Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tublecane
Ah, but it didn’t say that, did it?

Ah it didn't have to say it was about making former slaves into citizens. There wouldn't have been any reconstruction amendment for that matter if the civil war was not fought. No civil war no "Reconstruction Amendments" like the 14th Amendment.

Until you guys acknowledge that there is a distinction between natural law and positive law, we will just go around and around.

45 posted on 04/18/2012 3:59:16 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: Red Steel

“it didn’t have to say it was about making former slaves into citizens. There wouldn’t have been any reconstruction amendment for that matter if the civil war was not fought. No civil war no ‘Reconstruction Amendments’ like the 14th Amendment.”

Perfect example of what the internet calls “insane troll logic.”

“Until you guys acknowledge that there is a distinction between natural law and positive law, we will just go around and around.”

I recognize the distinction. Aristotle was thousands of years ago. The Constitution, by the way, is positive law, as ought to be obvious. It is positive law that makes for U.S. citizens, for without the positive law that is the U.S. Constitution there would be no U.S. to be a citizen of.

The word “natural” in natural born citizen throws you guys. “Natural” is like “nature,” and therefore we must look to Natural Law. God makes Natural Law, and God didn’t write the 14th amendment, therefore only children of two citizen parents can be natural born citizens. Whatever. I admit this line of thought is beyond my experience.


49 posted on 04/18/2012 4:11:23 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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