Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamacare.

By Publius Huldah.

Harvard Law School was embarrassed recently when one of its graduates, the putative President of the United States, demonstrated that he was unaware that the supreme Court has constitutional authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.1

And after reading a recent paper by Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge, one wonders whether the academic standards (or is it the moral standards?) of that once great school have collapsed.

Professor Elhauge says in “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” (The New Republic, April 13, 2012), that Congress may force us to buy health insurance   because in 1792, our Framers required all male citizens to buy guns; and in 1798 required ship owners using U.S. ports (dock-Yards) to pay a fee to the federal government in order to fund hospitals for sick or disabled seamen at the U.S. ports.

Oh! What tangled webs are woven when law professors write about Our Constitution!

I have already proved that Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause (which grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over dock-Yards and the other federal enclaves) is what authorizes Congress to assess the fee from ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards. See: Merchant Seamen in 1798, Health Care on Federal Enclaves, and Really Silly Journalists.

Now I will show you where the Constitution grants authority to Congress to require adult citizens to get armed!

The Constitution Authorizes Congress To Require Citizens to Buy Guns and Ammunition.

In 1792, Congress passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”.2 This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (except for federal officers and employees) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a gun and ammunition, and train.

Does Congress have authority in the Constitution to require this?  Yes!  Article I, Sec. 8, clause 16 says Congress has the Power:

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

That is what authorizes Congress to require adult male citizens to buy guns and ammunition.

As Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1792 reflects, the “Militia” is the citizenry!  Our Framers thought it such a fine idea that The People be armed, that they required it by law!  See, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46 where James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, speaks of how wonderful it is that the American People are armed – and why they need to be. 3

So!  In the case of Congress’ requiring adult citizens to buy guns and ammunition, Congress has specific authority under Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.16.

In the case of Congress’ requiring ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards to pay the fees to fund the marine hospitals at the dock-Yards, Congress is granted by Art. I, Sec.8, next to last clause, a general legislative power over the federal enclaves, such as dock-Yards.4

But for the country at large, Congress has no broad grant of legislative powers. There, Congress’ powers are few, limited, and strictly defined.  See: Congress’ Enumerated Powers.

Now, let us look at obamacare.

What Clause in The Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Us into Obamacare?

Nothing! Over the Country at large (as opposed to the federal enclaves), Congress has only enumerated powers.  These enumerated powers are listed in Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 and in the Amendments addressing civil and voting rights. No enumerated power authorizes the federal government to force us into obamacare.

So, Professor Elhauge introduces a nasty bit of poison.  He says:

“Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.”

Do you see what he is doing? Surely he knows that obamacare is not authorized by any enumerated power.  So!  He asserts that nothing in the commerce clause says Congress can’t force us into obamacare.  He thus seeks to pervert Our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to an abomination which says the federal government can do whatever it pleases as long as the commerce clause doesn’t forbid it.

Furthermore, what he says is demonstrably false.  The Federalist Papers & Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention show that the purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to prevent the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. For actual quotes from Our Framers and irrefutable Proof that this is the purpose of the interstate commerce clause, see: “Does the Interstate Commerce Clause Authorize Congress to Force Us to Buy Health Insurance?”.

Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. And it does much more than force us to buy medical insurance. Obamacare turns medical care over to the federal government to control. Bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services will decide who gets medical treatment and what treatment they will get; and who will be denied medical treatment. If you think the federal government is doing a great job feeling up old ladies and little children at airports, wait until they are deciding whether you get medical care or “the painkiller”.

Folks! The Time has come that we must recognize that social security and Medicare are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. We must confess that it is wicked to seek to live at other peoples’ expense! And when a People renounce Personal Responsibility – as we did when we embraced social security & Medicare – the federal government takes control.

Social security and Medicare are fiscally bankrupt. Obamacare, which will prevent old people from getting medical care, is the progressives’ way of dealing with the unfunded liabilities in these programs: Kill off old people by preventing them from getting medical care!

The Piper will be paid. Shall we pay him by killing off old people?

Or, shall we return to Personal Responsibility and dismantle (in an orderly fashion) the wicked, unconstitutional, and fiscally unworkable social security and Medicare programs?


1 Our Framers gave us an elegant system of Checks & Balances: Each branch of the 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 Constitution and not the other branches! The supreme Court’s check on Congress is to declare their Acts unconstitutional:   See (in addition to the Oath) Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1; Federalist No. 78 (8th -15th paras); and Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Congress’ check on the judicial branch is to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp power (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

2 Here is the URL for the Militia Act of 1792:  Read it! And note how short it is.

3 In “The Patriot”, Mel Gibson’s character commanded a South Carolina Militia – civilians who took up arms against the British. Everyone knew that “the Militia” was the armed citizenry – farmers, trappers, shopkeepers, clergy, etc.  It still is.

4 Attorney Hal Rounds provides fascinating additional information on this issue: “Ships will dump sick sailors wherever they may make landfall, and the locals have the burden of dealing with the victim. Their care then raises the legal right to compensation for their services, which the law of nations allows to be levied against the nation, not just the owners, of the ship.” For Mr. Round’s full comment see the Postscript of April 7, 2012 here. PH

May 3, 2012
Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

May 3, 2012 - Posted by | Einer Elhauge, federal enclaves, Health Care, Interstate Commerce Clause, Medicare, Merchant Seamen healthcare, Militia, obamacare, Personal Responsibility, social security | , , , ,


  1. […] Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obama… […]


    Pingback by Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns and Ammunition | CenLA Patriots | October 31, 2013 | Reply

  2. … the interest rate on the Social Security money is lower than anything you can find in the market other than a mattress.

    Great line (with which I intend to abscond, issuing proper credit when I redeem it, of course). Re: the ObamaCare ruling (which has significantly increased my store of stomach acid) I opined in part thusly: “…no amount of semantical legerdemain on the part of a blackrobe holding lifetime tenure can change the fact that ObamaCare’s individual mandate defiles the very essence of American freedom. John Roberts looked at America with disdain, and said, ‘If you dress like that, you were asking for it.'”

    Your recent post at Grumpy Opinions was superb … I linked to it here: … and left a comment there.


    Comment by Bob Mack | July 3, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Crockett!

      However, and this is very important: One of the false beliefs which I am trying to rip out of the minds of the American People is the false notion that federal judges have “lifetime tenure”.

      Look at Art.III, Sec. 1, cl. 1: see where it says “during good Behaviour”?

      Look at Federalist Paper No. 81 (8th para) where Hamilton says federal judges may be impeached for usurpations.

      One of our major problems in that there is so much misinformation out there. People hear stuff which is NOT TRUE, but they believe it w/o checking it out, and so they repeat it; others hear it, believe it, and repeat it; and so we circle downwards into an ever widening spiral of Ignorance.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 4, 2012 | Reply

  3. […] Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obama… […]


    Pingback by Saturday Links | Sago | May 27, 2012 | Reply

  4. Thank you for the clarification. I understand where my thinking was wrong. I didn’t mean to word it that I believed that way, as much as I was playing Devil’s advocate. I need to get me a 1828 dictionary, as I have copies of the DOI, Constitution, Federalist Papers and other writings (one of my favorites that I enjoy is The US Constitution: A Reader by Hillsdale College, which contains alot of letters, documents, speeches, and such.) I have found most things that I was taught and my understanding of things were wrong. Over the past few years, I have been on a search for knowledge and reason. That is how I found your wonderful blog.
    I know most concepts of how things are today are not how the founders intended. I know when you hear on the Nat. Guard commercial “citizen soldier” doesn’t have the same meaning as Thomas Jefferson when he said, “Every citizen should be a soldier…and must be that of every free state.”
    I also understand that there is no such thing as “free stuff”, and that if the government was to “provide” as in “supply” the Militia with guns & ammo, the citizentry would still have to pay for it through taxes and such.
    Thank you again for your reply. I absolutely love how you explain things so clearly and easy to understand. I look forward to reading more of your writings & explanations.


    Comment by JohnnyDollar74 | May 24, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Johnny Dollar! You made my day. Any time you have a question, ask.

      I love that Jefferson quote – our Framers were clear that the “militia” – i.e., the citizens – were supposed to be armed and prepared – in the last resort – to defend their States from federal encroachments.

      The hard copy of Webster’s 1828 is expensive – but I got that one since I use it so often. Amazon has it in hard copy and in kindle. But I think it would be awkward to use it on kindle.

      So! Are you an insurance investigator? I remember listening to Johnny Dollar when I was young!


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | May 26, 2012 | Reply

      • PH,
        No, I’m not an insurance investigator, though I may become one. Who knows what the future holds. I was introduced to “Johnny Dollar” show when I was young. The nickname came to me thru my uncle, with whom I share the name John with. He also owns a bar in Illinois under the same nickname, so it’s kind of a family thing! I hope you don’t mind if I link your blog on Twitter, as I am trying to spread the knowledge and help educate “We the People”! Thanks again! Keep up the good work you are doing!
        John S aka JohnnyDollar74


        Comment by JohnnyDollar74 | May 26, 2012 | Reply

  5. Publius Huldah,

    The subject of federal jurisdiction is one that seems to be misunderstood by the majority of people in this country. Since federal jurisdiction is only over federal land, territory and the District of Columbia, how do the following scenarios occur:
    -Automobile manufacturers (must?) meet federal design standards, such as seat belts, airbags, crashworthiness, mileage and emission standards.
    -Railroads (must?) meet FRA inspection and repair guidelines.
    -As we see fast approaching, coal-fired electric generating plants scrambling to meet unrealistic EPA emissions regulations or face being shut down.
    -Almost every industry and business is somehow complying with some federal regulation or another.
    The federal government has no authority to regulate any industry outside its jurisdiction, and yet, all industries comply. Out of ignorance? Would all industries be constitutionally correct to ignore federal regulations, and what could/would the federal government do if this happened?



    Comment by Larry Spadaro | May 21, 2012 | Reply

    • Gary, the term, “federal jurisdiction” is confusing, b/c there are TWO kinds of “federal jurisdiction”, and they are very different.

      1. Over the Country at large, Congress has authority, delegated to it by the Constitution, to make laws respecting the enumerated powers listed at Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3-16. Thus, Congress may make laws of general application throughout the States on the subject of bankruptcies, and fixing the standard of weights & measures.

      2. Over the “federal enclaves” listed at Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause, Congress has “exclusive” legislative authority, and may make all the laws which “need” to be made (subject to the limitations imposed by the first 10 Amendments).

      Congress had a similar broad grant of legislative authority over the Western Territory before it was broken into individual States (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2). It has that same broad grant of legislative authority over all “federal” lands still belonging to the United States (whether those lands are properly held by the federal government is another issue).

      As you read thru the list of enumerated powers at Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3-16, you see nothing about cars, railroads,utility plants, etc. That is because our Constitution did not delegate legislative authority over those objects to Congress. Therefore, whenever Congress makes laws on these objects, their laws are “void” as outside the scope of the legislative powers delegated to Congress.

      Re rule-making by executive agencies: DO read my paper on the President’s Enumerated Powers. That is the most read paper on my web site. I prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the executive branch has no authority whatsoever to make rules on such objects. I also discuss unlawful executive agency rules in my model nullification resolutions.

      I don’t know why all the industries comply with such blatantly unconstitutional acts & regulations. It does seem that most Americans now believe that the federal government “can” do whatever they want. The People have no concept of “enumerated powers”.

      Of course, all the industries would be constitutionally correct if they told the federal government to “take a hike”! That is what manly men & womanly women would have done when this unconstitutional regulation by the federal government started. Over & over in The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton tells us that when the federal government acts outside the scope of the powers delegated to it that its acts are “mere usurpations” and “deserve to be treated as such”. That they are “void”.

      But our People stopped troubling themselves to learn our Founding Principles. Now, they just do what they are told by the people with the power.

      What would the federal government do if industries started ignoring the unconstitutional laws & rules & orders? This present administration is particularly irrational & ignorant; but generally, a government’s response would depend on how widespread the “disobedience” was.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | May 23, 2012 | Reply

  6. Maybe I misunderstand, but I do not believe that Congress can mandate us to purchase any product, even guns and ammo. I read the clause “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service…” as government is suppose to, upon calling the Militia into Service: 1) Provide for organizing, 2) Provide for arming, and 3)Provide for disciplining, of the Militia. Under this view, Congress should organize, arm, and discipline the Militia when their service is called upon. So, the government should supply the guns and ammo. Where is my thinking wrong on this? Also, is this not what the National Guard is suppose to be today? Isn’t the National Guard considered the Militia of it’s respective state?
    P.S. Absolutely love your blog!


    Comment by JohnnyDollar74 | May 20, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Johnny Dollar.

      1. What does “provide” really mean at Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 16?

      I expect you are looking at this with the modern day mindset where the word, “provide” means “free stuff!” But the word [and it is the verb which is used at Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 16] meant something very different to our Framers, as I will show.

      Let us review the history of how Americans were always armed.

      The American People were armed from the beginning: They hunted to eat. They defended themselves and their livestock from poisonous vipers & savage beasts. They sometimes fought Indians. They fought in King Phillips’ War, the French & Indian War, and they took up arms against the British in our Glorious Revolution. The “Militia” were the farmers, shopkeepers, trappers, artisans – those who were commanded by Mel Gibson’s character in “The Patriot”. They bought their own guns. [Imagine! A People who bought their own stuff!]

      Before the Constitution was ratified, James Madison literally went into raptures in Federalist Paper No. 46 about how wonderful it was that the American People were armed. He spoke of the countries in Europe where the People were disarmed by their oppressive civil governments. But not here – in this Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. No, here, we have manly men and womanly women who defend their own hearths & home & families & neighbors & communities & States. READ the last half of Federalist Paper No. 46 where Madison speaks of this. Madison also said that The People need to be armed so that they can keep the national government in line.

      So! In 1792, by the time of the passage of the Militia Act to which I refer in my paper, Americans were already armed. They had their own rifles, ammo, and other equipment.

      Respecting the arming of the Citizen Militia: Manly men defend their own families & communities. A manly man does NOT say to the federal government, “I will not defend my family & my community unless you give me a FREE GUN & AMMO!”

      So, instead of levying a tax to buy guns & ammo to then distribute to the adult able-bodied male citizens, Congress just said, You buy the gun & ammo and sign up for your local Militia. So Congress was just “codifying” existing practice. These manly men were already armed. They had already been defending themselves, their families, and their communities.

      One of the purposes of the Militia – the armed Citizens – is to protect The People and The States from the federal government if it usurps powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. To ensure that the Militia was not a slavish servant of the federal government, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 16 “provides” that the STATES are to appoint the Officers of the Militia and are to conduct the Training of the Militia. The text of the Constitution says this, and Hamilton writes about this in one of The Federalist Papers – why it is the STATES who are to appoint the officers of the Militia.

      See also (in addition to Federalist No. 46) Federalist No. 29 where Hamilton says:

      “…if circumstances should at any time oblige the government [the federal government] to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

      So, it is important to understand this: Our FRAMERS saw that one of the purposes of the Militia – the armed citizens – was to defend themselves and their STATES from the federal government when it usurped powers. Well, if the Militia is dependent upon the federal government for their guns and ammo, that defeats one of the purposes of the Militia! Do you see?

      Look again at Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16: Congress is to “provide” for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia…

      Congress “provided” for the “organizing” by requiring able-bodied male citizens of the designated ages to report to their local STATE-appointed Militia officer and by prescribing the discipline which the STATE-appointed Militia Officers would employ. Congress “provided” for the arming by telling them to get a gun and ammo [things which manly men already had!].

      But People today see the word, “provide” and they think, “FREE STUFF!!!!!!!” They see the federal government as “The Great Provider” – it taxes some people (or borrows money) to buy stuff to give to other people. That is the modern-day mind-set.

      So the verb, “provide”, has other meanings than “free stuff” – e.g., to take measures for counteracting or escaping some contingency.

      Our Framers and our Founding generations bought their own stuff. They did not depend on the federal government for their needs.

      2. The “militia” is the citizenry! It always was. It is the progressives who are saying that “militia” means “national Guard”, b/c they argue that the 2nd Amendment just says that the National Guard may be armed – it doesn’t say The People can be armed.

      3. Finally, you said, “I read the clause”, and then you gave your own understanding of what it meant.

      But if one doesn’t know the historical context, and if one uses the modern understanding of “provide” (as giving away free stuff) instead of the “original intent” of that word (I looked it up in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary); one is bound to get it wrong.

      We must never go by our own understandings. I always looked things up in The Federalist Papers; I look up word meanings in Webster’s 1828 dictionary; I study the exact wording of the Constitution (and read every provision in the light cast by all other provisions), and I studied carefully the text of the Militia Act of 1792.

      Granted, I already know The Federalist Papers and the Constitution; but there was a time when I didn’t and I looked everything up. Everything.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | May 22, 2012 | Reply

  7. I would like a little clarification on the jurisdiction of the various governments within a State:
    1- Does a State government have jurisdiction over the entire geographical area of the State, or just on State owned property?
    Example: Does a State trooper have jurisdiction only on State owned roads and buildings, or does he have jurisdiction on county, city, village and municipal land also. As a note, being from a large city, I have never seen a State trooper within the confines of the city, so my limited observation and knowledge would lead me to believe that a State trooper only has jurisdiction on State owned land.
    2- I would presume that the answer to the above would also apply to county, city, village and municipal governments also.
    3- In the end, which government(s) (if any?) (and their agencies) have jurisdiction over our private property and businesses. Do the local police have jurisdiction in our homes, businesses, churches, and other private properties, or is it a presumption that they do, and that the People give to them?
    God bless you,


    Comment by Larry Spadaro | May 16, 2012 | Reply

    • 1. Your State’s criminal code (laws against murder, robbery, arson, rape, kidnapping, etc.) applies throughout your State [except in any military bases, etc. where federal law applies since they are “federal enclaves”]. Even though homes & businesses are privately owned, if you commit a murder or other crime there, the State authorities have jurisdiction. If a burglar or home invader breaks into my home, my State government has jurisdiction to prosecute any crimes committed there – thank Heaven!

      Likewise, the State civil law applies throughout your State. If I am a traveling salesperson and make fraudulent representations to you in your private home or privately owned place of business, the State has jurisdiction if you decide to sue me in civil court for fraud. If I have dangerous conditions on my privately owned place of business, and you enter my place of business and are injured by the dangerous conditions (e.g., rotted stairs), you may sue me in civil court for my negligence. If my place of business is open to the public, I have a duty to make it safe for the public. If a crime is committed in your Church, your State has jurisdiction to prosecute the offender.

      This is THE PURPOSE of civil government – to protect your right to life, liberty, property, etc., by prosecuting those who divest you of those and other God-given rights (see Declaration of Independence, 2nd para); and to protect you from those who injure you by their crimes, negligence, breach of contract, etc.

      Federalist Paper No. 45 (9th para) explains that the jurisdiction of the federal government is VERY limited; whereas the retained powers of the States and the people are very broad.

      2. State highway patrol: I don’t know the laws in your State, but traditionally and generally, the jurisdiction of the State
      highway patrol has been restricted to roads & highways (country roads, State roads, and interstate highways) outside of the cities and towns. In the cities and towns, the local police have jurisdiction over traffic offenses and other crimes.

      3. The federal government has no lawful jurisdiction whatsoever over your private home or place of business unless you live on one of the Federal enclaves listed at Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | May 16, 2012 | Reply

  8. […] Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamac… […]


    Pingback by New and Noteworthy for Today, May 10, 2012 | Prepper Report | May 13, 2012 | Reply

  9. God bless you, Publius Huldah!

    I thank God that He sent me to your website where I have learned much about the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. I have read most of your writings, watched your videos, and am very happy with the way you explain the Constitution in simple language, even though the Constitution was written to be plainly understood.

    I understand that the Constitution grants Congress only limited, enumerated power, authority, and jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, federal land, enclaves and territory, and not on private natural persons living and working on non-federal land within the several states.

    Is it then an unconstitutional expansion of authority and jurisdiction for (unconstitutional) agencies like the EPA, OSHA, Dept. of Homeland Security, etc. to try (and succeed) in regulating activity outside federal government land and territories? In other words, if an agent of EPA came into my place of business, my church, or my home, could I challenge their jurisdiction, refuse them entry, send them packing, and be perfectly constitutional in doing so? I live in a liberal state and city, and am not sure if there are local/state statutes that would grant the federal government jurisdiction on private property. My place of business gets visits from the EPA at times, and I am questioning if they have legitimate jurisdiction on private property, or if they are illegally expanding their jurisdiction on an ignorant populace. I personally believe they have no jurisdiction, and I am open to being verified or corrected.
    God HELP the United States of America, we are in desperate trouble, and need to repent of our evil.

    God bless you and your ministry to “We The People”,


    Comment by Larry Spadaro | May 12, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Gary!

      Your question is very important but difficult. But first, note that Congress does have complete legislative powers over the District of Columbia, military bases, dock-Yards, federal buildings – i.e., the federal enclaves listed at Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause. So, in those tiny geographical areas, the federal government may properly set speed limits, enact a criminal code, a civil code, prohibit you from burning tires in your back yard, etc. James Madison explained in Federalist Paper No. 43 at 2., why the federal government must have complete legislative authority over these specifically designated & tiny areas. In those areas, the federal government is limited primarily by the “bill of rights” – e.g., they are forbidden by the 2nd Amendment from outlawing guns in the D.C.

      Over the rest of the Country – the Country at Large – Congress has only limited & enumerated powers: national defense, issue patents & copyrights, decide what system of weights & measures we will use, establish a monetary system based on gold & silver, make bankruptcy laws, deliver the mail -see the list at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16. They can stop the States from imposing taxes on articles of merchandize as they are transported thru the States for purposes of buying & selling. E.g., the State of TN can’t tax a load of Kentucky whiskey as it is traveling thru TN on its way to Mississippi – this is the genuine meaning of the “interstate commerce” clause!

      As you run thru the list of enumerated powers, you see nothing about “the environment” or “safety standards at places of business”. Since these are not among the enumerated powers, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to make any laws about them for the Country at large [though they can for the federal enclaves]. ANY & ALL laws which Congress has made about these matters for the Country at Large are lawless usurpations of power and are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers delegated to Congress in Our Constitution.

      Likewise, Art. I, Sec. 1, which declares,

      “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”

      prohibits any and all agencies and departments within the Executive Branch from making “rules” which have the force and effect of “law” over the People in the Country at Large.

      See, e.g., my Model Nullification Resolutions where I discuss the Rules of the Department of labor which purported to regulate children working on family farms!

      So, everything – EVERYTHING – which EPA & OSHA does – over the Country at Large – is blatantly unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government and in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1.

      But here is the problem: At most, only a few people in the United States know this. Most people believe that the federal government “can” do whatever it wants. They simply do not question their authority. Our People are horribly IGNORANT and they have the mindset of SLAVES.

      Lawyers got indoctrinated into a statist mindset in law school. This article shows that no one reads The Federalist Papers:

      So what do you do when EPA or OSHA shows up at your door exercising usurped powers never granted to the federal government? I don’t know what to tell you. THEY have all the power. YOU don’t. If you don’t submit, THEY may send a swat team to your house and kill your wife and children. REMEMBER RUBY RIDGE: Randy Weaver had a shotgun which was shorter than 18″ inches. So an armed swat team from the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco descended upon his property (if my recollection is correct, in order to serve an arrest warrant); shot Sammy Weaver (a 13 year old boy) in the back and killed him; and shot Mrs. Weaver, who was standing on the porch holding her infant child, in the forehead, and killed her too. Randy Weaver got Gary Spense to represent him in a civil suit against the federal government, and later settled the civil suit for several million dollars, but his young son and nursing mother wife were dead. And nothing bad ever happened to the jack-booted thugs who murdered this young boy and nursing mother.

      If EVERYBODY in the Country would laugh and jeer, or defend their premises, when EPA, OSHA, etc., showed up, then We The People could shut them down in no time. But we don’t have that kind of organization. And far too few People understand that the federal government has no lawful jurisdiction whatsoever over such matters. And the thing which has saddened me the most is the resistance which so many people on “our side” have to actually learning the Principles of Our Constitution. They don’t want to learn – as you do – they just want to show off what they think they know (and what they think they know is always completely WRONG). The PROBLEM HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE PEOPLE – not the federal government – the federal government is merely the result of the ignorance, laziness, and pride of THE PEOPLE. More people in the “tea party” and the ron paul followers sneer at what I write than read it and learn.

      Remember Braveheart when the English lord brought his troop of armed men to the village wedding of the young Scottish woman to claim his “right” of sleeping with her before her husband did (prima nocte)? William Wallace didn’t intervene – he let the English lord take the young woman and didn’t protest. Why? Protest would have been futile. Later on, protest was not futile.

      If STATES would just nullify these EPA & OSHA rules, then you would not be in the predicament you are in. Now, you have to either submit to them OR tell them to get lost and risk an armed swat team coming to your home or place of business and killing innocent people.

      I would help any State draft the nullification resolutions. States could provide that you would notify your local Sheriff immediately upon the appearance of anyone from EPA, OSHA, etc. and they would come over to chase away the interlopers.

      But one problems is this: States are getting “federal funds” for all kinds of things, and they don’t want to lose their precious “federal funds”.

      THOSE are the rotten people we are sending to our State Legislatures.

      If we can’t educate The People with our Founding Principles, then either slavery or a civil war will follow.

      DHS? It appears that DHS is being turned into a national police force and a KGB.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | May 13, 2012 | Reply

  10. […] Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamac… […]


    Pingback by New and Noteworthy for Today, May 10, 2012 - Survival Blog With A Family Focus | May 10, 2012 | Reply

  11. Dear Bro. Publius,

    I have enjioyed reading your writings, and just saw your piece in “News With Views”. You said Social Security and Medicare were “fiscally unworkable”.

    Actually, the real problem is trusting government with our money and well-being. Social Security, as it was sold to the public, was a perfectly workable program financially. The problem is not that these programs are “unfunded mandates”, but that Congress looted the funds running these programs as ponzi schemes!

    Of course, their buddies in the Supreme Court have ruled Social Security enrollment is not a contract and government cannot be held liable under any pretext. Government is never liable these days, operating as a fascist tyranny under the flag of the Skull & Bones!

    I agree we should not give any more money to Uncle Sam, and phase out the programs. But we should prosecute the FRAUD perpetrated upon the nation’s elders who paid into these programs under the force of law after being told such funds would care for them in their old age. Many elderly and handicapped people will be left in the lurch if we allow the fraud to continue and cheat our most helpless and needy citizens who PAID for Social Security and Medicare. When we make payments for something for about 50 years, we are ENTITLED to get what we paid for!

    I might add Uncle Sam is a deadbeat crying poverty when he has ample assets to pay the debts owed for these programs. See Walter Burien’s for good info on Uncle Sam’s doublebook financial reporting system, and how we are deceived and robbed. Uncle Sam should be forced to pay up! He might be cash poor, but he owns a majority stake in many blue-chip corporations, stoclks, bonds, etc. He also has taken millions of acres of land, has vast real estate holdings, ships, planes, cars, trucks and tractors, lots of tools and heavy equipment, wealth that could be “redistributed” directly to the needful people impoverished by federal tyranny. Uncle Sam has nothing that he did not steal from the people. Deadbeat Uncle Sam can pay!


    Comment by David McElroy | May 5, 2012 | Reply

    • Hi, David,

      Publius Huldah is a woman! “Huldah” is the hint: See 2 Kings 22. We perform the same function – identifying The Law.

      Social security is unconstitutional to the core. Nothing in Our Constitution permits Congress to force people into the SS system. Or into medicare. Or into obamacare.

      Social security is at best a Ponzi scheme – it depends on ever increasing numbers of people paying in so that the retirees can get their checks. Ponzi schemes always fail eventually.

      I certainly don’t propose cutting off SS checks or Medicare payments for the old people who have become dependent – An ancient Doctrine of Equity – Estoppel – prevents this. So we must continue to send SS checks to old people, and pay their Medicare bills for the old people who have become dependent. BUT the programs must be gradually dismantled and the younger people weaned off of it. Meanwhile, any old people who don’t need it would do their country a great service by voluntarily foregoing benefits. I never signed up for “benefits” and never will. But I do not fault those who were forced to sign up for benefits.

      YOU ARE SO RIGHT about making the federal government disgorge some of the property it holds to liquidate the unfunded liabilities in these systems! Dr. Walter E. Williams has also suggested selling federal lands to liquidate these unfunded liabilities. Some really good businessmen and economists could devise a plan for selling or transferring federally owned lands and other properties to liquidate these debts and to pay down the national debt. And yes, they could provide that federal property would be sold or transferred ONLY to AMERICAN CITIZENS!

      The debt “owed” to the federal reserve system should be repudiated.

      Our Country is in terrible straits. If most of us do not rise to the occasion, we are doomed.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | May 5, 2012 | Reply

    • Social Security as originally passed in 1935 was a prefunded affair and would have worked (irrespective of the constitutional issue) albeit poorly. In 1938, it was changed to a pay as you go scheme to be able to start payouts earlier – to buy votes. By law, Social Security funds are invested in the lowest risk US Bonds. That means that the interest rate on the Social Security money is lower than anything you can find in the market other than a mattress.

      In the 1980’s(?) or so, SCOTUS acknowledge that the money you put into Social Security is not yours. It can be simply taken away by passing a law.

      I wrote some software to compare my SS “investment” to the Dow Jones Average for any 45 year period (45 years x 12 months) starting in 1926. There is no 33 year or longer period anywhere since 1926 where investing in the DJ would provide a worse investment. Even if you retired in March, 2009, you would be better off with your money in the DOW JONES AVERAGE. Had you had in in corporate and municiple bonds, your March, 2009 retirement would have been slightly better. Had you managed your money and around Aug-Nov, 2008 moved to corporate and/or municiple bonds, you would be
      very well off.

      Galveston, Texas has learned this lesson. They don’t participate in
      Social Security and Galveston has no entitlement cloud hanging over its head and the retires get 2-4x the retirement benefits those on Social Security get.

      12.4% (SS) + 2.9% (Medicare) = 15.3% of my lifetime wages have been confiscated only to give me a 1% ROI — IF I LIVE. Theft is the only work that comes to mind. There is a $225 death benefit, though.


      Comment by Ed Bradford (@egbegb) | May 6, 2012 | Reply

      • There is a reason our Framers delegated so few powers to the federal government. Our Framers knew that people can not be trusted – particularly civil governments.

        Of course, social security is unconstitutional! Can you imagine the look on the faces of our Framers if they knew that the federal government had made most people dependent on the federal government for checks?

        Thanks for doing the math, Ed. Dr. Walter E. Williams, Prof. of Economics at George Mason Univ., has also said that if a 44 year old [I think 44 was the age] just gave up all he had already paid into SS and from then on, made his own arrangements with the money which he is forced to pay into ss, he’d come out ahead when he retires.

        It is theft – the legalized plunder Bastiat wrote about in The Law.


        Comment by Publius/Huldah | May 6, 2012 | Reply

  12. Yes, let’s “return to Personal Responsibility and dismantle (in an orderly fashion) the wicked, unconstitutional, and fiscally unworkable social security and Medicare programs.”
    The problem is how do we do that when government has been our parent taking care of us from cradle to grave?
    Freedom will make us work. Personal liberty requires personal responsibility. Socialism is much easier.


    Comment by Carolyn Alder | May 4, 2012 | Reply

    • Carolyn: For some reason, your comments are sent to my spam folder. I don’t know why. But if your comments aren’t posted on other sites, it may be that something in your address makes the filter think you are spam.

      Re your question: That is why I say a moral regeneration of The People is the condition precedent of setting things right. Yet our churches will not teach anything which goes against the federal government (except now, finally, re abortion). The churches will not teach that it is the responsibility of families to take care of families; that charity is an individual & church responsibility and that we have the right to choose the objects of our charity. The Bible never delegates to civil government power over “charity”.

      So all we can do is do what we do and hope that God intervenes and opens peoples’ eyes before it is too late. Or maybe people are just so stupid that – e.g., Nazi Germany had to crash and burn before the German People figured out that electing Hitler was a bad idea.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | May 4, 2012 | Reply

  13. […] View the original here: Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns … […]


    Pingback by Insurance » Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns … | May 4, 2012 | Reply

  14. […] for gun owners and bad news for anti-gun activists comes from lawyer and constitutional scholar Publius Huldah who says that although Congress can’t force you to buy health insurance, they can force you […]


    Pingback by Guns In The News…#Rule 5 « That Mr. G Guy's Blog | May 3, 2012 | Reply

  15. […] Read More… Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]


    Pingback by Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamacare. « The Constitution Sentinel | May 3, 2012 | 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: