Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!


  1. PH

    More info on anti-commandeering:

    Scalia affirms it in:

    BRANCH et al. v. SMITH et al.

    appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of mississippi

    No. 01-1437. Argued December 10, 2002–Decided March 31, 2003*

    A good discussion of the entire issue as well as another reference (Printz, 521 U.S. at —-, 117 S.Ct. at 2384.) can be found in:

    United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

    STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 97-6389.
    Decided: December 3, 1998

    The Court concluded In Printz:

    We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.   Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly.   The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program․  [S]uch commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

    The issue that federal laws may only be directed at individuals and not state legislatures is also mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It has been a long time since I read it and I didn’t note where it is in the papers so it will take some time to find it, but I’ll look if you would like the info for your paper.

    Comment by Don Mellon | September 14, 2014 | Reply

    • Federalist Paper No. 16 discusses this.

      But remember that the fed. gov’t may meddle with individuals ONLY re the enumerated powers: So if you counterfeit the “Securities and current Coin of the United States” (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 6), the feds can directly prosecute you personally for the crime.

      But if you engage in “hate” speech – the feds have no constitutional authority to prosecute you unless you are in the military (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 14), or on a federal enclave (Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause), or on a federal territory (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl.2). The power to criminalize “hate” speech over the Country at Large was not delegated to Congress.

      It’ll be a while before I get to this.
      You are very good man, Don. Thank you.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 14, 2014 | Reply

  2. ph

    Here is one and there are others (by Scalia in the same year I think) but I will have to look them up.

    NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

    held 1
    (b) Although regulation of the interstate market in the disposal of low level radioactive waste is well within Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, cf. Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 621 -623, and Congress could, if it wished, pre-empt entirely state regulation in this area, a review of this Court’s decisions, see, e.g., Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 288 , and the history of the Constitutional Convention, demonstrates that Congress may not commandeer the States’ legislative processes by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program, but must exercise legislative authority directly upon individuals. Pp. 159-166.

    Comment by Don Mellon | September 14, 2014 | Reply

  3. The military recruitment advertisements also send me screaming over the hill. To pump young minds so full of absolute garbage about defending democracy all over the world just blows my boots off.

    They are supposed to support and defend the constitution and the nation, nothing else.

    Comment by Dennis | September 14, 2014 | Reply

    • Oh, this brings tears to my eyes. The federal government sends our young men and some young women (to whom they have lied) over to 3rd world countries to get killed or maimed; and then the fed gov’t decides not to fight any more. Lives and bodies thrown away for nothing.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 14, 2014 | Reply

  4. What I meant was, I hate the court when it tres to give the impression or illussion that it represents the people.

    Comment by Dennis | September 14, 2014 | Reply

    • So do I, Dennis. Before Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed to the supreme Court, a video was posted online where she was shown as saying that federal judges “set policy”. Her words and manner revealed that she KNEW they weren’t supposed to be saying this, but she giggled about it. Those criminals whom we send to the US Senate then confirmed her.

      But some 45 years ago, law professors were telling law students that judges “make policy”. I looked around and none of my classmates batted an eye.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 14, 2014 | Reply

  5. This “So-and-so” v Gitlow v. People citations really greats on me. The people are represented by the defendant, jury and gallery. Everyone else is a Stare representative. No wonder the law is as hard as a mule’s tool.

    Comment by Dennis | September 13, 2014 | Reply

    • I don’t understand what you mean – but Gitlow v.People grates on me also. There should have been an uprising in the legal community – but people don’t want to make a fuss. And perhaps they didn’t understand the ramifications. Though they should have.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 13, 2014 | Reply

  6. State Nullification can take several forms with the form most popular today being non-compliance, where a state just refused to apply any state resources to aid the implementation of the federal law. There is no legal challenge to non-compliance given that the Supreme Court has upheld the principle that the federal government cannot commandeer state resources to implement federal laws.

    Of particular interest is that unconstitutionality is not a requirement, only unpopularity. A state can use this very effective form of nullification for any federal law and do so without challenge by federal courts.

    Comment by Don Mellon | September 12, 2014 | Reply

    • Thank you, Don.
      Your comment is very interesting and helpful – and I might write a paper on it.

      Just bear in mind that any federal act which pretends to require the States to spend their own money is almost certainly a federal act which is outside the scope of powers delegated to the feds in the Constitution.

      That would make the federal act unconstitutional and thus a prime candidate for nullification.

      The powers delegated to the federal government are VERY few, limited and defined. Every power we said they could exercise is actually listed in the Constitution. Anything else they do is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      It is good that the supreme Court has recognized that the feds can’t force the States to spend their own money. However, WE must understand that WE DON’T NEED PERMISSION FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO NULLIFY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 14, 2014 | Reply

    • Don, you don’t happen to have the SCOTUS case(s) handy that upholds the principle that the federal government cannot commandeer state resources to implement federal laws.

      Comment by Spense | September 14, 2014 | Reply

      • Excellent, Spense. If Don will post the name of the case, it will save me some searching time.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | September 14, 2014 | Reply

        • It had to do with Unfunded Mandates. I remember that it may have been a law passed by congress, but I’m not sure on that.

          Comment by Boyd McFail | September 14, 2014 | Reply

  7. PH, I have read the Fourteenth Amendment several times and I can not find where the Supreme Court can link the 14th Amendment to the First Amendment when it comes to religion. I know that Separation of Church and State is false, but I was trying to look at it through the eyes of Hugo Black (justice). The Adoption of the XIV Amendment 1868, seems to me that they are pertaining to the newly freed slaves, Representatives apportions, section 3 nor 4 says anything about religion. Read your Article on Separation of Church and State, but I was wondering if you can point out how the Justices felt that the 14th blends in with the 1st. Amendment. I totally confused, of course I’m not a lawyer or judge. Thank you.

    Comment by James | September 12, 2014 | Reply

    • Well, it’s so simple! I wonder that you can’t see it. Let’s start with abortion:
      1. Look at Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. See the word, “liberty”? Well, if you look carefully – underneath that word – you will find another word, “privacy”. Did you find it? Well, what does “privacy” mean? Duh, it means women can kill their unborn babies! You couldn’t figure that out??
      2. Now look again at Section 1 of the 14th Amendment at the word, “liberty”. “Liberty” also means, “homosexual sodomy is a constitutional right.” You didn’t know it meant that?

      Sarcasm [directed to the supreme Court] aside, obviously, you are correct and the judges on the supreme Court are moral degenerates as well as tyrants who impose their own [sick] personal opinions on the rest of us. The original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to protect them from Southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship. I explain all this here:

      3. Now, let’s look at the 1st Amendment and the supreme Court’s outlawing of Christian prayer in public places, crosses in public places, etc.

      Read the 1st Amendment. WHOSE CONDUCT IS RESTRICTED? Only CONGRESS is restricted. CONGRESS is prohibited from making laws in those areas listed.

      But in Gitlow v. People (1925), the supreme Court looked at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and asserted that Sec. 1 “incorporates” the 1st amendment so that now, the 1st amendment restricts the States. [And the supreme Court, of course, will henceforth monitor the States to smack them down if they - the States - violate the 1st amendment.]
      Are you with me? You should be – this makes perfect sense.

      Then in Engel v. Vitale (1962) the supreme Court decided that a one sentence, non-denominational prayer in a public school constituted an “establishment of religion” in violation of the 1st Amendment. And so Suzie and Mary can’t thank Jesus for their milk and cookies at a public elementary school b/c little Suzie and Mary would be “establishing a religion”! And the school can’t allow this because they would be “endorsing” it.

      Hugo Black was a member of Ku Klux Klan.

      At Paragraph 12 of my paper which you referenced, I quote from Gitlow v. People (1925). THAT seems to be when & where the supreme Court fabricated their “incorporation” theory – that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporates” various of the first ten amendments so as to make them restrict the States. And so this is how the supreme Court usurped power over the States.
      Here is the paper:

      4. If our State governments hadn’t been filled with such cowards, wusses and wimps, they would have NULLIFIED these obviously ridiculous opinions. State governments should have directed the schools in their State to IGNORE the supreme Court’s opinion in Engle v. Vitale. I expect if they had, they could have curbed the supreme Court and we would not be in the mess we are in today.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 12, 2014 | Reply

  8. Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. 409 (1792), 411–414.↩

    The Invalid Pension Act of 1792 required federal circuit courts (comprised of Supreme Court justices riding circuit and local federal district court judges) to hear claims by Revolutionary War veterans seeking federal benefits. Justices in other circuits agreed to hear claims, but Wilson, Iredell, and district judge Peters refused to do so. They sent the following letter to President Washington explaining why. Congress changed the law, excluding judges from this duty. Hayburn’s Case was considered by many contemporaries, and is thought by many scholars today, to be the first instance of a federal court declaring an act of Congress to be unconstitutional.

    Unfortunately the Justices were opposed to the imposition upon the Judicial Branch being asked to do “ministerial” duties rather than to the Federal Government dispensing benefits to State Citizens.

    My argument would have been along the lines that the Army and Militias of the Revolution were NOT fighting for the Constitution and a Federal Government but for Independence from Britain and in defense of their State. Nothing in the Articles of Confederation would have authorized pension benefits to any given individual.

    However, nothing would prohibit a State or various States to Petition for Tax Relief in proportion to the number of “Invalid Veterans, widows and orphans” within the State.

    Comment by Steven Lee Craig | September 12, 2014 | Reply

    • Thanks, SLC, for naming the Pension Act of 1792. I’ll read it when I get a chance!

      Actually, the medical care of wounded veterans would be a proper charge against the new federal government.

      But my interest is when did we first start making laws providing that uninjured soldiers should get pensions paid to them by the federal government. I think the Act you so kindly identified for me will give the answer! So thanks!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 12, 2014 | Reply

  9. I have studied the “Federalist Papers” and the three clauses government abuses to get around supreme law. The primary argument used in the Papers, to convince skeptical colonist to ratify a central power, was protection against foreign danger. The abused commerce clause was intended to protect commerce so it could flourish. Doing a complete about face, government now forces states to capitulate to foreign invasions and mandates that destroy commerce.

    In this light, government has become a regime the likes of which, or worse than the one our revolutionaries sacrificed life and limb to overthrow.

    To put things in context, consider colonists reaction had Madison, Jay and Hamilton argued for the sanction of modern government.

    I’m surprised no body has not brought this case before usurpers using the framers writings. It seems to me school heads and courts have no case and ought to be challenged.

    Comment by Dwain | September 11, 2014 | Reply

    • 1. You said, “The abused commerce clause was intended to protect commerce so it could flourish.”
      Where do the Federalist Papers say that?

      And are you suggesting that our Framers intended for Congress to have the power to do anything which, in their judgment, would “protect” commerce? That is a very broad power!

      And is there some reason for disregarding the two Federalist Papers I cited on this issue?

      2. Do you really think we should “file a lawsuit” on the issue of people in government not relying on The Federalist Papers? And that the judges will apologize for not having used the Federalist Papers themselves?

      Sometimes I think people totally disregard every word I write -

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 11, 2014 | Reply

      • Sorry, I was not so clear on the commerce clause. I need to quit writing from my phone. I meant the commerce clause government presently abuses.

        I understand this clause was included to protect states from unfair duties levied on goods crossing their borders, nothing more nothing less. If I’m correct, its primarily the manipulation of this clause that gives rise to the hundreds of illegal federal departments and agencies bankrupting our nation.

        I don’t see how any government official, confronted with the framers explanations relating to the federal governments limited jurisdiction, can spin their clarifications.

        Can a politician or judge look me in the eye and reject the framers constitutional intent and the notion that their rational has supreme authority? To hear their unintelligible objection is what motivates me to present the argument. It would be a dream come true, if only to sear their conscious and heap coals on their heads. I know its undoable, but I love to fantasize about it.

        On a more realistic note, my focus is on developing a nullification campaign here in Texas with our tea party group.


        Sent from my iPhone


        Comment by Dwain Decell | September 12, 2014 | Reply

        • whew! That’s a relief! I feared you had lost your mind.
          It’s the THREE (3) clauses I discussed in the paper which were the vehicles the supreme Court used to get around the limitations imposed by the enumerated powers of the 3 branches of the federal government. Don’t ignore the other TWO clauses they perverted.

          Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is the clause the supreme Court used to seize power over the STATES. I explain this in my paper under the category 14th Amendment.

          Very few people in Washington, DC give a damn what the Federalist Papers say about anything. I know of only three people there who do read and apply The Federalist Papers (at least sometimes). I name them in my Postscript to this Paper:

          All the politicians will tell you, “The supreme Court decides what is constitutional”. Ask them – let me know if you get a different answer. And that is what law students are told in law school All lawyers except a tiny few, believe it.

          Applause for working on Nullification! First teach your group the federal system and enumerated powers – this is how they can determine which acts of the federal government are unconstitutional and thus subject to nullification. This one page chart explains our federal system and lists most of the enumerated powers

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 12, 2014 | Reply

  10. It began with the needs of widows and orphans who beseech-ed their Congressional representatives for aid.

    A Bill to provide that aid was marked up to provide a pension out of the Federal Treasury.

    THAT was a Bill in error. The DEBT belonged to the State.

    The Congress SHOULD have ‘returned’ the Petition to the State where the State Legislature could have Petitioned for an Apportionment adjustment of Federal Tax Liabilities for the care of Widows and Orphans.

    That way the dollars would never leave the State and the State would get the credit for caring of its own and the Fed would NOT have had those excess dollars to spend on matters they had no authority to do.

    Comment by Steven Lee Craig | September 11, 2014 | Reply

    • That is interesting, SLC.
      But I need a link to the federal bill which provided for this aid. Without the actual bill which did this, I can’t use the info.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 11, 2014 | Reply

  11. Publius,
    How do our oath breaking politicians get around the fact that the framers writings have supreme authority when it comes to understanding the federal governments limited jurisdiction? It seems to me, their explanations provide an irrefutable clear case against usurpation. Im sure attempts has been made. Im curious to know how officials spin their way out? 2+2=4 not 5.

    Comment by Dwain | September 10, 2014 | Reply

    • I bet most of them never heard of The Federalist Papers. When I was in law school, many decades ago, I never heard them mentioned. [And I had already read them, so would have noticed if they had been mentioned.] Law students are taught that the Constitution means WHATEVER THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IT MEANS.

      In this paper, I show how (during the later part of the 1800s) we abandoned the concept of “Law” as being a fixed body of Principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence & our Constitution, and accepted the new view that law “evolves”, and that judges are the ones who steer the evolution. So that is how we got federal judges who do whatever they want and write an opinion to justify the result they want. The State judges [wrongly] believe they must follow federal judges.

      And – I NEVER met a lawyer who read the Constitution in law school. In the constitutional law course, all we read were supreme Court opinions showing that Congress has the power to regulate whatever it wants. My latest paper proves the original intent of the three clauses the supreme Court perverted to support the new doctrine that Congresss can do whatever they want. You can see it [and comment!] here

      As a culture, we have thrown off ALL standards: Think about it: the way we dress, our manners, the arts, our speech, educational standards, etc. Consider paintings: Time was when artists had to learn about perspective, and many other technical subjects. Today, you just sling some paint on a canvas – and can be lionized and sell your works for high prices. THERE A REASON MEANINGLESS ART HAS BEEN PUSHED ON US. You can get a Ph. D. at an American University and know nothing. obama proves that a person who doesn’t even know how many States we have can get a law degree from Harvard. ALL a student has to do to succeed in the American schools and universities of today is to regurgitate whatever the professor says.

      When I started posting on the internet – and using The Federalist Papers to prove original intent – I was soundly chastised by the head of a conservative web site who informed me that I should cite contemporary law professors as authorities on the Constitution – not the Federalist Papers.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 11, 2014 | Reply

  12. Actually, the Militia is the highest and only entity charged with a law enforcement responsibility under the constitution.

    That may be where a vague sliver of light might be thrown upon the “civil law grand jury” too. It’s conceivable that the Militia might seat a grand jury under Martial Law that would appear, to the uneducated, as coming from the people.

    Most look at the Militia as only having a military responsibility but the Militia is older than the nation or any state in it. It also precedes government or restores governments that destroy themselves.

    It is the citizens themselves who command the Militia but the first thing governments try to do is codify the Militia and all its activities.

    Comment by Dennis | September 6, 2014 | Reply

    • Not really, Dennis. We must distinguish between the “unorganized militia” and the “organized militia”.

      1. Before our Revolution, the “militia” were nothing more than the armed free men – farmers, blacksmiths, tinkers, printers, trappers, clergy, etc. E.g., farmers lived on their farms and had a rifle which they used for hunting, varmints, and defense. You could call these the “unorganized militia”.

      During the Revolution, some of these joined up to fight. They were not part of “regular” Army under the Command of General Washington. Mel Gibson’s “Patriot” illustrates the militia which fought in our Revolution. You could call these the “organized militia”.

      2. Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, address the “organized militia”. CONGRESS is delegated authority to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing those who are called forth to service of the United States. The STATES retain the power to appoint the officers and to train the members (according to the standards prescribed by Congress).

      3. The various STATE Constitutions most likely have an Article addressing the militia.

      4. The organized militia has “law enforcement” responsibility in the sense that the feds can call them forth to “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. PERIOD. One must also check one’s State Constitution.

      But the unorganized militia doesn’t get to run around waving their weapons and enforcing vigilante justice. The unorganized militia (that’s each one of us in our individual capacities) have a God-given right to be armed for purposes of hunting, varmints, target shooting, defense against tyranny, gun collections, hoarding instincts, etc. In Federalist Paper No. 46, James Madison specifically says that the major purpose of the [organized] militia is to defend The People, their families and the State FROM usurpations of the federal government.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 10, 2014 | Reply

  13. Hey PH,
    I have read that the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement official within his county, having more authority there than the POTUS or anyone else. I believe this to be true, and have heard a sheriff say he learned this by studying the Constitution. But I don’t know where the law about this issue is found.
    Can you advise me on this?

    Comment by topcat1957 | September 6, 2014 | Reply

    • Sorry for the delay in answering your very good question. And I know it is a very good question because I had it myself before I understood these concepts:

      (1) The People are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist Paper No. 22, last sentence).

      (2) Governments have ONLY those powers delegated to them by The People (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para).

      (3) Our Constitution created a “federal” government: a federation of Sovereign States united for limited & enumerated purposes only; with all other powers retained by the States or The People.

      (4) Our Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. It may lawfully do ONLY that which we specifically authorized it to do. In the Constitution, we listed (“enumerated”) every power we delegated to Congress, to the President, and to the federal courts. [I have papers on the Enumerated Powers of each of these 3 Branches of the federal government.]

      (5) The Basic Principle is this: The federal government has NO lawful power over ANY part of our Country except as specifically authorized by our federal Constitution. All the powers we delegated to the federal government over the Country at large fall (for the most part) into 4 Categories:

      ♠ International relations, commerce and war;

      ♠ Control immigration and naturalization of new citizens;

      ♠ Domestically, establish a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy law, a [limited] power over interstate commerce, and mail delivery.

      ♠And in some of the Amendments, secure certain civil rights.

      That’s basically it! All other powers are retained by the States or the People.

      So! What lawful authority does the federal government have over the individual Counties in this land? Very little. The feds can, e.g., say the Counties can’t write their own Bankruptcy laws [because Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.4 delegates to Congress the power to make "uniform Laws" on the subjects of bankruptcies.] Well, then, who has most of the power in the Counties? IT WAS RETAINED BY THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE.

      But in their STATE Constitutions, THE PEOPLE [foolishly] delegated much of this power to their State governments. So basically, it is the State governments which now lawfully hold the power over the Counties [The Counties exercise only the powers the State government permits them to have].

      The County Sheriff is an elected law enforcement official. His Office is generally (if not always) provided for in the State Constitution. The Sheriff’s oath requires him to obey the State and federal Constitutions. He is answerable primarily to the two Constitutions and to THE People in his County. In addition, State statutes (which are consistent with the State and federal Constitutions) may impose requirements the County Sheriff must obey.

      The federal government has NO lawful authority over the Office of County Sheriff. None. Zero.

      Even so, various State Legislatures, among them the one in TENNESSEE, have betrayed their constituents by selling control over the County Sheriff to the federal government. They did this by passing laws putting the County Sheriff under the jurisdiction of DHS. See Tennessee Code 38-3-114. [I don't know how to put a hyperlink here.]

      So Sheriff Richard Mack is right in what he says about “constitutional sheriffs”.

      And a Sheriff who is a “manly man” will refuse to comply with any State statute which pretends to put his office under the jurisdiction of DHS.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 10, 2014 | Reply

  14. Thank you so much for your reply. You know the versions I.m getting for the show in FL are several. What you wrote to me was much appreciated. I fwd it to my group here in Oregon. I’ll find the source but I heard that the sheriff of Dixie Co. met with members of CLGJ for 2 hours then the Dist. Attn. for 2 more and came away feeling that CLGJ was the real deal.

    I look forward to a long and mutually beneficial association. This is so critical: sharia’ Dearborn. Islam is the biggest threat to our country after the obozo executive branch; but before congress and the judiciary.

    Excuse me for rambling! Can you figure the SCOTUS vote on Corporations and the same rights as a person???

    Comment by Ron | September 4, 2014 | Reply

    • I know the two members you speak of personally. They met with the FDLE and were told they are under criminal investigation. Of course the law is going to speak to them!

      Here is one response to a NLA filing. I think it speaks for itself:

      Sharia law in America is one thing I believe you and I can agree on. It has no place in this country.

      I would defer to our Hostess for a detailed comment. However, corporations are made up of people are they not? How are they any different from a Union?

      Comment by Douglas | September 5, 2014 | Reply

      • Douglas, what you say is correct: Corporations are made up of persons and in this regard are no different from labor unions.

        The issue is this: And I ask Ron to search the Constitution and cite Article, Section and clause: Where does our federal Constitution delegate to Congress power to make laws regulating political speech, campaign contributions, corporations, or labor unions?

        Ron won’t find it b/c it isn’t there. So ALL laws Congress has made which pretend to regulate these issues are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. THAT is what we need to deal with – instead of allowing ourselves to be sidetracked into arguing the irrelevant issue of whether “corporations” are “persons”.

        The list of enumerated powers delegated to Congress is so short and simple, a 6th grader ought to be able to recite them by heart.

        If The People understood the Constitution we have – and enforced that Constitution with their votes and nullification – there would be no need for the idiotic gimmicks the ignorant patriots on our side are so enamored of.

        So Ron: Take some time off and read the links I suggested to you.

        The people “on our side” who REFUSE to read our Declaration and Constitution; and instead latch on to idiotic theories such as the mythical “common law grand jury” – and who push those idiotic theories – and reject the instruction of actual former criminal defense attorney [yours truly], are doing every bit as much harm to our Land as the Progressives.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | September 5, 2014 | Reply

    • Ron, you are trying to build a roof when you have no floor and no walls. First thing you must do is learn our federal system and the enumerated powers of Congress. Lay aside – for a time – your notions of the “common law grand jury”.

      This chart illustrates our federal system and the Principles on which it is based:

      This addresses the enumerated powers of Congress and the 3 clauses the supreme Court perverted to get around the enumerated powers.

      You need to learn these Foundational Principles. and you can check out everything I say by looking it up in the Constitution or the cited Federalist Papers.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 5, 2014 | Reply

    • Terry was arrested for his forming his own Grand Jury.

      Comment by Douglas | September 8, 2014 | Reply

  15. When I read the 504-36 on line from Cornell I accept that as true. Then I read Scalia for the majority I get a different finding than you presented. He contends that the Common Law grand Jury is apart from and not controlled or answerable to the other Exec. Leg., Jud, in effect a 4th branch of government that can/will/must find how to hold the feet of the wrong doers to the fire.. A Common Law Grand Jury is legal by accepted legal arguments/cases/findings that pop up when reading about this. It has been neglected but is legal. The salutatorian system of law developed by judges, who are attorneys, legislator who are attorneys and the entire system that empowers the corruption and a trough within that group. They do not want anyone policing their actions. When the Constitution was written there was maritime and common law. Fact.. That has not been changed by amendment. Fact. Therefore, when one follows the rules of common law; the out come must be complied with by those that a finding/ truebill empowers to act. Should they not act; then there may/can/will be a true bill issued stating their refusal to act and an arrest order issued to the sheriff.
    It is not necessary for a “court” to empanel a grand jury. So say the rules.

    Comment by Ron | September 3, 2014 | Reply

    • Ron, the stuff you are posting is rubbish. You don’t know what you are talking about. You need to take up another hobby.
      Read Douglas’ two comments. He is intelligent.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 3, 2014 | Reply

      • Thank you! I do try.

        I am very much like you. I try to educate people. I always tell them not to believe me; read the information and learn the truth for yourself.

        Comment by Douglas | September 3, 2014 | Reply

        • When I read your first comment, I thought you were a fellow criminal lawyer….. your comment was spot on. and short.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 5, 2014 | Reply

          • A Judge asked me one time if I had gone to Law School. When I replied “No” he than asked “Have you thought about it?” Thank you for the compliment.

            My local Code Enforcement started giving me grief about an antique automobile I was restoring, legally. They brought me before the Code Enforcement Board using a falsely sworn affidavit. When I pointed this out to the Board, they were less concerned with that than my trying to stop my legal activities. To make a long story short, after having $39,600 in fines against me I discovered that the person who swore everyone in to testify was not qualified to do so and all the testimony was null. The way the whole thing was handled got the County Manager and the head of Code Enforcement fired. I have been using what I learned ever since.

            I have defended myself in Court twice. First for Criminal Mischief and than CCW without a permit. I won both times and have been fascinated with the law ever since. At one point the County Attorney and I made a deal; they would leave me alone if I left them alone. That deal has held good for 19 years.

            I am VERY impressed with your site. The wealth of knowledge you freely share here is amazing. Thank you for making it available. I’ll be spending a lot time here. ;<)

            Comment by Douglas | September 5, 2014

    • Yes, he is correct. The Common Law Grand Jury, that GJ that all Englishmen where entitled to under the “common laws” of England, is NOT under the control of the court. The court empanels “The People” to set on a GJ and from that point on the court has no control of theGJ.

      Please point me to just ONE self empaneled GJ in the history of England or of the United States. The GJ has always been called from the people, empaneled by the courts and given free run. That is ALL that US v Williams confirms.

      Here are two links. One is a history of the GJ from 1906, one of Scalia’s resources for his opinion. The other is US v Williams. Read them both and get back to us and tell us where we are wrong. And please, quite chapter and verse.

      Just how does the current system “empower the corruption” as you claim. Citizens, The People, are called at random, empaneled as a GJ and are free to investigate any crimes that they may have presented by the prosecutor or on their own investigation. How does he CLGJ differ from this?

      Comment by Douglas | September 3, 2014 | Reply

    • Quoting Ron:
      “Fact. Therefore, when one follows the rules of common law; the out come must be complied with by those that a finding/ truebill empowers to act. Should they not act; then there may/can/will be a true bill issued stating their refusal to act and an arrest order issued to the sheriff.
      It is not necessary for a “court” to empanel a grand jury. So say the rules.”

      Just i case my last post was unclear. Please tell me where you find the “Rules of Common Law.” Please give a link to them. I’d like to read them.

      Where is the “rule” that the court is not necessary to empanel a GJ. Please provide a link to it so that I can read it.

      So what happens when the Sheriff tells your CLGJ to pound sand as your “true bill” has no legal authority? Just what are you going to do?

      Comment by Douglas | September 3, 2014 | Reply

  16. US v Williams is taken completely out of context. No where does it give credence to any self empaneled grand jury. The common law grand jury came down to us as a jury empaneled by the Sheriff and then the Courts. ALL US v Williams (and it was not the first case) states is that after the court empanels the grand jury, the court has no control over what they hear as evidence or what they investigate. Nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, the grand jury empaneled today IS the peoples common law grand jury.

    What was done in Dixie County has no standing in law and will be ignored, just as every other “legal” action taken by members of the NLA have been.

    Tell me how many people you know of that were allowed to “volunteer” for jury duty? Do you really think those who “volunteer” for a grand jury are impartial, not having an agenda or ax to grind?

    Comment by Douglas | September 3, 2014 | Reply

    • Douglas, you are 1000% correct. Where have you been all my life?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 3, 2014 | Reply

      • I got invited to a NLA common law grand jury meeting a while back. I listened to what they had to say. Then one of the leaders got off on a tangent about not needing a driver license and cited Thompson v. Smith,155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604. So I looked it up and surprise surprise the cited case proved that in fact the State CAN demand you have a drivers license.

        So than I looked up US v Williams and read it three times. It was then that I realized that the people at the NLA have drunk WAY to much of the Kool-Aid. I researched most of the cases that Scolia cited and also found “THE GRAND JURY, An Essay” by GEORGE J. EDWARDS, JR. from 1906. It is very detailed and goes back in history way before the Magna Carta. To anyone interested in learning the truth about the grand jury it’s a long read but very well worth the time. Here is a link to it;

        Every case the people from NLA cite hold almost exactly the opposite of what they claim. They are using citation keys, the research tabs at the front of every case listed in WESTLAW as the basis for there positions; NOT the whole case. That’s about like holding an elephant’s tail and describing the whole animal while blindfold. They are a complete joke. I was threatened by one of them that he would personally PROSECUTE me if I revealed anything about what went on in the meetings. I told him I would welcome a chance to appear with him in a court room. So far it’s been like everything out of his mouth; pure BS.

        FYI, I have defended myself in court twice. One time on criminal mischief and the other on a firearms charge. I won both times. I have also beat City Hall so many times that I have an agreement with their attorney, they will leave me alone as long as I leave them alone.

        PS. Good site, I’ll be back. Thanks for helping revel the truth in a world of lies.

        Comment by Douglas | September 3, 2014 | Reply

  17. Good Afternoon, I went to and read the rules. They conflict with your answer. As your answer challenges my opinion which agrees with the rules listed on this website what do you have to substantiate your opinion. I also disagree with the Constitution Decoded and your friend that you cite. Judge Scolia also agrees with a”so Called” has always been demeaning or derogatory where I come from. Do you mean that to me? I am the one suggesting that the Common Law grand Jury has more than civil authority. Am I the “so Called”? The Common Law Grand Jury in Dixie County, FL has recently issue 2 True bills that are definitely not civil . Judge Scolia in his majority paper also disagrees with you.. Calling the Common Law Grand Jury the 4th branch of government.
    Please answer me here as I do not have access to Facebook.
    I also watched you speech on the 2nd amendment. I love it. I am seeking a meeting with my county Sheriff.
    All the very best,

    Comment by Ron | August 30, 2014 | Reply

    • The entry on the website you are so proud of was written by persons who have no idea what they are talking about. If you can not distinguish between wisdom and rubbish, then there is nothing I can do for you. You are letting what you already believe prevent you from learning the Truth.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2014 | Reply

    • Ron, I was at the meeting that lead to the actions of the Dixie County Common Law Grand Jury (CLGJ). I stayed away from the circus at the Court House. The CLGJ either slipped into an empty court room or had the meeting in a hall way depending on who tells the story. The Foreman of the court empaneled GJ disagreed with the State’s Attorney on some points of law. Rather than seek guidance from the court, the Foreman of the court empaneled GJ empaneled his own CLGJ and under “color of law,” recited his “true bill” which was rubber stamped by his hand picked CLGJ. Sounds like true blind, impartial justice to me. NOT.

      As an example of the BS that was presented in their “True Bill” they consider that their claims that the State’s Attorney failed to honor his Oath is “Treason.”

      From the Florida Constitution: “876.32 Treason.—Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against the same, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, or giving them aid and comfort. Whoever commits treason against this state shall be guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”

      How does any reasonable person stretch the literal reading of the Constitution to include a claimed failure to uphold ones Oath as “treason.” So I must assume that the CLGJ believes that they can re-write our State Constitution at will and seek to enforce their changes thru the courts. The same courts that they claim have no jurisdiction over THEM but they seek the court to enforce their made up law against others.

      Would you want to be subject to this type of “justice?”

      Comment by Douglas | September 3, 2014 | Reply

  18. I returned to Constitution Decoded where I had left a message about the lack of the 1992 decision where scalia ranks the common law grand jury with the other three branches of government. She miss this when decoding Amendment VII

    Comment by Ron | August 30, 2014 | Reply

    • No, my dear Friend at Constitution Decoded didn’t miss a thing – she understands that the 7th Amendment discusses CIVIL LITIGATION only, not criminal prosecutions.

      We have many problems in on our Country. One of them is people spouting misinformation. YOU can help solve that problem!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2014 | Reply

  19. Good Morning,
    I typed in “supreme court decision in 1992 common law grand jury amendment 7″. I got the whole thing.Common Law Grand Jury I would really like your opinion on this. We in the Common Law Grand Jury movement through National Liberty Alliance believe we can turn our corrupted government around at Federal, state and local levels. With persons such as you reading the information and arriving at the conclusion the Common Law Grand Jury is a viable option to right wrongs.

    I thought I have maintained a respectful and courteous tone. After my enlistment, in the US Navy 3 years , 11 months and 28 days, was finish I decided not to use honorifics and earned titles except a Judge in his court. I did not like being a second class citizen by act of congress, If I know a persons first name I use it. I ask for it if I don’t.

    Comment by Ron | August 30, 2014 | Reply

    • Ron, I am addressing the issue of a so-called “common law” grand jury on my Facebook page. Please send me a friend request on FB and then read the comment I posted an hour or so ago on my FB Timeline.

      And please note especially my discussion about how the 7th Amendment deals with civil litigation ONLY and has NOTHING to do with grand juries. Grand juries are restricted to CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS only – and do their work BEFORE the actual trial of the defendant in a criminal prosecution.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2014 | Reply

  20. Hi Publius, I hope you are doing well. I have been reading “The Constitution Decoded”. Did you do the explanations of the Constitution? Great work! If you did when do you plan to finish it? Can I have your permission to put this information into a booklt so I can give out to citizens?

    Comment by Carolyn Worssam | August 19, 2014 | Reply

    • Is that Catherine White’s site? She and I are internet friends and I know she reads my papers. I haven’t read thru her site – I just now glanced at it. I have been meaning to write a book… and make it available for free on line…

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 19, 2014 | Reply

    • Hi Carolyn —

      Thank you for your kind comments. Wow; they thought that someone could read my work and think it up to the level of Publius Huldah’s amazing work is astounding, humbling, and sets a VERY high bar for me to work on sticking to.

      As far as putting my work in your booklet — on the home page of the site, I give a general permission to use anything on the site for non-commercial purposes, as long as full attribution is given and (if appropriate) a link back to my site is included.

      Comment by Catherine | August 27, 2014 | Reply

  21. I have the most difficult time with your website. How does one establish a new thread? How does one reply to a specific thread. Your webmaster should be able to do better. Other blogs manage better. AND I really want to know what you think on many issues.

    Comment by Ron | August 19, 2014 | Reply

    • Go to the “Ask Questions” page and post your question! And subscribe to the comment thread so that you will get an email notification when I answer. And maintain a respectful and courteous tone.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 19, 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 809 other followers

%d bloggers like this: