And since I'm dealing with you then that's why your crap is so confusing.
If you have to pass a law to make someone into a citizen, they are not a "natural" citizen. They are an artificial citizen created through the action of a man made law.
And you base that on what? Other than your own opinion?
What is so funny is that you seemingly have no trouble understanding "natural law" when it comes to slavery, but are completely baffled by it when it comes to citizenship
Can you point me to somewhere that lists what "natural law" says on slavery?
Also people may have on some higher principle detested the defiance of some “natural law” against slavery, nonetheless it was IN the Constitution, hence Constitutional without a question. You can’t go drooling after natural law in one instance, and “artificial law” in another.
It's confusing to you because you don't seem to have the mental acuity or knowledge base necessary to process it. You are like a Gardner discussing rocket science. The topic is over your head.
And you base that on what? Other than your own opinion?
I base it on the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, axiomatic consequences of a stated premise.
Can you point me to somewhere that lists what "natural law" says on slavery?
Why? Can you not find the answer to that question in your own heart?