Natural law existed prior to the establishment of the Constitution.
Or are you going to argue that natural law didn't exist under the Articles of Confederation which was prior to the Constitution?
The rest of your post is even worthy of response.
“Natural law existed prior to the establishment of the Constitution.”
Yes, like I said, you have a natural right to bear arms. What didn’t exist prior to the establishment of the Constitution was the U.S. You cannot be a citizen of the U.S. by nature in the same way that you have a right to bear arms by nature. You need positive law, namely the U.S. Constitution.
“Or are you going to argue that natural law didn’t exist under the Articles of Confederation which was prior to the Constitution?”
That’s neither here nor there. The U.S. and the nation that existed under the Articles of the Confederation—which was called what, the American Confederacy?—are not one. Before the Constitution you were a citizen of the Confederacy or the state in which you lived. Before the Articles of Confederation, you were a citizen of your state and informally I guess of the quasi-nation under the Continental Congress. Before the Continental Congress, you were a British subject. Before the Brish came over, I don’t know, you were a Red Indian.
None of this is by nature, but rather by law and custom.
“The rest of your post is even worthy of response”
I love how birthers so casually and regularly appeal to natural versus positive law, and then when you try and actually parse what qualifies for each they can’t condescend to respond. it’s as if even to shoot me down, if they can, would be to sully the good name of nature.