accountable to the People, and is tasked with securing our God-given Rights.
A de Facto Religious Test?
Kaine’s remarks hint of a religious test for confirmation, as he’s tasked with assessing Barnes’ suitability. His arguments express concern over what he perceives as a “theocratic” or religious view of rights. Presumably the Senator is suggesting this would legitimize a “theocratic” government—or it’s simply a policy concern for a human rights position. But what are the grounds beyond holding what he deems an “extremely troubling” religious view (“Creator-endowed” vs “state-granted”) if the appointment is denied? Does a human rights position require secular views about the origin of rights? What if his fellow Senators refuse to confirm based on Kaine’s criteria? Article VI is plain: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.2b” This doesn’t just read as though it’s about formal requirements—“ever be required” also extends to the unwritten rules by which a nominee might be deemed unsuitable.
A Slippery Slope
The irony is striking, if Kaine is correct then any and all governments and government actions are legitimate; they can’t violate “human rights” since they’re the source of them. It’s not Barnes at risk of legitimizing Iran’s Regime—or enshrining policies which could undermine human rights; Kaine’s doing that himself.
But it gets even messier: if rights come from law, upon what grounds are laws valid when there’s no moral anchor to guide policy? This is relativism and it retroactively validates the treachery of the past like Jim Crow, FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans, or slavery under Dred Scott. By what measure would these things be unjust according to Senator Kaine’s model, that the law changed? If those laws existed today, could he give a reason to change them now? Only when we acknowledge a higher authority than government can we clearly distinguish rights, from wrongs.
A Call for Accountability
Senator Kaine is not ignorant of our Constitution, nor the founding principles it enshrines; his Harvard degree confirms he grasps them both. If Senator Kaine, in an official capacity, publicly misrepresents the Constitution he took an oath to uphold; if he requires denouncing the Declaration’s words about the source of rights as a “troubling” religious view to confirm a nominee; then he’s violating his oath.
In my estimation, Senator Tim Kaine must be censured.
1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearing on Nominations, 119th Congress, First Session, September 3, 2025
2 U.S. Constitution. National Constitution Center. Accessed on September 9, 2025. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text
3 U.S. Declaration of Independence. National Archives. Accessed on September 9, 2025. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
0 Leave a Comment
US Constitution