Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

About

King_cheetah

Lawyer, philosopher & logician.  Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution.  Passionate about The Federalist  Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following:

There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus.

*     *     *

WARNING AGAINST A CON-CON a/k/a “constitutional convention” or “Article V convention” or “Convention of the States”:  Do not be deceived by the people who are calling for these.  Go here and read the warning of James Madison and others.  Be sure to read “Twenty Questions About a Constitutional Convention”:      http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/

See also this valuable article by Phyllis Schlafly  which addresses Mark Levin’s untrue claims about a “convention called by the States to propose amendments”.

In these two articles, investigative journalist Kelleigh Nelson exposes the nefarious forces – on the phony “Right” – involved in the push for an Article V convention.  Folks, the leadership at “Tea Party Patriots” is not on your side.  Nelson also reveals names of other phonies on the “right”.   http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh136.htm

Dr. Edwin Vieira has reminded us that the “necessary & proper” clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause)  vests in Congress the power to make all laws necessary & proper to execute its delegated powers.  Since Article V delegates to CONGRESS the power to call the convention, Congress would be  within its constitutional authority to organize the Convention anyway it wants, and to appoint whomsoever it wishes as delegates.   http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin262.htm

John A. Eidsmoe, a law professor who actually knows what he talking about, wrote a fascinating paper on all aspects of Article V:   http://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/a-new-constitutional-convention-by-john-a-eidsmoe.pdf  Put this paper in your permanent files!

Do not be deceived by the “scholarly research” of former law professor, Rob Natelson.  Natelson trumpets the fanciful theory that alleged “customs” practiced in our “Founding Era” provide binding principles which govern conventions called under Article V of our existing Constitution!  But since we have never had an Article V convention, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT.  Here is JWK’s excellent expose’ of Natelson’s preposterous theory:      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3062146/posts

 

Believe no one. You must check everything out for yourself.  Our future hangs on your being able to tell the difference between Good and Evil.  And on your caring about the difference.

*     *     *

The Acceptance Con by Selwyn Duke explains (brilliantly) how moral relativism has destroyed our Country.  Libertarianism carries within itself the seeds of Destruction.  Oh, my Friends, take heed!

*     *     *

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. they are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted”, February 5, 1775.

*     *     *

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.  On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.”

H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun,  July 26, 1920.

*     *     *

“If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?”   Johnwk

*     *     *

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian.”  Attributed to Henry Ford.

*     *     *

I saw a movie where only the military and the police had guns:  Schindler’s List.

*     *     *

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”     Autobiography of Mark Twain

*     *     *

PERMISSION to re-post: You may re-post my papers on your own sites, provided you do not change the text, retain all the hyperlinks, and have a link back to my website.   However, since I periodically revise my papers,  the better practice is to post a para or so and have a “continue reading here” which links to my site.   That way, your readers will have the most recently revised edition.

    *    *    *

Where do  Rights come from?  God?  The Constitution? The supreme Court?  Or the “government”?   I’ll show you.  It is important that you understand.  (videos in two parts totaling 22 minutes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpXBckyDac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN29tAiNV7o

*     *     *

To the Department of Homeland Security:

I am delighted to  learn of your intense & increasing interest in learning the original intent of Our Constitution!  Please feel free to browse around to  your hearts’ content.

Also, if any of you have questions as to the original intent of  any provision or provisions  of  Our Constitution, please feel free to post your questions.

To learn Our Constitution, you will need to get a copy of The Federalist Papers; and for word definitions, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language.  You can find The Federalist Papers on line; and here  is an online copy of Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:  http://webstersdictionary1828.com/

As I trust you know, word meaning are like the clouds:  meanings change as time passes.   So, naturally, we want to focus on the meanings enjoyed by Words during the Era of our Founding.

OK!  Here is your homework assignment:  Get a hard copy of The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.   Read them cover to cover.  Using different colored pencils, highlight (1) the powers of Congress, (2) the powers of the Executive Branch, and (3) the powers of the judicial branch.

With a 4th color, highlight all references to God in both Documents!

Please pay particular attention to what the Declaration says about the SOURCE of our Rights.  Mark that with a 5th color.

Surprising, isn’t it?

Oh!  You can get pocket copies from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation,  etc.  I think Heritage sells them in bulk – really cheap – so you can buy lots and distribute them to your co-workers, family and friends.

Again, do not be shy about posting your questions!  I am just a little old lady, and  do not bite.

Kindest regards,  Publius  Huldah.

DSC_1266

Publius Huldah explains when Nullification of unconstitutional acts of the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Branches  of the federal government is  required by Article VI, clause 3, U.S. Constitution.

 

66 Comments »

  1. I hope this helps
    Article VII US Constitution

    IN A US SUPREME COURT STUNNING 6 TO 3 DECISION JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and
    administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights and has the power to enforce law and remove people from office. (See US Supreme
    Court Decisions, Volume 504 pages 36 to 49 year 1992)

    Comment by Ron | August 21, 2014 | Reply

    • What you have provided is someone’s interpretation of an unidentified supreme court opinion. That has no value.

      What I need is the full name of the case. I don’t have access to a law library; but with the name of the case, I can find it on line.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 21, 2014 | Reply

  2. What are your thoughts on Common Law Grand Jury as in Amendment VII and Judge Scolia’s statement of it being in effect the 4th branch of government Dixie Co. Fl just had 2 True Bills come out of their Common Law Grand Jury. I can provide you with copies.

    Comment by Ron | August 16, 2014 | Reply

    • Grand juries are not involved in civil actions. Only petit juries are involved in the trials of civil actions. So the 7th Amendment does not deal with grand juries. Grand juries are involved only in criminal actions.

      Furthermore, the 7th amendment deals only with civil actions tried in the federal courts. The original intent of the so-called “bill of rights” was that it restricted ONLY the federal government. It was not until Gitlow v. People (1925), that judges on the supreme Court asserted that the 14th Amendment (which applies to the States) incorporates the 1st Amendment so that the 1st Amendment now restricts the powers of the States. Since then, judges on the supreme Court have decided that now this, and now that, provision of the “bill of rights” applies so as to restrict the States.

      Can you provide a link to Scalia’s statement you referenced? I need to see the context and precisely what he said.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 16, 2014 | Reply

  3. I am trying to learn about OUR Constitution and what it means. I read in one of your papers that George Washington had only four departments. Where does it say in our Constitution that a these four are the only Constitutional ones.

    Comment by Carolyn | May 19, 2014 | Reply

    • 1. It is true that Washington’s cabinet had only 4 members (Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General).
      2. It is also true that those 4 functions are authorized by our Constitution.
      3. Are other functions authorized by the Constitution such that additional cabinet positions would be constitutionally permissible? Yes! It is constitutionally permissible to have a Secretary of the Navy (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 13); a Secretary of the Interior until such time as “federal” lands are disposed of by returning them to the States (Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2); a Postmaster General (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 7). And doubtless additional positions in the cabinet would be constitutionally permissible. All you need is the Article, Section, and Clause of our Constitution which authorizes the function. See?
      4. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the Secretary of Health and Human Services? Secretary of Education? Secretary of Agriculture? Secretary of Housing and Urban Development?
      Do you see?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 20, 2014 | Reply

  4. The 16th Amendment did not Change the tax laws of the Constitution and did not add any new tax laws. Read all about this in Peter Eric Henderson’s books: 1.0 “Cracking the Code, The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America” and 2.0 “Was GrandPa Really A Moron?” Go to to “www.Lost Horizon’s.com” and read and watch the few pages there and buy Cracking The Code, The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America By Peter Eric Henderson,$25.00. He has a excellent discussion of the origin and followup of The Income Tax. The Tax started in 1862 with With-holding and by the Lincoln Administration. He has many Supreme Court citations that prove there were no changes or additions to the income tax by the 16th Amendment. The real changes were by usurpation via The IRS, 1943.

    Comment by Fallon T Gordon Sr. MD | September 19, 2013 | Reply

    • Oh dear, I hate to see people joust at windmills. We need them for productive work!

      The 16th amendment was a very bad idea and should be repealed. Congress should be returned to its enumerated powers. Enough said!

      We need to be learning the enumerated powers of the 3 branches of the federal government; and then joining Alan Keyes’ Bucket Brigade! http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/keyes/130718

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 19, 2013 | Reply

      • I DO NOT JOUST OR JEST ABOUT WINDMILLS OR ANYTHING AS IMPORTANT AS OUR LAWS. The INCOME TAX EXCISE uses ordinary words that have had their meaning changed by the government to a different legal meaning. “INCOME, WAGES, EMPLOYER or EMPLOYEE” and other words have specialized narrow legal meanings that apply to those who have “Special activities and privileges” and work for or are connected to federal or state governments. The Supreme Court declared the meaning of the word “INCOME” to be fixed and confined to objects proper to an excise . . Objects proper to an ‘INCOME’ excise are privileges or activities not of common right. So the only objects of the income tax [the government calls it an excise even though the dictionary of 1928 and now say excises are commodities] are activities that are paid by the federal government, or a federal agency or activities connected with public office and paid by the federal government or a state government. — There are many Supreme Court decisions on the 16th Amendment, The first was by Chief Justice White where he said the 16th Amendment did not authorize any new tax , nor did it repeal the tax clauses in the Constitution, art. one sections 2 and 9. Also see Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 [1916] and Peck v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165 [1918] AND OTHERS. — Your teachings of the meanings of our Constitution, Declaration and The Bill of Rights are excellent!; The best!. I refer your writings to others every day. Please read the Supreme Court rulings on the 16th Amendment and if possible read the book references above and add “Upholding The Law” by the same author. His teachings about the INCOME EXCISE should be known by all. The Income Excise is not in the Enumerated Powers but still should be understood, just as you would understand both sides of a court proceeding, [ YOUR SIDE and the other side]. Fallon T Gordon Sr.

        Comment by Fallon T Gordon Sr. MD | May 7, 2014 | Reply

  5. You give the affirmation every time I suspect the Judiciary has worked an effort to usurp my freedom! There are many of us trying to gain traction in State Legislatures. Just hope I can help get the word out!

    Comment by lgcvano | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • You have to educate your State legislators. They don’t know. They don’t understand our Founding Principles. Make use of the time when your Legislature is out of session to get to know them.

      Yes, the supreme Court has been a virulent cancer in our Country. But we elected the Presidents who appointed them, and we elected the U.S. Senators who confirmed them.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

      • But, we also elect Congress… which body being closest to the people has two powers which it regularly fails to use:

        1) Clipping the wings of subject matter over which the Supreme court is allowed jurisdiction;

        2) Removing any one or all of the court entirely! These were at one time feared outcomes! They reflected their power in that the court confined itself to it’s Constitutional mandate of upholding the very document which brought it into existence!

        The solution speaks for itself!

        Comment by JSBach | May 5, 2014 | Reply

  6. […] is a good place to start? On her About page,  Publius Huldah has an excellent two-part video. Check it out. Perhaps then understand the […]

    Pingback by WHY HAS OUR CREATURE HAS BECOME A RAVENING MONSTER? | Citizen Tom | June 8, 2013 | Reply

  7. 11 TH AMENDMENT Vs. ARTICLE 3 SECTION 2 MISS? CAN YOU SEE THE CONFLICT ? THE ELEVENTH PROPOSAL WAS IN CONFLICT WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED BACK THEN AND IN 1798 IT WAS RATIFIED AS THE 11 AMENDMENT AND IT IS STILL IN CONFLICT THEN AND NOW CAN YOU SEE THAT ? GET YOUR CONSTITUTION AND READ IT !!!
    THE ONLY AMENDMENT ARE FROM 11 TH AND UP BUT WHEN THE FOUNDING FATHERS PROPOSE THE 12 PROPOSAL THEY EXCEPTED TEN WICH BECAME BILL OF RIGHTS OR OUR AGREEMENT/CONTRACT NOT AMENDMENT !!WHEN YOU CLAIM 5TH AMENDMENT THERE IS NO SUCH A THING SO THEY PLACE YOU UNDER THE14 TH AMENDMENT AND PROSECUTE YOU AND NO ONE REALIZES HOW THEY GOT SCREWED BY THE BAR ASSESSONATORS !!

    Comment by JOE L'AMARCA | March 13, 2013 | Reply

    • People are screwed by believing the rubbish ignorant people like you put out.

      You don’t know what you are talking about. You have no understanding of the function of amendments. Amendments change the Constitution.

      The 11th Amendment reduced the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 13, 2013 | Reply

  8. [...] The speaker is Publius Huldah, a pen name, for a former college professor of the Constitution. She has many articles covering the Constitution. SEE WEBPAGE [...]

    Pingback by Gun Control Debate: Constitution vs Communism | March 12, 2013 | Reply

    • never a college professor! I actually fought in the trenches as a litigation attorney.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 12, 2013 | Reply

  9. Today, March 5th 2013 I came across one of your video presentations and I was singularly impressed with your delivery, your knowledge, and your passion concerning our Constitution. Bravo!!! I look forward to your thinking and your future presentations. Wouldn’t it be great if you were able to present your arguments to the Supreme Court? A new fan.

    Comment by tlperdue | March 5, 2013 | Reply

  10. 2013 02 27 I am watching you and the tv program where you are at the TN State Senate. I stopped fixing breakfast, I put on my recorder, and didn’t move until, well, it isn’t over yet. I think you are the most wonderfully perfect speaker, and your mind is incredible to behold. I just thought you might want to know that I believe you completely got to the heart of the matter. I went through a similar process several months, and know that something needs to be done.

    Comment by JEWELANT | February 27, 2013 | Reply

    • Is the video online somewhere so more of the Tennessee-ans can see it?

      Comment by Ed Bradford | February 27, 2013 | Reply

    • THANK YOU, my dear!

      But the way Brian kelsey conducted the hearing reminded me of the old saying:

      “Whoever loves sausages and respects the law shouldn’t watch either of them being made.”

      And I must say, I expect his Mama is ashamed of him for his bullying, boorish behaviour.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2013 | Reply

  11. I am glad that I have “stumbled” upon your blog, your knowledge of the Constitution is the best since Rawles wrote “Views of the Constitution” in 1828!
    Please continue to edify the ignorant!

    Comment by Daniel Bostock | February 1, 2013 | Reply

  12. [...] Understanding the Constitution 7 Feb Lawyer, philosopher & logician.  Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution.  Passionate about The Federalist  Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand… via publiushuldah.wordpress.com [...]

    Pingback by Understanding the Constitution « muttonhead59 | February 7, 2012 | Reply

  13. [...] To the Department of Homeland Security: I am delighted to  learn of your intense & increasing interest in learning the original intent of Our Constitution!  Please feel free to browse around to  your hearts’ content. [...]

    Pingback by Publius Huldah | Grumpy Opinions | January 2, 2012 | Reply

  14. Is there a way to search your blog site?

    Comment by Ben | August 28, 2011 | Reply

    • Thank you, Ben. I am realizing I need a professional web designer. We are ‘puter illiterates in this household. But in the meantime, someone is trying to set up a search function here.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 28, 2011 | Reply

    • Control F works for me.

      Comment by Bob Thompson | July 3, 2012 | Reply

  15. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I’ve never had the opportunity to sit under the teaching of those who hold our Constitution as a scared document for our country. I will be checking in now and then to learn even more.

    Comment by tphobbitwoman | August 24, 2011 | Reply

    • Oops that’s “sacred document” lol

      Comment by tphobbitwoman | August 24, 2011 | Reply

  16. Thank God for your insights and energy! Your material are great to confront the so-called progressive agenda of the left, and against Sharia law. Keep up the great work. Stay well and blessed!

    Comment by Donald A. Westcott | August 21, 2011 | Reply

  17. I like most of what McNiel says.
    Except
    1. A new party — I think the probability of tAking over the Republican party is much higher than success with a third party. Only active people will support a third party and they are only a small proportion of the voters. Better to claim the people who know what is right but don’t have time to think about it by commandeering the Republican party than try to create a third party. TR failed!!
    2. Constitutional convention — Bad idea. The folks sent their representatives to Philadelphia to “modify” the Articles on Confederation. The group came up with a whole new constitution. Do you trust the state legislatures to stick to you “issues”? I don’t.

    Go with changing the Republican party to stand withyour tax an congressional committee ideas and I’m with you.

    Ed

    Comment by Ed Bradford | August 22, 2010 | Reply

  18. Publius,

    I was introduced to your blog through a link on Facebook. What a breath of fresh air! I will be coming back often.

    You may be interested to know that there are other concerned Americans out here working to restore our freedoms from another perspective: sound accounting principles and economic law.

    When you get 5 free minutes, check out my 21st century economic plan to restore freedom to ALL American citizens at AmericanCitizenParty.us.

    First, read “The Plan – An Overview”. Then read the 12-page “Economic Freedom Act”, which is based on a return to Constitutional principles.

    In this age of 2,000 page bills that take our freedoms away from us, it seems impossible to believe that they can be restored in 12 pages. But, it is true.

    Regards,

    Bob McNeil
    Founder/Chairman
    American Citizen Party

    Comment by Bob McNeil | August 22, 2010 | Reply

    • Bob, On this site, I explain the original intent of The Constitution. To do this, I use the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787, the Bible, and Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

      This is not a forum for pushing any political party. I don’t think it matters what parties we have if the people in them do not understand our founding documents. No program, party, or plan will save us. Just knowledge of our founding documents and repentance. I focus on that alone.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 23, 2010 | Reply

  19. Thanks for your site. A political buddy first mentioned you and I’m putting a toe in tonight. So here’s a question: What are you doing/have you done to avail Arizona of your tremendous understanding? Have you contacted the Governor directly, offered your legal services and counsel? Have you taken all steps possible, since the direction of the specific court action began jumping off of the constitutional rails,to insinuate yourself into the process and keep things going as they should?

    Comment by Seward | August 10, 2010 | Reply

    • They know about it, Seward. But there are many dark corners to light up. Look at all the trouble we are having with Oily in the comment section of my last paper! Their minds are not only dark, they are slammed shut!

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 10, 2010 | Reply

      • Linguistics has fascinated me from day one, but sometimes the trees cannot be discerned from the forest. I have seen nothing of your contentions in the media, and, therefore, I wonder the allegiance of our pen masters or the accuracy of your admonitions.

        I am most interested in hearing and reading about the outcome to this most interesting turn of events.

        As the populace might say, “Rock on!”

        Comment by Terry Kuehn | September 8, 2010 | Reply

  20. I would do any thing for all this in book form.where can i buy it.

    Comment by c wilson | August 1, 2010 | Reply

    • Thank you! I’m computer illiterate but will see what I can do about getting a print function added to my website. Meanwhile, maybe you know someone who can show you how to print things from this site? I’m sorry I can barely find my way around on ‘puters. I’m from the parchment & quill pen generation.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 1, 2010 | Reply

      • One can do a screen shot and save and print it.

        Comment by justdeva | January 7, 2012 | Reply

        • Thank you, justdeva. In my household we have been meaning to take ‘puter classes, we just never get around to it.

          Will most people know how to do screen shots?

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 7, 2012 | Reply

          • The best way to get a printed version of an article on a page that does not yet have a print feature is to highlight the text (hold down the left mouse button and highlight just like using a highlighter) then right click on the highlighted area and select copy. Then open a word processing program and paste. You can then print from the other program.

            Comment by dflickiss | July 4, 2013

          • Thank you, dflickiss!

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2013

  21. What a wonderful discovery I have made in finding you. May we link to your blog from ours, the Conservative Party USA?

    Sam
    National Chairman

    Comment by Simeo (Sam) Gallo | July 31, 2010 | Reply

    • You certainly may! And thank you very much! After all the hate mail, I really appreciate the friendly ones! Publius

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 31, 2010 | Reply

  22. Publius-Huldah

    I am enjoying the read of your blog that I newly discovered, thrilled that there are still lawyers out there that are not (Evolutionists) and can help frame the serious work that needs to be done to wrestle back control of our Country from socialists thieves. Yes we can vote out House and Senators but how do we attack the bigger villian the COURTS from chewing away our rights in tortured language and logic to render them as foreign from truth to our understanding as farm animals checking the barn door as in Orwell’s Animal Farm. We must find the first precedents that radically deviated from intent and attack the false legs holding that legal standing to have hope to reverse the damage already done.
    I look forward to reading all your papers.
    Respectfully Claudia

    Comment by Claudia crazy like a fox | July 29, 2010 | Reply

  23. It is my belief that nothing is impossible. You say “burn it”. I don’t see that happening. I do see Scalia’s argument being picked apart by forcing it to confront common sense. As Scalia quoted, in so many words, you can’t build “inference upon inference” to reach anywhere in American life.

    Using Thomas’s thinking and other dissents from the cases

    2004 – Gonzalez vs. Raich [Medical Marijuana] 6-3
    and
    1942 – Wickard v. Filburn Private Wheat Produciton. 5-4

    I think a case for reversal can be built. Also, under “takings”, I don’t
    understand what the return value is. If the government takes my property
    aren’t they supposed to reimburse me with just compensation? If I don’t
    use any medical care, where is my just compensation?

    Finally, a lot of the Social Security and medical bills depend on the word
    “insurance”. If you look that up in the dictionary, it doesn’t bare much resemblance to what is described in the laws. Confronting the courts with the common sense observation that Medicare is NOT insurance, but a redistributive tax might be a useful path.

    I don’t like the expansive thinking but stare decisis is part of the mechanics of the law. Without it every trial would produce a new interpretation of the same words. What is bad about stare decisis is that it builds upon error. I don’t know how legal philosophers deal with that aspect of the law.

    Just a few thoughts on this. Still reading.

    Ed

    Comment by Ed Bradford | November 15, 2009 | Reply

  24. Originalism will never win until Justice Scalia reverses himself on 2004 – Gonzalez vs. Raich [Medical Marijuana]. Read his opinion and say otherwise. A large concerted effort could yield to “common sense” a victory over expansive interpretations of “substantially affects interstate commerce”. All seems based on the 5-4 decision in
    1942 – Wickard v. Filburn Private Wheat Produciton case.

    Both Gonzalez and Wickard defy common sense and would genuinely surprise our founders and even John Marshall.

    All “government can’t force me to buy health insurance” arguments pivot on these two decisions, at least for the commerce clause part of the justification. The earlier one was 5-4 and the later was 6-3. Demolition of these two decisions means a lot for the country and the strengthening of the constitution.

    Ed

    Comment by Ed Bradford | November 14, 2009 | Reply

    • Yes, my dear Friend Ed,

      Reading Justice Scalia’s opinions is often like getting stabbed in the back by someone whom you thought was your friend. Scalia, like those who signed onto the majority opinion, does not go by The Constitution. Instead, he goes by supreme court decisions – 220 years of precedent – which rarely bears any resemblance to The Constitution.

      Justice Clarence Thomas is my favorite. I would add, of course, that regulation of “drugs” is NOT one of the enumerated powers of Congress! Just as banning alcoholic beverages is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. That’s why they had to pass the 18th Amendment – to give Congress authority to make laws banning alcoholic beverages!

      If you will look at my revised edition of “Congress’ Enumerated Powers” on my site here, you will see that I added a paragraph proving the original intent of the “necessary and proper clause” – I PROVE it by quotes from Hamilton & Madison in The Federalist Papers.

      And in my paper on whether the “interstate commerce” clause authorizes Congress to force us to buy health insurance, I present an expanded proof of the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause.

      Finally, do you notice how, throughout, these Judges cite prior decisions of the Court as AUTHORITY? That is shocking! The court’s only power is to decide those FEW cases which they are authorized by Art. III to hear (See my paper on the jurisdiction of the federal courts), their opinions affect ONLY the parties to the case before them, and their opinions are NOT “Law”!

      I think the best thing to do with the 220 years of supreme court precedent is, as Braveheart said of the English nobleman’s fort, “burn it”.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | November 15, 2009 | Reply

      • As Judge Bork has said (many times), “precedent is not dispositive.” The Supreme Court is not bound by previous decisions. While one might argue that it would be disruptive in the short run simply to overturn all of their previous anti-Constitutional opinions as fast as possible, we don’t have to repeat and extend their mistakes just because they made them previously. We don’t have to “burn it” — we should ignore it, and go back to the text and intent of the Constitution. President Jackson, in response to Worcester vs. Georgia, is alleged to have said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” The Supreme Court has no power except our respect for their opinions; having forfeited that respect, they will have to earn it back, one case at a time.

        Comment by Mark P. Fishman | July 11, 2011 | Reply

        • Amen, Friend! My “burn it” comment was inspired by William Wallace when he ordered his men to burn the English fort. I love that line!

          But you are right – subsequent SCOTUS decisions should repudiate the earlier cases by name, expressly overrule them, and then give the constitutional decision. It would facilitate legal research if the unconstitutional opinions are expressly overruled. Otherwise they hang around as precedent which is still on the books. And would confuse future generations of lawyers – and we have seen how easily they are confused. I have an internet friend who is a math professor. He thinks part of the problem with lawyers is that they don’t study the “hard” sciences. I expect he is right. I studied Logic as a young child and as an undergraduate – that was as “hard” as my studies ever got – in the sense of dealing with “hard” FACTS and not opinions. Oh, I had high school geometry which I loved.

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 11, 2011 | Reply

  25. Publius,

    I know little in life, comparatively, but have learned how to find answers. With respect to your Q & A interest, I can research to see if it is possible on WordPress. Please e-mail me with some instruction on how you would like to see a Q & A function.

    M______

    Comment by Braveheart | November 11, 2009 | Reply

    • Dear Braveheart,

      Thank you! I sent you an email. PH

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | November 12, 2009 | Reply

  26. Thrilled to find your blog! I know I will be referring to your posts often. God bless!

    Comment by Gretchen | October 20, 2009 | Reply

  27. I don’t understand ‘puters at all. I need a helper – it’s so hard to move from the pen & ink generation to the ‘puter generation. But did learn how to replace my beloved footnotes with hyperlinks when I can find an on-line source!

    Comment by Publius/Huldah | October 14, 2009 | Reply

    • Which template are you using in WordPress? I can probably help you with adding comments to your site, Q&A.

      Comment by William - Freedoms Voice | November 12, 2009 | Reply

      • Dear William, Thank you for your kind offer! But “Braveheart” is already looking into it. My computer was down most of the day yesterday – hence the delay in answering. Your friend, PH

        Comment by Publius/Huldah | November 14, 2009 | Reply

  28. Publius Was pleased to find you on AsAMom! And to check out your site. This is such a great site! You ought to be able to find some freeware that would let you do FAQs… or just a .pdf file, take the questions in on your sites and upload your .pdf periodically to you page on various sites. Hope you get it worked out, looking forward to it! J

    Comment by Jane Harnagy | October 14, 2009 | Reply

  29. P/H,

    Where did you go on ResistNet.com?
    I could not find you.

    You were a lot of help !

    Can i contact you here?

    Neil J

    Comment by J Neil Jednoralski, P.E. | October 3, 2009 | Reply

    • Hi, Neil,
      I am not computer literate, but want to find out if I can set up a Q & A section on this blog! That would be good, don’t you think? I’m glad you found me here. Stay in touch!PH

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | October 3, 2009 | Reply

  30. Claudia, dear,
    THANK YOU! The night before I got your comment, I lay awake much of the night wondering why I was doing this. You reminded me.

    Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 6, 2009 | Reply

  31. Dear Publius,
    YOU ARE FABULOUS! It is such a shame that “education” has failed so miserably in this country. I taught U. S. History, World History and Political Science in North Carolina a while back and I was one of a few teachers who would challenge the lies in the textbooks. Hopefully I was able to impart my passion for this country to some of my students. I pray that these students, who are now well into the workforce and almost middle-aged, will stand up with us against these fascists in this government.

    Thank you for your dedication to our freedom and your annotations of the Constitution (the most brilliant document every written.)

    Comment by Claudia Henneberry | September 4, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 804 other followers

%d bloggers like this: