>>No, I understand the meaning of the word perfectly. I just wonder why you’re so dead set on insisting that laws supersede natural rights.<<
I will type slowly so you can keep up. The question was a LEGAL one. I answered it LEGALLY.
You can’t even define “natural rights” — it is an amorphous concept, unique to each person. If you eschew the Constitution, you eschew its foundation documents.
Which makes you an anarchist.
Which is unsurprising given your complete purposeful misunderstanding of the topic at hand and your extensive army of straw men.
You seem to have a mental density akin to solid bone. That, or you’re pretending to not grasp the very simple concepts I’ve been talking about.
Something tells me it’s the latter.
When I speak of natural rights, I’m referring to such things as are contained in our own Bill of Rights. Those enumerated rights weren’t granted by men, but are inherent in each individual, simply by the fact of their very existence.
Take the 2nd, for instance. The Framers recognized that all men have an inherent (or natural) right to keep and bear arms. This, of course, for the purpose of defending themselves against a tyrannical despot, or even nefarious individuals who would do them harm. They didn’t grant you and I that right - they merely recognized its existence, and codified it into our nation’s senior LEGAL document.
The same holds for all the other ‘natural’ rights spoken of therein.
Any legal mechanism crafted by men which abrogates those rights, is by the very law of nature’s God, invalid on its face. Which circles back to my original point about secession.
I believe that any people have a natural right to separate themselves from a political union which they no longer desire to be bound to. If a people do not have that right, then they’re mere chattel, owned by the state, and not free people at all.