Implicit in Jefferson's argument is the assumption that there exists a necessary connection between law and morality. Law, which derives from divine order or natural rights, is moral by virtue of its a priori status as part of the inherent order of things. Law, in this sense, is similar to the law of gravity – it is a force whose truth is its influence. Other types of laws, such as human laws, are lesser laws. These laws can also be moral, but their moral grounding depends upon the higher order of divine or natural law.

In Jefferson's narrative, state laws are only moral to the extent that they "secure these rights" of life, liberty, and happiness. To the extent that government fails to protect the ability of individuals to seek these goods, the government betrays the "social contract" (in Rousseau's words), and becomes a non-legal entity. Under such circumstances, people assume the right "to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." The colonists presented the King of England with this reasoning, along with a list of grievances documenting England's transgressions of natural law, to justify their moral right to break from the authority of Britain.

Such rhetoric, although an inspiring rallying cry for the American Revolution, presented practical problems for the Southern judiciary following the Revolution who wanted to deny black people the right to evoke natural law in an argument for emancipation. The Southern judiciary countered the argument of natural law by invoking the argument that, within a democracy, positive law overrode natural law.

Basic to this issue is the question of whether there is a necessary connection between law and morality. Natural law theorists postulate a necessary connection between law and morality for law to "really" be law.

"Morality" is defined as some universally true ethical position, akin to Kant's moral imperative or to a religious ethic.

Natural law theorists seek to identify specific legal limitations and principles governing a legal system – such as the protection of private property against government appropriation – and to elevate this protection to the status of eternal truth. Governments that violate this law offend the natural order of proper society and will suffer the consequences. In short, for laws to be deemed sound, they must be traced to some higher principle that is unchanging. God, nature, or "reason" may ground such a principle. Antithetical to this reasoning are arguments from circumstance. For natural law theorists, the important task for government is to design laws intrinsically right and to apply those laws in such a way as to render a "correct" judgment. For example, implicit in the argument that "slavery is wrong" is the assumption that no contingencies warrant a violation of some sacred freedom inherent in being a human being.