America Was Built on Natural Law

[ding]

All of these posts and Dingle still hasn't addressed Natural Law - the Constitution- and women.

Despite me pointing it out to him half a dozen times.

Almost like he is dodging the question.

There is no convincing you because you are only here to amuse yourself. It would make no sense at all to explain suffrage to you in terms of natural law since you do not accept natural law in the first place. As to your other argument, I have proven my position. You just don't accept it. Behavior is not like a light switch. You can't turn it off and on. Nasty habits are hard to break.

 

[Syriusly]

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History was an advocacy FOR slavery by Alexander Stephens, by the Vice President of the Confederacy, but according to dingle berry, a Founder.

That's also a subversive tactic. The Foinders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date,.

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

The slave trade was commonly know as the importation of slaves. That was what was abolished. You didn't even know it until today.

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

 

[ding]

I'm not. I'm defeating yours with facts.

No, you are spamming. You have made assertions without evidence. When shown that Stephens and Jefferson did not support claim, you keep posting the same stuff.

lol, I think you got that backwards. I'm pretty happy how this has played out. Tell me... which of these is not a fact?

The Founders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date, .

Well of course those are not the facts

The Founders wrote the Constitution that guaranteed the right of slave importation for 20 years.
The next generation abolished the importation of slaves, once the guaranteed right of slave importation expired.

Remember- the Founders wrote the Constitution with a guarantee of the right to import slaves- for at least 20 years- and left it up to the next generation to decide whether to ban slave imports- or not.

The Slave trade of course continued legally within the United States.

Again, your dishonesty of not taking all of the facts into consideration leads you to idiotic conclusions. The Founders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date,.

Wow- now you are just flat out lying.

The Founders wrote the Constitution that guaranteed the right of slave importation for 20 years.
The next generation abolished the importation of slaves, once the guaranteed right of slave importation expired.

Remember- the Founders wrote the Constitution with a guarantee of the right to import slaves- for at least 20 years- and left it up to the next generation to decide whether to ban slave imports- or not.

The Slave trade of course continued legally within the United States

No. I'm not. You are accusing me of what you are doing.

 

[ding]

That's also a subversive tactic. The Foinders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date,.

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

The slave trade was commonly know as the importation of slaves. That was what was abolished. You didn't even know it until today.

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. Of course slavery did end eventually because of the Republican Party. In May of 1854, following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, a number of anti-slavery Democrats along with some anti-slavery members from other parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists formed a new party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights. The name of the new party? The Republican Party. It was named the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.

Which also proves my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com

Republican Party - The Republican Party In The New Millennium

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Republican Party | PBS

 

[Syriusly]

All of these posts and Dingle still hasn't addressed Natural Law - the Constitution- and women.

Despite me pointing it out to him half a dozen times.

Almost like he is dodging the question.

There is no convincing you because you are only here to amuse yourself. It would make no sense at all to explain suffrage to you in terms of natural law since you do not accept natural law in the first place. .

I will accept that a concession that you have dodged the issue thus far because you know your position is untenable.

 

[Syriusly]

No, you are spamming. You have made assertions without evidence. When shown that Stephens and Jefferson did not support claim, you keep posting the same stuff.

lol, I think you got that backwards. I'm pretty happy how this has played out. Tell me... which of these is not a fact?

The Founders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date, .

Well of course those are not the facts

The Founders wrote the Constitution that guaranteed the right of slave importation for 20 years.
The next generation abolished the importation of slaves, once the guaranteed right of slave importation expired.

Remember- the Founders wrote the Constitution with a guarantee of the right to import slaves- for at least 20 years- and left it up to the next generation to decide whether to ban slave imports- or not.

The Slave trade of course continued legally within the United States.

Again, your dishonesty of not taking all of the facts into consideration leads you to idiotic conclusions. The Founders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date,.

Wow- now you are just flat out lying.

The Founders wrote the Constitution that guaranteed the right of slave importation for 20 years.
The next generation abolished the importation of slaves, once the guaranteed right of slave importation expired.

Remember- the Founders wrote the Constitution with a guarantee of the right to import slaves- for at least 20 years- and left it up to the next generation to decide whether to ban slave imports- or not.

The Slave trade of course continued legally within the United States

No. I'm not. You are accusing me of what you are doing.

The Founders wrote the Constitution that guaranteed the right of slave importation for 20 years.
The next generation abolished the importation of slaves, once the guaranteed right of slave importation expired.

Remember- the Founders wrote the Constitution with a guarantee of the right to import slaves- for at least 20 years- and left it up to the next generation to decide whether to ban slave imports- or not.

The Slave trade of course continued legally within the United States

 

[ding]

You are foolish then.

Are you a Christian? You don't demonstrate it at all.

I'm a really bad Christian, Jake. The reality, Jake, is that you are a militant atheist and you are just here to amuse yourself. Your religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains your extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame you and inspire you to join popular movements. You condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. You practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Your hostility towards traditional religions is obvious to all and is that of an animosity between a rival religion. You can be identified by your external locus of control. You worship science but are the first to reject it.

Wow you are a bad Christian.


There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue

I'll take my chances. I like them better than yours.

 

[ding]

All of these posts and Dingle still hasn't addressed Natural Law - the Constitution- and women.

Despite me pointing it out to him half a dozen times.

Almost like he is dodging the question.

There is no convincing you because you are only here to amuse yourself. It would make no sense at all to explain suffrage to you in terms of natural law since you do not accept natural law in the first place. .

I will accept that a concession that you have dodged the issue thus far because you know your position is untenable.

We both know that you have an ax to grind with Christians and why.

 

[Syriusly]

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

The slave trade was commonly know as the importation of slaves. That was what was abolished. You didn't even know it until today.

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

 

[Syriusly]

You are foolish then.

Are you a Christian? You don't demonstrate it at all.

I'm a really bad Christian, Jake. The reality, Jake, is that you are a militant atheist and you are just here to amuse yourself. Your religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains your extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame you and inspire you to join popular movements. You condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. You practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Your hostility towards traditional religions is obvious to all and is that of an animosity between a rival religion. You can be identified by your external locus of control. You worship science but are the first to reject it.

Wow you are a bad Christian.


There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue

I'll take my chances. I like them better than yours.

Which is just another reason why you are a bad Christian.

 

[ding]

You are foolish then.

Are you a Christian? You don't demonstrate it at all.

I'm a really bad Christian, Jake. The reality, Jake, is that you are a militant atheist and you are just here to amuse yourself. Your religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains your extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame you and inspire you to join popular movements. You condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. You practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Your hostility towards traditional religions is obvious to all and is that of an animosity between a rival religion. You can be identified by your external locus of control. You worship science but are the first to reject it.

Wow you are a bad Christian.


There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue

I'll take my chances. I like them better than yours.

No. They wrote the earliest date they could abolish the slave trade (i.e. importation of slaves) and then they abolished it on the earliest date allowed under the Constitution. You lose again.

 

[ding]

The slave trade was commonly know as the importation of slaves. That was what was abolished. You didn't even know it until today.

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

You asked why slavery didn't end. The reason is the Democratic Party took power and expanded it. You have no shame.

 

[ding]

You are foolish then.

Are you a Christian? You don't demonstrate it at all.

I'm a really bad Christian, Jake. The reality, Jake, is that you are a militant atheist and you are just here to amuse yourself. Your religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains your extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame you and inspire you to join popular movements. You condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. You practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Your hostility towards traditional religions is obvious to all and is that of an animosity between a rival religion. You can be identified by your external locus of control. You worship science but are the first to reject it.

Wow you are a bad Christian.


There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue

I'll take my chances. I like them better than yours.

Which is just another reason why you are a bad Christian.

I guess I'll just have to throw myself on His mercy.

 

[Syriusly]

All of these posts and Dingle still hasn't addressed Natural Law - the Constitution- and women.

Despite me pointing it out to him half a dozen times.

Almost like he is dodging the question.

There is no convincing you because you are only here to amuse yourself. It would make no sense at all to explain suffrage to you in terms of natural law since you do not accept natural law in the first place. .

I will accept that a concession that you have dodged the issue thus far because you know your position is untenable.

We both know that you have an ax to grind with Christians and why.

Well now you are lying again- you do lie pretty naturally.

Most of my friends are Christians- and we get along great. We generally don't discuss theology- because the more hardcore of them get sad because I am 'going to hell'- but I am glad to discuss theology if they want to.

There are many things about Jesus I admire- and I sincerely wish more of the people claiming to be his followers actually followed his teachings more. That said- there are many things I disagree with his teachings(and certainly with Paul's later interpretation).

But where you lie most is where you lie to yourself in thinking you know anything about me.

Lying makes Jesus sad.

Stop making Jesus sad.

 

[ding]

All of these posts and Dingle still hasn't addressed Natural Law - the Constitution- and women.

Despite me pointing it out to him half a dozen times.

Almost like he is dodging the question.

There is no convincing you because you are only here to amuse yourself. It would make no sense at all to explain suffrage to you in terms of natural law since you do not accept natural law in the first place. .

I will accept that a concession that you have dodged the issue thus far because you know your position is untenable.

We both know that you have an ax to grind with Christians and why.

Well now you are lying again- you do lie pretty naturally.

Most of my friends are Christians- and we get along great. We generally don't discuss theology- because the more hardcore of them get sad because I am 'going to hell'- but I am glad to discuss theology if they want to.

There are many things about Jesus I admire- and I sincerely wish more of the people claiming to be his followers actually followed his teachings more. That said- there are many things I disagree with his teachings(and certainly with Paul's later interpretation).

But where you lie most is where you lie to yourself in thinking you know anything about me.

Lying makes Jesus sad.

Stop making Jesus sad.

Bless your heart.

 

[Syriusly]

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

You asked why slavery didn't end. The reason is the Democratic Party took power and expanded it. You have no shame.

Show me the quote

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

 

[ding]

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

You asked why slavery didn't end. The reason is the Democratic Party took power and expanded it. You have no shame.

Show me the quote

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I have explained this to you three times now.... trade in slaves did not stop because the Democratic Party expanded slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

The Founders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date, .

The Founders guaranteed the right to import slaves into the United States for 20 years.
They left it to the next generation to decide whether or not to ban the importation of slave.

And the Founders put into the Constitution the right of slave owners to reclaim escaped slaves anywhere in the United States. Codified into the Consitution- no state could legally prevent the return of escaped slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

You asked why slavery didn't end. The reason is the Democratic Party took power and expanded it. You have no shame.

Show me the quote

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I have explained this to you three times now.... trade in slaves did not stop because the Democratic Party expanded slavery.

You keep explaining something I haven't asked you- while dodging my actual questions
Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am a solid Christian. I am a private business owner with my family who did very well. I am a mainstream Republican and capitalist.

Dingle simply lies. He is no Christian. I have do not have to defend myself to a person like him, no honor and no integrity, and on this Board, no real discussion skills.

Merry Christmas, Dingle. You are a clown, you amuse, and that is good.