Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!


  1. This is an idea we have been kicking around to speak out.

    Tea Party CCO
    Constitutional community organizing.

    1. Send CCO teams to student centers at universities (MSC at TAMU). Pass out literature (condensed constitution lesson, framers quotes, etc. ). Do at high traffic times (lunch). Teach and recruit as many as can.

    2. Go to public centers, churches etc. and do same.

    3. Visit state reps staff and candidates. Present same, coupled with nullification documentation/teachings.

    4. Present same to sheriffs and local public officials. Encourage sheriffs to form citizen posses to resist government tyranny.

    5. Write condensed constitution lessons and nullification articles. Send to newspapers and reps.

    6. Go to state board of education and administrators. Inform about the constitution and persuade original intent be taught. They need to understand, there can be no freedom and justice for all, cited in the daily pledge, if neglected.

    7. Contact nationwide Tea Party groups and get them to focus on similar grass root efforts.

    Electronic media is good but tends to isolate and compensate for needed action resulting in complacency. A spirit of peaceful revolutionary zeal and righteous indignation must be conjured. Edmund Burke correctly states, the severity of malady can only be rectified by resistance proportional to it.

    Perhaps read Saul Alinsky play book and turn its strategies on traitors heads.

    Fortunately, we have the upper hand since framers, pioneers and revolutionaries are on our side.


    Comment by Dwain | July 20, 2014 | Reply

  2. The problems today stem back to a war at the beginning of time. An angel fought, fell and lives in hell because of a blinding devouring passion to rise. Exposure to intelligences greater than his own, initiated rebellion ultimately leading to his being cast out.

    We learn from holy writ that without pure unblemished offerings (proper remembrance qualifying one for divine understanding, unity and nature), inequality is inevitable. Consequently, spirits of envy, hate and murder raise their ugly heads.

    Cain slew Abel because the Lord favored Abel’s sacrifice. Unwilling to offer properly, Cain was rejected, spiritually darkened and cut off from the Lords presence.

    In the main, it is this darkened state which is the heart of radical egalitarian liberalism, probably the greatest evil force today. The primary objective of this faith is the reduction of divine standards to avoid exposure in order to propagate dark works. (Exercising power over others and benefiting at their expense). In conjunction is eliminating enlightenment to degrade capability and morality in order to rule absolutely through a Godless immoral ignorant dependent majority. This type of servitude, unlike early forms practiced in America, is far more egregious since the spirit is forced into the filthy bottomless pit.

    Its important to understand that blaming and fighting radicals on their terms only fuels chaotic conditions they thrive upon. They are clever not enlightened.

    Michael the archangel fought the dragon and prevailed. He did so through intelligence and irrefutable truths and righteous indignation. If the upright and God fearers want to preserve there dignity, rights freedoms and families in this fallen world, we better plead for Michael and his spirit and apply his strategies with great diligence. The spirit of bashing and reviling inhibits proper understanding and courses of action by consoling Itself in regret. This is a spiritual war and is nothing new accept for the inundation of high tech sorcery and technologies, unprecedented population numbers and infinite ways to practice idolatry.


    Comment by Dwain | July 17, 2014 | Reply

  3. Who cares what Bush, any of them, think. From whos hands did the law come originally? Owers!

    Comment by Dennis | July 17, 2014 | Reply

  4. What is the remedy when a State refuses to act? GWB called it “vigilantism”

    Comment by Bob | July 17, 2014 | Reply

    • Bob, I have been trying to think of how to answer your Question – which is the Question of our Time. Our Framers didn’t address this b/c they never dreamed that the American People would become so corrupt that they would elect to state office the ignorant bullies they elect.

      We seem to be at the point where there are not enough of “us” [you, me, etc.] to elect to state office people who know the Constitution and are willing to obey it. Most of the People in our States are too ignorant, stupid, or corrupt to elect decent people to State (and County) office.

      So, I don’t know. Sheriff Richard Mack writes of the constitutional militia where the People of the Counties are to elect principled men to the office of County Sheriff who will formed armed posses of male citizens in the County and they will defend their counties from federal usurpations. Problem is, the People of the Counties are all too often too stupid, corrupt, or ignorant to elect principled men to that office.

      Maybe if we keep speaking out, we can wake up the brain dead People in our States. Maybe we can turn on the lights so that they will start to elect decent people to State office.

      If not, I fear the worst.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 20, 2014 | Reply

      • Hi PH, I think Brandeis was talking about the federal gov’t but this certainly applies to a state gov’t too.

        “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

        Comment by Spense | July 20, 2014 | Reply

  5. Until White Christians get off the guilt trip imposed by the Jews, they will never realize they are targeted for genocide. That’s not just America but every predominately White culture on the face of the earth. “For the children” is the lament of the tyrants.

    Comment by Dennis | July 17, 2014 | Reply

    • Jews? They did it? And to think that all this time, I have been thinking our problems exist because THE AMERICAN PEOPLE refused to read our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution; and they wanted to live at other peoples’ expense – they just loved their social security and medicare and handouts. They didn’t want to think – they didn’t want to take responsibility – they shirked their responsibility of guarding our Constitution and they let the politicians handle it.

      You can’t put this on the Jews. This is OUR fault: Lazy, stupid, American People who just wanted to eat and watch TV.

      And we can’t fix things as long as we blame-shift.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 17, 2014 | Reply

      • All of what you say is true to a degree. We had the highest literacy rate of any nation up to about 1855 when we allowed the European system to wash ashore and start dumbing down our youth. They wanted loyal subjects not thinking citizens.

        You’re about to get a lap full of loyal subjects and it’s still going to be the genocide of the White Christians.

        Comment by Dennis | July 17, 2014 | Reply

        • Yes, homeschooling produced the drafters of our federal Constitution.

          In Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s book, “Is Public Education Necessary?”, he writes of how during the 1840s, Thomas Mann, a Unitarian, went throughout the country lobbying for tax supported public education after the German model.

          But decades before Thomas Mann, American Unitarians were pushing for public education – they opposed home schooling. I have a paper in my head on the American Unitarians of the early 1800s – they, with their poisonous ideology, are the destroyers.

          We must think in terms of mind-set (philosophy) – NOT race or ethnicity. Those Unitarians were descendents of the English Puritans who came here! And some of our best allies are “Jews”.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2014 | Reply

  6. Just a quick question about the current immigration crisis at out southern border. When the USSC struck down the provision in the Brady bill stating that the federal government can’t impress local authorities into preforming federal duties, can’t that same reasoning be applied to making states take care of the illegal immigrants, both adult and child, since it is a federal function? Couldn’t local sheriffs put a stop to the distribution of these illegal immigrants to their counties?

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | July 15, 2014 | Reply

    • Yes, that is a good point, and you are right.

      But the United States is now undergoing a massive invasion of 3rd world people who are being brought in here to overwhelm our system, bring it crashing down, and, by the sheer size of their numbers, wipe our former American culture off the face of the Earth.

      So the problem is more than giving these parasites welfare. By their numbers, they will overwhelm us.

      So the States must exercise their retained powers to kick these illegals out of their States. I wrote on this several years ago:

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 17, 2014 | Reply

  7. Hello, I have read your articles about the power of the Congress to tax, for it to spend for the enumerated powers. What I couldn’t find is the method by which to do it. How is the Congress supposed to get money to pay for the enumerated powers? Is a progressive income tax the constitutional approach?

    Thank you for all you do!

    Comment by Cristina | July 13, 2014 | Reply

    • You are so welcome – and thank you for homeschooling. We must close down the public schools and return to homeschooling, tutors, private schools, church schools, and privately funded charity schools for children of the poor.

      You have inspired me to write a paper on how the federal government is supposed to raise money. I have touched on the TWO ways in various papers, but don’t have a paper devoted exclusively to that issue. So in a nutshell, here they are:

      1. Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1 delegates to Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. This was to consist primarily of taxes on imports (usually computed as a percentage of the selling price of the imported item); and to excise taxes on domestic products. An “excise” is a tax levied on a quantity of goods (e.g., a tax of such & such amount on a gallon of whiskey – regardless of the selling price of the whiskey). One of the first items of domestic manufacture on which a federal excise tax was laid was whiskey [which led to the "Whiskey Rebellion" during George Washington's term.] Then, I think it was laid on carriages.

      2. The second method was collection from the States. The federal government was to do periodic accountings of their income (primarily from import duties and excise taxes) and expenditures (Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 7).

      If there was a short fall – if The treasury needed more money to balance the budget, the federal government was to collect the shortfall from the STATES. The amount each State was to pay was apportioned based on the population of the State. So if New York had a population twice as large as that of Georgia, New York would pay twice as much of the tax as Georgia. That is what Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3 provides for. It was up to the States to collect from its citizens the needed sums to pay that State’s share of the Tax burden.

      The federal government was specifically forbidden to directly tax the People of this Land! See Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 4.

      The 16th Amendment – which many wicked and envious and resentful American people wanted so the federal government could “soak the rich”, changed all the above and gave the federal government power to DIRECTLY tax individual Americans. The 16th Amendment doesn’t say how this tax would be levied – the wicked Progressives of the time wanted a progressive income tax and so that is what they got passed in Congress.

      The pastors should have told their congregations than envy was forbidden.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2014 | Reply

      • Thank you for your reply and for the information provided. I read the present Michigan Constitution, (where I currently reside) to see if there is any mention of the requirements needed in case the federal government is to collect money to balance the budget. There is not a word about it. How can we expect the state government to protect our private property rights when they don’t even recognize it in the state Constitution? You are right, through ratifying the 16th Amendment, obamacare, Common Core, etc, the states sold our rights. Thank you for clarifying it for me.

        Comment by Cristina | July 17, 2014 | Reply

  8. Hi PH, I hope you’re doing well. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin says if the house doesn’t act soon on immigration reform, Obama will “BORROW” constitutional authority and act. I have looked and looked in the constitution and cannot find where the president is granted the authority to “borrow” constitutional authority. Just where can I lay my finger upon the article that grants the authority to Obama? Surely it must be true, we have a long time Senator in Dick Durbin who is also a lawyer saying this.

    Comment by Spense | June 29, 2014 | Reply

    • Hi, Spence! Sorry to be so long in responding. I love your paraphrase of James Madison when he spoke against the provision of federal money to assist some French (?) refugees. I am in a constant state of utter bewilderment as to how Americans can be so stupid and morally blind as to elect people like obama and Durbin to office.

      One of the solutions to this problem of the morons outvoting the Wise is to return to our original system – which is STILL in the Constitution – where the States set the qualifications for voting (Art. I, Sec. 2, clause 1). The 4 “voting” amendments only restricted this Power retained by the States in that the Amendments prohibit the States from denying suffrage on account of race, sex, failure to pay a tax, and age (for those 18 years or more). States could still impose other requirements for voting.

      But the States surrendered ALL their retained powers to set voter qualifications to the federal courts and to Congress.

      And Americans were manipulated into believing, oh so fervently, that there was something sacred about “one man, one vote”. Rubbish!, I say. Universal suffrage is the worst idea ever. Make them pass logic tests and tests on the Declaration and Constitution before they can vote. Citizens should form a board to interview and test applicants for voter registration.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 17, 2014 | Reply

      • No problem PH… I recently stumbled across this… “Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others its legitimate functions.” — U.S. Supreme Court Source: Schechter Poultry v. U.S., 29 U.S. 495, 55 U.S. 837.842 (1935) I sent it to senator Durbin, for some reason I never heard back.

        Comment by Spense | July 17, 2014 | Reply

  9. I was not thinking of war but peace. Having bases in distant places on the theory of ‘peace through strength’ and a navy to support commercial shipping and exerting power where needed seems like a good idea to me. It introduces Americans to foreigners and vise-versa, though it is a burden in blood and treasure, I don’t see a better way to achieve eventual peace…such as it is.

    Comment by llotter2013 | June 24, 2014 | Reply

    • That is for Congress to decide. And Congress does have that power under our Constitution. They are supposed to be guided by our national interest in making such decisions. And such would be formalized by means of a Treaty with the host country.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2014 | Reply

  10. PH, Is there constitutional justification for our military involvement across the world, Pax Americana, or are we limited to a more isolationist position? I favor the former but it does seem to stretch original intent.

    Comment by llotter2013 | June 24, 2014 | Reply

    • The Constitution vests in CONGRESS the power to declare War (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 11). It is up to Congress to decide when and where. Our Constitution does NOT permit the President to decide when and where!

      WE THE PEOPLE failed miserably: – WE failed to elect to Congress people who have our national interests at heart. WE elected Presidents who unilaterally decide when and where.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2014 | Reply

  11. I don’t agree with your statement.

    Comment by Fallon T Gordon Sr. MD | June 21, 2014 | Reply

    • Well, I’m sure you know all about it!
      BTW, did you know that cancer is caused by eating fresh organic fruits and vegetables? Yes it is. I know.

      Seriously, you must understand this: Your “agreement” or “disagreement” is not the standard. The only standard is Truth.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 21, 2014 | Reply

  12. I don’t read that Congress takes over migration after 1808. Congress is done when it discusses slavery and stops the slave trade. That action doesn’t change the States from continuing to admlit migrants through the States.

    Comment by Fallon T Gordon Sr. MD | June 21, 2014 | Reply

    • Diagram the sentence! You are misreading it.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 21, 2014 | Reply

  13. Art. I Sect 9 cl 1 ——1.0 Says The States admit persons who they think the States should admit. 2.0 This would include Black, White, Yellow and Red slaves and any others. 3.0 Congress has nothing to say about this, until 1808 when they, The Congress, can stop importation of slaves. 4.0 And a tax or duty can be placed on such slaves when they are imported before 1808. 5.0 Nothing is said that is contrary to the States continuing to migrate non slaves. 6.0 Congress is concerned only with stopping the Slave trade. 7.0 And The STATES will continue migration of all others who are not slaves.

    Comment by Fallon T Gordon Sr. MD | June 20, 2014 | Reply

    • No, Article I, Sec. 9, cl. 1 reads,

      “The Migration…of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight…”

      The clause has two objects: slaves and immigrants.

      Congress takes power over both in 1808. Slaves certainly did NOT “migrate” here! They were “imported”, like tea.

      It is a proper function for the national government of a federation to CONTROL IMMIGRATION!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 20, 2014 | Reply

  14. P-H, the EPA, it appears to me, reports to the POTUS along with Congress. Congress makes the rules and the POTUS enforces them under the EPA, or am I incorrect? Being a resident of WV, I attended a meeting Friday evening put on by the Farm Bureau of WV. A lot of negatives surfaced by the Bureau showed that current conditions of farms may or may not be compliant to proposed water rules as the natural terrain of farms won’t allow compliance unless costly changes are made to the land. If the EPA is not part of the Constitutional powers given to the Federal Government, is it then possible under nullification for the states and/or counties to refuse to abide?

    Comment by Jack Adams | June 8, 2014 | Reply

    • 1. Can you show me where in the Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government power to regulate our impact on the environment – where we delegated to the federal government power to ‘protect’ the environment?

      2. Look at Article I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution: what does that mean? Does that permit executive agencies in the federal government to make rules? [see my latest paper where I discuss Mark Levin’s proposed amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy”:

      3. Learn about rule making by federal executive agencies. I explain it here:

      4. Look at this: Is such rule-making by federal executive agencies authorized by the Constitution? Where?

      5. What did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton say THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES should do when the federal government usurps power? Here is a shorter version explaining the same concept:

      There is only one way to learn this: Immerse yourself in the Truth.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 8, 2014 | Reply

      • The federal gov’t has the integrity of a third world banana republic dictator and many state legislatures aren’t much better. John Adams was unfortunately correct when he stated “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We have a congress that won’t even impeach an obvious tyrant in Obama. There should be a steady stream of nullified federal laws, federal & state gov’ts resemble organized crime who are determined to subjugate us. Freedom will be what they tell us it is….

        Comment by Spense | June 8, 2014 | Reply

      • P-H, thank you for your reply. Noting your end note #9 under Madison’s Federalist No.44 paper where unconstitutional Federal Agencies meddling in matters not having any business with the Federal Government which among many is listed the Environmental Protection Agency. Given that nullification of usurped powers is a natural right as listed in your piece dated 2011/04/17 nullification-smacking down those who smack down the constitution. Your reply reassured me of my personal thought and is most appreciated. After all elimination of the EPA was one of Mr. Ron Paul’s agencies to get rid of if I remember correct. Thanks again.

        Comment by Jack Adams | June 8, 2014 | Reply

        • Right! Our Constitution does not permit an EPA – that agency is totally unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.

          Furthermore, ALL the rules which the EPA writes and publishes in the Code of Federal Regulations – every single one of them – is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution [in addition to being unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated].

          So We The People and the States have the natural right to nullify ALL actions of the EPA and all their rules. This is The Principle stated by Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. “The right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.”

          EPA, Education, Agriculture, HUD, HHS, Amtrack, etc., etc., etc., all must go.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 8, 2014 | Reply

          • Thank you so much for your insight on this subject.

            Comment by Jack Adams | June 9, 2014

          • Any time, Jack!

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 9, 2014

          • Publius,  After doing research on the BLS website, I found that out of 137 million total US jobs, approximately 65 million work in bloated corrupt government, health care (80 percent of visits are related to unhealthy lifestyles) and education (godless secular indoctrination). Nearly 13 million in law, insurance and finance (corruption, plunder and irrelevance). Leisure and hospitality (hedonics) account for roughly 14 million and retail (corporate feudalism) 16 million. Thats 108 million jobs.  Manufacturing is only 8.9% of all jobs. How is this upside down perversion possible?  In a real world manufacturing is the foundation upon which jobs subsist? According to scholars, its possible due to the worthless dollar being the worlds reserve currency, allowing the US government to print money and go into unprecedented debt. It appears intertwined “job sectors” are dependent on the fiat dollar. But its a mathematical certainty it will soon come to an end. When the fiscal beams fail, momentum will likely crush all sectors. 

            Oath breaking politicians understand this no win predicament they have created, so what do they do? Blatantly break them and with the aid of lapdog propagandist, label as terrorist those who protest demanding accountability to sworn oaths. They now strategize to provoke domestic and foreign threats to justify tyranny.  From these observations, I see only two choices. Peaceful secession or a French style revolution on steroids. 

            I feel we are wasting our time and energy on nullification.  I think pioneers and revolutionaries would agree. Our current regime is far more egregious than what those hero’s sacrificed life and limb to overthrow. If we continue in our compensatory intellectual complacency, I don’t see how we avoid the latter scenario stated above. 


            Comment by Dwain Decell | June 10, 2014

          • If you think a French revolution is a good idea, then read more about The Terror which attended that Revolution. That Revolution was run by ignorant mobs who understood nothing – they were just angry and wanted to get even. THEY HAD NOTHING BETTER TO OFFER. So they went on a killing spree.

            Again, the problem is NOT the federal government. The Problem is the American People who refuse to learn our Founding Principles as set forth in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Because they refuse to learn, they can’t spot the PHONIES (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Allen West, Rick Santorum, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, etc.) who run for office.

            Secession? Show me a State Government which isn’t as corrupt as the federal government. That is because The American People are so ignorant that they elect ignorant phonies to State office as well as to federal office.

            What’s required is a moral regeneration of the American People. Unless that happens, NOTHING will restore us. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an honest government when the People are corrupt. The American People just want to indulge their pet vices: stuffing their faces with food, or drugs, or alcohol, or porn, or materialism, or entertainment, or gossip, or showing off, or laziness, etc. ….. That is what -as a People- we have become. We deserve to be destroyed. And that is what is going to happen unless we make an 180 degree turn PDQ.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 10, 2014

  15. Article 1 Section 9 ([Limits on Legislative Power] Clause 1 Imply’s that the States HAD unlimited authority on the migration and or importation of persons prior to 1808, subject to a tax and or duty.

    Historically that has been taken as a reference to the “slave trade”.

    However, the Clause it’s self remains un-Amended and only spoke to “persons” and that a tax or duty MAY be imposed per person.

    Does that not make “immigration & / or importation” (under various forms of Visa’s), under each individual State’s authority as opposed to being a Federal plenary power.

    ” … SECTION 9.

    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person…”

    Comment by slcraignbc | June 4, 2014 | Reply

    • Hi, SLC,

      Before 1808, the States had unlimited authority over the importation of slaves and over immigration to their respective States.

      But starting in 1808, the importation of new slaves was banned and the federal government obtained power to control immigration.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 4, 2014 | Reply

      • And that’s my question.

        How did Congress OBTAIN authority over the States interest provided by the Section & Clause that expresses the Limitations on Legislative Power of the Congress….???

        Comment by slcraignbc | June 4, 2014 | Reply

        • As of 1808, the importation of new slaves was banned; and the States lost their former control over who could immigrate to their respective States.

          Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 is what delegates to the federal government – on January 1, 1808 – power to control immigration to this Country. Along with the power to ban the importation of new slaves.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 4, 2014 | Reply

          • I guess I’m just stubborn, but I read it as the States loosing the right to import “slaves”, but not to loose the right to say what other “persons” may immigrate or be imported.

            With the provision being in the section that establishes the limitations on the ‘general government’, how did it get twisted to become an ‘enumerated power” of the general government to the exclusion of the individual States ability to say what “non-Citizens” may or may not enter the State.

            Is it a matter that the Senators and House Representatives usurped their States authority…? Is there language within an Amendment or Act that says so….?

            Or is it a matter of “relinquishment” through non-action by the States.

            Comment by slcraignbc | June 5, 2014

          • Well, lay aside your previous notions on this and look at it with a new clear eye. Our preconceptions often blind us to the Truth.

            And slaves didn’t “migrate” here – they were chattel who were “imported”.

            The people who “migrated” here were those (primarily freemen from the British Isles) who came over here in droves in our early days.

            The provision which delegated to Congress power to control immigration was put in Section 9 of Article I instead of Section 8 of Article I because Congress didn’t get to exercise the power until 1808. And surely you can see that a provision banning the importation of new slaves would be a controversial one. So the concepts were lumped together with the delegations to Congress of power over the two issues being postponed to 1808.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 5, 2014

          • OK, I’ll just have to accept that, given that it does not only reconcile with my understanding of the plenary power of the Congress over “naturalization”, but it is also as it has been and is practiced since 1808.

            What I am having trouble reconciling is the “power” of the general governments ability to “import”, ( as in the various work-visa programs” and or allowing “unlimited” immigration that may be against any given States best interest. The “immigrants” are NON-Citizens by definition, yet any given State is REQUIRED to absorb them, even when against their best interest, (and / or the best interest of the States Citizens).

            OK, I’ll suppress my indignation and go back to your ‘Nullification” lectures in hopes of finding solace in that plan of action.

            Comment by slcraignbc | June 5, 2014

          • The “importation” of slaves was to STOP in 1808.

            Congress’ immigration laws worked fairly well until Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act of 1965. That was a major cause of the destruction of America – b/c the federal government henceforth focused on bringing in persons from 3rd world countries. The purpose, of course, was to overwhelm our primarily Christian culture and wipe out Western Civilization in this Land.

            And so, with Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act of 1965 in place, the precedent was set for our muslim president, obama, to import new muslims from these 3rd world countries. And yes, he is forcing them on the States. But our People have been cowed by the ridiculous doctrine of multiculturalism.

            So again, it is THE PEOPLE WHOM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECT to public office who are destroying our Country.

            James Madison pointed out that our whole system depends on the American People having the virtue and intelligence to elect men of virtue and wisdom to public office.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2014

          • I just find it hard to reconcile that the ‘general government” can “force” individual States to accept any number of NON-citizens into their jurisdiction and then be required to provide them with all the benefits of “protections” of the Constitution as if they were “citizens-in-the-making”, whether legally present or otherwise.

            Could not those that are “illegally present” be rounded up and delivered to the Federal a reciprocal POLICY, given that the Congress has passed laws to “avoid” the circumstance of NON-citizens being “present illegally”….??

            Comment by slcraignbc | June 6, 2014

          • We must distinguish between lawful immigration (where an alien applies for lawful entry into these United States); and then applies for citizenship (naturalization). They are separate concepts – though they are related.

            We must also distinguish between lawful immigration and illegal crossings of the Borders.

            We are flooded with illegals crossing the Border between us and Mexico. The federal government refuses to do anything to stop it. The democrats know that these illegals will eventually vote for democrats; and the republicans don’t protest b/c republicans are both stupid and cowardly.

            States aren’t “forced” to provide welfare benefits to illegal aliens. But the States do so b/c they don’t want to lose their federal funding for the welfare programs; and because people in State governments are both stupid and cowardly.

            And again – Don’t forget: WE HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANTED. How do we know that? B/c Americans keep reelecting the same corrupt people to office. And Americans are so ignorant of our Founding Principles & Documents that they can not see that the phony “conservatives” they have so much blind faith in are no better than the democrats.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2014

          • You suggest, or rather, observe, that: WE HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANTED., but in a more Political sense, do WE not have the Government that the Dem0rats and RINO’s want…?

            Whether in single issue concerns or general policy consideration there appears to be only subtle and nuanced distinctions between the NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES with each competing AMONG THEMSELVES for Political Dominance.

            One Party wins majority and they get more of what they want and compromise at the margins and then visa-versa, all of which is based on FAULTY PREMISES with BAD LAWS as the Cornerstone.

            James Wilson warned of the errors that grow out of the common law doctrine of precedent when decided on a bad law in the 1st instant or a bad interpretation and or decision in the 2nd.

            I think some of the worst laws are those that give Federal preferences to National Political Parties, thereby encouraging their growth to determent of smaller local Parties, which moves the Country ever farther away from Jeffersonian democracy, local governance and State’s Sovereignty, all of which were meant to be the watchdogs against Federal encroachments beyond its enumerated powers.

            Comment by slcraignbc | June 6, 2014

          • We have the governments the People voted for.
            True, there are no differences between the dems and the repubs.
            Everyone ignores the Constitution – the people with the power do what they want.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2014

          • could it be Art. I, sec. 9,could it mean
            that you import someone from a different country to a state in the U.S. and than move them to another state(migration).

            Comment by david | June 17, 2014

          • No, Article I, Section 9, clause 1 speaks of the “Importation of Persons”. Slaves, like goods manufactured in England, were “imported”. Free persons who came here “migrated”. All this went on without any control by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation.

            Article I, Sec. 9, cl. 1 changed all this by providing that as of 1808, CONGRESS would prohibit the importation of new slaves, and CONGRESS would begin to control the migration of free persons who wanted to immigrate here. For a time, the immigration laws made by Congress worked very well. It was Teddy Kennedy and his immigration reform act of 1965 which began the flooding of this country with new immigrants from 3rd world countries who DID NOT SHARE OUR WESTERN VALUES.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 20, 2014

          • Article I, Sec. 9, clause 1, Congress would begin to control the migration of free persons who wanted to immigrate here. Than why was the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 was repealed? It was not 1808. No, it was the limited Powers of the Constitution which the General Assembly had. James Madison in his Report on the Virginia Resolution, of Jan 1800 Federal v. Consolidated Government , Vol. 1 pg. 293 chapter 8, document 42. The States had the rights of controlling the migration into their states. I know times have change and the States allow the change.

            Comment by david | July 13, 2014

          • David, I have read Madison’s Report of 1799-1800 on the Virginia Resolutions – it is about nullification. It does not address migration of free persons. But if you can post here a hyperlink of an original source document addressing the issue you raise, I do want very much to read it. Thanks.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2014

  16. So, PH, what’s to be made of the Republican argument, following the Buckley edict, to select the conservative that is most electable? I tend to side with Jim DeMint who said that he would rather have 30 pure conservatives in the Senate and a majority of centrists,but being stuck with the minority doesn’t seem like an effective outcome. There is the hope that the 30 can sway the public if they can present strong, principled positions but that is probably a futile hope. I see the Establishment winning the primaries and I don’t think that bodes well for the liberty that hasn’t already been compromised away.

    Comment by llotter2013 | June 4, 2014 | Reply

  17. Hi PH, Senator Chuck (third world banana republic dictator) Schumer thinks congress can use a constitutional amendment to amend the first amendment. He apparently doesn’t understand that when the first amendment says “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS” we really meant it. Where do we get these tyrannical people who think congress is God…..

    Comment by Spense | May 3, 2014 | Reply

    • Publius, A small dedicated group from our tea party wants to begin working on a nullification statement to present to our Texas reps.  I was wondering if you could provide us some pointers on what it should contain.  

      Thanks  Dwain Decell

      Comment by Dwain Decell | May 9, 2014 | Reply

  18. Not really a question this time, just an observation. In Levin’s amendment regarding commerce you accurately point out the prohibition against impeding commerce actually allows other nefarious legislation. The first thing that came to mind was the states would then be powerless to prevent that huge highway from Mexico to Canada,

    Comment by Mr. Hill | April 26, 2014 | Reply

    • Yep! You got it! Under Mark Levin’s proposed amendment, if the federal government decides that not building that road “impedes commerce”, then they can lawfully take the land they want to build it. And if the value of what they take from any one land owner is $10,000 or less, they get it for free.

      And people think I am the bad guy for criticizing Mark Levin’s amendments! See, e.g., Allen’s comment under the post on

      I get hate mail b/c of what I am saying about Mark Levin’s proposals – and some of it from people in The Constitution Party!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2014 | Reply

  19. I still haven’t found reference to that language in the Nevada Constitution, but here it is in the Nevada “enabling act.” But I don’t believe that the “enabling act” can override the U.S. Constitution either…,+that+they+forever+disclaim+all+right+and+title+to+the+unappropriated+public+lands&source=bl&ots=F90YKLH7sW&sig=DjGKLyfGykrcv2AX20dyTPpzXSs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v6ZZU8L8CZe0yATE-oL4Dw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Nevada%20constitution..%20the%20people%20inhabiting%20said%20territory%20do%20agree%20and%20declare%2C%20that%20they%20forever%20disclaim%20all%20right%20and%20title%20to%20the%20unappropriated%20public%20lands&f=false

    Comment by Bill | April 24, 2014 | Reply

    • I think I answered by own question once I thought about it some more. Even if the people agreed to give the land to the “United States” (the United States refers to the federal government used in the enabling act) the U.S. congress at the time had no right or legal authority to make that stipulation in the first place as it is outside their enumerated powers. That being said, the western states need to take back whats rightfully theirs in the first place. However, there is a lot of Nevada desert I wouldn’t want to touch due to the hundreds of nuclear tests!

      Comment by R.T. Backus | April 24, 2014 | Reply

  20. I have found no reference to “federal lands” in the Nevada Constitution so far.

    I did find this reference to the sale of public lands, in the House of Representatives… 1893… which contains the language that you mention, namely “the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands”… but I don’t know how much water this legislation would hold, if there is no Constitutional basis for it.,+that+they+forever+disclaim+all+right+and+title+to+the+unappropriated+public+lands&source=bl&ots=Z_pFlekw7F&sig=vt0rG1LpJleriboAwmlVgQLJW8c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2aNZU-j5B8ecyAT13YD4DQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=the%20people%20inhabiting%20said%20territory%20do%20agree%20and%20declare%2C%20that%20they%20forever%20disclaim%20all%20right%20and%20title%20to%20the%20unappropriated%20public%20lands&f=false

    Comment by Bill | April 24, 2014 | Reply

  21. I know what the U.S. constitution says about federal land ownership. However, I am curious as to the legality of a state handing over land to the federal government in its enabling process. It is my understanding that the state and U.S. constitutions are a social contract between the peoples and the government limiting its power and scope while also defining and defending our liberties. I also know by reading Article I sec 8 that the federal government ownership of land is restricted to a certain geographical area and for military purposes. During the Nevada Constitutional Convention the people accepted the terms the U.S. congress laid upon them in the enabling act, which was to turn over all public lands… Can both the state and federal government do this? Is It legal? It reads something like this…… “Nevada became a separate territory in 1861 and a state in 1864. At the time of statehood Nevada had a population of only about 30,000 persons, most of whom lived in the northwestern portion of the state. The remainder of the state was sparsely settled and virtually unexplored. This rapid move to statehood and sparse population meant that very little land had been claimed for private ownership at the time of statehood. Most of the land was unappropriated public domain, vast stretches of sagebrush desert and rugged mountains. It appears that the disposition of these open lands was not a controversial issue at the time of statehood. The state accepted from Congress the stipulation in its enabling act that “The Constitutional Convention must disclaim all rights to unappropriated public land in Nevada.” The state constitution accordingly ordained: ” That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands . . .”

    Comment by R.T. Backus | April 24, 2014 | Reply

  22. Frederick Bastiat said “Nothing can be more necessary to understand than this: Law is the organization of the right to lawful defense; it is the substitution of collective for individual forces to secure persons, liberties, and properties so as to cause justice to reign over all. Collective force cannot have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. As the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual – for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes. Who will dare say that force has been given to us, not to defend these, but to annihilate the rights of our brethren”?

    It appears every single government official not only says but is in the process of doing exactly this.

    There is no greater evil than when law is converted into lawlessness, justice to injustice in order to punish lawful defense.


    Comment by Dwain | April 21, 2014 | Reply

  23. Would like to hear your comments on the constitutionality of government land ownership

    Comment by Tierrah Brant | April 21, 2014 | Reply

  24. Hi PH, I just read a very disappointing comment from Justice Scalia – “Justice Antonin Scalia said, “No because it’s not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that’s a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it’s guarding against it’s not an unreasonable intrusion. And it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. That’s why I say its foolish to have us make the decision because I don’t know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don’t.”

    He needs to consider Dr. Martin Luther King’s quote, “we must recognize that part of the price for freedom may well be insecurity, but that the price for complete security is inhumanity.

    Comment by Spense | April 21, 2014 | Reply

    • You are right, Scalia doesn’t understand the ramifications of the Principle that Rights come from GOD – they pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution and all forms of human governments; and that the sole purpose of human governments is to secure THESE rights.

      The solution to muslim terrorists is to control the borders and expel the muslim immigrants who are already here. THAT is how the federal government should secure our right to life: by expelling those who seek to take our lives from us. It is cowardice – political correctness run amuck – even stupidity – to say that the solution to muslim terrorists is to invade the privacy of OUR persons. Brigette Gabriel shows us the inevitable consequence of such cowardice and failure to deal head on with the muslim terrorists.

      But even so, I pray for Scalia’s health every day. And sad to say, he is one of the better judges among our generally sorry crop. So I never criticize him publicly for this reason.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2014 | Reply

      • I have respect for 3 supreme court justices only. No prize for guessing which three. Justice Scalia also seems to say that the NSA deserves to have absolute power at least in some cases that no one but the NSA will know about. No one can lawfully be above our laws…. the Rule of Men instead of The Rule of Law at the NSA, is nothing tyranny by committee! We’ve already seen the devastating effects of gov’t agencies on conservative groups…. and without question the potential for even worse abuse now seems to be in the hands of the NSA. “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” ~Plato

        Comment by Spense | April 21, 2014 | Reply

  25. But if I know about Jury Nullification, what happens if I refuse to adhere to the Judge’s instructions?

    Comment by Bob | April 20, 2014 | Reply

    • A prudent man knows when to keep his mouth shut. And discretely do what is right.
      [In a criminal case, it only takes one to "hang the jury"].

      A “hung jury” usually results in a “mistrial”. That means the prosecutor must decide whether to re-try the case with another jury or drop the case.

      At the beginning of the case, Jurors are required to swear that they will follow the law as the judge explains it to them. But when you swear to do that, I think you have the right to assume that the judge will explain it to you CORRECTLY. And if later, to your shock & horror, you see that the judge wrongly explained it; well then, you must do what is right. Otherwise, you’d be no better than the NAZIS who were just “obeying orders”.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 20, 2014 | Reply

  26. PH, When a judge instructs a jury that they must accept as the law that which is given to them by the court and that the jury can decide only the facts of the case, isn’t that a form of jury tampering? My understanding is that a jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts. Am I wrong? Our 1st Chief Justice, John Jay stated “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

    Comment by James Brecht | April 19, 2014 | Reply

    • It isn’t technically “jury tampering”: “Jury tampering” is a crime defined by Statute – and the definition would not include a judge’s “instructions” to a jury.

      BUT it is a grievous usurpation of power by the judges (State and federal). In our Founding Era, the inherent right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts – in a criminal case – was recognized. Alexander Hamilton recognized this right somewhere (I don’t remember where I saw him say it!); and see “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary” and type “jury” in the search box.

      JU’RY, noun [Latin juro, to swear.] A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empaneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. Grand juries consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alleged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.

      The reason for the distinction between civil and criminal cases is this: In criminal cases, the government is prosecuting – the People have the natural right to judge the criminal laws made by the government when used against their fellows. But in civil cases, both parties are one’s fellows. The jurors should follow the law as announced by the judge.

      Before a jury is “charged” by the judge on the law, counsel meet with the judge and together work out how the judge will instruct the jury. We call these “charging conferences” and they can take hours as counsel argue over what “Law” should be presented by the Judge to the Jury.

      Problem today is this: Almost all lawyers got indoctrinated while they were in law school with statism. THEY believe that the judges properly instruct the jurors on the law in criminal cases and that jurors MUST follow the law as explained to them by the judge.

      So a criminal defense lawyer who attempts to instruct the jury on nullification will be held in contempt and removed from the courtroom. WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INFORM THE JURORS of their right!!!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 20, 2014 | Reply

  27. My dear PH,

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

    Comment by IMO | April 14, 2014 | Reply

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 14, 2014 | Reply

      • I can only add a little to this discussion. Before there were States there were territories and I believe the Federal Government held the land in trust. Once States were created I believe the land should have been turned over to the States. The map of the west is very strange. States like Nebraska got most of the land and States like Wyoming didn’t. I don’t know why the differences. Many of these States were created about the same time and under similar documentation.

        Comment by David Copley | April 22, 2014 | Reply

  28. PH,

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

    Comment by David Copley | March 23, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

      Here is the CRS Report:

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2014 | Reply

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

    Comment by Mary Anderson | March 20, 2014 | Reply

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

    Comment by Luke McGowan | March 19, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 19, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Comment by Luke McGowan | March 19, 2014 | Reply

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

          Comment by R. | March 19, 2014 | Reply

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

          Comment by Dave Wagar | April 9, 2014 | Reply

          • You are totally correct, Dave!
            People forget that we were set up as a federal system: a confederation of sovereign & independent States united ONLY for the limited purposes enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere did we delegate power over children, education, etc. to the federal government. Those powers are retained by the States or The People.

            The Bible shows that God delegated to PARENTS alone the duty & privilege of educating their own children. [I list some of the citations to Scripture in my first or second paper on the so-called "parental rights" amendment.] God knew that public schools were a TERRIBLE idea! So under God’s model, our State governments shouldn’t have power over education of children.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2014

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

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

    Comment by James Brecht | March 18, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2014 | Reply

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

    Comment by rrstubbs | March 11, 2014 | Reply

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

    Comment by Overviewer | March 10, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2014 | Reply

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

        Comment by Overviewer | March 10, 2014 | Reply

  34. PH,

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

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

    Comment by David Copley | March 10, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2014 | Reply

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

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

        Comment by David Copley | March 10, 2014 | Reply

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

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

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment by Spense | March 9, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

      and the liberals and libertarians think that is just WONDERFUL!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2014 | Reply

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

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

    Comment by David Copley | March 5, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 6, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

        Comment by David Copley | March 7, 2014 | Reply

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

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

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 7, 2014 | Reply

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

    Comment by James Brecht | March 4, 2014 | Reply

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

    Referenced article —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2014 | Reply

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

    Comment by Dennis Joyce | March 1, 2014 | Reply

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

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

        Comment by Nelson | March 4, 2014 | Reply

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

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2014 | Reply

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

        Comment by Spense | March 4, 2014 | Reply

        • ….and few listened.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 6, 2014 | Reply

          • because power trumps principle.

            Comment by Dwain Decell | March 6, 2014

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

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

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

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

    Comment by Spense | March 1, 2014 | Reply

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

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

        Comment by Spense | March 1, 2014 | Reply

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

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

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

            Comment by Spense | March 1, 2014

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

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014

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

            Comment by Spense | March 1, 2014

          • Oh, yes.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 26, 2014 | Reply

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

    Comment by IMO | February 25, 2014 | Reply

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 25, 2014 | Reply

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

    Comment by Spense | February 25, 2014 | Reply

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

    Comment by rrstubbs | February 23, 2014 | Reply

  45. PH, you say: WARNING AGAINST A CON-CON a/k/a “constitutional convention” or “Article V convention” or “Convention of the States”: Do not be deceived by the people who are calling for these. Go here and read the warning of James Madison and others. Be sure to read “Twenty Questions About a Constitutional Convention”: I am told that a “Convention of States” is much different from a Con-Con and that it is part of the Constitution, whereby states take action against abuses of the Federal Government. You lump them together. Will you clarify this for all of us?

    Comment by Wayne Ollick | February 23, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 23, 2014 | Reply

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

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

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

    Comment by Dennis Joyce | February 22, 2014 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 792 other followers

%d bloggers like this: