About
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following:
There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus.
* * *
“If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?” Johnwk
* * *
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian.” Attributed to Henry Ford.
* * *
I saw a movie where only the military and the police had guns: Schindler’s List.
* * *
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” Autobiography of Mark Twain
* * *
PERMISSION to re-post: You may re-post my papers on your own sites, provided you do not change the text, retain all the hyperlinks, and have a link back to my website. However, since I periodically revise my papers, the better practice is to post a para or so and have a “continue reading here” which links to my site. That way, your readers will have the most recently revised edition.
* * *
Where do Rights come from? God? The Constitution? The supreme Court? Or the “government”? I’ll show you. It is important that you understand. (videos in two parts totaling 22 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpXBckyDac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN29tAiNV7o
* * *
To the Department of Homeland Security:
I am delighted to learn of your intense & increasing interest in learning the original intent of Our Constitution! Please feel free to browse around to your hearts’ content.
Also, if any of you have questions as to the original intent of any provision or provisions of Our Constitution, please feel free to post your questions.
To learn Our Constitution, you will need to get a copy of The Federalist Papers; and for word definitions, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language. You can find The Federalist Papers on line; and here is an online copy of Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: As I trust you know, word meaning are like the clouds: meanings change as time passes. So, naturally, we want to focus on the meanings enjoyed by Words during the Era of our Founding.
OK! Here is your homework assignment: Get a hard copy of The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Read them cover to cover. Using different colored pencils, highlight (1) the powers of Congress, (2) the powers of the Executive Branch, and (3) the powers of the judicial branch.
With a 4th color, highlight all references to God in both Documents!
Please pay particular attention to what the Declaration says about the SOURCE of our Rights. Mark that with a 5th color.
Surprising, isn’t it?
Oh! You can get pocket copies from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. I think Heritage sells them in bulk – really cheap – so you can buy lots and distribute them to your co-workers, family and friends.
Again, do not be shy about posting your questions! I am just a little old lady, and do not bite.
Kindest regards, Publius Huldah.
Publius Huldah explains when Nullification of unconstitutional acts of the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Branches of the federal government is required by Article VI, clause 3, U.S. Constitution.
PUBLIUS HULDAH
-
I have an answer for that too. Just get a life size cutout of yourself for the televised events and just run audio of your speeches on the constitutuion and defer to your (hired) admins for questions. You really cannot do any worst that who is in office these days. The majority of our “leaders” are all reading the teleprompters with words written by traitors. Watching a paper cutout tell the truth would be refreshing. If you run I will work for free and setup and pay for the poster cutouts myself….The lime light can be overcome the biggest problems with running for office is the fund raising. You would be at a dis-advantage because principled people do not cowtow to anyone just for campagin cash or cowtowing to a party. But at the same time you would be much more efficient in defining your positions (pro-constitution, no question) so less cash is needed.
Keep up gods work you are great whether you run or not someday. No need to answer me I was just wanting to compliment you on your efforts to educate our fellow citizenry and myself.
I love your comment, Andre. You are clever. Remember Monty Python? So funny. Your comment reminds me of that. I see a skit on this: Candidates for office using cardboard cutouts and recordings! But I would want to answer the questions myself.
Your confirmation hearings would become a phenomenal eye-opener for the general public and a great opportunity to show that our esteemed leaders in Congress are incredibly ignorant of the Constitution. While that revelation may not gain the necessary votes, it may help break down the faith that citizens have placed in government and their elected leaders as the solution to all of our problems, rather than the cause of them. The silent majority is waiting for some truth-tellers around which to rally.
Oh yes! I would turn my hearings into a forum for teaching enumerated powers, original intent, The Federalist Papers, the source of our Rights, man made anti-rights, and the monstrous evils of progressivism.
I will take that. If only we had a real person as a president to appoint you. I would not worry too much about you administration skills, an inefficient government with someone who knows how the constitution is applied is much more preferred over our current efficient communist batch of administrators who are driving us into tyranny very quickly.
Well, that is true. I could find someone to guide me on the management stuff. But still, I am an academic person, not one who likes the limelight.
Yes! Yes and another YES! Wouldn’t it be a hoot to actually have a Constitutional expert on the Surpreme Court? And aTRUE PATRIOT to boot. Could there truly be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? We can only pray? Stay strong and faithful as that is all we have left right now.
God Bless,
Donna
Oh, that would be a hoot! And I’d give free public seminars. Organize chapters in the 50 States.
Publius for office any office maybe president!!! Please run.
Oh, you are a dear! But I don’t have the gift of administration – I have no executive abilities. I can’t even run my own home properly. However, I would like to be on the supreme Court!
Was Marbury v. Madison correct?
With respect to judicial review? Yes! That is the supreme Court’s “check” on Congress.
And Alexander Hamilton recognized this power in Federalist Paper No. 78.
The President’s “check” on Congress is his Oath of Office which requires him to uphold the Constitution and not lawless acts of Congress.
Congress’ “check” on the President and federal judges is impeachment, conviction, and removal.
The States’ “check” on all 3 branches of the federal government is my favorite thing: NULLIFICATION!
The Peoples’ “check” on Congress and the President is the ballot box and jury nullification and “regular” nullification.
Thanks. I still find it amusing, though, that the SCOTUS claimed to know the Constitution better than James Madison – its principal author.
One other thing: you sometimes mention the UVA’s Board of Visitors’ 1825 decision to make the Federalist Papers a part of the list of must reads for UVA’s Law School and the fact that Madison and Jefferson (errr, sorry, I meant Mr Jefferson) were present at that meeting.
To say they were present at the meeting is a vast understatement. I think it’ll strengthen your case on this one if you mention that: 1) Both Madison and Mr Jefferson were members of that Board (which governs UVA); 2) Mr Jefferson was, at the time, the President (Rector) of UVA*, having founded the University in 1819; c) in 1825, UVA had just opened for students, and all schools of that University, including the Law School, had to select coursebooks and other study material, as well as the curriculum, for their students – Mr Jefferson PERSONALLY designed the curriculum for the University’s schools, including the School of Law, and 6860 (yes, 6860!) books to be bought for the University’s Library.
So, in short, Mr Jefferson, then president (rector) of UVA, presided over that meeting of the Board (of which Madison was also a member) and, at that meeting, it was decided (probably on these two statesmen’s recommendation) to make the FP and the DoI a part of the course material for UVA Law School students.
*UVA is governed by a 9-man Board of Visitors appointed by the Governor of VA with the consent of the VA Senate. The Board must meet at least once per year, has the final say on the most important issues, and elects the University’s Rector from among its members.
Correction: the president and the rector of UVA are two different, separate positions.
ZM, “judicial review” is not an issue – it never was. READ Federalist No. 78 and you will see. Of course, the supreme Court has the duty – the power – to strike down acts of Congress which violate the Constitution! This was understood from the beginning. That is one of the “checks” and balances!
I read an article a week or so ago where some idiot was ranting & raving about “judicial review”. The author doesn’t know what he is talking about. Perhaps this is the article you read – do you have the link? Perhaps I should respond.
It really makes no sense at all to say that the supreme Court claimed to understand the Constitution better than James Madison! The Federalist Papers explain how courts must declare acts of Congress which violate the Constitution unconstitutional – and Madison embraced those Papers as authoritative as to the genuine meaning of the Constitution.
In Madison’s Report to the Virginia Legislature on the Virginia Nullification Resolutions (1799-1800) [The link is in my paper, "James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers"], I think he discusses under the 3rd Resolution that in the first resort the federal courts decide constitutionality of acts of Congress. But in the final resort, the States do.
Our World would be so much better off if people would refrain from writing/speaking on matters they do not understand. That Mark Twain quote comes to mind!
Re Jefferson’s & Madison’s positions at UV when they endorsed that statement as to the authoritative status of The Federalist Papers: It doesn’t matter! That was Thomas Jefferson! That was James Madison! WOW!
Here’s the link to the article I’ve read recently: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-good-guys-are-not-coming-to-save-us_042013
Thanks for the enlightening response.
Ma’am,
I have read a comment on the Huffington Post from a man who states that the Second Amendment was ratified to assist in controlling slaves, and uses this article as a defense:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Can you speak to these observations?
My thanks in advance,
Hillsboro, OR
The author is a complete idiot. He just makes the stuff up or he copies someone else who made it up. Or he is a liar.
The Federalist Papers show throughout why the People were armed: See, e.g., the 2nd half of Federalist No. 46, where James Madison says the purpose of an armed citizenry is – in the last resort – to fight the federal government if it becomes a tyrant.
The “Militia” were the armed adult male citizens. Click on the following link, and watch the video and read the two papers. Then you will understand the 2nd Amendment. In the oldest paper, I discuss and link to the Militia Act of 1792. Be sure to click on that link also and read it.
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/militia/
“State” as used in the 2nd Amendment, means “government”, not e.g., the “State of Virginia” or the “State of New York”. Political philosophers use the term “State” in this way all the time!
And note that Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 & 16 delegate to Congress certain powers over the “Militia” – Congress may provide for their arming and training; and may call upon them to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. So this is one way the Militia protected our once free “State” – by defending our Country from invaders and e.g., those attempting to overthrow our Constitution and replace it with ….. sharia.
Americans were armed from day one!
I haven’t read all those documents you mentioned that if a person hasn’t read them they shouldn’t comment on certain subjects, but I shall. Will you be posting a transcript of your speech in Fayatteville? PPSIMMONS.blogspot actually published a piece by me today, 4/10/13. I am not so educated as you, but I hope you will peruse it. Thank you for your brilliant speech and learned articles.
Hi PH, Obama appears to being usurping power… have you seen this E.O. It concerns voting
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/28/executive-order-establishment-presidential-commission-election-administr Am I correct in saying he is over-reaching again?
I am certain you are correct! but I’ll read it tomorrow and get back with you.
Sorry for the delay. I just looked at it. A total usurpation of power. Monstrously unconstitutional. Our Framers and Constitution are clear that the States would retain primary control over the election process. See: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/arizonas-proposition-200-what-the-constitution-really-says-about-voter-qualifications-exposing-the-elections-clause-argument/
I don’t know what to do. The people who care are too few. Over & over, on the State level, I see ignorant people who don’t know anything spouting off as if they know all about it; and few know the difference.
State legislators generally are oblivious – they generally have no discernment – they don’t know anything but think they know all about it (they are just going by what they have heard)- and seem to think that whatever THEY think is a “good idea” should be made into law.
State legislators generally seem to be craven cowards who don’t have the guts to nullify anything. I expect County election officials, the State Secretaries of State, etc., in TN and elsewhere will scurry to obey this Executive order.
And so Judgment falls on America. Goodbye, sweet America.
But it is wrong for me to despair. Our Job is to be faithful, to do what we are called to do, and leave the results in the hands of God.
I always wondered how Hitler was able to seize total power. Now I know. PEOPLE ARE SO INCREDIBLY STUPID & COWARDLY & IMMORAL.
I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but I think I understand why God sent the Flood.
Hi PH, thanks for your response… I had already contacted the white house and my congressman demanding the E.O. be rescinded. I understand your frustration…. the sheeple are going to learn the hard way…. maybe this is God’s punishment for what we have allowed our country to become. It is but a shell of a free country.
Cutting Canals — The specified powers of the Constitution, in the founders own words –
I was reading through the Journal that was kept by James Madison as a record of the Federal Constitutional Convention in 1787. This Journal is the most complete, and the most definitive record, of the proceedings, the debates, and the votes that were taken, while the delegates from the thirteen States were writing the US Constitution. (Note 1 below) The Journal was later ordered to be printed and published by an Act of Congress.
I’ve copied a page from Madison’s Journal below.
On Sept.14,1787 they were proposing to add the power to “cut canals” to the specified powers that Congress was to have. They discussed their reasons for and against granting Congress the power to “cut canals”, but as you can see, in the end they voted to not extend that new power to Congress. (page 725 of the “Journal of the Federal Convention”)
They voted down this ‘new proposed power’ to cut canals – they did not allow it – they did not give that authority to the federal government. But, regardless of what this ‘particular proposed power’ was, the fact that they specified some powers and voted down other powers says it all. We undeniably have a Constitution expressly designed to limit the federal government to the specified enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. (Note 2 below)
Why would Dr. Benjamin Franklin have even brought forth this proposal if Congress were to have some indefinite powers to write legislation on any subject that they thought expedient or desirable ? It would have been totally unnecessary and superfluous.
Any person could read this one page of Madison’s Journal and not have to go any further to realize that there can be no debate — there is no argument that can be put forth that Congress has some sort of an ever elastic, ever expanding, ever more supreme authority to legislate on any subject that strikes their fancy.
They would not have debated about, voted for, and then specified only some powers, if they actually intended to grant unlimited powers. They would simply have said that Congress can pass any legislation that they wish in order to advance the “general welfare”. They did not, they merely granted Congress the power to “collect taxes” to advance the “general welfare”, with that “general welfare” being limited to the specified powers that followed. (Note 2 below)
There is line after line, page after page, statement after statement, from these representatives of their respective States as they wrote our Constitution. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to chain our public officials to a strict and clearly delineated set of rules and tasks within very narrow and specific boundaries. (Note 2 below)
The Constitution is a very explicit and easily understood document. It is not necessary to interpret the Constitution. The founders of this Country wrote down exactly what they meant when they composed it. If you ignore, reinterpret, or disregard any one part of it, then you ignore it in its entirety and you subvert the very reason for having a written Constitution. Anyone who oversteps these boundaries is not authorized to do so.
As Mr. Mason put it while discussing another power of Congress in Article 1, Section 8, “Congress would not have the power unless it were expressed” in the Constitution. (page 542 of the “Journal of the Federal Convention”)
Mr. Madison further stated on the U.S. House floor, February 7, 1792., “I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms (to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare) prefixed to the specified powers—but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms. ”
“The language held in various discussions of this house is a proof that the doctrine (of implied open ended general welfare powers) in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted.”
“In short, sir, without going farther into the subject, which I should not have here touched at all but for the reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.” (James Madison, Speech on the U.S. House floor, 07 February 1792. Quote in: Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 4, p.428-429)
In his Farewell Address on September 17 of 1796, George Washington stated that “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
—————————————————————————————————————–
Records of the Federal Convention
Published Under Direction Of The United States Government
From The Original Manuscripts.
Reprinted 1895 Albert, Scott, Chicago, Page 725
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7
[2:615; Madison, 14 Sept. 1787]
Doctor Franklin moved to add after the words “post roads” Article I Sect. 8. “a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary”.
Mr Wilson seconded the motion.
Mr Sherman objected. The expense in such cases will fall on the United States, and the benefit accrue to the places where the canals may be cut.
Mr Wilson. Instead of being an expense to the U. S. they may be made a source of revenue.
Mr. Madison suggested an enlargement of the motion, into a power “to grant charters of incorporation where the interest of the United States might require, and the legislative provisions of individual States may be incompetent”. His primary object was however to secure an easy communication between the States, which the free intercourse now to be opened seemed to call for. The political obstacles being removed, a removal of the natural ones as far as possible ought to follow.
Mr. Randolph seconded the proposition.
Mr King thought the power unnecessary.
Mr Wilson. It is necessary to prevent a State from obstructing the general welfare.
Mr King — The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philadelphia and New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a bank, which has been a subject of contention in those cities. In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.
Mr. Wilson mentioned the importance of facilitating by canals the communication with the Western Settlements. As to Banks he did not think with Mr. King that the power in that point of view would excite the prejudices and parties apprehended. As to mercantile monopolies they are already included in the power to regulate trade.
Col: Mason was for limiting the power to the single case of Canals. He was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by any means already implied by the Constitution as supposed by Mr. Wilson.
The motion being so modified as to admit a distinct question specifying & limited to the case of canals.
New Hampshire — Massachusetts — Connecticut — New Jersey– Delaware –Maryland — North Carolina — South Carolina — no
Georgia — Pennsylvania — Virgina — aye
[ Ayes--3; noes--8. ]
The motion was not agreed to.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Note 1 —– James Madison was determined to — “preserve as far as I could an exact account of what might pass in the Convention”. If the convention succeeded in drafting a new constitution and if that proposal were adopted by the American people, Madison felt that his record of what happened in the convention would allow future generations to understand “the objects, the opinions & the reasonings” that gave rise to the new Constitution. Madison, like many others of his generation, believed that Americans had the responsibility of constitution making not merely for themselves and their posterity but for all of mankind. His record of the Constitutional Convention would help future historians from all countries understand the philosophical and practical motivations of the delegates.
The Convention chose William Jackson as its secretary. Madison correctly sensed that Jackson would preserve only a skeletal record of the proceedings. Thus, with the tacit approval of the delegates, Madison separated himself from the Virginia delegation and sat instead in “a seat in front of the presiding member, with the other members on my right & left hands. In this favorable position for hearing all that passed, I noted . . . what was read from the Chair or spoken by the members”.
Madison was already an accomplished note taker of debates, having practiced and refined his skill in Congress. The scholarly Virginian had a knack for isolating the essentials of the argument while listing the supporting evidence given by each speaker. He explained that he “was not a little aided by practice & by a familiarity with the style and the train of observation & reasoning which characterized the principal speakers”. He never missed a day of the convention, nor at most “a cassual fraction of an hour in any day, so that I could not have lost a single speech, unless a very short one”. He wrote his notes in full words, symbols, and abbreviations. On occasion speakers also gave him written copies of their speeches and, naturally, he had whatever written text he prepared for the more than two hundred times he spoke in the convention. Each evening he expanded these rough notes. Later, after 1789, he copied William Jackson’s manuscript proceedings of the convention, which contained the exact wording of motions and resolutions as well as the votes on these measures and correlated those to his in order to have as complete a record of the proceedings as was possible. Given the importance of the Constitution in our lives today, Madison’s notes have become invaluable for an understanding of the original meaning of the Founders..
—————————————————————————————————————–
Note 2 —– Below are listed the specifically enumerated POWERS of CONGRESS as mentioned by James Madison above, and as copied directly from Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. The actual powers of Congress are in bold print. All other powers and rights, not expressly delegated to Congress by the Constitution, are reserved to THE STATES or to THE PEOPLE ( see the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution ).
Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Thomas Paine, the great revolutionary-era writer — the author of ‘Common Sense’ — wrote,
A constitution is the act of the people in their original character of sovereignty. A government is a creature of the constitution; it is produced and brought into existence by it. A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal.
Dear Bill,
Your post is extremely valuable and needs to be published far & wide.
Are you already a published writer? If not, let me help you by giving you some contact info for the online sites which publish my work.
Besides, if your paper is published online, I can link to it (and I will) in my papers.
No, I am not published. I just continue to ‘lobby’ my congressional representatives, in an attempt to persuade them to uphold their Oath Of Office, to support and defend the Constitution. I visit my Congressman’s local office just about every week to remind them of that oath, and to further remind them of the constitutionally assigned duties & responsibilities of their office. The Constitution is a precisely worded, yet easily understood document, if they would actually read it. It is designed to provide the framework for the government, and to limit that government to the basic duties that have been expressly delegated to it.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1786&chapter=96189&layout=html&Itemid=27
Bill, the above is the hyperlink to the online edition of Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention for Sept 14, 1787. Do add this hyperlink to your paper so that your readers can click on the link and they can confirm that what you said is totally TRUE! I used my find function and typed in “canals” to find the discussion.
Well written Sir, my compliments.
Good news! The Federalist Papers are among a group of books, 3 of which must be read by Marine Corps colonels and generals every year. It’s on the Commandant’s Professional Reading List, on the COL-GEN level of rank. (http://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/MessagesDisplay/tabid/13286/Article/136236/revision-of-the-commandants-professionial-reading-list.aspx)
The bad news is that a) it’s only one of several books in that category, so one could choose a combination of 3 books that would not include the FP; b) it’s only in the group of books for colonels and generals; and c) it’s not required or even recommended reading for the members (officers or enlisted) of any other service.
Besides, the Commandant’s PRL only cites Alexander Hamilton as an author, omitting James Madison and John Jay and giving the (wrong) impression that Hamilton was the sole author.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/interposition-and-heresy-of-nullification-james-madison-exercise-of-sovereign-constitutional-powers
Your thoughts?
Dear Tricia,
I addressed those same basic arguments here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/
Read my quotes from Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800) and ask yourself, “does the Heritage Foundation article discuss – or ignore – or misrepresent what James Madison actually said”?
Same for the discussion of the Nullification Crisis of 1832: Is the author of the Heritage Foundation article telling you the truth – or is he concealing or ignoring relevant Facts?
Do the same with every point in his article.
See? He is either deliberately trying to deceive you; or he is just repeating what he has heard other so-called “experts” say.
Heritage Foundation is not on our side.
Let me know if you have any Questions AFTER you have read my paper!
I’ve often thought, that if the Heritage Foundation was actually on our side, we would not be in the situation that we are today. They have had decades in which to help return us to constitutionally limited government, and yet we continue to fall further behind. We cannot leave this task, to the organizations that spend more time raising funds than they do supporting the Constitution. We have to do it ourselves.
You are right! I have been out giving a speech – but will answer your email tomorrow.
Just found your site – thank you for this! I’ll be linking relentlessly to it in the future
My question: is it even possible to challenge the power that SCOTUS has taken to itself, at this point? Is there any way you could see this happening without a major constitutional (and political) crisis?
Yes! Of course there is a lawful way to challenge the usurpations of the supreme Court! Nullification! James Madison, Father of our Constitution, specifically said that the States, as THE Parties to the compact (Constitution) which created the federal government, have the final authority to decide whether any branch of the federal government has violated the Constitution.
I quote Madison’s words to this effect in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800) to which I link in my paper, “James Madison rebukes nullification deniers”.
Our task is to educate The People about this. They have been lied to for so long by the nullification deniers. WE must now set them straight – and WE will point to the actual original words of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison to this effect.
ALL the Framers are on OUR side.
Yes, but… Cooper v Aaron seems to have had the last word on this, no matter what we constitutionalists contend. How to combat *that* ?
……………………….
Wikipedia on the tenth amendment:
“The Constitution does not contain any clause providing that the states have the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional.
Supporters of nullification have argued that the states’ power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nations. Under this theory, the Constitution is a contract, or “compact,” among the states by which the states delegated certain powers to the federal government, while reserving all other powers to themselves. The states, as parties to the compact, retained the inherent right to judge compliance with the compact. According to supporters of nullification, if the states determine that the federal government has exceeded its delegated powers, the states may declare federal laws unconstitutional.[1] Nullification supporters argue that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional not only is inherent in the concept of state sovereignty, but also is one of the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.[2]
This view of the Constitution has been rejected by the federal courts, which consistently have held that under the Constitution, the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. The courts have rejected the compact theory, finding that the Constitution was not a contract among the states. Rather, the Constitution was established directly by the people, as stated in the preamble: “We the people of the United States. . . .”[3] Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution and federal laws adopted in pursuance thereof are the “supreme law of the land . . . any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”[4] Federal laws therefore cannot be negated by the states. Rather, federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Determining whether a federal law is consistent with the Constitution requires interpretation of the law, which is inherently a judicial function. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases “arising under this Constitution [or] the laws of the United States.”[5] The federal courts therefore have the power to determine whether federal laws are constitutional, with the Supreme Court having final authority.[6]
Thus, the federal courts have held that under the Constitution, federal law is controlling over state law, and the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts. The states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[7]”
……………………………….
Is this true? Should I give up my fight to inform and activate people about the tenth? Is it a fool’s errand?
I really want to be able to fight FedGov usurpation within a constitutional framework. If that framework really isn’t there… well, I guess I need to know that right up front.
(Thank you!)
.
Gayle,
READ this, where I show what our Framers actually said: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/ Study it. It is worth your time.
The wiki article is a LIE.
Read my paper and see what our FRAMERS actually said.
And think: Is the “creature” to be the sole judge of its powers? WHY do you believe the lie that the federal courts are the final authority? Our FRAMERS never said that.
That is just the Lie we have been told.
So our job is to learn the TRUTH and then spread the TRUTH to counteract the Lies.
It is not enough “to learn the truth and spread the truth”, we have to win in the courts, or we will be forced to win on the battlefield in a civil war, which none of us want to see.
Our history is full of examples where the will and rights of the people were subverted by courts, with impunity.
No, we will NOT win in the Courts. The judges were brainwashed into statism when they were in law school.
What WE need to do is to disabuse ourselves of the idiotic notion that the Courts are the Final Authority. Our Framers never said that. Our Framers said the STATES are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the compact.
Guardian: You need to do a whole lot of listening! You are not yet knowledgeable enough to teach.
Thank you,
I have been posing questions to you of a kind that I get either by question or comment frequently in my many conversations I have with people in my community. Some of what you have said I have stated back to them previously, such as, we need to change the “altruist” ideals being put forth by our intellecual leaders and our government officials and return to the principals of our founding. To educate ourselfs to these principals so that we can give a rational argument in their defence. This is especially true of our defence of “Capitalism”. I think that someone like yourself, in most cases, will have more influence on these people than I because of your background. It certainly does not hert to have you restate more susictely what I have said.
I will admit that I too have leaned on the bill of rights to some extent, but I also have been standing my ground when it comes to the government infringing on my rights and INGNORING THE DAMN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. I must admit for a price!!! I call this “civil disobedience” and FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
FYI: I played your video on “Federal Gun Laws are Unconstitutional” last night at a group meeting of 30 people. I am co-chair of a group that has for the last 11 years been attempting to educate the public on these and other issues. For the last two years we have been concentrating on local government and the power of the Sheriff. I must admit it has been a struggle, but we are begining to make headway. The sleepy headed people have been awoken by the pain of our present administation and are finally ready to hear the truth. These people really appreciated what and how you presented and addressed these issues. I gave them all your web address and urged them to visit, read and learn.
Thank you again for what you do!!
Well done, Dennis!
I too have come to the conclusion that we must focus primarily on our County Sheriff and his armed posse. Sheriff Mack is so Right!
Thank you for the encouraging news!
Burke states that a dictatorship, as bad as it is, is sometimes necessary to save man from his brutal passions.
The constitution was created for a moral lawful God fearing people. The problem is we now have a corrupt irresponsible majority who reject God and morality.
Except that all dictatorships are themselves brutal.
We will soon find out whether mankind is too stupid and/or corrupt to have Liberty.
Most people have contributed to Social Security and Medicare all their working lives by means of the taxes taken out of their salaries. Doesn’t this “entitle” them to some return?
They are “entitled” to get their money back plus interest, etc.
The lure of SS & medicare was this:
People expected to get back more than they put in, and
People were relieved of the duty, imposed by GOD, to take care of themselves; and Children were relieved of the duty, imposed by GOD, to take care of their aged parents.
These welfare programs – ponzi schemes – made people dependent on the federal government; instituted the immoral concept of living at other peoples’ expense; and helped break down the family. Pure evil.
And, of course, they are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
Medicare is so financially unworkable that it is impossible to pay the medical bills of all the old people. THAT is one of the purposes of obamacare: to kill off the old people by denying them medical care. Saves on that, plus saves having to pay them SS.
A People can’t violate the Laws of God and get away with it forever.
The proper thing to do is to gradually phase these evil unconstitutional programs out in an orderly fashion. perhaps sell federal lands to fund them until the current crop of dependents die off.
Dearest Madame,
I submit that we must not fund these malicious engines of dependency until the current crop of dependents dies off, but ignore the Satanically-controlled higher levels of government, and move, immediately, to re-institute God’s social security system (the tithe and local triennial storage of 10% of the increase of all human activity, with its subsequent fourth year distribution to the widows, orphans, infirm and temporarily destitute) and restore our beloved original Republic, at the town and township level.
Rebuilding the Republic from the ground up is our only viable option, because we are dying of democracy, the takers are now in firm control of this tyranny of the majority, and tyrants never leave power willingly.
So, there are only three courses of action – complete capitulation, bloody civil war or ignoring and starving the beast by restoring the Republic, taking back control over our own lives, at the local level.
I see only one acceptable alternative among those three.
If we obey God’s commandments in this area, at the base of society, we will soon find ourselves with no need of these demonic alternatives.
Yes, we should work towards returning to God’s system.
However, there is a doctrine in equity jurisprudence called “estoppel”. Basically, it means that if you make a promise to support someone (even thou you have no legal obligation to support that person), and that person changes his conduct in reliance on your promise, THEN you have to keep your word.
The federal government told people that in exchange for their SS & medicare “contributions”, the federal government would give them a retirement income and pay their medical bills. People paid in b/c they were forced to pay in. They didn’t make other arrangements for their old age.
So now, it would be wicked and immoral for the federal government to pull the rug out from people whom the federal government turned into helpless dependents.
So, the federal government has to find a way to keep its promises to these people. Perhaps sell federal lands and use the proceeds.
Ask everyone who can to renounce ss & medicare benefits. I, for one, have refused to apply to the federal government for ss & medicare benefits.
God Bless You, Madame!
I appreciate that you have refused to be a ward of the State, but most will not refuse this money, even when they do not need it, and most will vote to take more than they deserve.
In fact, the Feds started out in this Ponzi scheme by paying people who had paid little to nothing in and are currently paying out $3 for every dollar of contribution, but when I will be eligible, I will receive only $0.78 for every dollar that I have paid in, so I have little sympathy for your argument about ‘our’ obligation to all these current slugs, er beneficiaries.
Every previous generation has already taken more than their due.
I am not saying the Feds have no obligation to return that money, but that any concept of “equity” and ‘equal protection under the law’ cannot possibly support such obviously inequitable treatment of different citizens, only based upon their date of birth, nor can one justly obligate another, many not yet born, to a debt that is outside the social compact.
What I am saying is, it is not our concern how the persons who made these promises keep their promises of shared booty from generational theft.
Whatever any politician has promised, which is outside their power, under the social compact, is their personal liability. The money should be recouped from their personal estates, not stolen from the public treasury.
Anytime one takes the personal liability for any action out of the equation, whether in government, or any corporation, which is the bastard child of government, immorality and treachery will ensue.
The tyrant will always claim immunity from liability for his crimes in office, but natural law insists that we all pay for our own actions.
Sincerely, …
No, when you make promises to people and make them dependent, then the promise must be kept. That is a moral issue. An ancient Principle of Equity.
Then there is the imperative need to avoid societal & economic collapse. Imagine the consequences of suddenly terminating the checks to those who have been made dependent. Any government which wants to gain & maintain & deserve the support of the people must consider such matters.
We can not become a constitutional republic overnight. We have to start from here – where we are – and restore it in an orderly fashion. Romney’s plan involved returning functions to the States. That is an excellent first step.
And you are not hearing me about the selling of federal lands to fund ss & medicare as it is phased out. And there is no need to continue paying retirement pensions to members of Congress.
Your way is the blindly self-centered self-rightous way of The Angry.
I have just read your article on “Definitions and Basic Concepts”. I am a big fan of Ayn Rand and her ideas. I will not say that I am an “Objectivist”, but I do lean in that direction. That being said, I have a question about the 9th Amendment and how it could help to support our fight to retain our rights?
This country was founded on the principal of the individual and the soverienty of same and the soverien authority over the individuals life and property. Soverien without subjects, “John Jay” “Chilsom v Georgia”.
How can we give to the states the power to do something which we as an individual do not have?
If we are to save this country we must demand that the state governments stand firm against the federal government in its unconstitutional acts and protect our rights as per their agreement, i.e. their oaths of office. If they do not they should be impeached and tried for treason to their oath.
Ignorance and our own moral corruption are destroying us. The People don’t know our Founding Principles. So, those WE elect to represent us on the County, State, and federal levels don’t know them either.
Furthermore, the idea that People should conform the precious “opinions” they are so proud of to an external, transcendent standard – THE CONSTITUTION – is preposterous to them.
The 9th Amendment won’t – can’t – save us. ONLY a complete moral & intellectual regeneration of The People will restore our Constitutional Republic.
So, I am trying to teach (1) Rights come from Almighty God, (2) Governments exist for the sole purpose of securing the rights GOD gave us, (3) WE THE PEOPLE need to give up our desire to live at other peoples’ expense (that means give up SS, medicare, medicaid, price supports, subsidies, taxpayer funded retirement pensions, etc.,etc., etc.), and (4) return to the original intent of our federal Constitution.
Re “treason”: That is expressly defined at Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution.
Rand may be wrong but he’s the best we got. We can’t get back to original intent in one swoop. It will take nullification and reversing unconstitutional precedent one step at a time.
WHY do think Rand is the best we have?
He supports the BBA. People who support that are either deliberately seeking to cut the heart out of our Constitution; or they have ignorantly jumped on the bandwagon and are supporting something they don’t understand. I have two papers on the BBA where I prove it is the worst idea since sin.
We can’t return to the original intent of the Constitution overnight – e.g., we can’t just stop SS & medicare & medicaid overnight: In order to avoid a societal collapse, chaos, etc., we must phase them out gradually.
BUT we sure can stop making things worse. The BBA is the end of the enumerated powers limitation on the federal government. Either Rand Paul understands this or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t understand it, then he is a fraud for pretending to be for the Constitution. People who claim to support a document are frauds if they don’t trouble themselves to learn it.
And about his national right to work law: The proper course of action is to educate the People on how labor is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government – that the federal government didn’t even presume to regulate in this area until the Progressives took over 100 years ago. He could use his influence to educate The People on “enumerated powers”. But he doesn’t. WHY? A national right to work law merely perpetuates the LIE that the federal government may lawfully legislate in this area.
The same goes for abortion. The proper course of action is to educate the people on how abortion is not one of the enumerated powers, to explain how the federal courts usurped power in Roe v. Wade, that this is one of the issues retained by the States, etc. WHY doesn’t he use his influence to educate the American People on this? An anti-abortion federal law merely perpetuates the LIE that the federal government may lawfully act in this area.
THIS illustrates why Rand Paul is NOT a good man or is not very smart, is NOT a good candidate, and his way is NOT the right way.
If WE don’t have anyone better than Rand Paul or the equally bad Marco Rubio, then we are toast.
Thanks for your comments. Could you pleasr go to http://www.conservativedailynews.com to the article Rand Paul is a total fraud and educate the commenter “B” about these issues as well as the constitutionality of alliances and troop deployments abroad? I’ve tried ny best to educate him, but I don’t know the US constitution nearly as well as you do.
Well, we have a saying in America: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink!
I am not an expert on military strategy. However, Congress and the CINC have constitutional authority to make decisions about warfare (Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 11-16 & Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 1). And when we MUST fight an enemy, it is often better to fight on other turf than ours.
But since I am NOT an expert on foreign policy or military strategy, I am not qualified to say whether we should fight here or fight there.
But as I look back (with my untrained eye) on all our military conflicts since WWII, I am unable to see how our involvement in any of these conflicts benefited us or served our national interest. But this is not my area of expertise, so my opinion is not worth a brass farthing.
We must keep in mind the distinction between the PRINCIPLE that Congress and the CINC in fact have these constitutionally granted powers; and when & where the APPLICATION of these powers serves our national interest.
I see. The problem, PH, is that one guy claimed that the Constitution mandates an “isolationist” foreign policy (his word, not mine) and that any deployments of US troops abroad, even to defend allies, any alliances, any alliance treaties, and any expenditures for those purposes (and levying taxes for that purpose) is unconstitutional. He didn’t merely say it was unwise – he claimed it’s utterly unconstitutional. And when someone claims smth is (un)constitutional, I think you could very well step in and set the record straight. If you have the time, of course.
There have been some interventions since WW2 that served US national interests (as well as many that did not), but that is beyond the scope of this comment. I can explain this to you via email if you want to.
You can handle him:
Ask him to cite the Article(s), Section(s), and clause(s) which support his position.
And you may use whatever I have said on this in your response.
He may have read it but probably in tongues.
Rand Paul supports a National Right to Work Act and the BBA, and he has just introduced a bill (“The Life at Conception Act”) which, if passed, would mandate a one-size-fits-all federal policy on abortion and trash states’ rights.
Now, would you care to explain to me why so many “conservatives” are infatuated with Rand Paul? And how can Rand Paul pontificate about the Constitution and admonish others to obey it when he himself sets it aside from time to time to advance his pet issues?
Folks, this is exactly why the current federal Leviathan exists: because politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, are quite willing to set the Constitution aside to advance their preferred policies on their pet issues.
B/c the “conservatives” have no idea what the Constitution says. I bet Rand Paul has never read it. Few people have. Lawyers don’t read it in law school. I never met a lawyer who did.
Forgive me, but there are a few other facts, which I inadvertently left out, before.
In many instances, these injustices upon the natural rights of our citizens by the Brady Bill are also imposed upon many never convicted of a felony, but of some minor misdemeanor, the possible punishment for which, now, falls under the regulatory limitations of this ex post facto law.
Likewise, where one citizen had his or her record wiped clean, restoring their rights, at the majority age of twenty-one, but one day later, another is, for life, denied his or her natural right to self-defense, at the new majority age of 18 years, for the exact same infraction.
No sick and twisted mind could possibly find any logical justification for such unequal, arbitrary and capricious application of law.
How can we get all good and faithful Patriots to understand that, if they do not stand against all injustice, their own rights can, and eventually will, be just as easily and unjustly taken away.
No free man should ever be denied their natural right to self-defense, whether sinless, or once upon a time ajudged guilty of any crime short of a capital offense, or merely accused by another of being irrational or incompetent.
If any person is too dangerous to trust with a gun, they are too dangerous to walk the streets, but such must be determined by due process, through the presentation of facts, at trial by a jury of their peers.
Please use your considerable intellect to enlighten all upon these questions.
God Bless You,
1. First of all, the federal government has NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to make ANY laws restricting ANYONE’S God-given rights to keep and bear arms. Thus, any and all federal laws, rules of the ATF, executive orders, or federal court opinions which pretend to deny to ANYONE – including convicted felons who have served their time – the right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government in our Constitution. See my video on the home page of my website.
2. The 2nd Amdt is not the “source” of our right to keep and bear arms – that right was given us by GOD and pre-dates & pre-exists the Constitution. The 2nd Amdt merely reminds the federal government that it is not to “infringe” in any manner whatsoever, this pre-existing right.
3. The “bill of rights” – the first 10 amendments – applies only to the federal government. States had their own State Constitutions with their own bills of rights.
However, it would violate Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 16 for States to ban guns b/c Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 16 is what authorizes Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia. See: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/why-congress-may-lawfully-require-citizens-to-buy-guns-ammunition-but-not-to-submit-to-obamacare-2/
4. See what your State Constitution says about convicted felons and gun rights. A State Constitution could lawfully prevent convicted felons, insane persons, from keeping and bearing arms.
But as G. Gordon Liddy (a convicted felon) used to point out, while he had no guns, his Wife had a lot of them!
WARNING: What I am telling you is the “pure” constitutional Truth. But the federal courts would not agree. Like everyone else, lawyers & judges got indoctrinated with statism while in law school, and they believe that the federal government can do whatever they want. So 99.999999999 percent of federal judges would rule that federal laws denying convicted felons the right to keep and bear arms are valid and enforceable, and that convicted felons are guilty of a crime if they possess a gun.
Dearest Madame,
I realize that all the law and regulation of the Brady Bill that did not sunset are unconstitutional, but have you studied and written upon the ‘ex post facto’ effects of this law upon ex-felons, whose rights were restored, or were pardoned, and yet, they are put in jeopardy for possession of guns, which they purchased, after the restoration of their rights, but before the Brady Bill took their “right to keep and bear” away, again? There are literally thousands of Americans suffering injustice under this ex post facto law.
As it seems greatly misunderstood by many in the Patriot movement, I would implore you to write and speak upon the true meaning under original intent of the constitutional prohibition against stripping the rights of citizenship from any person, unless upon conviction of an “infamous crime”.
This would yield a great service to Patriots, everywhere, in increasing our understanding of the rights of “free men”, and the capricious nature of the “tyranny of the majority”.
God Bless You,
Nemaha, Iowa