Nathanael D Snow

Okay, if you are reading this blog, more than likely it is because you are one of my friends, and I gave you the address to this website on a little blue sticky note, or sent it to you in an e-mail. I want you to read my blog. More importantly, I need your help with my blog. I need for you to read the stuff I post here and comment on it. I'd really like it if you would argue with me. Or at least point out weaknesses in my arguements. I want this to be a learning exercise, especially for me, but also for you, hopefully. I think my posts are a little long, so I'll try to be less wordy in the future. Thanks y'all! Nathan (JN)

Part of the idea behind this blog was for me to practice my writing. I've been neglecting that. The constitution, I said in "Judge Rant 1," was a document creating a government to house common law. I don't think that there's anything magic about the Constitution. It's a good document, for what it tries to do. I've heard people talk about it as though it were Holy writ. That's just not true. Scripture is scripture, it is Revelation. The Constitution was just a human theory on the best way to restrain government. Now, what is interesting about the Constitution is that it does seek to restrain government. Americans inherited distrust of government from England. England had several particularly bad governments, and perhaps that is why they invented Constitutional Law, viz. the Magna Carta. That document was a list of things the aristocracy didn't want the King to do anymore. It limited government. The Declaration of Independance was a list ...

Illegal immigration is an issue that the church doesn’t handle very well. Almost all Americans have ancestry that includes immigrants. Why do we want to close our borders now? Interesting note I picked up from a friend recently, but it’s in the Declaration of Independence: One of the complaints against King George was that he wouldn’t allow emigration from England to America. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that open immigration in principle is a bad idea. Every argument I have ever heard against such a policy is based on myth, prejudice, or assumption that the current set of laws surrounding the issue are good laws. First, the myths. The most prevailing myth that I have experienced is the concept that Americans will lose jobs if we allow more immigration. This myth contains what Thomas Sowell calls “zero-sum” thought. It operates out of a belief that there is a limited amount of wealth in the economy, and that more people sharing that wealth takes away from each individual...

Some thoughts: Confessing our sins to one another is a great equalizer. Sometimes we think we are talking to one of God's children when we are really talking to God. -John Young Natural needs are never satisfied. Spiritual needs have already been satisfied. Worship God. You don't have anything better to do!

I will comment on Scripture regularly on this site. I am not a fundamentalist, although I am an evangelical. Since learning about Economics and Law I have read the Scriptures quite differently. Enjoy 2 Sam. 15 Absalom returns to Jerusalem and sets himself up as a judge. He sits at the city gate and invites the people to bring their disputes to him. He recognizes the source of respected government to be in the ability to judge. Before he attempts to usurp the kingdom he tries to gain a foothold by judging in favor of certain politically influential people, viz. Ahithophel. All throughout scripture we can recognize a pattern of judges preceeding kings or other legislators. Exceptions to this rule highlight the differences in these roles.

First and foremost I must give credit to Richard Mayburry for the title of my blog. Juris Naturalist is a phrase he coined to describe his political viewpoint. JN means natural law. I will be writing a lot about natural law and its place in today's politics.

I have been thinking about government some lately, especially the recent nomination of a new Supreme Court justice. I used to think the Founders made a mistake by including the Judiciary in the government instead of leaving it independent. After some consideration I have arrived at a new conclusion. The founders really didn't want any government at all. They had seen the inefficient and often deadly effects of government firsthand, and wanted as little to do with them as possible. What they recognized as valuable however was law, the Common Law, the scientifically discovered truths of nature and nature's God regarding law. They valued good judges as researchers in this scientific inquiry. Indeed, the only aspect of government they held in value at all was the Judiciary! So, in a sense, the Founders were not trying to develop a government that was held on check by the Judiciary. Rather, desiring a safe future for justice, and an expectation of better relations...