Which court said that it's "so obvious that it requires no definition or code"?
No one argued that it has to be taken down or spelled out, it can't be done because it's not "obvious" as you claimed. The court can only deal with particular cases and set precedents as necessary. So don't come in with the strawman.
As regard to self-defense, that is governed by the Law, not "natural law", even if everyone believes that it's okay to shoot any stranger that come into one's house, where the Law says that you should only shoot when the stranger is threatening and not running away, you can be punished for acting otherwise, whatever your "natural law" says.
Which still doesn't support your arguement that "natural law" is supreme in anyway.Different societies perceive the same issue in different ways. I never tried to argue that natural law is universally the same across the whole of the human race. Very few things are universally the same across the whole of the human race.
Natural law is as self-enforcing as it is self-evident. I imagine that the number of people who would let slide the crime of cold-blooded murder is far smaller than the number of people who would turn a blind eye to someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own home.
Well, you should try, maybe it will make you understand how your arguements are lacking in logic.Would you like a dissertation on the color of the sky while you're at it?
I'm asking where the supreme court has said anything even relating to what you mean. To quote how people define a term, it is only honest to quote the whole thing. If you can't support what you says when it's quoted in full for you, of what value is anything you say?There are many ways to say the same thing. All I'm saying is you can't put my words in quotes and ask when the Supreme Court has ever said this or that exact thing.
Then you need to keep my posts in full and read for comprehension.That seemed to be your argument.
In the US, it does.The fact that something is codified in the letter of the law doesn't mean it's governed by the law.
People are going to kill whether the law gives them permission to do so or not. The point is that they get punished if they go against the Law - which is what makes the Law superior to your "natural law".People are going to defend themselves whether or not the law gives them permission.
Consciously thinking or not has nothing to do with anything. And "basic instincts" is another vague term. Really, you should try supporting your own arguement instead of making it sound weaker and weaker.Self-defense goes back to our basic instincts, and I can't think of something as self-evident as something you do without even consciously thinking about it.
I'm thinking those posts pre-dated your entry to this thread, and you missed them -- because the only other conclusion I can draw from the way you seem to have missed them is far less charitable.