[BenLurkin]

Well, to be fair, the law has a lot to go on by way of statue and precedent.

As to what “natural law” may or may not be — there is nothing in the law which gives any guidance.

[TigersEye]

As to what “natural law” may or may not be — there is nothing in the law which gives any guidance.

I thought the first ten amendments did a pretty good job of that.

[Godebert]

"As to what “natural law” may or may not be — there is nothing in the law which gives any guidance.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

[Claud]

As to what “natural law” may or may not be — there is nothing in the law which gives any guidance.

You are flipping kidding me right?

The law of nature? No one knows what that is? No one knows water is wet? Fire burns? Men and women make babies? Killing people and stealing things is bad?

The Natural Law is that which is so obvious it doesn't even need to be put into statute.

[LambSlave]

Well, to be fair, the law has a lot to go on by way of statue and precedent.

Statue and precedent is precisely what got us where we are today; lawyers are a plague upon us all. The Constitution was written in plain language with clear meaning, with intent very clear from the Federalist Papers. If statue and precedent are so good, how do we get to precisely the OPPOSITE of what was intended on so many issues: General Welfare clause, Interstate Commerce clause, heck, the second amendment was interpreted as a collective right for four generations because of "precedent". I'll answer: Because lawyers are not seeking truth or consistency, they have a political agenda.