“natural law” is (by adoption) a Catholic concept. We went through that quite thoroughly in high school. It has nothing to do, definitionally, or conceptually, with the “natural” in “natural born”.
I think it is more than just a Catholic concept. My recollection is that Samuel Rutherford was Presbyterian or something. John Locke started as a Calvinist.
The British had their own version of "natural law." To them, it was "natural" that the King would rule over other men, and that he was chosen by God to perform that task, and disobedience to the King, was tantamount to disobedience to God.
Rule by "Divine Right."
This is a different foundation for their natural law than that which America adopted.
Just because you say it doesn’t, doesn’t mean it doesn’t!
Read footnote 12 on comment 50 maybe.
Sorry: Maybe read scanned/imaged footnote 12 as posted within of comment 49 of this thread.