Judi asked << where did the term 'natural person' come from 200 years ago? >>

John Sterling responded: The term "natural person" has a distinct legal meaning and is meant to be the opposite of an "artificial person" in the eyes of the law. In other words, a natural person is a living, breathing flesh and blood person, created in the image of God and endowed by our Creator with "inalienable" (not able to be alienated, severed, cut off) rights of personhood. Artificial persons (Corporations) are creations of the state and as such, are possessed only of such rights (privileges and immunities) as may be granted by their creator (the state). Since the state giveth, the state can taketh away. The whole issue of slavery and states rights which plagued our country for more than two hundred years (and from which we still suffer the consequences) was rooted in bad ideas (flowing from evil hearts) which elevated the rights of citizenship (privileges and immunities granted by the state) to a status greater than inalienable rights of personhood (granted by God and beyond the control of the state). Some of the arguments advanced by state sovereignty folks are founded on court decisions handed down by pro-slavery courts in tumultuous years surrounding the Civil War. If they would research the background of those cases, they would find their arguments corrupted by racist, evil men who had to bend over backwards to twist the constitution to fit their preconceived notions that slavery was OK! (much more on that topic could be said and already many books have been written)

JUDI asked <>

The Constitution says (Art. VI ) says that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land (along with the lawful treaties, and legitimate laws passed in conformity with the Constitution) and every state judge and all elected and appointed federal officials are bound by oath to support it. That means that any amendments that are passed, and all subsequent laws and treaties are to be philosophically and legally consistent with the original document. We are not free to change the fundamental nature or identity of our country since we are bound by honor and blood for perpetuity. We are not a democracy of people who can change the status of our nation from generation to generation based upon popular feelings, moods, whims or media manipulation. (Madison in the Federalist # 10)

JUDI asked <>

John Sterling Wrote: Yep, its still missing. Much has been written on this as well and frankly, I think much is missing from the analysis. Our country has been torn by opposing philosophical factions from the beginning. It is a miracle that the Constitution was ratified at all (it almost wasn’t!) Seldom have leaders agreed about federalism (hence the "anti-federalist" movement) and states rights versus a strong central government. The "missing 13th" was under a cloud from the beginning because its intended purpose was to be used as a tool by the anti-federalists to deny citizenship to the federalists (including the president) and thereby gain control of the country. Because many in government were investing in foreign markets and drawing dividends from (mostly British) banks, the gains were interpreted (at least, this is one angle) as "royalties" or "titles of nobility". Some people were duped by the apparently lofty and noble goals stated in the amendment but it was largely a huge power move to split the country. Whether it was legally ratified is still subject to debate but even if was, given the underhanded chicanery that was going on, it is better not to have had that blight on our constitutional record. The attempts to link The attitudes and philosophies which were at odds in this matter were the same ones which drove us to war a few years later. The patriots who use these arguments are armed with only part of the truth as they are using arguments which reflect the positions of the pro-slavery, secessionist crowd. This is not a good strong position to argue from, in my opinion.

JUDI said <>

John Sterling wrote: I think you are right. That is why I try to "Trust in the Lord with all (my) heart and lean not unto (my) own understanding. I’m just too weak, fallible, and human to get there on my own steam. Therefore, "In all (my) ways (I) acknowledge Him and He will direct (my) paths." Proverbs 3:5

Lets face it, Judi, the world doesn’t care much what a middle-aged cowboy thinks about politics, law or anything else. Its about credibility and influence and frankly, my dear, I think the conservatives have been asleep at the wheel for toooo long! We’ve abdicated our responsibilities and now, I don’t know if it can win back in the courts, the legislature, or the halls of academia. But, I’m gonna try that first before I lock and load and become a guerrilla fighter in a last ditch effort to restore a constitutional government. I pray that we have a national revival because the until the condition of the heart changes, it won’t matter what form of government we have.

JUDI asked<< am I incorrect about this being founded a Christian country? >>

Definitions are important. Christian in the sense that the principles of self-government are central to Christian teaching, yes. All the original laws and the social customs can be found in both the old and new testaments. As important, what did the founders believe about Christianity? I am sending a brief (two page) article giving some of the highlights of the faith, education, and family background of most of the key founding fathers.

John Sterling

Note* I sent Judi her own copy of "Notes on the Founders" found on this Web site.

BACK to the COMMENTS Page.