Well, I am relieved. I always worry at a lengthy response that some deadly new information will appear that will unseat my case and I will have more research to do. Happily, you have simply reiterated that you got nothin’ new for me, bro (or sis, whatever).
Suit yourself. BTW, I don’t know why you’re still fighting Barton, as I haven’t used his site since you objected. As an accommodation to you, of course. The quotes are from the primary sources. And did I predict it or what! You do not want to deal with Locke at all, do you? That’s OK. I understand. I didn’t think you would. That’s why I used him. :)
Also, I studied natural law as a part of my law school education. Multiple semesters. Primary sources. Good stuff. But if you want to keep feeding off your Barton prejudice, fine, that’s up to you. Personally, I think you can’t respond to it because you’re like a classmate I had. She was an accounting whiz, very smart person, but just could not get the whole natural law thing. Deeply panicked during finals week. Oh well. That’s how it goes.
BTW, your name, conimbricenses, suggests you know something about the Jesuits. I think they were OK with Aquinas and his whole natural law thing, so it’s really ironic you’re so dyspeptic about it. Funny. Or sad. Depending on your point of view.
Later,
SR
I'll note that your perception of hostility to natural law is an imagined one, though even that is beside the point. So instead I'll put it to you plainly: your beloved quotes DO NOT show what you apparently think they show. Though you seem to maintain otherwise, they still say little, if even anything, PARTICULAR to the constitutional doctrine of incorporation.
At best they're a motley amalgamation phrases and quips and excerpts and a few of the more famous lines talking about "natural law" in the most abstract and generic sense possible that you've managed to gather and glean from across the internet. And for that act of scraping together the generic platitudes of others, you seem to envision yourself as some sort of a philosopher.
The simple reality though is that not a SINGLE ONE of your quotes so much as even addresses the particulars of Marshall's arguments in Barron v. Baltimore, much less challenging or refuting them or demonstrating them not to be, in fact, representative of the founders' understanding of federalism. That's the real issue here. And until you figure that out, find some more substantive sources, and quit interpreting every single criticism of your poorly constructed argument as if it were some grand and intentional repudiation of a broad and great and vaguely defined concept of "natural law" that you barely even seem to comprehend yourself, your argument will remain at and continue to offer this discussion exactly what it did when you first attempted it: nothing.