Replies

The founders understood what the phrase “all men are created equal” meant and the Southern Colonies were quite upset frankly that the language was included as it implied that Slaves were endowed by their creator with Life and Liberty. There was a debate about it. The language was drafted by a man who owned slaves and ultimately it was included in the final draft.

The Declaration of Independence was an appeal to higher law in order to justify the separation of the Colonies from England. It was understood at the time that the colonists were British Subjects and subject to the King who held his throne by Divine Right. It was a document that was intended to appeal to God to show that the King had violated his sacred duties and was no longer fit to be their king and that their rebellion was, in fact, sanctioned by the same God who granted the King his divine rights.

That being said, the Declaration of Independence - if taken in its purest form - was, in fact, an emancipation proclamation declaring that all men are created equal and that they have inherent rights, granted by God, which include the right to life and the right to liberty and the right to rule their own lives.

I believe the Declaration of Independence was inspired by God. But it was written by flawed men. The language that men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights to life and liberty are clearly true. The Founders reliance on the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God were well meaning and I think in the end the words that brought America to the point ultimately where it was clear that enslaving men could no longer be tolerated.

I think people are not getting my point. There is no Natural Law as it applies to citizenship in a country.
The only Natural Law that affects citizenship is our citizenship in the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom not of this world (at least not yet).

I see people try to justify denying certain individuals the label of Natural Born Citizen and using “Natural Law” i.e, the laws of Nature and God, to justify denying that term to that individual.

But as I have stated, the Citizenship of a person in a country is not something that has anything to do with Natural Law and is only done on a statutory basis. Natural Born Citizen is a term which is created by men and not God. All Citizens, whether born or naturalized, are citizens in accordance with statutes that are on the books at the time of their birth or at the time of their naturalization.

To argue that somehow God is involved in the determination of whether or not someone is a Natural Born Citizen or not is the functional equivalent of the argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Everyone of us who can claim to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States can only make that claim based on statutes in effect on the date of our birth. As far as I can tell the only statute that defined “Natural Born Citizen” was the 1789 statute that George Washington signed into law. Under that statute everyone running for president right now would be a natural born citizen.

I do not see any distinction between a person who is born a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. And in going back to slavery, if those people, by virtue of statutes that prevented them from obtaining their God given rights to life and liberty, were prevented from being numbered among the Natural Born Citizens, then the whole idea of Natural Born Citizen is a creation of statute and if Congress can take it away, then they can give it as well. There are currently no statutes on the books in the United States which differentiate between a Citizen by virtue of Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.

OK, I gotta go. I need to get away from all this contention.