Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Our Constitution provides two separate & independent methods for the federal government to “call forth the Militia” to suppress Insurrections

By Publius Huldah

Because of its excellence and relevance to the insurrections being fomented in our cities by the Marxist organization “Black Lives Matter”, Antifa, and other revolutionary organizations; I sent the recent paper by Edwin Vieira, JD., Ph.D., titled, “The President’s Authority To Suppress Insurrections” [link], to my lists.

In response, some objected that the riots in the cities are local issues to be handled (or not) by the State and local governments – that they are not “federal” issues over which the federal government has jurisdiction. Some also asserted that Article IV, §4, US Constitution prohibits the President from sending the National Guard into a State to quell such disturbances, unless & until the Legislature or the Governor of the State requests it.

Those objections are not well-founded.

First: What’s going on in our cities is not something which can be prudently brushed aside. It is a classic manifestation of a Marxist revolution – see, e.g., this article from “Workers’ World”. Furthermore, as shown below, the President of the United States has constitutional and statutory authority to exercise his own judgment as to whether he should send in the “Militia” to suppress the uprisings.

Second: Our Constitution provides two separate and independent methods for the federal government to suppress such uprisings.

Dr. Vieira’s paper sets forth the other method of “calling forth the Militia” – the method provided for at Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution. That provides for the intervention of the Militia within a State at the initiative of the federal government, regardless of whether the State requests it. 1

When highly knowledgeable and experienced persons, such as Dr. Vieira, speak in their area of expertise, and their words contradict our existing beliefs; we ought to re-examine our beliefs, instead of dismissing what such persons say. 2

So let’s review Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16, and some of the early Acts of Congress implementing them.

1. The American Militia is 400 years old

Throughout our colonial period, able-bodied free males were expected to be armed and trained and ready on short notice to defend their home, family, neighborhood and Colony. They were the “Militia”. In Mel Gibson’s movie, Patriot, Gibson’s character commanded a South Carolina Militia Company. The Militia was not “regular Army” – it was comprised of farmers, pastors, shopkeepers, etc., trained in the use of arms and prepared to fight for defense of Family and Community.

In our Constitution of 1787, our Framers provided for a regular Army and Navy at Article I, §8, clauses 12, 13 & 14. Pursuant to Article II, §2, clause 1, the President is Commander in Chief (CINC) of the Army and Navy. 3

Our Constitution also recognized the continued existence of the Militia, and assigned to it three specific federal functions: Article I, §8, clause 15 empowers Congress:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. 4

Clause 16 authorizes Congress:

“To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

In 1792, Congress passed the Militia Act which “provided for” the arming of the Militia by requiring every able-bodied male Citizen of the ages 18-45 (with a few exceptions) 5 to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo pouch, ammo, 6 and report to his local unit for training. HERE is the Militia Act of 1792.

When the Militia of a State isn’t in the service of the United States for one of the three purposes listed in Clause 15, its function is to help in its own State – however the need arises. And in Federalist No. 46, James Madison says the Militia is to defend the State from the federal government in the event it becomes tyrannical. 7

2. Who has the authority to call forth the Militia into service of the United States?

Article I, §8, clause 15 authorizes Congress to “provide for” calling forth the Militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. How does Congress “provide for” calling forth the Militia into the service of the United States?

In Martin v. Mott, 25 US 19 (1827), the Supreme Court considered the Militia Act of 1795 [link] which authorized the President to call forth the militia when he judged it necessary to repel an invasion or enforce the laws of the United States. The Court pointed out that the power had been entrusted by Congress to the President, and said that,

“We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”

So! In the Militia Act of 1795, Congress “provided for” calling forth the Militia by delegating to the President the power to determine when it was advisable to call the Militia into national service to repel an invasion or to execute the laws of the Union. 8

3. Transformation of the Militia into the federally controlled National Guard

During the early 1900s, Americans elected Progressives [Fabian socialists] to office. And these “Progressives” commenced the conquest of our Country. They had to eliminate the threat the Militia posed to the totalitarian federal government they intended to create. So with the “Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903” (the “Dick Act”) [link], Congress federalized the Militia. And this is how the Militia of the several States, which is the primary defense of a Free People and the States against a tyrannical federal government [2nd Amendment], was put under federal control. And the States went along with it because their People were ignorant, short sighted, and bought off with federal appropriations for the new federalized “National Guard”.

So we don’t have an organized & trained Militia – now, we have federal troops – some on active duty in the Regular Military; others as weekend warriors in the Reserves or National Guard.

4. Current Acts of Congress providing for calling forth the “Militia” (federal armed forces)

Today, the provisions of the US Code which address calling forth the “Militia” 9 into national service are: 10 USC §251, 10 USC §252, 10 USC §253, and 10 USC §254. Note that the President still has statutory authority to use his own Judgment respecting whether to send the “Militia” into any State:

♦ to enforce the Laws of the United States [10 USC § 252];

♦ to suppress uprisings which deprive the people of the rights, privileges and immunities, and protections recognized in the Constitution and secured by Law, and the State government isn’t protecting those rights [10 USC §253]; and

♦ to suppress uprisings which oppose or obstruct the execution of the laws of the United States or impede the course of justice under those laws [10 USC § 253].

5. Conclusion

Our Constitution is an elegant piece of work. Its parts are interconnected and fit together. So we must read each clause in the light shed by the other clauses and by the Principles of our Founding as set forth in our Declaration of Independence. We must never insert our own biases – no matter what they are.

One of the most valuable characteristics of our federal system is the ability of the state and federal governments to be “checks” on each other. In Federalist No. 28 (7th para), Alexander Hamilton says,

“… in a confederacy [10] the people … may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [national or federal] government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. …”

We would be wise to celebrate the President’s constitutional and statutory authority to protect us from the death and destruction being brought about – with the connivance of State & local officials – by the Marxist revolutionaries. When State and local governments refuse to protect their people from such death and destruction, the President has a clear power to intervene.

Now, we must start electing Presidents who know and obey our Constitution. 11

Endnotes:

1 Our Framers thought of everything – including rogue State governments. See, e.g, Federalist No. 28.

2 One of the themes of Proverbs is that a wise man listens and increases his understanding. Be wise.

3 To be CINC means that the President has the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy (Federalist No. 69).

4 Let that clause sink in! Our Framers did not want a standing Army [go here and search for “standing armies”] – that’s why appropriations for the regular Army were limited to two years (Art. I, § 8, cl. 12). National defense, enforcement of federal laws, & suppressing Insurrections were to be the responsibility of the Militia. When the federal gov’t needs to enforce its laws, it is to call forth the Militia – the armed and trained Citizens – to do the enforcing! During the Washington Administration, the federal gov’t called forth the Militia to enforce the federal excise tax on whiskey. Federal law enforcement is thus the province of the Citizens – the Militia! It is most manifestly NOT the province of armed thugs in the employ of the Executive Branch of the federal gov’t.

5 Pursuant to §2 of the Militia Act of 1792, federal officers & employees were exempted from service in the Militia. Can you figure out why they were exempted?

6 The arms, ammunition and accoutrements so acquired by the Militia Man were his personal property and were held free from claims of all creditors. They could not be seized and sold in payment for any judgments, debts or taxes. See last sentence of §1 of the Militia Act of 1792.

7 This is why Article II, §2, clause 1 provides that the President is CINC of the Militia only when it is called into national service. This is also why §2 of the Militia Act of 1792 exempts all federal officers and employees from service in the Militia.

8 The Militia Act of 1795 also provided that in cases of insurrection against a State government, the President could send in the Militia upon request of the State Legislature or Governor.

9 Even though we no longer have a “militia” within the meaning of Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16; the current US Code uses the term in order to connect the activities of the federal armed forces with Art. I, §8, clause 15.

10 Our Constitution created a “federation” (“confederation”) of sovereign states which were united together for the sole purposes enumerated in the US Constitution.

11 I may have been wrong to fault President Trump for not sending the National Guard into the States to suppress the Insurrections.  In The Coming Coup? [link], Michael Anton writes:

“…It started with the military brass quietly indicating that the troops should not follow a presidential order. They were bolstered by many former generals—including President Trump’s own first Secretary of Defense—who stated openly what the brass would only hint at. Then, as nationwide riots really got rolling in early June, the sitting Secretary of Defense himself all but publicly told the president not to invoke the Insurrection Act. His implicit message was: “Mr. President, don’t tell us to do that, because we won’t, and you know what happens after that.”

If that is true, then the President ought to fire Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and should “purg[e] the [military] officer corps of anyone not down with the program and promoting only those who are.”

September 6, 2020 Posted by | Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Commander in Chief, Insurrections clause, Marxist revolution, Militia, President's powers | , , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments

What did the US Supreme Court actually say in its Majority Opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma?

By Publius Huldah

Here is the majority opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma [link].

The issue on appeal was whether the State of Oklahoma has criminal jurisdiction over the Creek Indians for crimes committed by them on Creek land. The Supreme Court said, “NO!”

The majority opinion lays out a shameful tale of Congress’ practice of breaking treaties with Indian nations; but points out that it [the Supreme Court] has previously held that Congress has the RIGHT to break Treaties with Indians!

The majority opinion recounts how to get the Creek Nation to give up their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the federal government promised them (in the Treaty of 1832) that they would have a permanent land in Oklahoma which would be theirs for as long as the Creek nation existed and over which they would have complete self-government.

But in the Major Crimes Act of 1885, Congress decided that they would exercise criminal jurisdiction over the Creeks for major crimes committed by them on Creek Land. And since the Supreme Court has said that Congress isn’t bound by the treaties it makes, we are all just fine with Congress’ unilateral change of mind on this point. 1

So the bottom line of the opinion is that while the federal government has criminal jurisdiction over the Creeks for “major crimes” committed on Creek land; the Oklahoma State government has no criminal jurisdiction over them. 2

Endnotes:

1 As to Congress’ shameful practice of breaking Treaties with Indian Nations (and the Supreme Court’s approval of that disgraceful practice), consider how God punished the Israelites by sending a 3-year famine because King Saul broke the Treaty Joshua had previously made with the Gibeonites. [See the excellent exposition of this event at gotquestions.org [link]]. So when the leaders of a nation commit public sins and the People go along with it, God punishes the People. See, “The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution” [link].

2 Why should the federal government limit their wrongdoing to the Indians? Why not do it to all of us? And they did! E.g., when they passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, they promised that Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) would be redeemable in gold. Then, the federal government changed their mind and for some 90 years, Americans haven’t been able to redeem FRN’s with gold. See more about the shenanigans respecting the Federal Reserve in “So you think Trump wants to get rid of the fed?” [link].

July 20, 2020 Posted by | Creek Indians, McGirt v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Treaty Making Powers of the United States | , , , , | 5 Comments

Congress has no authority to confer statehood on the District of Columbia

By Publius Huldah

Under Article IV, Sec. 3, US Constitution, Congress has the power to admit new States into the Union.

For a list of States and when admitted, see this wiki list.

Note that the new States were “colonies” or “territories” – or as with Vermont and Texas, “independent Republics” – before they were admitted into the Union as “States”.  That is highly significant.

The District of Columbia has an existing constitutional status as “the Seat of the Government of the United States” – see Article I, Section 8, next to last clause, US Constitution.

In order to change the constitutional status of the District of Columbia from the “seat of government of the United States” to a “State”, Article I, Section 8, next to last clause, must be amended pursuant to Article V, U.S. Constitution.

Any pretended Act of Congress which purports to confer statehood on the District of Columbia would be totally and blatantly unconstitutional.

June 26, 2020 Posted by | Article IV Sec. 3, District of Columbia, Statehood for the District of Columbia | , , | 48 Comments

Mail-in voting

By Publius Huldah

1. As to elections for LOCAL & STATE offices (where no federal elections are on the ballot): What does your STATE CONSTITUTION say? Does it prescribe any particular “manner” of voting? “Manner of voting” refers to a requirement of personal presence at the place of voting and to a show of hands, or voice votes, or paper ballots, or voting machines; etc., OR voting by mail or by internet or by telephone, etc. The Laws made by your State Legislature respecting “manner of voting” must comply with your State Constitution, or the pretended laws are unconstitutional.

So! For local & state offices where no federal office is on the ballot; the matter is determined solely by your STATE Constitution and the Statutes your STATE Legislature has passed.

2. As to elections for the FEDERAL House of Representatives or Senate: See Article I, §4, clause 1, US Constitution: It provides that State Legislatures have the power to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding elections; but that Congress has an oversight power over the “Time” and “Manner” of election laws made by State Legislatures. [Remember, when Art. I, §4, cl. 1 was written, the State Legislatures chose the State’s Senators to the US Congress – so the “place” of choosing the Senators would be wherever the Legislature met.]

I wrote about Art. I, §4, clause 1, US Constitution here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/arizonas-proposition-200-what-the-constitution-really-says-about-voter-qualifications-exposing-the-elections-clause-argument/ under the subheading, The Dishonest “Elections Clause” Argument. Please study that.

It appears that Congress has not passed any Laws prohibiting or requiring mail-in voting in federal elections. (If anyone knows anything to the contrary, please let me know.) If Congress has not passed a law prohibiting mail-in voting, then States may permit it (assuming they are sufficiently foolish to do so). Congress does have the constitutional authority to prohibit mail-in voting in federal elections [and to continue to permit absentee ballots for members of the Military, diplomatic corps, Missionaries, etc.]

3. And remember: The 12th Amendment sets forth the totally different & separate procedures for electing President & Vice-President. We have ignored the 12th Amendment for a long time…

May 14, 2020 Posted by | Elections Clause, Mail-in voting | , | 11 Comments

Why the States must Nullify the National Voter Registration Act Now!

By Publius Huldah

From the earliest days of our Republic, 1 some years before our federal Constitution of 1787 was ratified; 2 the Citizens of the States determined the qualifications for voting, and memorialized these qualifications in their State Constitutions. In keeping with this hallowed practice, the Citizens of North Carolina recently amended Article VI of their State Constitution to add to the Qualifications for voting the requirement that persons voting in person present a photo ID [link].

But lawsuits have been filed in federal court objecting to the photo ID’s; and the judge on one of them, U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs [Mid. Dist. North Carolina], has announced that she will issue a preliminary injunction against the requirement that voters present a photo ID. North Carolina election officials scurried to comply with Judge Biggs’ announcement; and Republican politicians called for an appeal [link].

The purpose of this paper is to show a better way to proceed – to show how North Carolina can enforce the US Constitution and the qualifications for voting set forth in its State Constitution.

We begin by looking at what our federal Constitution says about qualifications of voters.

1. Our federal Constitution enshrines the pre-existing practice where States set the qualifications for voters

In our federal Constitution of 1787, the States expressly retained their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters: Article I, §2, cl. 1, US Constit., says,

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” [italics added]

So! Under our federal Constitution, those who are eligible to vote for Representatives to their State Legislature are, by definition, the ones eligible to vote for Members of the federal House of Representatives.

The 17th Amendment [ratified 1913] provided that those who were eligible to vote for Representatives to the US House would also be eligible to vote for the US Senators.

With four later amendments, the States decided that they would not deny eligibility to vote to Citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay taxes (24th Amendment), and for those 18 years of age or older on account of age (26th Amendment).

So the States have retained their original authority to set whatever qualifications for voting they deem appropriate, subject to their agreement (with each other) that they would not deny suffrage on account of a Citizen’s being in one of those four categories.

2. Voting fraud

But today, we all know that, due to the federal government’s long continuing refusal 3 to control immigration 4 and protect the States from Invasion,5 illegal aliens are flooding into our Country. In at least 15 States, illegals may get drivers’ licenses [link] [link]; and with California’s “motor voter law”, illegals are automatically registered to vote when they get a drivers’ license! 6

Furthermore, there are Precincts in this Country where well over 100% of the registered voters turn out to vote [link]! This Georgia Precinct had a 243% voter turnout!

Our elections are also corrupted by the “ghost voters” described in Deroy Murdock’s article [here]. Murdock shows that throughout the United States, over 3.5 million persons who don’t exist are registered to vote. For North Carolina, Murdock finds 189,721 ghost voters. Virginia has 89,979 ghost voters. But that’s a pittance compared to California which “is a veritable haunted house, teeming with 1,736,556 ghost voters.”

When you add California’s 1,736,556 ghost voters to the illegal aliens who also vote there (thanks to “Motor Voter”)7 and understand that this problem is nation-wide; who can deny that the States need to man-up and clean up their corrupt voting systems? The federal government has no constitutional authority to clean up the voting rolls; 8 but the States have the inherent and retained duty and power to do so.

By requiring photo IDs, the Citizens of North Carolina have taken a first step towards getting rid of some of those 189,721 ghosts, plus the illegals, who corrupt elections within their State.

3. The Federal Government has usurped the States’ expressly retained power to set qualifications for Voters

In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) [link], wherein they unlawfully seized power to dictate voter registration procedures (for federal elections) for the entire Country.

By dictating the registration procedures each State must use, and by mandating the voter registration form [the “federal form”] each State must use when registering voters; the NVRA stripped the States of their power to determine whether voters in their State meet the qualifications for voting set forth within their State Constitutions. It thus prohibits the States from enforcing the qualifications for voting set forth in their State Constitutions! 9

This is shown by what happened in Arizona:

The Constitution of the State of Arizona restricts voting to Citizens. During 2004, the People of Arizona (which had been overrun with illegal aliens) adopted an initiative (Proposition 200) which required those in Arizona who apply to register to vote, to provide documentary proof of citizenship.  But a lawsuit was filed in federal court; and the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that since the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 doesn’t require applicants for voter registration to provide documentary proof of citizenship, the States may not require it.

Thereafter, in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the US Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s opinion [link].

I wrote about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion [here] and the Supreme Court’s opinion [here]. Both opinions are monuments to judicial incompetence – or worse. The assertions made by the Courts in their attempts to justify their unconstitutional judgments are demonstratively false. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court is also logically incoherent.

But here we are: The Supreme Court has held that since the federally mandated voter registration form doesn’t require that persons registering to vote provide proof of citizenship, the States may not require it. What this means, in practice, is that the States must register anyone who fills out the federal form.

4. So where does this leave North Carolina?

The federal voter registration form may be seen (in 15 different languages) [here].

The federal form doesn’t require applicants for registration to provide a photo ID. Therefore, consistent with Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., North Carolina may not require applicants for registration to provide a photo ID.

May North Carolina require voters to present a photo ID when they show up to vote? The Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed this; 10 but consider that since the federal government requires the States to register anyone who fills out the federal form, why would the feds permit the States to deny exercise of the suffrage to any name which is “registered”?

We already know how U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs is going to rule – and her ruling is consistent with the Supreme Court’s lawless holding in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

5. Are There any Men in North Carolina?

The 7th paragraph of our Declaration of Independence recites how the Colonists opposed with manly firmness the King’s invasions on the rights of the people.
Are there any politicians in North Carolina today who will oppose the federal government’s invasions on the rights of the Citizens of North Carolina to set and enforce requirements for voting within their State?

A State Attorney General with brains and a spine would inform the federal judge that North Carolina won’t participate in the litigation; that she may issue all the Orders and Judgments she wants – North Carolina will ignore them – because (if she obeys the Supreme Court instead of the federal and State Constitutions) her Orders and Judgments will be void as in violation of Article I, §2, clause 1, US Constitution; and as in violation of the Sovereign Rights of North Carolina to enforce their own Constitution respecting voter qualifications.

What could a federal judge do about such a principled response from North Carolina? She has no Army. She has no power to enforce her judgments. She has to depend on the Executive Branch of the Federal government to enforce her judgments.11

So we would find out whether Trump actually means it when he says he wants honest elections, or whether he is just another fake “conservative”. If he is a fake, he will send in the National Guard to enforce the Judge’s unconstitutional judgment. But if Trump lives up to his words about the need for honest elections [link]; then he will refuse to send in the National Guard to enforce the unconstitutional Judgment; and North Carolina will have won the Battle and set a noble example for other States to follow.

6. Conclusion

The Deep State which controls the federal government doesn’t want elections cleaned up – they need dirty elections to get their henchmen in office. So they have embarked upon a course of action (such as the NVRA) to try to prevent the States from cleaning up elections. So, for Heaven’s Sake! Man up and resist! Our Framers always advised the States to resist unconstitutional acts of the federal government [link] [link]! We will never get honest elections unless the States man up and reclaim their rightful authority over their own voter rolls. Do it before you lose the political power to do it.

Endnotes:

1 From 1778 to 1789, we operated under our first federal Constitution, the Articles of Confederation [link].

2 Our present federal Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 [link].

3 Both political parties have embraced the Globalists’ open borders policy – both parties have failed to secure our Borders.

4 Art. I, §9, cl. 1, US Constit., delegates to Congress as of January 1, 1808, the power to control immigration.

5Art. IV, §4, US Constit., requires the federal government to protect each of the States against Invasion.

6 During 2013, California passed a law which permits illegal aliens to get drivers’ licenses [link]; and during 2015, consistent with the unconstitutional National Voter Registration Act, passed “Motor Voter” providing that when one gets a drivers’ license, one is automatically registered to vote [link].

7 So with a “National Popular Vote” for President, or to ratify a new Constitution (if the mode of ratification for the new Constitution is a national referendum), it would be easy to steal the outcome! Illegal aliens and “ghost voters” in California alone would determine the outcome for the entire Country.

8 President Trump’s Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017, which purported to establish a “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity” [link], is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.

9 Justice Thomas understands this: Until the federal government usurped power over this issue, the States always determined their own procedures for registration of those who were, pursuant to their State Constitution, qualified to vote. The function of registration of voters is so that the States may determine whether the qualifications for voting set forth in their State Constitution have been met! Justice Thomas points out in his dissent in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. at II. A. 2:

“This understanding of Article I, §2, is consistent with powers enjoyed by the States at the founding. For instance, ownership of real or personal property was a common prerequisite to voting … To verify that this qualification was satisfied, States might look to proof of tax payments… In other instances, States relied on personal knowledge of fellow citizens to verify voter eligibility. . . States have always had the power to ensure that only those qualified under state law to cast ballots exercised the franchise.

Perhaps in part because many requirements (such as property ownership or taxpayer status) were independently documented and verifiable, States in 1789 did not generally “register” voters . . . Over time, States replaced their informal systems for determining eligibility, with more formalized pre-voting registration regimes. . . But modern voter registration serves the same basic purpose as the practices used by States in the Colonies and early Federal Republic. The fact that States have liberalized voting qualifications and streamlined the verification process through registration does not alter the basic fact that States possess broad authority to set voter qualifications and to verify that they are met.” [italics added].

10 In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion [link], Scalia mentioned (4th para down from top) that Arizona’s Proposition 200 also required voters “to present identification when they vote on election day”; but he did not grace us with an answer as to whether States may require voters to prove that they are who they say they are when they show up to vote.

11 As Alexander Hamilton points out in Federalist No. 78, the Judicial Branch is the weakest branch. All they can do is issue orders and judgments – they can’t enforce their orders and judgments. They must rely on the Executive Branch to carry them out:

“… the judiciary… will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [caps are Hamilton’s; italics added]

February 27, 2020 Posted by | Arizona Lawsuit, Arizona's Proposition 200, National Voter Registration Act, Nullification, Voter eligibility, Voter Qualifications | , , , , | 16 Comments

“Monumental” speech against an Article V convention

Here is the Exhibit List (with Links) to the Documents referenced in the speech [link].

Please note that I prove what I say.

The convention lobby is not telling the Truth. Click on the link to the Exhibit List, and read the flyers listed at the top. Those flyers address specific falsehoods the convention lobby is telling. The convention lobby has been getting away with the lies because people are generally gullible and believe whatever they are told, instead of using their own heads and looking at the original source documents.

The convention lobby never proves a thing they say. They can’t prove it because what they say is false – they make it up!      But it sounds so good … and thus gullible and unthinking people lap it up.  The convention lobby tells them that our  Constitution is the cause of all our problems, and thus allows Americans to indulge in one of their favorite sins:  blame-shifting The Truth is that our political problems are caused by our own failures to learn and enforce and obey the glorious Constitution we already have.  And State and local governments take every federal dollar they can get – never mind that the federal programs for which the federal money is sent into the States are unconstitutional.  The State and local governments literally sold our retained powers to the federal government.

We can’t solve our political problems until we are willing to be honest about the causes of those problems.

 

 

February 20, 2020 Posted by | Article V, Article V Convention, constitutional convention, convention lobby, Convention of States project | , , , , | 11 Comments

Model Right to Keep and Bear Arms Resolution for Counties

This Resolution was written for Virginia Counties and quotes from Virginia’s State Constitution.

I changed the title to be consistent with the Principle that the Right has a transcendent origin which pre-exists and pre-dates our Constitution.

If you would like me to address your State Constitution, email me at publiushuldah@gmail.com

Please note:  I reason from First Principles set forth in our two Founding Documents.

*     *     *

WHEREAS, our Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding and part of the Organic Law of our Land and recognizes that our Rights come from the Creator God; and that among these Rights is the Right of self-defense; and

WHEREAS, our Declaration of Independence recognizes that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is one of enumerated powers only; and WE THE PEOPLE did not grant to the federal government any power whatsoever over the Country at Large to restrict our arms; and

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States acknowledges: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”; and

WHEREAS, Article I, §13 of the Constitution of the State of Virginia acknowledges: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;…”

NOW THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That all federal laws, regulations, judicial opinions, and other edicts for the Country at Large which pretend to restrict THE PEOPLES’ arms in any fashion whatsoever are unlawful as in violation of our Declaration of Independence; and are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States; and as in violation of the Second Amendment; and

2. That all State laws, regulations, judicial opinions, and other edicts purporting to apply to the State at Large which pretend to restrict THE PEOPLES’ arms in any fashion whatsoever are unlawful as in violation of our Declaration of Independence; and are unconstitutional as in violation of Article I, §8, clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the United States [those clauses permitting the Congress to require Citizens of the States to be armed and trained]; as in violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and as in violation of Article I, §13 of the Constitution of the State of Virginia.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the _____________ County Board of Supervisors that the Board intends to vigorously uphold the Right of the Citizens to be armed; and in addition thereto intends at subsequent times and dates to adopt the following measures:

1. Funding for weapons training for Citizens residing in this County, including firearms safety training in ______________ County public schools;

2. Provisions to eliminate funding for enforcement of any pretended laws, regulations, judicial opinions, or other edicts which violate our Declaration of Independence and any of the above-described federal or state constitutional provisions; and

3. Other provisions as the Board may deem necessary or appropriate for the purposes stated above.

It is so RESOLVED, this ________ day of _____________, 2020.

Signatures, etc.

Notes:

1. The use of the term, “for the Country at Large”, with respect to federal edicts; and “to the State at Large”, with respect to State edicts, is not accidental.

While our US Constitution delegates only “enumerated powers” to Congress over the Country at Large; it delegates “general legislative powers” to Congress over the federal enclaves listed at Article I, §8, cl. 17. The exercise by Congress of its legislative powers over the federal enclaves is restricted by the “Bill of Rights”, including the Second Amendment.  So while Congress is prohibited from making for these federal enclaves, any laws which infringe the Right of The People “to keep and bear Arms”; Congress may properly require individuals visiting inmates in federal prisons, the psych ward of military hospitals, the mint, federal courthouses, and other such federal enclaves, to leave their arms in their vehicles.

In stark contrast with the federal Constitution, State Constitutions typically [and foolishly] grant “general legislative powers” over the State at Large to the State legislature. The exercise of these general legislative powers is restricted only by the Declaration of Rights in the State Constitution [as well as by contradictory provisions in the US Constitution].

So while State Legislatures are prohibited from infringing the Rights of Citizens to keep and bear arms throughout the State at Large; State Legislatures may properly require individuals visiting inmates in State or County prisons or jails, County or State courthouses, and such like, to leave their arms in their vehicles.

2. And remember!  That any provision in any State Constitution which purports to disarm the Citizens of the State would be unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment, and as in violation of Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constit., which provide for the organizing, arming and training of the Militia.  Since Congress has the power to require Citizens to be armed and trained [and Congress exercised that power when it passed the Militia Act of 1792 link], any provision in any State Constitution [or State statute] which interferes with such power is unconstitutional within the meaning of the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, cl. 2, US Constit.).

3.  And here are Michael Boldin’s (Tenth Amendment Center) kind words on this Resolution:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsLWuAIXAPA  Thank you, Michael!

revised Jan. 29-30, 2020

 

January 28, 2020 Posted by | 2nd Amendment, armed citizens, gun control, Red Flag Laws, Second Amendment Resolutions | , , , , , | 18 Comments

USMCA “Trade Agreement”, the North American Union, an Article V convention, and Red Flag Laws: Connecting the Dots

By Publius Huldah

The Globalists have long been in the process of setting up a dictatorial and totalitarian oligarchy over the United States. Now they are putting the last pieces in place. That is what is behind the pushes for the USMCA “Trade Agreement”, an Article V convention, and red-flag and other laws to disarm the American People: The Globalists want to move the United States into the North American Union.

USMCA “Trade Agreement”

The USMCA “Trade Agreement” is, in reality, a Transfer of Sovereignty Agreement. It provides for the economic and financial integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In addition to putting the three countries under global regulation of a host of issues such as patents, environmental regulation, labor, immigration policy, prohibition of discriminatory practices respecting sexual preferences and “gender identity” in the workplaces; 1 it puts the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in control of our economy and binds us to submit to an international monetary system which is to be administered and enforced (at least initially) by the IMF and which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve system.2

Every word, clause, sentence, paragraph, page, chapter, and appendix of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” is in blatant violation of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

North American Union

The North American Union brings about the political integration of Canada, the United States, and MexicoThe Task Force Report on Building a North American Community [link] sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations provides for (among other horrors):

♦  increasing the “cooperation and interoperability among and between the law enforcement agencies and militaries.” The Report thus indicates that the plan is to combine the functions of law enforcement and the militaries of the three countries, so as to create a militarized police force consisting of Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans (pages 10-12).3

♦  a North American Advisory Council, with members appointed by Canada, the United States, and Mexico, to staggered multiyear terms to “provide a public voice for North America”; and a “North American Inter-Parliamentary Group” which will have bilateral meetings every other year; and a trinational interparliamentary group to meet in the alternating year (pages 31-32).

To merge the functions of our police and military and combine it with those of Canada and Mexico; 4 and to permit a Parliament to be set up over and above the United States, is altogether repugnant to our existing Constitution. But this is what the Globalists and the Political Elite of both parties want. Before they can impose it on us, they need to get a new Constitution for the United States.

An Article V Convention

And that’s the purpose of an Article V convention – to get a new constitution for this Country which legalizes the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and transforms the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union.

But Americans don’t want another constitution, and they don’t want to be moved into the North American Union.

So!  Some of those pushing for an Article V convention, such as the “Convention of States Project” (COS) are marketing a convention to appeal to conservatives. COS and their allies such as Mark Levin claim to be for limited government and say they want a convention to get amendments to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”. Sadly, those who don’t know that our Constitution already limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to a tiny handful of enumerated powers [they are listed on this one page Chart] fall for the marketing.5

But others of those pushing for an Article V convention, and certainly those financing the push for a convention, 6 actually do intend to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”; and they intend to do it by transferring the powers our Constitution delegates to the federal government (plus the powers reserved to the States or the People) to the global government which they are setting up over us.7

This Flyer shows why Delegates to an Article V convention (called for the ostensible purpose of proposing amendments to our existing Constitution) have the right and power to ignore their instructions and impose a new Constitution which puts us under a completely new Form of government – such as the North American Union.

Red flag Laws & Gun Confiscation

When Americans finally see what has been done and how they have been deceived, they will be angry. That’s why they must be disarmed now. But all federal gun control laws for the Country at Large are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted to Congress; as in violation of Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16; and as in violation of the Second Amendment. And any pretended State law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power (granted by Art. I, §8, cl. 16) to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”, is also unconstitutional [link].

Red flag laws also violate the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, §2; and the due process clauses of the 5th Amendment and §1 of the 14th Amendment. US Senator Marco Rubio’s (Fla.) malignant red flag law [link] appropriates a total of $100 Million to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the red flag legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill.

And Trump says respecting red flag laws, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” [link].

Stop the Globalists: Oppose the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and an Article V Convention

While the Trump Administration hammers the Globalists’ nails into our coffin, his trusting supporters censor criticism of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” – even though the Agreement is so long and incorporates so many other Agreements it is unlikely that any of them (including Trump) have read it.

And demagogues in the pay of Globalists have convinced constitutionally illiterate Americans that the solution to all our problems is to get an Article V convention.

Endnotes:

1 Christian Gomez: USMCA and the Quest for a North American Union & What’s Really in the USMCA? Publius Huldah: The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government.

2 Publius Huldah: So You Think Trump Wants To Get Rid Of The Fed?

3 Meanwhile, the UN is building a global military & police force. See “United Nations Peacekeeping” [link] and think of the ramifications of such a militarized global police force. Who will be able to resist?

4 Mexico’s culture is notoriously criminal. If we permit Globalists to get an Article V convention and a new Constitution which moves the United States into the North American Union, you can expect to see militarized Mexican police operating within our [former] Country. And soon, they will be wearing blue helmets.

5 It is possible that Mark Levin and the hirelings promoting a convention (such as Mark Meckler, 6 Tom Coburn [link], and Jim DeMint [link]) don’t know what the actual agenda is. And it is almost certain that COS’s constitutionally illiterate celebrity endorsers and lemmings don’t know. People who don’t know that our Constitution already limits the federal government to a tiny handful of enumerated powers, and that our problems are caused by ignoring the Constitution we have, are easily deceived by the ridiculous claim that we must amend our Constitution to make the federal government obey it.

Our Framers always understood that the purpose of an Article V Convention is to get a new Constitution [link]. This is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and four US Supreme Court Justices, among others, warned against it [link].

6 It is the Globalists, primarily the Kochs and George Soros, who are funding the push for an Article V convention. See, e.g.,

♦  Kochs Bankroll Move to Rewrite the Constitution [link].

♦  George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution [link]

♦  Mark Meckler is president of “Citizens for Self-Governance” which launched the “Convention of States Project”. This website discusses funding for Citizens for Self-Governance.

♦ Koch brothers from Conservapedia [link]

7 The transfer of power from our federal government to global government by means of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” is illustrated here.  Additional powers will be transferred by the new constitution which moves us into the North American Union.

 

December 13, 2019 Posted by | Article V Convention, Christian Gomez, constitutional convention, convention lobby, Convention of States project, Council on Foreign Relations, Donald Trump, George Soros, Globalism, gun control, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Jim DeMint, Koch Brothers, Mark Levin, Mark Meckler, North American Union, Red Flag Laws, Task Force Report on Building a North American Community, Tom Coburn, USMCA Trade Agreement | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Alan Keyes and Publius Huldah connect the dots behind the push for an Article V convention

Listen and learn the connection between the USMCA “Trade Agreement”, the North American Union, an Article V Convention, and red flag gun confiscation laws. There is a coordinated plan to take our Constitution away from us. But you can help stop the Globalists.

December 5, 2019 Posted by | Alan Keyes, Article V Convention, Convention of States project, Council on Foreign Relations, Globalism, gun control, IAMtv, North American Union, Publius Huldah, Red Flag Laws, USMCA Trade Agreement | , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Clearing up the confusion about Marbury v. Madison

By Publius Huldah

It is true that the Constitution does not expressly say that the federal courts have the power to strike down acts of Congress which are unconstitutional.

What Article VI of the Constitution does say, however, is that (a) the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and (b) judicial officers (among others) are under Oath to support the Constitution.

So what are the logical implications of the foregoing? That when an act of Congress violates the Constitution, and the issue is brought before a court in a lawsuit, it is the sworn duty of the Court to side with the Constitution and against Congress.

Let me give an illustration: Say Congress passes a law requiring all Jews to wear yellow armbands with the Star of David in black, and requiring all Christians to wear white armbands with the cross in black. And Congress makes it a felony for a Jew or Christian to leave their homes without wearing the arm bands. You – a Jew or Christian – go outside without wearing your armband and are arrested and charged with a felony.

If I am your defense counsel [I got my start as a criminal defense attorney and won almost all of my cases, so you would be in REALLY good hands!], the first thing I will do is to file a motion to dismiss the charge against you on the ground that the statute under which you are charged is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress AND as in violation of the First Amendment.

What do you want the Court to do? Do you want them to side with the Constitution? Or do you want them to side with Congress?

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court said when an act of Congress violates the Constitution, the Court must side with the Constitution and against Congress. They were right! That is the Judicial Branch’s “check” on the Legislative Branch.

The Legislative Branch’s “check” on the Judicial Branch is to impeach and remove from office federal judges who violate the Constitution (see e.g., Federalist No. 81 (8th para).

The Executive Branch’s “check” on the Judicial Branch is to refuse to enforce their Orders and Judgments (see e.g., Federalist No. 78 (6th para).

The Executive Branch’s “check” on the Legislative Branch is to refuse to enforce their unconstitutional statutes.  So if Congress passed the armband law, it is the sworn Duty of the President, mindful of his Oath of Office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, to issue an Executive Order instructing the Attorney General, the United States Attorneys, and the US Department of Justice, that they are NOT TO ENFORCE the armband law. The President doesn’t need a “green light” from the Judicial Branch!  The Executive Branch has its own “check” against unconstitutional acts of Congress.

Our Constitution is an elegant piece of work.  Have you read it?

revised Jan. 9, 2020

November 7, 2019 Posted by | Checks and Balances, Jucicial Review, Marbury v. Madison, Oath of Office | , , , | 22 Comments

%d bloggers like this: