Response to "10 Supreme Court Rulings—Before Hobby Lobby—That Turned Corporations Into People"

For a better informed point of view on this Response. 

Please read before continuing:

Corporations Are Citizens, but Neither are People

BEGIN:

In the eyes of US Law corporations and businesses for that matter are considered citizens.  This idea was given life in the early 1800's when it was decided that corporations were considered citizens of the state in which they reside.  I find it amusing that this fact seems to rile people up and get them so upset.  If we look at the wording of the cases in which corporations are considered citizens, we see that they are not granted the rights of the People, as only the People can have actual rights and not citizens.  It is important to note that even a 'person' is typically a legal term used to refer to a citizen. 

So while corporations are fighting for their rights as citizens, as the People have granted them permission to do, many 'persons' are getting upset about these things.  I must declare that instead of getting upset about what privileges companies are working towards having as citizens, it is more important for each of the People to stand up and recognize their own rights as People, and not lower themselves to citizen status.  Our rights as People are currently alive and active, but should we forget to give them breath and instead give our breath to the privileges of corporations, they will be lost in the pages of musty history books.

As amused as I am by the anger and frustration expressed at the decisions to call corporations citizens and to grant them 'rights', I am also saddened at knowing that many people do not recognize that citizens are recognized as corporations with privileges, and these 'citizens' (the ones that really are people) bicker amongst themselves regarding the supreme court decisions, they are trading in their rights as People, for privileges as citizens by lowering themselves to the level of a corporation, even though they feel that the corporation is being raised up to their level. 

Do some research into Supreme Court law and you will find that in nearly all circumstances the Right's of the People are held above all other law and statutes issued by and for the citizens.  Even many cases are held in favor of people that believe they are citizens when fundamental rights are at stake.  Throughout my site and the internet itself you will find oodles of law that has been passed from the Supreme Court for the protection of the people and people believing they are citizens.  

The Supreme Court and most systems of law are not out enemy, they are tools used for good and bad like everything else.  Don't be deceived by those who's hearts are filled with hate and minds full of ignorance. Educate yourself on the issues of law and the people's rights my site is an infinitesimally small example of what kind of information is available for the People to use. 

This article was written in response to the claims of the article linked below and the commentary of those who posted there. The article does have some very valuable information and indeed taught me some new things, however the title is misleading and so are some of the points made.  

http://www.motherjones.com/

Theory of Law I - Natural Law in Secular Court

Upholding Natural Law in a Secular Court

A look at Natural Law and how it apples in Secular Court 

Most of what I portray on this site is law theory, don't take anything I say as a fact, do your own research and draw your own conclusions. I am simply pointing out some commonly overlooked facts of law and government, but I may never be able to say how they will apply in your jurisprudence (theory or philosophy of law).  When I am applying my theory that is when it becomes law, until then it is nothing but an idea.  The only person that can give you legal advice is an attorney, simply because the definition of Legal advice is advice given by an attorney.  I focus on law and jurisprudence, I am only giving you an idea of what to look for and do not claim this to be the highest truth, you must find that on your own, no one not even a lawyer can show you that. 

The best way to avoid trouble with the law is to not break the law.  Natural and Universal law are self enforcing, if your break the law of the universe it may take some time but you will be punished eventually in some means or another, this is known as Karma or balance.  If you are of the natural law then written law may not come against you, to quote the Aramaic Translation of the Bible "But if you are led by The Spirit, you are not under The Written Law.". If they should come against you, you will acquire the information to overcome them. To be of the spirit one must always live by universal law, these laws in addition to not infringing on others rights,  would also include not eating flesh and not using or harming the earths oil (blood).  It takes years to transform from a life of bad deeds and lies into a righteous life.  Although it takes time as long as you take steps toward progress your actions are sure to be rewarded, and as such you will be protected.  But it is important to always remain humble to the natural law and this means to be humble to others even when they attempt to take your personal liberties.

All of my Law must first stem from natural law and grow into my own right, I am nothing without the authority of natural law.  In the secular court I must declare my status as a People (one who owns the government) and not a citizen (one subject to the government). As a People I am recognized as sovereign by the authorities of the supreme court, which should carry weight in a lesser court if proposed in the right manner.  In my upcoming article "Owning Your Court" I will be discussing one way to apply case law in an authoritative manner.  As a defendant of lets say a traffic violation, it typically does no good to quote a case or higher law,  the plaintiff is the one declaring the law and your have entered his court, he is not expected to accept your law.  You must enter the position of the sovereign plaintiff in your own supreme court to decree your own law.

“The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.”

     [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co]

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Case Review of Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Sovereignty and the Limitation of Government Control Case Name: YICK WO v. HOPKINS, SHERIFF.

WO LEE

v.

HOPKINS, SHERIFF.

Court Title:

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided on: Decided May 10, 1886.

Key focus in relation to Sovereignty, Limitation of Government, Government, and Limitation of Power-

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."                                                                        

          -18 US 356, 370

         
Full Transcript Available HERE