To: DoodleDawg
Also people may have on some higher principle detested the defiance of some “natural law” against slavery, nonetheless it was IN the Constitution, hence Constitutional without a question. You can’t go drooling after natural law in one instance, and “artificial law” in another.
368 posted on
11/17/2015 3:17:36 PM PST by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: HiTech RedNeck
Also people may have on some higher principle detested the defiance of some "natural law" against slavery, nonetheless it was IN the Constitution, hence Constitutional without a question. You can't go drooling after natural law in one instance, and "artificial law" in another. That is EXACTLY my point, but you stated it more eloquently.
375 posted on
11/17/2015 3:30:10 PM PST by
DiogenesLamp
("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
To: HiTech RedNeck
You can’t go drooling after natural law in one instance, and “artificial law†in another. I have no idea what DiogeneseLamp means when he talks about me supporting natural law for slavery. I think he's just being puzzle-headed again.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson