Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
So much for ignoring what I write. Though it's clear you ignore what is inconvenient to your argument and then jump back in when you believe you have a point to make.

As a result, they founded the new nation on "natural law." They even said so.

OK. So what? Natural law was a foundation for Lord Coke's opinion in Calvin's Case. See Price, Polly, "Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin's Case (1608)," Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, Art. 2 (1997). Link Blackstone's views on natural law heavily influenced the Founders and Framers. See Schmidt, Kent, "Blackstone's View of Natural Law and Its Influence on the Formation of American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution" Link

The moment you see "natural law" you equate it with "citizen parents." That isn't the case. Natural law underlies the jus soli principle which came to the Framers through Coke, Blackstone and the ECL.

The rest of your post is a whole lot of assertion without argument and rightly ignored.

328 posted on 02/04/2015 1:15:57 PM PST by CpnHook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]


To: CpnHook
So much for ignoring what I write. Though it's clear you ignore what is inconvenient to your argument and then jump back in when you believe you have a point to make.

I was wondering how long it would take you to make that point.

If I see a massive wall of text, I'll peruse a sentence or two, and if it looks like it's going in a stupid direction, I just don't bother. You keep making rehashed points which have been knocked down dozens of times, and some of us are just fed up with repeating ourselves.

The moment you see "natural law" you equate it with "citizen parents." That isn't the case. Natural law underlies the jus soli principle which came to the Framers through Coke, Blackstone and the ECL.

Silly boy. I am fully aware that the Monarchy had it's own version of "Natural Law." Their version of "Natural Law" was that the King was empowered by God to rule over the rest, and it was his divine right to do so.

The philosophers of the time were quite aware that the supporters of monarchy also claimed "natural law" as their basis, but they made a very great distinction between the arguments of Kings, and their own "Rights of man" arguments. You should read up on Samuel Rutherford, one of the few philosophers actually mentioned in the Notes on the Convention. (US Constitutional Convention.) It is not a coincidence that the authorities burned his books and accused him of high treason. :)

Obviously the founders didn't follow the Monarchy version of "natural law", or else we would still be ruled by the British Monarchy.

337 posted on 02/04/2015 2:17:46 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson