Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

The Oath Of Office: The Check On Usurpations By Congress, The Executive Branch, & Federal Judges.

The Oath of Office is The Most Important “Check”!

By Publius Huldah.

Rush Limbaugh recently 1 castigated our putative president for announcing that his regime would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.  Rush said:

“…He’s ordering his Justice Department not to defend a federal law.  Nobody has said the law is unconstitutional other than Obama and Holder, and they don’t have the power to do that … For a president to ignore a federal law … for him to act as legislature and court …is hugely troubling …”

Newt Gingrich commented to the same effect to Newsmax on Feb. 25, 2011; and added that “it’s a violation of his [Obama’s] constitutional oath” and “could lead to a constitutional crisis”.

Not so, Rush & Newt!  Actually, it is a President’s sworn duty to refuse to enforce any unconstitutional “law” made by Congress. And contrary to the misinformation with which we are constantly bombarded, judges are not vested with exclusive authority to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional.

The Truth is that a President, the States, local governments, and individual citizens, together with the courts, all have the Right & Duty to overrule – to spurn & cast out – unconstitutional laws made by Congress. For it is a fundamental [though long suppressed] Principle of our Founding that an unconstitutional “law” is no “law” at all – it is a “mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such”.

Our Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. When honored, these Oaths function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations. Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches.

The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government.

And WE THE PEOPLE, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22, last para), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected & appointed officials.

Ignorance of Our Founding Principles

WE THE PEOPLE forgot our Founding Principles. Conservative lawyers, politicians, judges, “intellectuals”, and radio & TV pundits don’t know them. The lawyers uncritically accepted what they were told in law school, and the non-lawyers accept what other people say. No one learns The Constitution – no one thinks independently – like Dufflepuds, they chant the prevailing dogma. As a result, our Country spirals downward at an ever quickening pace.

But if you read on, you will learn seven of our Founding Principles:

1. Who Really Is The Boss? WE THE PEOPLE?  Or the Federal Government?

WE THE PEOPLE created the federal government when we ordained & established the Constitution for the United States of America. WE created the three branches of the federal government and itemized the powers WE granted to each branch. 2Neither the Legislative, nor the Executive, nor the Judicial Branch may lawfully do ANYTHING unless WE authorized it in the Constitution. WE are the Creators; those in the federal government, be they Senators, Representatives, federal judges, Presidents or other officials, are merely our “creatures”.  When they disobey the Constitution, WE are to take action.  In Federalist No. 33 (5th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed [the Constitution], and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis added]

Did you get that? Read it again.

2. Congress’ Powers are Enumerated

In the Constitution, WE authorized Congress to make laws only on those objects WE listed in the Constitution. Those few objects on which WE authorized Congress to make laws applicable throughout our Country are itemized at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 (and in a few Amendments).  Here is an explanation of Congress’ Enumerated Powers.

3. When is a “Law” Not a Law?

When it’s a usurpation!  I.e., when Congress makes any “law” which the Constitution does not authorize it to make.  Our Framers understood that civil governments seek to expand their powers; but when our federal government does so, its acts are VOID. In Federalist No. 33 (last para), Hamilton says a law made by Congress which is not authorized by the Constitution,

“…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution…” [boldface mine]

In Federalist No. 78 (10th para), Hamilton says:

“…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to…the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm…that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” [emphasis mine]

Do you see?  If Congress makes a law which is not authorized by the Constitution, then it is no “law” at all.  It is a “mere usurpation” – it is “void” and “not valid“.

4. What is the “Rule of Law”?

Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.  The Rule of Law prevails when the civil authorities obey The Constitution.  Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”:

“…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them.

5. What Does the Oath of Office Actually Say?

Article II, Sec. 1, last clause, sets forth the President’s Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article VI, clause 3, provides that all other representatives, officers & judges (federal and state) are bound to support the Constitution.

6. The Check Provided by the Oath of Office

The Key is this:  One’s Oath is pledged to The CONSTITUTION – the Oath is NOT to go along with Congress, or to obey the Executive Branch, or submit to federal judges.

The President’s “Check” on Congress and Federal Courts

Say Congress makes a “law” which says Jews must wear a yellow star on their arm; Christians, a white cross; & that it’s a felony if they fail to wear the armbands.  Imagine you are President. You vetoed the bill; but Congress overrode your veto. Are you going to enforce that “law”?

Look at your Oath of Office.  Does your Oath require you to obey Congress 3 unless & until five people on the supreme Court say you don’t have to?  And even if those five side with Congress, will you allow U.S. Attorneys to prosecute Christians & Jews who don’t wear the arm bands?

Or will you look at your Oath of Office which recites that your Sworn Duty is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. The Constitution – not whatever law a majority of people in Congress pass & five people on the supreme Court approve. If you are faithful, you will review Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16, and you will ask, “Where is Congress authorized to make a law which requires Christians & Jews to wear armbands? You will see that The Constitution does not authorize Congress to make the law, and you will see that the supreme Court’s opinion upholding it is unconstitutional. You will denounce the pretended law & judges’ opinion as “mere usurpations”, and you will instruct the Attorney General & U.S. Attorneys NOT to prosecute violations of that pretended “law”. 4

Four Checks on Federal Judges

We were told in law school that the supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution, and when they [or rather, a majority of five] speak, we must all scurry to obey. Rubbish!

The Oath of Office (Art. VI, last clause) does require judges to strike down “laws” made by Congress which are unconstitutional.  Hamilton recognizes in Federalist No. 78 (9th para, et seq.) that judges have the power to strike down unconstitutional “laws”.

But this is the only “check” law students hear about!  Since they don’t know about The Federalist Papers & (thanks to progressive education) can’t think, they graduate law school believing that the only “check” is that of federal judges to declare laws made by Congress unconstitutional (“judicial review”). They believe that no one has a check on the supreme Court – that their word is final.

Not so! Federal judges are not gods. They are morally & intellectually fallible people who (as our Framers saw) can cause dreadful harm to our Country when they connive with another Branch.

Thus, they are subject to “the check of the Oath” for their usurpations – checks imposed by Congress, the Executive Branch, the States, and THE PEOPLE:

(a) Congress must impeach & remove federal judges who usurp power – they serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec.1).  Hamilton discusses impeachment of usurping judges in Federalist No. 81, 8th para. 5 So yes!  Congress may review the propriety of  judges’ opinions!

(b) The President must refuse to go along with unconstitutional opinions. Hamilton saw that federal judges might become “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature” (Federalist No.16, next to last para).  So the President is bound by Oath to reject unconstitutional “laws” even when approved by the supreme Court.  And Hamilton understood that it might be appropriate for a President to refuse to enforce a federal court opinion.  He says in Federalist No. 78 (6th para):

“…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 …  has no influence over … the sword or the purse; no direction … 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, other emphasis mine]

Do you see?

(c) The States must nullify unconstitutional opinions. 6 State officers & judges are bound by Oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI, last clause).  So they too are Honor bound to refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal court opinions, as well as unconstitutional federal laws, executive orders, & pretended treaties which affect them & their Citizens.

7. The People Have The Ultimate Power & Responsibility to Enforce The Constitution

For too long, we have shirked our Responsibility to enforce The Constitution – we let the supreme Court be in charge.

Look at what they have done with the power we relinquished to them: They approved Congress’ massive & grotesquely unconstitutional expansions of federal control over our lives [e.g., their “interstate commerce clause” & “general welfare clause” jurisprudence]; they outlawed the Faith of Our Fathers & used the 14th Amendment to bring about a radical redefinition of “Liberty” as freedom from moral restraints; and they connived with Congress in turning the once proud American People into parasites who clamor to live at other peoples’ expense. They usurped Our status as the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority”, and claim for themselves the power to “make policy” for our Country!

Our Framers Understood That Judges Could Be Dangerous – But Couldn’t Get Away With It Unless WE Concurred.

Hamilton says “an illegal usurpation of authority”, to be successful, “would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people.” Because judges may be “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”, Hamilton expected the People to be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist No.16, next to last para).

“…liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments…” ( Federalist No. 78, 7th para).

James Madison says in Federalist No. 44 (last para before 2.):

“…the success of the usurpation [by Congress] will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.” [boldface added]

So! It is up to The People, who arethe natural guardians of the Constitution” (Federalist No.16, next to last para), to take whatever action is necessary when their representatives in the federal government concur with the usurpations of another Branch – and thereby violate their Oaths to preserve The Constitution.

How do we become “enlightened enough” to do this?

Read The Declaration of Independence & The Constitution – read them often. The more you read, the more you will come to see that The Constitution gives effect to the Principles of the Declaration. Outline The Federalist Papers.  Get Mary Webster’s edition in modern English for yourself and the young people in your Family.  Consult Webster’s 1828 Dictionary for definitions. Be careful whom you trust – most conservative lawyers have minds like blank sheets of paper which got imprinted in law school; and the conservative commentators regurgitate what the indoctrinated lawyers tell them!  Study so that you can speak like this wonderful woman who challenged Rep. Pete Stark on obamacare.

Stop wasting your time on bizarre theories about the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) , “emergency powers”, “corporations”,  gold fringe on flags & admiralty jurisdiction, and other such silly stuff.  It may be tempting to place the blame on others who are in a secret cabal to take away your rights via nefarious schemes such as the UCC, “corporate government” , or adding gold fringes to flags; but the Truth is that you, along with everyone else, haven’t bothered to do the Work to learn our Founding Documents & Principles.

Lose your pride in your own knowingness about The Constitution: What you think you know, just ain’t so; and the misinformation in your head blinds you to Truth. When you just repeat the stuff you hear, you add to the problem.  Millions of Americans heard Rush & Newt and were mislead by the misinformation those two spread.  And for Heaven’s Sake, don’t advocate ratification of Amendments to the Constitution until you fully understand the existing Constitution! [And if you fully understood it, the only amendments you would want are those repealing some of the previous amendments.]

Stop thinking like a slave – we have become a Country of “permission seekers”.  For every issue, we want to file a lawsuit in federal court. Why?  Because we don’t want to take Responsibility for dealing with the issue ourselves. Spend a few hours studying the Declaration & Constitution and you will know the Constitution doesn’t give Congress authority to force you into a government controlled “health care” system. You will know it doesn’t give the Executive Branch authority to control CO2 emissions. You will know it doesn’t give the Executive Branch & Congress authority to force us into pernicious UN treaties such as the Declaration on the Rights of the Child & to implement [as they are doing right now] the UN’s Agenda 21 “sustainable development” scheme.  Many federal judges are our enemies – they are the last people you should ask for permission to have constitutional government.  WE need to “man up” and take responsibility.

As Madison advises, defeat elected federal & State officials who have betrayed us; and replace them with faithful servants who will annul the acts of the usurpers.

Learn your State’s recall statutes – recall faithless elected officers. Learn your State’s impeachment procedures – demand impeachment of faithless State judges and officers. Demand impeachment of faithless federal officials and judges. Demand that each house of Congress expel members who usurp power (Art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2).  Expel the loons in the House!

Learn about Nullification by States and restore Jury Nullification in criminal cases. 7

Learn about Federalism.  Urge repeal of the 17th Amendment to help restore “federalism”.

Learn from the heroic Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, who practiced non-violent civil disobedience of  unjust State “laws” which enforced segregation.  Withdraw your concurrence to usurpations.


1 Rush’s show of Feb 24, 2011. When Rush speaks on the Constitution, beware!  He doesn’t know what he is talking about.   And Gingrich, who is supposed to be an intellectual & an expert, showed he is profoundly ignorant of our Founding Principles.

2 Art. I creates the Legislative Branch & enumerates its powers.  Art. II creates the Executive Branch & enumerates its powers.  Art. III creates the Judicial Branch & enumerates its powers.

3 You may object, “But Art. II, Sec. 3 says the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed!”  And I would remind you that an unconstitutional “law” is no law at all – it is “a mere usurpation and deserves to be treated as such” – it is “VOID” & “not valid“.

4 In Federalist No. 66, 2nd para, and Federalist No. 77, last para,  Hamilton points out that Congress may impeach & remove the President for “encroachments” on the powers of the Legislative Branch.  So if Congress objects to your ignoring their pretended law, they may impeach & remove you.

5 Hamilton says in Federalist No. 78 (7th para up from bottom) that judges may not

“…substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature … The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would … be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body...” [caps are Hamilton’s]

When federal judges substitute their pleasure for that of Congress [when Congress’ acts are constitutional] Congress is honor bound to impeach & remove them for their usurpation. And everyone else is honor bound to spit on the judges’ unconstitutional opinion. Yes! It takes he-men & she-women to enforce The Rule of Law!  Man up, People!

6 The supreme Court issues unconstitutional opinions all the time. Look at how they perverted the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment!  In these (& other) cases, they substitute their pleasures for the Will of The States and The People.

7 Webster’s 1828 Dictionary has the following entry under “jury”:

“…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 …” [emphasis added]

Would you convict someone for the “crimes” of failing to buy health insurance or failing to wear the armbands?  THAT is the essential purpose of  Jury Nullification in criminal cases. Get your State Legislatures to restore it and insist that it be applied in federal criminal trials conducted in your State. PH

March 29, 2011; revised Nov. 16, 2011; Sep. 26, 2015

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

March 29, 2011 - Posted by | Article VI, Checks and Balances, Oath of Office, Usurpations of power |


  1. Hi, PH. Question: I love your statement that, to paraphrase, we should fully understand the Constitution as written before offering up amendments to same. If anything, we should repeal existing amendments before adding more. Perfect!!! From your vantage point, which of the existing amendments should be 1) repealed or 2) re-written to more closely reflect original meaning/intent and/or to clarify original meaning. In the first instance, the 17th, and in the second instance, the 14th, come to mind. Thanks for being there.


    Comment by jim delaney | August 26, 2018 | Reply

    • for starters, I’d like to see the 16th & 17th Amendments repealed. I wouldn’t seek to repeal the 14th Amendment because Section 1 thereof is much loved by some of our Black citizens and they believe they need to keep it. I agree with them. The original intent of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend Citizenship to the freed slaves and to protect them from southern black codes which denied them basic God-given rights. The Supreme Court’s subsequent PERVERSIONS of Section 1 are what caused the problems. Congress should have impeached the Judges who participated in those perverse [literally] decisions; the Presidents should have refused to enforce them; and The States should have nullified them.

      Sections 2 & 3 of the 14th Amendment are no longer relevant, but we shouldn’t repeal them because we must always REMEMBER.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2018 | Reply

  2. Mr. Foil I reccomend that you can find the best works by Raoul Berger; “Government by Judiciary”. It will enthrall you like no other from this Genius.
    it can be found on I Books for about a dollar. You will find a massive failure by the States and the judiciary.


    Comment by Con Ma | December 9, 2016 | Reply

    • Mike probably already knows about it – I cite the online version in all my papers on the 14th Amendment.

      That said, I’d like to have a hard copy. I’ll check out I Books.

      Berger’s book is a masterpiece in all ways.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2016 | Reply

  3. Why did we wait on Congress to repeal Obama Care?

    Why do we not demand that the House impeach and the Senate Remove Obama for not honoring his Oath (3 times) on this one piece of legislation to protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

    No Republican voted for it because no power was granted in the list of enumerated powers, so that will eliminate the Democrats who đid and they will never again qualify for any position of trust in Government.

    The Supreme Court exceeded their powers since healt care is not a listed power granted by the Constitution; they also violated their Oath and chose to apply their will rather than the will of the Constitution. It starts by filing suit against The speaker of the house where impeachment begins, then the Senate steps in and convicts (since no Republicans voted for the measure there will be ample witnesses to the violations to remove the usurpers. That will be followed by the impeachment and removal of the fraudulent President, Barack Obama. The Vice president has had ample time to save himself but he has to go also for violating his oath of office. That leaves Speaker Ryan in the Oval Office by order of succession and he will nominate the Vice President and the Chief Justice as well as the Attorney General.
    Does that dream scenario meet muster?


    Comment by Con Ma | September 27, 2016 | Reply

  4. What’up with this push for a fair Tax? As slimy as Washington is under King Obummer it makes one wonder if it’s just another lie to hide a new money & power scheme. Lord knows he hasn’t done anything he said he would except that one no one wanted him to accomplish, Fundamentally transform the country.


    Comment by Con Ma | July 2, 2016 | Reply

    • the “Fair Tax” is a bad idea. I mean to write on it if I can ever get the time.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2016 | Reply

  5. “Does your Oath require you to obey Congress 3 unless & until five people on the supreme Court say you don’t have to? And even if those five side with Congress, will you allow U.S. Attorneys to prosecute Christians & Jews who don’t wear the arm bands?”

    Yes they will because:

    By collusion, the other branches agree to the first violation in order to gain acceptance for the second violation, and on it goes, bad law supports more bad law.


    Comment by styersbd | September 9, 2015 | Reply

    • Well then, perhaps you should just throw in the towel and spend the rest of the time they let you have watching movies and drinking wine!

      Look: We are going to collapse. Serious unpleasantness is ahead. We are going to pay dearly for what we have done.

      But! There will be an Act II. What ideas will take hold during Act II? I’m thinking about Act II.

      Meanwhile, People need to prepare for the worst.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 9, 2015 | Reply

      • No, I refuse to do that, I intend to move forward. Recognize I am using your advice.

        “Stop thinking like a slave – we have become a Country of “permission seekers”. ”

        I multitask:
        I do drink the wine and watch the movies. :^)


        Comment by styersbd | September 9, 2015 | Reply

        • We made wine for a while. But found that when wine is basically free…. one tends to drink too much. I require the discipline of having to pay money for each glass. Sigh.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 9, 2015 | Reply

  6. “Hamilton says “an illegal usurpation of authority”, to be successful, “would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people.” Because judges may be “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”, Hamilton expected the People to be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation…”

    Yes, this is exactly what is happening. Still reading, but I paused to emphasize this part of your work.
    My point as I’ve said on the other piece is that we have no legal recourse.


    Comment by styersbd | September 9, 2015 | Reply

    • Reading is of little benefit if each thought must past thru the filters of your preconceived conclusions.

      We must all be willing to re-examine what we think we know.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 9, 2015 | Reply

      • Each thought must pass through filters, that is how the mind operates.

        I do not deny fallibility or my own ignorance, no shame there, I accept it as rungs on a ladder. I allow people to discover their own ignorance, There’s no gain by pointing it out.
        I have stated repeatedly, it is well to say how it should be, it is another matter to say how it is. Teach. I may learn, but I do not train well. Authority does not tolerate challenge.


        Comment by styersbd | September 9, 2015 | Reply

        • Actually one can train – discipline – one’s mind to lay aside most of the filters and be consciously aware of the others.

          It requires a conscious setting aside of one’s presuppositions and a rigid focus on the text: The question is “What does it actually say?” Not, “what does it mean to me?”

          Eg., if I am reviewing a legal document which you will be signing, I better understand completely what the document says before I say it’s OK for you to sign – I better have the OBJECTIVE meaning of the text down pat.

          If I read something in which isn’t there, and you sign and are hurt, you can sue me for malpractice! So we learn to read strictly & precisely – and to lay aside filters.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 9, 2015 | Reply

          • thank you, very well said and expands using constructive criticism while we expand our powers of consciousness and of course powers of thought and understanding. I can learn. Will I? I will it. I think, therefore I am.


            Comment by styersbd | September 9, 2015

  7. I object when elect officials defer to the courts when they have taken the Oath themselves. But lacking an ‘authority’ that the courts have provided, would we end up with hundreds or thousands of constitutional interpretations? The Founders seemed to let pass the precedent of Marbury.


    Comment by llotter2013 | January 19, 2015 | Reply

    • Larry, it is a destructive myth that there is something bad about Marbury v. Madison. It is a fine decision. It stands for the Principle that when an act of Congress violates the Constitution, the courts must uphold the Constitution, not Congress.
      When federal judges violate the Constitution, Congress is supposed to uphold the Constitution by impeaching and removing the federal judges. Federalist No. 81 (8th para).
      When the President violates the Constitution, Congress is supposed to uphold the Constitution by impeaching and removing the President. Federalist No. 66 (2nd para) and No. 77 (last para).
      It’s called “checks and balances”!
      Beware of false myths!
      All oaths are to The Constitution. Oaths are NEVER to go along with Congress, or go along with the President, or go along with the courts. That is called “conniving with usurpers”.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 19, 2015 | Reply

  8. […] Elect Romney.  He has promised he will “repeal” obamacare.  His Oath of Office – which is “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” – requi…. By Executive Order, he must refuse to implement it, he must reverse all implementation in effect […]


    Pingback by The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare. « Publius-Huldah's Blog | July 5, 2012 | Reply

  9. […] Elect Romney.  He has promised he will “repeal” obamacare.  His Oath of Office – which is “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” – requires …. By Executive Order, he must refuse to implement it, he must reverse all implementation in effect […]


    Pingback by The ‘Taxing Clause’, Five Lawless Judges, and ObamaCare | The Constitution Sentinel | July 3, 2012 | Reply

  10. […] Romney.  He has promised he will “repeal” obamacare.  His Oath of Office – which is “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” – requires …. By Executive Order, he must refuse to implement it, he must reverse all implementation in effect […]


    Pingback by The ‘Taxing Clause’, Five Lawless Judges, and ObamaCare | Grumpy Opinions | July 2, 2012 | Reply

  11. […] Elect Romney.  He has promised he will “repeal” obamacare.  His Oath of Office – which is “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” – requires …. By Executive Order, he must refuse to implement it, he must reverse all implementation in effect […]


    Pingback by The “Taxing Clause”, Was Chief Justice Roberts Right? « Off My Front Porch-Conservative Ranting | July 2, 2012 | Reply

  12. […] federal government has a “check” on the other two branches.  This is expressed primarily in the Oath of Office (Art. VI, cl. 3 & Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause) which requires each branch to obey the […]


    Pingback by Buy Guns, Not Health Insurance | April 30, 2012 | Reply

  13. Publius, I am interested in knowing your thoughts on the proposed 28th amendment – not the simple version you have already addressed – the much more complete, eleven page version found here:

    I’ve had one attorney suggest that if the states were already lawful, there would be no need for such an amendment, and I agree.

    I’m of the opinion that the states are the real answer to our federal problems, as they created the federal government to perform certain limited services for the states, but they no longer monitor and control its conformance to the original compact with the states, namely the Constitution for the united States. Individual citizens see the terrible problems with the federal government and go right to the source, namely the federal government, and subsequently become frustrated because there is no suitable response. Looked at simply, the federal government is not responsible to the individual citizens, but rather to the states, which are doing squat to keep it in line. They don’t even know they must deal on legal issues in SCOTUS, not the inferior district courts.

    Additionally, since the Constitution was drafted when we were still a practicing Judeo/Christian country, there were no punishments included in the original document. In our current Godless age, it would be my position that we must treat members of government as we would any employee. If you screw up, you’re fired. If your screw-up causes damage, you are punished.

    Anyway, thanks for your tireless efforts at supporting our American culture and laws.


    Comment by John Sutherland | July 5, 2011 | Reply

    • Nice to hear from you, John! Basically, what you say is altogether True.
      I haven’t read the long 28th Amendment – I am pressed for time now – but will strive to get to it.

      As a lawyer, I had to read many proposed settlement agreements, contracts, etc. The most meticulous attention & care is required. I must look for every possible trap and pitfall. If I permit a client to sign a document which contains a trap which I did not see, I could get sued for malpractice. There are also many recognized legal “rules of construction” – one has to be aware of those and their effect on the writing. One also has to be aware of the existing practices which the writing addresses and how it changes the existing practices. Courts do consider these things.

      So that’s how I read any proposed amendment to the Constitution: what does it say, what does it not say, what are the applicable rules of construction, what are the existing practices, what are all the alternative interpretations of every single sentence, what are all possible ramifications of every word, clause, sentence, and paragraph? (Oddly, many lawyers are not that careful! And they lose their cases.)

      Thus, when someone proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I break out into a sweat. B/c I know how carefully the text of the proposed amendment must be scrutinized.

      With the original Constitution of 1787, we know exactly what it means by reference to The Federalist Papers, which were for a long time considered authoritative as to the genuine meaning. But with a new Amendment, we are always treading on very dangerous ground. Every word is a potential trap! Who would have thought that the word “liberty” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment meant that baby killing is a “right”, so is (ahem) homosexual sex, and most probably in the near future, we will find that “liberty” also means homosexual “marriage” is a “right”.

      So! I oppose all Amendments except for those which are absolutely necessary (such as the 13th), and they should be kept as SHORT as possible. We needed the 14th Amendment b/c Southern States were denying basic rights of citizenship to freed slaves, BUT they made the Amendment too long and too vague and that is why federal judges were able to use it to cause such moral damage to our country. B/C federal judges specialize in finding things which are not there. And the more words you give them, the more stuff they will find. So, for this reason, I would oppose strongly any proposed amendment which is more than a sentence or two long. Also, we wouldn’t have a “Federalist Papers” for the proposed long form 28th Amendment. Just as we did not have a “Federalist Papers” for the 14th Amendment. So the text of the proposed long form 28th Amendment would be open season to federal judges. As you have seen with Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, FEDERAL JUDGES WILL INTERPRET IT ANY WAY THEY WANT.

      At the bottom, our problems are moral & spiritual. But our churches won’t do anything about it. All they care about is keeping their 501 (c) (3) tax exemption and “church growth”. Ever heard a pastor speak out against social security & Medicare as against God’s Law? Ever heard a pastor tell his Flock that it is sinful to seek to live at other peoples’ expense? That children must take care of their aged parents – it’s not the taxpayers’ duty? No, pastors don’t say these things: One, they wouldn’t even know what I am talking about; and two, they wouldn’t dare speak against their master who is Caesar.

      My next paper is on the 17th Amendment. I STRONGLY support the following Amendment to the Constitution: “The 17th Amendment to this Constitution is repealed.”

      So, did I answer your question? Stay in touch. I was wondering how you are.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 5, 2011 | Reply

      • Publius, I’ve had a busy summer, and have just finished up my second degree (last Friday). Along the way I had my computer system crash and so, had I not had my data on a second hard drive, I would have lost everything. Send me an e-mail, please as I want to stay in contact.

        The proposed 28th amendment I suggested is imperfect as hell, but it does cover a lot of ground, and it does need work. The amendment was put together with many borrowed ideas, including those of Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, and Mark Levin.

        From your comments about simplicity, I think that some of the sections of the 28th could have been resolved by way of single statements like ‘Amendment 14 is hereby rescinded.’ And if we are going to keep things really simple, we can merely rescind amendments 16, 17, 26, and portions of others.

        BTW, you are referring to the third iteration of the 13th Amendment, and the other two versions are included in the proposed 28th.

        Regarding the Seventeenth Amendment, I know ahead of time I will agree with your interpretation. I also view it as something evil that this way came.


        Comment by John Sutherland | July 5, 2011 | Reply

        • In what field is your second degree? Congratulations!

          Yes, I would support repeal of the 16th, 17th, portions (at least) of the 14th – some of the 14th was needed. I would also support repeal of ALL the amendments which extended voting rights to former slaves, women, failure to pay taxes, and children. As originally set up, the STATES set the qualifications for voters! [See my paper on voting rights]. States used to have literacy requirements for voting. We don’t want people who can’t read voting! It is a serious mistake to grant the franchise to people whose lives are spent on the take. Also, when voting rights are the subject of Amendments, the federal courts are thereby granted power over the issue IAW Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1. Repeal of all the “voting” amendments would re-institute the power of the States to determine voter qualifications, w/o interference from those idiots on the supreme Court.

          Are you an Agatha Christie fan as well?


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 6, 2011 | Reply

  14. Interesting, and even technically correct, but you omitted the most important question :

    Is the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional?

    And the answer is clearly “YES.”

    And thus, your entire blogpost is moot and irrelevant, because it addresses a non-issue. You’re talking about a hypothetical scenario; you’re talking about a hypothetical “law” requiring Jews to wear armbands marked with a Star of David.

    Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich were talking about a real law – the DOMA, which is constitutional and which Obama has refused to defend.

    The Constitution says that the President is obligated to “take care that the Laws be faithfully enacted”. True, that applies only to Constitutional laws, but DOMA IS a constitutional law, and therefore, the President is not only authorized, but even REQUIRED to enforce it unless and until it is rescinded by another act of Congress or by a Constitutional Amendment – neither of which is ever going to pass, and gays know it, which is why they’re working through courts. Obama has allied with them by not defending it (even though he is REQUIRED by the Constitution to do so), in order to make sure it would be overturned by activist judges.

    To sum up: if a law is CONSTITUTIONAL – and DOMA clearly is – the President is REQUIRED to enforce it.Tha’ts what the Constitution says. By refusing to enforce it, Obama has betrayed his oath of office and arrogated to himself the right to decide what is constitutional and what isn’t. Thus, on the question of DOMA, Limbaugh and Gingrich were right.


    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | July 3, 2011 | Reply

    • When I first came across you at another website, I suspected that you were a pompous ass who knows next to nothing about The U.S. Constitution. Your subsequent posts there and here have confirmed my initial suspicion.

      I wondered in the past, and will now ask: What qualifies you to speak with authority on the true meaning of The U.S. Constitution?

      Also, please cite Article, Section, & Clause of the U.S. Constitution which grants authority to Congress to make the DOMA?

      You may not properly merely assert that DOMA is constitutional (even if you repeat it several times). You must point to that provision in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to make the law.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 3, 2011 | Reply

  15. Impressive but questionable. One is left with the question who and what is defined to be in authority. Your essay leaves me with the impression that anyone can enforce or ignore what they will unless it is specifically stated in the Constitution. What is not specified is vast. Tradition and experience (f0r good or bad) has provided us with guides for what is acceptable and constitutional and what is blatant nonsense and empire building at the expense of the constitution.

    A clearer argument should be attempted for the case you attempted to make.

    Having said that your blog and arguments are always well researched and interesting reading.


    Comment by True Patriot | June 6, 2011 | Reply

    • Well, if you just skimmed thru my one paper on “The Oath of Office….”, and haven’t read anything else – of course you are confused!

      Read “Congress’ Enumerated Powers”, which you can find under “Categories”. Read it carefully. Read also The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. You can read both of them carefully in under an hour. Ponder those and then write me again and we will go from there.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | June 6, 2011 | Reply

  16. “As Madison advises, defeat elected federal & State officials who have betrayed us; and replace them with faithful servants who will annul the acts of the usurpers.”

    It seems no matter whom is elected, they are loath to take this step, and are content to “play it safe” and not rock the boat.

    Even with such an obvious violation as the obamacare power grab, which they should be fully and completely defunding NOW, we find gutless leadership that is fumbling away the American way of life, while the statists count their power tokens in their ivory towers.

    Official sources that shape our news and determine what the public think about (by their placing it in context) all come from the inside establishment who are interested in maintaining the status quo for themselves.

    We must not rely on them to shape our conversations, or determine the subjects that should concern us most. The link that you posted showing the video of the townhall with Rep. Stark is a must see. He and his ilk believe their powers are unlimited, and he is right if the people do not rise up and hold them accountable for all their usurpation’s. Thanks again for another great article, and for the record, the 17th amendment was an absolute mistake for the states to ever ratify for it silenced their own voices in federal matters!


    Comment by liberty4USA | March 29, 2011 | Reply

  17. […] The Oath Of Office: The Check On Usurpations By Congress, The Executive Branch, & Federal Judges… […]


    Pingback by THE OATH OF OFFICE « A Nation Beguiled | March 29, 2011 | Reply

  18. […] Does It Mean…Our Constitution Our friend Publius- Huldah has written another impressive essay on our Constitution and what it says and means. I don’t […]


    Pingback by What Does It Mean…Our Constitution « That Mr. G Guy's Blog | March 29, 2011 | 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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: