Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!


  1. My dear PH,

    I live out in the west and am watching the Bundy issue with quite a bit of interest. I have a very sincere and serious question for you. In the constitution of Nevada the state government recognizes federal land. When Utah, Idaho and Wyoming (at least, probably others) were admitted into the union, the federal government claimed large portions of land within the states’ boundaries. So, wasn’t that agreement outside of the scope of the constitution? If not, it would mean that there is more than one type or status of a state. One in which the federal government has to abide by the limited lands as describerd in the constitution and one that says they can do whatever they want within the state boundaries. Governor Herbert (Utah) says that the federal government agreed to give the land to the states “later”. I didn’t hear him say when “later” was. I think that time was not specified but I am trying to find out. If the agreement to make these states is outside the constitutional limits, then are the states really states, since the agreement to make them states was not constitutional? Do the states have claim to the land, since the governemt agreed to give it to them “later”? And who decides on what “later” means? We are trying to get our federal lands (in Utah) from the feds but the environmentalists are really fighting that. It would seem that the “federal lands” are not and never legally were “federal lands”. If that is the case then the lands rightfully belong to the states. So, is Bundy right? The land never really belonged to the federal government since they can constitutionally own only as much land as it takes to do their job? Or is the federal government right, they have a different constitutional agreement with the western states? I have heard some say that the federal government should “sell” their land to the states but why should a state have to purchase something that was always theirs since the federal government could not have owned it in the first place? Thanks, IMO.

    Comment by IMO | April 14, 2014 | Reply

    • Dear, I will look into this and smack down the feds.
      Thanks for the info. All this is new stuff to us easterners.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 14, 2014 | Reply

  2. PH,

    I found the WEB site of Kris Anne Hall this weekend. I presume you know who she is and what she advocates. This week she held a series of podcasts on what Congress believes their roll is in an Article V convention. If she is correct most of our discussions are immaterial because Congress believes the convention is theirs to own. I am attaching a link to the last in the series of podcasts because she summarizes the first four but they are all very interesting.

    Comment by David Copley | March 23, 2014 | Reply

    • I haven’t seen her work; but read yesterday the March 7, 2014 Report of the Congressional Research Service on The Article V convention – and yes, Congress has decided in the past that the convention is theirs to run.

      And it is – since Art. V delegates to CONGRESS alone the power to “call” the convention; and Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause – the “necessary & proper” clause – delegates to Congress the power to make the laws to carry out the “call”.

      The people at “Convention of States” are dead wrong when they say the States control the convention; but there are many foolish people who uncritically accept whatever they are told.

      Here is the CRS Report:

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2014 | Reply

  3. Congrats on the first, and especially the second, Luke McGowan reply. I knew that was coming. Way to go, PH!

    Comment by Mary Anderson | March 20, 2014 | Reply

  4. Are parental rights unalienable? And are truancy laws unconstitutional? Are there any precedents against parents defying truancy laws? I have a meeting coming up because my daughter has missed 20 days of school this year. I find the prospect of Oregon taking me to court and fining me for allowing my daughter to make her own decisions about whats best for her to be a clear overstepping of the government on my rights. And while I can simply home school her, or perhaps meet some other exemption from Oregon state law 339 I do not feel I should have to go that route based on principle. I don’t want to work within a law that infringes on my basic unalienable rights that no government can take from me.

    Comment by Luke McGowan | March 19, 2014 | Reply

    • I can’t give legal advice – so I speak in general terms. First thing I notice is this: If your daughter is a minor, why is she making decisions for herself about her schooling? That is for the parents to decide. At least, that is what GOD said.

      I don’t know the laws in Oregon or whether the Oregon Constitution permits the Oregon legislature to dictate to parents re education.

      But I know this: I personally would not surrender my children to the tender mercies of the government schools.

      Justice Scalia said, in effect, that parents need to elect State Legislators who understand that parents have the duty and retained power to make these decisions for their minor children.

      But think not that Michael Farris’ deceptively named “parental rights amendment” is the solution. That amendment would actually delegate to the federal & state governments authority over children. It is the worst idea since sin.

      I don’t know your circumstances, of course; but home schooling is the best thing a parent can do for his children. Or home school co-ops where a group of parents get together and share the teaching.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 19, 2014 | Reply

      • My daughter is a human, it is her life. She has the same unalienable rights as other humans. These are bestowed at birth, not when you hit your 18th birthday. She is a big girl capable of making her own decisions, and living with the consequences of those. It is the parents job to teach children to think for themselves, understand the consequences of their decisions, and help them as much as you can, not to make their decisions for them.

        I agree that sending your children to public school is a terrible idea. I would not have started her in it if I knew then when I know now. I have actually tried to persuade her to leave and I am constantly trying to unteach the things that they teach. My younger 3 children are all home schooled.

        Oregon State Law 339 basically says that you have to attend school. And that while you are in public school you can’t miss more than X days per term. I agree that we as Oregonians should elect officials who would not infringe on our unalienable rights, in this case parental rights or our children’s right to liberty. But it seems that’s exactly what we have done in Oregon.

        I also agree that the parental rights amendment is a terrible idea. I read your article Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable? I found it very informative.

        What is your opinion on the constitutionality of truancy laws? Can a state legally require you child to go to school? Are you aware of any precedents where parents have fought the battle in court? My opinion is that they are actually not unconstitutional, because the constitution doesn’t grant you unalienable rights. These are granted by “God” and are a higher law than even the constitution. I believe that while I am an american citizen living in Oregon I have to play by their rules. But I also believe that truancy laws are invalid because they violate the higher law, that everyone has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

        More generally, there are countless laws that violate the basic principle that our country was founded on. That we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that it is the governments job to protect these rights. What can one do when their government infringes upon their most basic, natural rights? Or even… what can one do when the government infringes on your constitutional rights?

        Comment by Luke McGowan | March 19, 2014 | Reply

        • It looks like someone is trying to trap P.H. into giving individual legal advise. No offense intended to anyone, but I think P.H. has already answered this question.

          Comment by R. | March 19, 2014 | Reply

        • “What is your opinion on the constitutionality of truancy laws? Can a state legally require you child to go to school?”
          Need to look at your State Constitution for that. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          Comment by Dave Wagar | April 9, 2014 | Reply

  5. Have you ever heard of Donald R. Laster Jr.? He has written a short article: The Second Amendment to the US Constitution. How to read and understand what it actual states by reading the 2nd Amendment’s actual text.

    If you have heard of him, what is your opinion on his short article about the 2nd Amendment and the other topics in his writing?

    Comment by James Brecht | March 18, 2014 | Reply

    • Sorry to be so long in answering. I meant to look up Laster before I responded, but haven’t had time.

      In a nutshell, the federal gov’t has only those powers listed (enumerated) in the Constitution. WE never delegated to the fed gov’t power to restrict our arms. So ALL fed “gun” control laws, licenses, background checks, etc are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. The 2nd amendment merely says, “and we really mean it”.

      It is important to understand that the first 10 amendments restricted ONLY the federal gov’t. The States had their own Constitutions!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2014 | Reply

  6. PH you are correct as usual. Those who advocate for a Constitutional Convention don’t realize they have absolutely no control or input on the Agenda and the process of amending the Constitution. They fail to understand who and how many people it takes to organize a convention. Without knowing this number, then they fail to understand what the procedure is for adopting a Constitution. Does it take 75% or 51% to ratify the changes? With the current power of politics resting with the Democrats and RINO Republicans I can’t think of a more perfect trap to spring, and draw America from a society of sovereign individuals granted by God, into a collectivist form of government controlled by man.

    Comment by rrstubbs | March 11, 2014 | Reply

  7. PH, thank you for your wonderful incite. Your words bellow with truth. If I may bring up a new subject. It seems to me that we are all mired in discussions about the ‘trees’ and have completely ignored the ‘forest’. Everything I have read about George Soros seems to confirm that he is the villain behind all the trees. He seems to me to be the malevolent King and Obama his Pinocchio puppet who takes the heat of the spotlight while the king sits quietly and stealthily in his chambers. Will you open a dialogue to this subject?

    Comment by Overviewer | March 10, 2014 | Reply

    • Well, my “gut” tells me that what you say is True. However, I have no Facts where I can prove it. An investigator is needed who can ferret out the Facts to prove this. That is out of my area of expertise.
      Joe Wolverton’s article on how Soros is funding much of this push for an Art. V convention is the closest I have gotten to any facts. And I am assuming to a certain extent that b/c he is a lawyer, he wouldn’t say what he said unless he could prove it.

      We know that all those who are pushing for an Art. V convention are very well funded. They travel all over the place, have web sites all over the place, have people who post comments all over the internet, and have glossy brochures to hand out at their physical events. Someone is funding that – They seem to have hoards of full time paid people who do nothing but push for an Art. V convention.

      But our side consists of a handful of old people who do it all for free and we have no staffs to assist. Phyllis Schlafly may get some income from Eagle Forum, but she is in her late 80s, I think. Joe Wolverton may get some funding from the John Birch Society. But I and the few others who write on this are alone, unassisted, and have no funding.

      I am not complaining – I’m just stating that SOMEONE is funding the opposition – no one is funding us. We need an Army of people to post our stuff all over the internet, talk to legislators, post comments on the internet, etc. But we don’t have support like that. The Citizens on our side, for the most part, are not reaching out to be warriors. They forward all the opposition stuff to me for me to respond. I am drowning in stuff i can’t respond to b/c I don’t have time. I need people to tackle this on their own. I hoped I could teach them how to do it. and that they would learn to fight. But they send it to me instead.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2014 | Reply

      • PH, I understand your (our) problem very well. I have an article that I want to share with you on the subject I mentioned. Will you provide me with an email address? You can take all the time you need to read it and respond at your leisure.

        Comment by Overviewer | March 10, 2014 | Reply

  8. PH,

    I am searching for a rebuttal to the very basic pro-COS question of why the Founders added a method for the States to amend the constitution via Article V. I am sure you have covered that topic somewhere and apologize for asking.

    I have found an argument that it was done in haste. Even if true that isn’t really going to convince these block headed COS types. I referenced your Q&A section that the Founders didn’t favor the process but that skirts the issue a little.

    Comment by David Copley | March 10, 2014 | Reply

    • My dear, please don’t apologize for asking any questions – especially a very good & pertinent one!

      1. Our Constitution was the product of compromise. And although it was based on God’s model for civil government as set forth in The Bible – it was drafted by fallen men.

      There were compromises between abolitionists and slave states. This compromise permitted an evil thing – permanent slavery; and Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl. 3, was a direct violation of God’s Law as it permitted the “fugitive slave laws”.

      James Madison wanted to stop the importation of new slaves immediately (Federalist No. 42, 6th para); but Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 permitted it to continue 20 more years.

      Hamilton said the Constitution isn’t perfect, but “is the best that the present views and circumstances of the country will permit” (Federalist No. 85, 6th – 8th paras).

      The “convention” provision of Art. V seems to have been added – on the last day of deliberations (Sep. 15, 1787) – to induce Mason, Randolph & Gerry to sign the Constitution. But they still refused to sign. See endnote 6 of my latest paper.

      2. That Madison always opposed a convention is clear from what he did and said at the Federal Convention of 1787 and it is listed on my “Art. V” page.

      He discouraged conventions throughout the Federal Convention of 1787 (See this:

      He wrote Federalist Paper No. 49 (Feb. 5, 1788) in opposition to conventions;

      His Nov. 1788 letter to Turberville strongly condemns an Art. V convention. I am going to email to you my word edition of this letter to show you how I handle these. Madison can be hard to follow, so I copy, paste, add paragraphs and color code. I also include additional letters Madison wrote addressing this issue.

      Look at Madison’s involvement in the first ten amendments: See endnotes in my most recent paper on my home page.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2014 | Reply

      • Thank you. As you point out, in a Republic and because humans are imperfect there must be compromises.

        I fear that the sole purpose of the COS movement is to eliminate the chance for a conservative victory in 2014 and 2016. The Republic is at a tipping point and if we fail to win Congressional majorities in 2014 as well as State majorities and we fail to win the WH in 2016 and solidify our majorities we will no longer have a Republic. A COS held at any point in this election cycle eliminates the Conservative platform. How can a Conservative win saying they will uphold the Constitution that isn’t written; containing unknown amendments; which we don’t know if it will even be ratified. The liberals will keep giving away homes, cars, yachts and other peoples money. We live in dire times.

        Comment by David Copley | March 10, 2014 | Reply

        • Compromises weren’t made in the Constitution for the reason that ours is a republic – but for the reason that man is fallen and man does not always do right. The abolitionists had to compromise with the slave states to get them to ratify the Constitution.

          I wish what you said about the purpose of the COS was all we had to worry about! If we can keep our Constitution intact – we still have the opportunity to fix our Land no matter who wins the elections. But if we have a convention, I fear we will lose our Constitution and will get a new one. THEN there is no longer any hope for a peaceful political resolution.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2014 | Reply

  9. Hi PH, How on earth did we get from the opinions in Baker v Nelson, to where we are today. But one thing explains it, JUDICIAL TYRANNY!

    in Baker v Nelson – Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, (1971) is a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Baker appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.” Because the case came to the Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as precedent, though the extent of its precedential effect has been subject to debate. The facts:

    On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. The clerk of the Hennepin County District Court, Gerald Nelson, denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. The couple filed suit in district court to force Nelson to issue the license.

    The couple first contended that Minnesota’s marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes. If the court were to construe the statutes to require different-sex couples, however, Baker claimed such a reading would violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution:

    First Amendment (freedom of speech and of association),
    Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment),
    Ninth Amendment (unenumerated right to privacy), and
    Fourteenth Amendment (fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Protection Clause).

    The trial court dismissed the couple’s claims and ordered the clerk not to issue the license.

    The couple appealed the district court’s decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a brief opinion issued on October 15, 1971, the state’s highest court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. Based on the common usage of the term “marriage” and gender-specific references elsewhere in the same chapter, the Court held that the statutes prohibited marriage between persons of the same sex. This restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.

    With respect to the claim of an equal-protection violation, the Court found that childless marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection in the state’s rationale for limiting marriage to different-sex couples. It found the plaintiffs’ reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loving v. Virginia, finding an anti-miscegenation law unconsititional, failed to provide a parallel: “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

    The Court acknowledged that Justice Goldberg’s concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut, which argued that criminalizing the possession of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy, found support for marital privacy partly in the Ninth Amendment, but the Court distinguished Griswold and found no authority for the Ninth Amendment being binding on the states The Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the First and Eighth Amendments without discussion

    Baker and McConnell appealed the Minnesota court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, they claimed the Minnesota marriage statutes implicated three rights: they abridged their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; discriminated based on gender, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and deprived them of privacy rights flowing from the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order stating “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

    In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court’s refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below. However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case

    Comment by Spense | March 9, 2014 | Reply

    • Dear Son,
      The things you say are no longer applicable b/c we have abandoned the rule of law. We now have only the rule of man.

      Here is an excerpt from my first paper on the 14th amendment:

      *****6. So! Activist federal judges have been using the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment to override acts of State Legislatures which outlaw conduct federal judges want to legalize! They simply make up a “constitutional right” to do those things. Under their view, there is no limit to their powers! State Legislatures criminalize child rape, but 5 judges on the supreme Court can fabricate a “constitutional right” to have sex with children – a “liberty and privacy right” in the 14th Amendment to have sex with children! If these “liberty and privacy rights” mean that women can abort babies, and homosexual contact is lawful; why can’t they also mean that adults can have sex with children? Why can’t they mean that people have “liberty and privacy rights” to commit any crime? What’s the limit? There IS no limit! Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, said:

      …As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (p. 579)

      Kennedy just tossed Art. III, Sec. 2 out the door! He and his ideological allies recognize no limits on their judicial power! Just name an act you want legalized and if 5 of them agree, Voila! A new “liberty” “right”! And a Law made by a State Legislature prohibiting that act bites the dust. And since supreme Court judges claim the right to “set policy” for all of these United States (and we have let them do it), State laws throughout the land prohibiting that act also bite the dust. And that is how we got a handful of supreme Court judges setting “policy” for everyone in the country. *****

      Note also that they have implicitly redefined “Liberty” and “freedom”: These words no longer refer to absence of tyrannical civil government; they now refer to FREEDOM FROM THE MORAL LAWS.

      and the liberals and libertarians think that is just WONDERFUL!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2014 | Reply

  10. PH, It looks like David Barton has become one of the nullification deniers and a COS supporter. If respected conservative voices like Barton, Beck, Paul and Hannity support a COS and deny nullification they will drown out all the arguments in opposition. Even on the blog Freedom Connector I am now being slandered by the COS proponents. For some reason they refuse to bend their pro-COS position but will not rest unless I concede mine! I take that as an indication they are afraid of my one voice and have run out of arguments. I will admit I rely heavily on your blog for information – giving you credit of course.

    I hope you have the time to address this latest anti-nullification push.

    Comment by David Copley | March 5, 2014 | Reply

    • David Barton is an ignorant man with delusions about his qualifications to speak on The Constitution and related matters. He has no independent understanding of constitutional issues – he merely repeats what he has been told. He is a transmitter of lies. But such is his ignorant conceit that he keeps regurgitating what he has been told as if he knows all about it.

      Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Rand Paul are ignorant men with no understanding of these issues who have also jumped on the bandwagon. They are too stupid to understand that they are being lied to.

      And the American People who aren’t watching TV & doing drugs are – for the most part – listening to the stupid (Barton, Paul, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.) who have been mislead by the LIARS who are pushing this.

      David Barton doesn’t know what he is talking about. I have addressed his profound ignorance in my paper, “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers”.

      It is pathetic: All a person has to do is posture as a “Christian”, and the stupid American Christians will believe anything he says.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 6, 2014 | Reply

      • I’ve been looking for the groups pushing for a COS and ran across the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Have you ever researched this organization?

        On the surface they look like a good conservative organization dedicated to States rights. Looking a little deeper I find a slew of State legislators and some conservative big money like the Koch Brothers and companies like Exxon. Their mission summary would be to advance conservative principles at the state level via a nonpartisan relationship with the private sector and state legislators. They have a COS handbook among other things.

        They look really good but I don’t think they have the interests of citizens as a top priority. I can see how this organization can push various States into requesting a COS. Looks to me like a disaster in the making. COS proponents can get very nasty when confronted with opposing facts. Actually the facts are mostly on the side of the opposition because the proponents keep repeating the Farris propaganda which has very little substance.

        Comment by David Copley | March 7, 2014 | Reply

        • I haven’t researched ALEC, but Kelleigh Nelson has:

          They are a nefarious organization which pretends to be “conservative”, but is really for a big central government. They draft model legislation – the legislation THEY want – and give it to State Legislators who apparently end up with nice contributions to their election campaigns.
          Very corrupt – very deceptive.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 7, 2014 | Reply

  11. PH, Has any of the following Bills helped Tennessee’s gun owners? S.B.0250/H.B.0248 or S.B1607/H.B.2145 or are they all dead?

    Comment by James Brecht | March 4, 2014 | Reply

  12. Wouldn’t the new Connecticut Gun Registration law, which has now turned into a “surrender or destroy” situation, and will probably lead eventually to Confiscation of the “unregistered” weapons…. wouldn’t that be an example of an Ex Post Facto law… which of course is forbidden by the Constitution to both Congress and to the States.

    Referenced article —

    Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any ex post facto laws or Bill of Attainder.

    States are also prohibited from passing any ex post facto laws by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    Comment by G.W. | March 1, 2014 | Reply

    • Article I, Sec. 15, Connecticut Constitution states:

      “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

      Well, then, if you are a “citizen”, you have the right to bear arms. Period. That’s all you need in the State of Connecticut. I submit the State Constitution prohibits the State from requiring registration as a condition precedent to bearing arms. And by the way, convicted felons in Connecticut have the right to bear arms also if they are out of prison and are citizens.

      So I say the Conn. state law making it a felony to possess guns which are not registered is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 15 of the State Constitution; and in violation of Art. I, Sec. 10, clause 1 of the federal Constitution, as an ex post facto law. To require registration of arms people already own is an “ex post facto” law because it adds a serious burden and onus [getting put on DHS' list of gun owners] to a status [being a gun owner] which didn’t exist when the citizen became a gun owner.

      But you should know that the federal district court ruled against the Connecticut gun owners and held that the State registration laws were reasonable restrictions. The gun owners hired an out of state law firm which apparently based their entire case on the 2nd amendment to the federal Constitution (even thou the supreme Court has already ruled that “reasonable” restrictions are permissible under the 2nd amendment); and IGNORED the clear provisions of the Connecticut Constitution. Such lawyers – if this is true – should be disbarred for sheer incompetence.

      And a Connecticut lawyer told me that she warned those plaintiffs that they better bring their case under the Connecticut Constitution. But oh no! Those fools just have to have an out-of State law firm.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

      • Agreed! Now, correct me if I am wrong, Publius Huldah. The reason for this amendment is not only for self defense but in defense of the state, too. Well, in order for the citizens to defend their state/country, they must at least have weapons which are equal or greater to their enemy’s weapons…

        How many bullets will be in an invading soldier’s gun magazines, ten (sarcastic tone)? The last time I looked, the preferred rifle of choice, by our enemies, wasn’t the single shot musket nor was it anything that only had magazines which only held ten bullets. It is the high powered rifle which has magazines that hold a lot more bullets than ten bullets.

        Point? If a government refuses to let their citizens have weapons, which equals our enemies weapons, the government is setting their citizens up for failure. That, to me, is treason all by itself. If we want to pile any more charges on, these officials have violated their oath to protect their own state constitution by passing a law which directly defies it. There has got to be a way that these criminals get prosecuted.

        Comment by richard s. | March 4, 2014 | Reply

        • You said “amendment” – do you mean Art. I, Sec. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution?
          Self-defense is a right given by God. The Bible shows we have the right to defend ourselves – using lethal force when necessary. Art. I, Sec. 15 merely acknowledges that pre-existing right. And yes, in order to defend ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, our States, we need the weapons the invaders have.
          In the federal Constitution, we did not delegate to the federal government ANY power to restrict our arms – so the federal government has no LAWFUL authority to restrict our arms in any fashion whatsoever.
          I haven’t read all of the Conn. Constitution for a while – but it doesn’t seem to delegate to the State authorities any power to restrict their arms in any way.
          Yes, our federal and State governments want to disarm us for the same reason the NAZIS wanted the Jews disarmed. They plan to kill us. Population reduction, don’t you know? Sustainability, and all that. This is why they want an Art. V convention; So they can replace our existing Constitution with one which (among other things) disarms us. Watch the movie, “The Pianist” – it shows how the NAZIS killed all those disarmed Jews.
          Yes, those Connecticut State legislators violated their State Constitution and their Oaths of Office. But the people of Connecticut elected them! WE THE PEOPLE must start vetting candidates for office!

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2014 | Reply

  13. We can continue to beat a dead horse or take Jefferson’s words to heart and prepare to try again after the dust settles;
    Read Thomas Jefferson: “We Failed” at
    It’s enough to make you want to crt first and commit murder second.

    Comment by Dennis Joyce | March 1, 2014 | Reply

    • Well, yes, but Hamilton said in Federalist No. 85 that it was the best they could do under the circumstances of the times.
      The whole thing depended on The People learning the Constitution so that they could hold their elected representatives accountable. But they failed. Even today, most REFUSE to learn it. I asked an active person in the patriot community to name 4 of the enumerated powers of Congress – the only one she could come up with was “make laws?”
      Do you see? She never even bothered to learn it.
      So we shouldn’t be surprised that We elect people who also don’t know it.
      WE THE PEOPLE dropped the ball and we are going to pay for it.
      Thanks for the link to the article on Jefferson – I read it with interest. But even so, a document can’t be written so as to be self-enforcing. And other than the provisions re slavery, I don’t know how it could have been much better. For the most part, it is pretty simple.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

      • Dear PH,
        I assume you are aware of the effort by Hillsdale College to spread knowledge of the Constitution through their online courses: and their Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship to extend that mission to Washington, D.C. They of course are also trying to raise money to reach many more people. The online courses are free.

        Comment by Nelson | March 4, 2014 | Reply

        • Yes, I know of their courses. I haven’t listened to them [slow internet access]. I hope they won’t go over to the dark side on this Art. V convention issue. Can you detect where they are going on this issue?

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2014 | Reply

      • Hi PH, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” –James Madison, letter to W.T. Barry, 1822
        The father of the constitution tried to tell us…..

        Comment by Spense | March 4, 2014 | Reply

        • ….and few listened.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 6, 2014 | Reply

          • because power trumps principle.

            Comment by Dwain Decell | March 6, 2014

  14. Last May, the Illinois state legislature passed a law allowing same-sex marriage in the state of Illinois. Per the Illinois constitution the effective date for the law taking effect is June 1st of 2014

    Cook County Clerk David Orr announced he had filed his responses to the complaints in Lazaro v. Orr and Darby v. Orr, the lawsuits filed against the Clerk on May 30, 2012 which claim that Illinois’ prohibition against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. According to Orr, he has told the Court that he agrees with the plaintiffs that they should be entitled to marry. Orr also said that he does not contest their claims that they were denied marriage licenses. Orr’s position was filed on his behalf by the Cook County State’s Attorney, who is representing him in these cases.

    Just recently, a federal judge in Cook County ruled on it. “There is no reason to delay further when no opposition has been presented to this Court and committed gay and lesbian couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry,” U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman stated. Her ruling noted that Cook County Clerk David Orr filed a brief in support of the lawsuit, which argued that couples should not have to wait until the Illinois law went into effect on June 1.

    My question is did the federal judge have the constitutional authority to hear the case?

    Comment by Spense | March 1, 2014 | Reply

    • My dear Son,
      We are beyond the point of legality or constitutionality. We are now in the Era of Raw Power. The Rule of Man Writ large. The collapse of Western Civilization. At best, what we have ahead of us is a life such as depicted on the TV show “Revolution”. Except we would be better off if the power grid (electricity) really does go out.
      The enemy are determined to get rid of our Constitution. They have seduced many. We must prepare for the worst.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

      • … I am also sorry to say that I agree with your conclusion about our demise…. Orwell called it “universal deceit”. Many states are presently trying to make it illegal to live off the grid. Though there are many prepared to do just that. So, can I assume the federal judge was in the wrong?

        Comment by Spense | March 1, 2014 | Reply

        • No, it didn’t. Looks as if TN will pass a Resolution calling for a con con.
          They have no understanding of what they are doing. Yes, it is “universal deceit”.
          The federal judge? Wrong piled on top of wrong – of course she can’t lawfully advance the effective date of a state statute. But she did it anyway, and no will stop her or even be able to stop her b/c her’s is the politically correct position.
          It no longer matters what the law says.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

          • I forgot to tell you this part…. our Illinois Attorney General had joined the suit on the side of Cook County Clerk. Incompetence or organized crime…. oh did I mention that the AG’s father is the speaker of the Illinois house? Think there is any justice coming from the state legislature?? Not a chance. Another reason why Illinois politics are the most corrupt in the nation.

            Comment by Spense | March 1, 2014

          • Can you move out of Illinois? It’s too cold to live there anyway, isn’t it?

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014

          • God bless you for trying Mom…. I admire your courage and Patriotism. I think maybe God is punishing us for our(country’s) ungodly ways. . “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” I fear woe is breathing upon our country’s nape…..

            Comment by Spense | March 1, 2014

          • Oh, yes.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014

  15. Please address the 13th Admendment as to “involuntary servitude” phrase. A clarification of this phrase would determined who has more freedom, rights , etc., the customer or the provided of a service.

    Comment by James H. Ragon | February 26, 2014 | Reply

    • The original intent of the 13th amendment was to end slavery. Period.
      So, strictly speaking, it only applies to stop that.

      But in these modern “evolving constitution” days, it means whatever a majority of judges on the supreme Court say it means.

      Sorry, I can’t be more helpful – but what I said is the bitter truth.

      The federal government has no lawfully delegated power over businesses, buying & selling goods or services, and such. So anything it does in those areas would be unconstitutional as outside the scope of the delegated powers. But in these bitter days, when everyone ignores the enumerated powers limitations on congresses’ powers, Congress meddles in such matters.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 26, 2014 | Reply

  16. You, my dear, will be in my most faithful and sincere prayers.

    Comment by IMO | February 25, 2014 | Reply

    • thank you! I fear it will be the lion’s den. You know why I do it?
      I think of the 18 year old boys who got off those little boats at D-Day; and I would be ashamed to stand before them if I didn’t.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 25, 2014 | Reply

  17. Hi Ph, I am doing battle with my state’ AG and a federal judge over a power grab. I recall reading in one of your papers about the differences in our God-given rights and fundamental rights. I think I remember your words pretty well but wanted to reference it for confidence sake. I know i saved it on my computer but I’ll be darned if I can find it. Do you remember which paper that would be? Please don’t spending allot time searching. I know you’re busy

    Comment by Spense | February 25, 2014 | Reply

  18. I can’t think of any thing the Obama machine and the Unions would love more than to have a Constitution Convention. In case the Con Conners don’t know the facts it is about the US Congress and the votes that exist in both the Democrat and Republican Party that want a Con Con to change the Constitution from a Republic to a Democracy. The Independents and Conservatives don’t have clue about how to count votes and I am not discussing the Republicans winning over the Democrats in the 2014 election. You count the noses of the Democrats and the establishment Republicans who would relish the opportunity to change the Constitution and destroy the Republic.One email list of the Democrat/Union Corporatist Paradigm contains 26 million members.

    Comment by rrstubbs | February 23, 2014 | Reply

  19. PH, you say: 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”: I am told that a “Convention of States” is much different from a Con-Con and that it is part of the Constitution, whereby states take action against abuses of the Federal Government. You lump them together. Will you clarify this for all of us?

    Comment by Wayne Ollick | February 23, 2014 | Reply

    • The people who say a “convention of states” is different from a con con are either lying or are ignorantly repeating the lies they have heard others tell.

      Article V of the federal Constitution is the convention everyone talks about: But it has been called by different names through the years: “Article V convention”, “constitutional convention”, “con-con”, and just recently, “convention of states”. But it’s all the same convention. The sole purpose of the new name is to deceive people by making them believe it is something different. If you will click on this link, it will take you to an article by Rob Natelson. At the top of page 10 (the second page of the article) Natelson explains that henceforth, he will no longer call it a “constitutional convention”, he will call it other things such an “Article V convention” or a “convention of states”.

      The “convention of states” name is the one which stuck because it makes people believe that it is something different than what it is.

      Please also check out my latest Qs & As on an Article V convention here:

      I answer lots of questions there. But if you have any I didn’t answer there, ask them here.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 23, 2014 | Reply

  20. Maybe it’s just my ol’ grey head talking but I don’t think Amendment XVII is valid. I haven’t been able to find out how the majority of states performed the ratification process but, if it was left up to the people in an election situation the state didn’t ratify it. The state is the legislative body plus the governor.

    In addition to that, only Constitution Article I, section 3 (The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof) was changed. That left Article V (and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.) in full force and effect.

    If the legislative body of the state only forwarded the populaces desires as ratification, Amendment 17 is void as I don’t believe any state would deliberately surrender its sovereignty to the central government regardless of how corrupt the state.

    Comment by Dennis Joyce | February 22, 2014 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 767 other followers

%d bloggers like this: