Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Who Makes the Ruling that Someone is not Qualified for the Office of President of the United States?

By Publius Huldah

According to the original intent of our Constitution, Ted Cruz & Marco Rubio are not eligible to be President because their fathers weren’t US citizens at the times they were born. So they are not “natural born citizens”.

So! How is this handled? Who calls it?  Who makes the ruling? Do we “file a lawsuit” and let federal judges decide? “Slap your hands!”, our Framers would say. They would say, “READ THE CONSTITUTION AND SEE WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!”

[Our lives would be so much simpler – and our Country so much better off – if we read & supported our Constitution.]

Read the 12th Amendment. That sets forth the procedures for election of President and VP. Note that ELECTORS are supposed to be the ones making the selection – not The People. [There is a reason for that.]  For an illustration of how this works, go HERE and read the subheadings,  “Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President!  and The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.

So! Assume we followed the Constitution on this issue and we get to the part where Congress is counting the votes as provided by 12th Amendment. And Lo! Congress discovers that the person who got the most votes for President is NOT QUALIFIED by reason of age, or not being a natural born citizen, or not having been for at least 14 years a Resident within the United States.

Obviously, it’s Congress’ job to make the ruling – to make the call – on whether the President and VP – selected by the ELECTORS – are qualified under Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.

So what happens if Congress finds that the person with the most votes for President is not qualified? We look to Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment. It tells us what happens. If the President elect has failed to qualify, then the VP elect shall act as President… Now, read the rest of that Section. We would also need to see whether Congress has made any of the authorized laws providing for such contingencies.

So, under the Constitution as written, it is Congress’ job to make the call as to whether the President elect and the VP elect are qualified.

This is NOT an issue for the federal courts to decide. That is because this is a “political question” – not a “legal question”. The power to make the ruling as to whether the president elect or the VP elect are qualified has been delegated to CONGRESS. Traditionally, federal courts have “abstained” from deciding “political questions”.

We study this in our first year constitutional law class, when we study judicial “abstention” from certain kinds of cases including cases which involve “political questions” or the exercise of powers delegated to the Legislative or Executive branches. When a power is delegated to one of the “political branches” (Legislative or Executive), the federal courts (the “legal branch”) have traditionally declined to interfere and substitute their judgment for that of the “political branch” to which the Power was delegated.

And what if Congress gives an ineligible person a pass – as they did with obama? WELL THEN, SHAME ON US – BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES WHO ELECTED THOSE IGNORANT COWARDS TO OFFICE!


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

February 4, 2016 - Posted by | 12th Amendment, 20th amendment, Election of President, Electoral College, Electors, Judicial abstension, natural born citizen, political questions, Presidential Electors | , , , , , ,


  1. […] Article reposted with permission from Publius Huldah. […]


    Pingback by Who Makes the Ruling that Someone is not Qualified for the Office of President of the United States? - NorthWest Liberty News | April 5, 2016 | Reply

  2. […] Article reposted with permission from Publius Huldah. […]


    Pingback by Who Makes the Ruling that Someone is not Qualified for the Office of President of the United States? » Sons of Liberty Media | April 4, 2016 | Reply

  3. […] 1. Congress should have disqualified Obama at the very beginning!… […]


    Pingback by Congress: Disqualify & Impeach – WatchmanMomma | March 10, 2016 | Reply

  4. I agree that qualification for president is a non-justicable political question, however the decision is for the electoral college not Congress. The Twelfth Amendment says that “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be COUNTED.” The framers used the word COUNT, not review, not determine — Count. Just Add up the numbers of votes from the certificates of the several states. Nothing more.

    The fact that Congress has no power to decide the issue on qualification because there is no discussion about how such a vote is taken. How exactly does the House and Senate vote together? Besides the 12th Amendment says that if there is no electoral college majority then the House votes for president by State and the Senate decides on Vice President. It is clear for the 12th Amendment that the Congress may only take such votes as authorized by the Amendment, no other.

    The electoral college decides the qualifications for President & Vice President. Not the Courts and not the Congress.


    Comment by James Horan | February 11, 2016 | Reply

    • Of course, ELECTORS may and should decline to vote for candidates who are not NBCs. And in our present unconstitutional popular election system, The People may and should decline to vote for candidates who are not NBCs, are under 35 years of age, etc.

      However, open your mind and READ the text of the 12th Amendment and Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment – they address what Congress does when an ineligible President elect is chosen by the Electors.

      Our Constitution provides two “checks” to stop ineligible candidates from being elected President or Vice President: First, the Electors. Second and finally, the Congress.

      If the People object, their Remedy is to vote out the members of Congress who failed to do their constitutional duty of disqualifying an ineligible President elect or Vice President elect.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 11, 2016 | Reply

  5. Thank you for clarifying this Huldah. Of course this would not stop the evil Dems from taking it to court or the dumb Reps from making their candidate step aside. Nor stop the high (ly corrupt) court from hearing the case.


    Comment by Penelope | February 6, 2016 | Reply

    • It won’t stop the dumb Republicans either! God help us. All we can do is shout the TRUTH and hope that enough People hear and accept it.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2016 | Reply

      • I agree! Ideas do spread across the internet. And we must pray. Thank you for all you do.


        Comment by Penelope | February 6, 2016 | Reply

        • Thank you for your kind support.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2016 | Reply

  6. PH, I agree that the duty and responsibility for determining who is qualified for President falls on the Congress and not the Judiciary, but is it not the Judiciary who is responsible for interpreting and defining what Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 actually means/entails? Especially what is, and is not, an NBC. One would think that defining this would naturally come before making decisions on an individual’s qualifications to meet it..


    Comment by Eileen Wright | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • No! The supreme Court has no power to “define” words in the Constitution! The supreme Court is merely the “creature” of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. Go here and read the two most recent posts

      The first paper I wrote on natural born citizen proves that the common understanding of the term during our Framing Era was that a baby inherits his citizenship as a natural right from his parents – his Father:

      People who are in their 80s have told me that they learned in school that to be eligible to be President, one had to be born of parents who were already citizens. So Americans once knew this!

      Now, let’s analyze the ramifications of your suggestion that the supreme Court has the power and duty to define words in the Constitution: Look at Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: When that was ratified, everyone understood that the purpose of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to protect them from Southern Black Codes which denied them basic God-given rights. Section 1 was the authorization for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

      But look at how the supreme Court has defined words in Section 1 – read these two posts: and

      So the Supreme Court has REDEFINED the word “Liberty” in the 14th Amendment to mean 1) You can kill your baby!, 2) homosexual sodomy is a right, and 3) the federal government may FORCE everyone in this Country to embrace homosexual marriage.

      Do you see what happens when we permit the supreme Court to redefine words in the Constitution?

      Ultimately it is the SOVEREIGN DUTY of each Citizen to KNOW the definition of “natural born Citizen” used by our Framers and those who ratified the Constitution, and to ENFORCE IT WITH THEIR VOTES!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2016 | Reply

      • PH: I’m a little confused. In your post “The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew” your proof relies upon the Naturalization Act of 1790. However, the 1790 Act was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795. The 1795 Act reflects the correction of “natural born Citizen” by replacing it with “Citizen”. Does that not nullify that portion of your “proof”?


        Comment by Dave3200 | February 7, 2016 | Reply

        • Of course not! It is cited to show the understanding (at the time of the drafting and ratification of our Constitution) of the meaning of the term: that to be a “natural born citizen”, one had to be born of parents who were citizens.

          Congress could have repealed the Act the next day and it would still serve as competent evidence of the definition of the term.

          So when you look at Vattel, Ramsay’s Dissertation, and the words of Congress in the 1790 Act – the original intent of “natural born citizen” is proved.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2016 | Reply

          • It is important to note the historical context of Ramsay’s dissertation. Ramsay’s wrote the dissertation to argue that a person was not a citizen of the United States unless they swore an oath of allegiance or fought in the revolution. Ramsay essentially argued that Tories who remained in the United States after the Revolution were not citizens and citizens who sat out the Revolution were not citizens.

            Ramsay objected to William Smith being seated as a Congressman from South Carolina in the First Congress in 1788. Ramsay said that Smith was not a US Citizen, even though he was born in South Carolina to South Carolina Citizens. Smith’s parents sent him to Europe in 1774 and did not return until after the Revolutionary War in 1783. Ramsay argued that since he was not in the Country in 1776 and did not swore an oath of allegiance he was not a Citizen of the United States.

            The House of Representatives of the First Congress rejected Ramsay’s argument and seated William Smith. Ramsay’s dissertation was written with respect to who was a citizen. Any language about “natural born citizen” is orbiter dicta.


            Comment by James Horan | February 12, 2016

          • You sound desperate. And also as if you haven’t read Ramsay’s Dissertation. But mostly desperate – grasping at straws.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016

  7. Still stuck on this: Ask George W. Bush
    “Ask John McCain”
    by Olavo de Carvalho ~ November 11, 2008

    How could President George W. Bush, who took an Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States abrogate his responsibility. President George W. Bush, not Congress, was the Commander in Chief? Would President Thomas Jefferson hand over George Washington’s Army to an unknown?

    What would Harry do?

    Show Me Your Birth Certificate.


    Comment by Merry Christmas | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • I didn’t click on the links you gave – but the sitting President (Geo. W. Bush) has no power to prevent an ineligible person (obama) from taking office. Really!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

      • PH, that is why I said that “I am still stuck on this.” What can I say. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I keep coming back to that article, like a dog chasing its tail.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Merry Christmas | February 4, 2016 | Reply

        • Are you saying that a sitting President has the lawful right to prevent his elected successor from taking office – that George Bush should have stopped obama from taking office? How?

          Well, can obama lawfully stop his successor from taking office?


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  8. We the People can easily enforce the natural born Citizen clause ourselves by simply not voting for the blatant Usurpers.

    I’m afraid as a whole though, the American People have rejected self-governance in favor of being subjects who needn’t think for themselves. Undoubtedly the majority will scream that they haven’t rejected Liberty, but their actions tell a different story. Something about about a tree and fruit comes to mind…

    It seems all we can do, and perhaps all we were meant to do, is inform them so they are morally responsible for their actions. Which is why I suspect they vehemently cling to their willful ignorance when told the truth.

    “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” ~Thomas Jefferson

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, yes, now that we use the present unconstitutional method of holding popular elections, Citizens should enforce Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 by refusing to vote for ineligible candidates.
      But instead they illustrate why our Framers provided against popular election of President.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Good morning BTGF / PH

      Re: “We the People can easily enforce the natural born Citizen clause ourselves by simply not voting for the blatant Usurpers.”

      For the sake of discussion, allow me to play the devil’s advocate, and ask this:

      In today’s arena, is the NBC clause to be taken as the ultimate factor to be considered by voters in this election or is there some other factor that might actually justify voter “non enforcement” of it?

      I ask this because as important as the “eligible v ineligible” question might be, it is not the only question before us in this election. Coincident in this election is this: will we allow the vesting of the full power of the POTUS in someone we have every reason to believe is bent on using that power for the destruction of our nation or some part of it?

      It seems to me we are being asked to decide between those two questions not just one, hence my raising this issue. Given these two, how are we to weigh them so that we can justify our decisions in good conscience?

      In this regard it seems reasonable that the idea of self defense should come into play at some point, and it is to be noted that the common sense laws of self defense justify actions that would normally be illegal, actions that no normal person would take except under those extreme circumstances. We do have a right to life as persons and a nation, us and our posterity, and that involves discerning between those things that are important, and those things that are vital for life, If we are not justified in doing that, then indeed our Constitution is a suicide pact, and let us not forget, we are bound to the selfdestructive among us.

      Now, don’t get me wrong….the very idea of supporting / voting for a ineligible candidate etc. is irksome, but then, it is also irksome to act in self defense. It seems that somewhere there is a distinct difference between something irksome and something terrifying, and personally, I would put the vesting of the power of the POTUS in Hillary or Bernie in the “terrifying” category, for they are people who represent a clear and present danger, but that’s me.

      Thoughts on when we are to act in self defense and how those two are to be weighed?

      God bless


      Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 25, 2016 | Reply

      • So, are you saying that when the Constitution gets in the way of what WE think is good, then we are morally obligated to ignore the Constitution?

        And we can trust a candidate who ignores part of the Constitution – when it suits him – to obey the other parts?

        Killing in self defense is not illegal!


        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 25, 2016 | Reply

        • Good morning PH

          Re: “So, are you saying that when the Constitution gets in the way of what WE think is good, then we are morally obligated to ignore the Constitution?”

          Let me answer this in parts:

          First, re “of what WE think is good…[a candidate] when it suits him.” I am most certainly not advocating anarchy by the populace or a candidate where “every man does what is right in his own eyes,” where there is no check on the populace, etc. Never. I fear anarchy as much or maybe more than I do tyranny.

          So, essentially I am asking a question as to when, if ever, there is a reasonable circumstance where we ARE morally obligated to ignore the Constitution?

          And, I ask this in the context of self defense where, as you noted “Killing in self defense is not illegal.” That is certainly true if, and only if, there are some very well defined circumstances. If you will allow me to draw upon the Texas self defense statutes as an example of how there are clear requirements justifying the self defensive use of force against another, even deadly force.

          To paraphrase the core requirement of the statute, “a person must reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to avoid immanent harm.” So, my question has to do with when, if ever, as citizens we might “reasonably believe” ignoring some part of the Constitution is immediately necessary in order to avoid immanent harm, and in such, defined, and very narrow circumstances, we would therefore be justified in doing so?

          In Texas statutes, it is made very clear that self defense IS not always justified in such things as…”in response to verbal provocation alone, etc.” But, that does not negate the use of force in those true situations. On a national level, enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, Jefferson noted that such things as “political separation” is NOT to be pursued for “light or transient causes” but that does not negate what follows that ends in “it is their right and their duty..,” to do so under certain circumstances…a move based on self defense.

          Anyway…that is my question here…seeing yours and others thoughts on just when it is “reasonable to believe” a normally prohibited action, could and should be taken because it is “immediately necessary to avoid immanent harm.”

          God bless


          Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 26, 2016 | Reply

          • I started out as a criminal defense lawyer – I really do understand “crimes” and “defenses”!

            Criminal law has NOTHING to do with what you seem to be trying to do: To construct an argument which justifies ignoring part of the Constitution because it gets in the way of doing what YOU think ought to be done – for the “greater good”, of course.

            And I am certain that some of the proponents of the regulatory welfare state thought they were justified in IGNORING the enumerated powers limitations on what the federal government could lawfully do – for the “greater good” of HELPING OTHERS!

            But that is precisely what the Constitution is supposed to protect us from: OTHER PEOPLES’ OPINIONS!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 26, 2016

          • Hi PH

            Re: “Criminal law has NOTHING to do with what you seem to be trying to do: To construct an argument which justifies ignoring part of the Constitution because it gets in the way of doing what YOU think ought to be done – for the “greater good”, of course.”

            “—what you seem to be trying to do.”

            What I am trying to do, as I mentioned, is to ask a question and gain an opinion as to whether and / or when there would be such a justification?

            I have heard many a libertarian argue,for example, insist that “there is never a justification for fighting a way that is undeclared by Congress as stated in the Constitution.” when even Jefferson noted that that Constitutional requirement might be negated by someone declaring war on us….ie self defense.

            Thanks again
            God bless


            Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 26, 2016

      • Hi MCE

        As George Washington informed us in his Farewell Address, “But the constitution which at any time exists til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

        Knowingly violating the Constitution, in hopes of electing a more benevolent Despot, is really no choice at all, and still erodes the foundation of our rule of law. Since the object we wish to secure is the Constitution, I fail to see how further violating it brings us any closer to that goal. Unless, fighting Anarchy with Anarchy now establishes Liberty instead of tyranny.

        The self-defense you write of, comes in the form of State nullification and interposition. Except the people have tossed that away, just as the House Republicans tossed Articles of Impeachment out the window. It doesn’t seem to me that the electorate is interested in self-defense at all, rather, they seem more interested in assisted suicide.

        Daniel Webster offered his great insight on this subject as well.

        “Good motives may always be assumed, as bad motives may always be imputed. Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power; but they cannot justify it, even if we were sure that they existed. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intention, real or pretended. When bad intentions are boldly avowed, the People will promptly take care of themselves. On the other hand, they will always be asked why they should resist or question that exercise of power which is so fair in its object, so plausible and patriotic in appearance, and which has the public good alone confessedly in view? Human beings, we may be assured, will generally exercise power when they can get it; and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular Governments, under pretences of public safety or high public interest. It may be very possible that good intentions do really sometimes exist, when Constitutional restraints are disregarded. There are men in all ages who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. They think there need be but little restraint upon themselves. Their notion of the public interest is apt to be quite closely connected with their own exercise of authority. They may not, indeed, always understand their own motives. The love of power may sink too deep in their hearts even for their own scrutiny, and may pass with themselves for mere patriotism and benevolence.” ~Daniel Webster, Speech at Niblo’s Saloon, New York 1837



        Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | February 25, 2016 | Reply

        • Was there ever a man in all of history who gave speeches as good as Daniel Webster’s?


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 25, 2016 | Reply

        • Good morning BTG

          Thanks…if you will, please see my response to PH above. I would appreciate your weighing in on that. Note that I am asking about a clear definition of an exceptional circumstance, a hard and fast rule for a hard and fast exception if you will.

          Franklin noted, for example, that ultimately our Constitution would degenerate “..and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” –Speech before the Constitutional Convention.

          Jefferson noted”

          “”That each party endeavors to get into the administration of the government and exclude the other from power is true, and may be stated as a motive of action: but this is only secondary; the primary motive being a real and radical difference of political principle. I sincerely wish our differences were but personally who should govern, and that the principles of our Constitution were those of both parties. Unfortunately, it is otherwise…” ~Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, 1813. ME 13:208

          My question is when we are justified in taking extraordinary actions to deny power to those whose principles are antiConstitutional.

          God bless


          Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 26, 2016 | Reply

          • I know you want our dear BTG to comment and I’m sure he will.

            But when you refer to candidates whose principles are “antiConstitutional”, are you exempting candidates whose very candidacy spits on Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5?

            And which of the two constitutionally ineligible candidates do you believe supports the Constitution?


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 26, 2016

          • Hi PH

            Re: “But when you refer to candidates whose principles are “antiConstitutional”, are you exempting candidates whose very candidacy spits on Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5? And which of the two constitutionally ineligible candidates do you believe supports the Constitution?”

            “which of the two….” My question is about the principles involved here, not the personalities or circumstances that are to be judged by those principles.

            Re: “”But when you refer to candidates whose principles are “antiConstitutional”, are you exempting candidates whose very candidacy spits on Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5?”

            Lets just suppose that this November our choice is between a Constitutionally eligible but antiConstitutional, anti life, anti liberty, and anti property Joseph Stalin and a Constitutionally ineligible but pro-life,pro liberty, and pro property George Washington or James Madison.

            Those are the choices. Without our participation Stalin is a shoe in. Is there some principle that allows us to justify choosing Washington or Madison?

            if so, then what would that principle be so that it can be used in an orderly manner?

            If not then where does that leave us when dealing with those who would use the Constitution against us?

            God bless


            Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 26, 2016

          • Good afternoon

            Something to think about. Marcus Cicero said there was more to fear from the traitor within, than the known enemy at the gate. As political parties go, the Democrats are the ones who carry their banner openly.

            A trepidation I have over this discourse is: if we do agree that their could be a theoretical reason for disregarding the Constitution, it serves to strengthen the worldview that justifies amending by opinion the Constitution whenever the perceived ends justifies the means.

            As PH already brought up, the Democrats think they are saving lives by providing federal welfare to people. Are there not Americans dying due to poor or no healthcare at all? What kind of evil Constitution would prevent the government from saving these people? Those were the arguments used to sway public opinion in favor of the unconstitutional Obamacare. When asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi replied, “Are you serious?”

            We both know why the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government from acting.

            (1) The Tenth Amendment clearly tells us who’s responsibility healthcare is, either the States or the People.


            (2) the undeniable consequences of empowering a centralized government.

            So in the long run, is Ted Cruz or any other man worth tossing out the natural born Citizen clause for, and in essence the whole Constitution? By electing such a man, Republicans are removing the chains of the Constitution by giving their consent, in that it’s okay to disregard the Constitution whenever the perceived ends justifies the means.

            Republican are always chanting about our founding principles and fighting the Democrats, but when someone actually does come along who stands on those very principles, the person is quickly told they must step-down and vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, even if it is a Democrat running as a Republican. We are always promised that the next election will be about principle, yet it never is… It’s always about a one-way compromise as we continue sinking in the morass. Now we find ourselves being told to violate the Constitution in order to avoid the perceived greater evil. In doing so, will we not become the very evil we claim to oppose?

            William F Buckley stated that a conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling, “Stop!”. Who and why should anyone listen if we are violating the Constitution ourselves? Instead of being accused of being self-righteous, we will be called self-righteous hypocrites, and rightfully so.

            If a government official has good reason for violating the Constitution, then let them take their chances before a court to explain their actions. If it’s proven that it actually was in the best interest of the United States, then let the court be merciful, but the lawlessness of the action cannot be condoned and must always be recognized for what it is. Otherwise we have a nation of men and not laws.

            God bless,


            “And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.” ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval (1816)

            “Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed.” ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Priestley (1802)


            Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | February 26, 2016

          • Hi BTG

            Thanks…and let me say again,that I am in agreement with you, that is, except for the fact that I have before me copies of two Declarations of Independence– one for the US and one for Texas, the latter anniversary will be next week….March 2…

            What is interesting about these two documents is that they both use the word “when”…to justify their actions to a watching world…

            The US Declaration uses the word 4 times…and even begins “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary….” and they list the events that illustrate the crossing of a line where they took a stand. So, the same men that wrote our Constitution knew there was a line out there somewhere, even at the price of being branded traitors to the old order….

            I remember Alan Keyes being asked if there was such a line…and he said “Of course, and you recognize it by the graves of patriots.”

            The same goes for the Texas Declaration. It uses the word “when” 4 times, and again, to show to a reasonable world that a line had been crossed.

            So, that is what I am asking about…that line? It seems to me that the Founders of both the US and Texas knew one was there somewhere, and when it was crossed, they took a stand, knowing their actions were justified.

            Re: “A trepidation I have over this discourse is: if we do agree that their could be a theoretical reason for disregarding the Constitution, it serves to strengthen the worldview that justifies amending by opinion the Constitution whenever the perceived ends justifies the means.”

            My friend…this discussion is for honest men, not rogues who will twist anything to justify lawlessness anyway..I am talking about here the principles by which honest men may reason and act.

            God bless


            Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 26, 2016

          • Hi MCE

            Re: When…

            There certainly does come a time when oppression can no longer be tolerated. The Declaration placed those boundaries on intolerable abuses against the unalienable rights God gave us. So as not to abandon the Constitution on speculations, those things must first actually occur. So until then, we must appeal to the standard we have agreed upon, just as Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist #33.

            One of the stipulations for When is, is whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends…

            Is the Form of Government destructive to those unalienable rights of ours, or is it the public servants We elect to administer the laws according to that Form.

            I believe any intellectually honest person would conclude it’s the latter. So what happens when in the course of events, the people of a representative government become incapable or unwilling to discern the character of their elected officials, or to cite your quote where every man does what is right in his own eyes?

            “Tacitus appears to have been as great an enthusiast as Petrarch for the revival of the republic and universal empire. He has exerted the vengeance of history upon the emperors, but has veiled the conspiracies against them, and the incorrigible corruption of the people which probably provoked their most atrocious cruelties. Tyranny can scarcely be practised upon a virtuous and wise people.” ~John Adams’ Diary (31 July 1796)

            As it applies to our elected officials, our duty is to prevent any person unworthy of that office from ever obtaining it. Before abandoning any currently irksome parts of the Constitution for political expediency, we must first let the system of checks and balances run their course.

            As frightening as Hillary and Bernie are, the Constitution, if enforced, would limit their damage to incompetent decisions until they could be replaced. And if the Constitution was enforced, Congress would Impeach and Convict such scoundrels When their incompetency becomes dangerous or their ill intent is enacted.

            Unfortunately very few know or understand how those checks and balances works, and in a ignorant panic, want to go straight to a nuclear option as the solution.

            Whatever comfort may come from disregarding the supreme law of the land to prevent a president Hillary or Bernie, it will be short lived with the greater consequences of undermining the Constitution’s authority.

            The secession of the South provides an excellent example of the tragedy that awaits those who act rashly before the “When” actually happens.

            Interestingly enough, all of this also ties in with the arguments for a Con Con. They argue the Constitution is already shredded and we are now living in a post-constitutional era. Makes one wonder why they are bothering to apply for a Article V Convention if they truly believe that nonsense… yet the Constitution is still there and means what it always has, despite the postmodernism taking place.

            God bless,


            “I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there is not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” ~James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788)


            Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | February 28, 2016

          • Ah, as always, BTG lights the Path we must take.

            I would just add that Ted Cruz is no better than Hillary: He’s a globalist who tells us that he wants to control the borders – while his dear Wife was on the CFR Task Force to set up the North American Union where Canada, the US, and Mexico merge and a Parliament is set over the 3 countries. George W. Bush is the guilty one who initiated this.

            Cruz claims to support the Constitution with one side of his mouth while he schemes to undermine Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 2 by giving the president “fast track” authority over treaties. And he claims to support gun rights while he advocates for increased federal background checks….

            Americans are Pragmatists and so believe that Principles are things which get in the way of your doing what you want to do [um, yeah, that’s the idea!] and so do not understand that the most “expedient” thing to do is ALWAYS adhere to Principles – no exceptions – no compromises.

            And Rubio! He is NOT a “manly man”. See also: That is the paper which got me kicked off Canada Free Press. At that time, Mark levin liked Marco Rubio and wanted him to be Romney’s running mate – so criticism of Marco was not allowed….


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2016

          • Hi PH

            So, we have a GOP field of five–assuming someone like Perry does not suddenly jump back in: Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Carson.

            If Cruz and Rubio are both ineligible and unacceptable as you describe, then that leaves Trump, Kasich, and Carson, the latter two in single digits and not a chance of being the nominee baring a miracle.

            Are you, by default, endorsing Trump at this point, or are you advising everyone to simply not vote, allowing Trump the nomination when he is the most unconstitutionally oriented of the candidates I see?

            Regarding the latter idea, voting with the feet, long ago when I concluded that liberals could not be reasoned with, I regularly suggested to them that “since both parties were essentially the same we should vote with our feet–stay home and that will really send a message.”

            Of course, I would go vote because that is where the actual decisions are made despite of what Obama suggested, that he had heard both those who voted and those who did not, seeking to nullify the actual vote in the midterms that rebuked him.

            So, what are you suggesting?
            God bless


            Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 28, 2016

          • I have NEVER seen ANY words or actions from ANY of the candidates for the R & D nominations for President which indicate that ANY of them have EVER even read the Constitution or have ANY idea what it says about anything. Rubio and Cruz pay lip service to it – which makes them the biggest liars of all.

            Bearing in mind that all of them will ignore our Declaration and Constitution, most probably having never troubled themselves to read them, we must vote for the constitutionally eligible candidate whom we believe – based on all factors – will be best.

            Many qualities are needed to be a great President. I probably know the Declaration and Constitution better than almost everyone else in the Country. But I would not be a good president b/c I am a poor manager; hate the limelight; really don’t like dealing with people; would have no idea how to deal with the crazies like the dictator of N. Korea, etc.

            So someone who has the needed personality characteristics and management and negotiation skills which I lack would be a better President than I IF he has a solid basic morality. I wouldn’t vote for a liar.

            No matter what the problem – there is ALWAYS a best course of action.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2016

          • Good evening PH

            Hope you had a great weekend.

            Just so you know, I agree with what you said….

            Re: “No matter what the problem – there is ALWAYS a best course of action.”

            Ah, but there is the rub, and the point of our discussion(s) here–discerning that best course of action from the choices we have, those you have described, and at a cost we can afford to pay.

            Lets note of course that there is always a degree of uncertainty in all decisions. We must, as the aphorism goes, commit ourselves 100% based on less than 100% information and assurance, usually far less than 100%.

            I would suggest that we are looking for an action that either causes a good effect or stops a bad one, and both of those have a cost of some kind that has to be factored in. Today we are looking for the action that we reasonably believe will either cause a good or stop a bad and with the least cost / harm.. As the great detective said:

            “It is of the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to recognize, out of a number of facts, which are incidental and which vital. Otherwise your energy and attention must be dissipated instead of being concentrated.” –Sherlock Holmes, -The Reigate Puzzle

            I think that is applicable to our discussions…some things are incidental and some are vital.
            God bless




            Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 28, 2016

          • Hi BTG

            Thanks for the great interchanges…!!

            On several occasions above you mentioned “if the Constitution was enforced…”

            Let me suggest that this is an awfully big “if” to hang the future of a nation on, seeing as how there has been increasing non-enforcement of the Constitution in our lifetimes, in our fathers’ lifetime, all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, to the degree that today non-enforcement of the Constitution is pretty well institutionalized.

            To illustrate the point, take a look at the way Madison put it in Memorial and Remonstrance (1785):

            “The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither
            of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive
            their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

            “We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.”

            Note that latter section:

            Can we really say of our nation that today we revere that lesson as they did; that today our eyes do not behold usurped power strengthened by exercise and the question engangled in precedent; that, as a people we still see the consequences in a principle and avoid the consequence by denying the principle? I would be delighted to know of representative examples where we are the same mind as our Founders in this regard. If we are not of that mind, that mind that for the Father of the Constitution was “one of the noblest characteristics of the Revolution,” then something is amiss at an important level.

            Now, our actual conversation has to do with our voting, or not, for a candidate who may or may not be ineligible, in order to stop someone known to be bent on the destruction of the Constitution and nation. Is it fair to ask if the nation was made for the Constitution or the Constitution for the nation?

            My friend, I only bring that up because at some point in the twisting of things we come to a self defeating proposition. Right now the lawful find themselves chained by our own illustrous Constitution while those we deal with are not so bound at all. In a sense we are at a situation where we say: “We must obey the Constitution even it if means putting into power those we know are determined to destroy the Constitution and the nation, knowing full well there are no meaningful checks and balances.”

            To put it another way, “we preserve the Constitution by allowing for its destruction, or at least further damage.” That seems self defeating to me.

            Earlier I used the analogy of Self Defense, and I would return to that now. The essence of an action taken in self defense or self preservation is to avoid harm, to “stop” intended harm from occuring, and self defensive actions are based on reasonable belief that the harm will occur unless the perpetrator is stopped. For me, that seems applicable.

            God bless…and I look forward to your answer.


            Comment by M. Craig Elachie | February 28, 2016

          • Good afternoon

            I’d like to examine the validity of your self-defense analogy. My analysis is based on the presupposition that the end goal is to secure the entire Constitution. If that is no longer the objective, then obviously my argument will be rejected for a more pragmatic “solution”.

            A more precise analogy would be in the defense of property, i.e. the U.S. Constitution. Since a constitution is structure, let’s refer to it as a House.

            Now here comes Hillary and Bernie house shopping, and we know they will attempt to vandalize our House we are renting if we let them in. Conveniently at the same time, some unsavory character tells us that if we unlock the backdoor for him, he can stop them from entering. But the door takes a special key and there is no time to obtain it. The owners start panicking and so the stranger suggests they quickly destroy the backdoor which was never designed to keep him out. And so the owners use the only means at their disposal and proceed to burn the door down.

            This stranger quickly rushes in and prevents Hillary and Bernie from getting inside the House. As the owners of the House pat themselves on the back, the fire they started begins spreading to other rooms of the House with the stranger’s help, thus burning it all down to the ground.

            There is of course the other scenario where Hillary or Bernie win the election anyway, and so republicans setting fire to a corner of the Constitution was for nothing.

            Apparently all the Democrats have to do in order to elicit Republican help in destroying the Constitution is to keep nominating the most extreme radicals. Due in part to a reactionary response, republicans accept otherwise completely unacceptable scoundrels, who have made it abundantly clear they are cherry pickers of the law. And why should these Despots care about the true law when ‘We the People’ give them our loyal blessings at the ballot box each and every election cycle?

            Not only is that self-defeating to me, it’s Einstein’s definition of insane!

            If the overwhelming majority of voters are going to continually coalesce around the candidate who first tickles their ears, along with whoever they think has the best chance of winning the general election against the Democrats (pragmatics and not principle), then Americans will soon be forever feasting upon the rotten fruit of their labor.

            I consider my vote like the sword in the stone. It is there waiting and will only be given to a worthy person capable of freeing it. I know, I know, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government!

            The Immoral Majority may no longer believe in the same principles as our Founders, but I do and that will not change.

            “Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office, as in England, to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man. But where the principle of difference is as substantial, and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part, and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.” ~Thomas Jefferson. letter to William Branch Giles (1795)

            If as you claim, and I am not disputing it, that non-enforcement of the Constitution is pretty well institutionalized, then what do you hope to achieve by participating in a corrupt system? is it to simply manage a controlled descent into the depths of tyranny?

            The Declaration of Independence warned of the dangers of the lesser of two evils theory.

            “…and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” ~Declaration of Independence

            If no one really cares about Liberty or Law anymore, which are really one in the same, then why not just let COS have their Article V Convention? Let the people be given the Form of Government that corresponds with the Masters they have so willingly and consistently chosen for themselves.

            God bless,


            “…Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. When the people once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their right of defending the limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” ~John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams (1775)

            “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies.” ~John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams (June 21, 1776)


            Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | February 29, 2016

          • Good morning BTG
            Sorry for the delay.

            I will not be able to address your entire post, but I can address this:

            Re: “I consider my vote like the sword in the stone. It is there waiting and will only be given to a worthy person capable of freeing it.”

            At this point I am going to assume from what you said that you simply do not know how the political process works due to your lack of participation, and/or perhaps bad information.

            Today is primary election day in Texas, and there is much more going on today than simply voting for a candidate—much, much, much. It is here, by established processes, that the people tweak the checks and balances are instituted, strengthened, etc in the voice of the people that guide and influence the less than perfect people they have to choose from.

            For example, the polls in Texas close at 1900 hrs. tonight, and immediately following that closing will be the precinct caucuses for each party. This is where those who live in an area, and voted in the primary, have opportunity to gather to voice their views and opinions on a wide variety of issues that express their will to those they who will be elected. I expect, those issues tonight will include things like the ConCon, BBA, gay marriage, states rights, transexual bathrooms, etc. Because I voted,and will go to that pct. convention, I will have opportunity to sway those present as to what I think is the correct understanding of such issues….and I will submit articles for consideration in the party platform…

            …those will be voted on by those present as to whether they will be forwarded to the County convention for inclusion in the county party platform.

            Most local officials and candidates, if they want party support, and/or election must agree to adhere to the platform, as that expresses the will of the people. If they do not, often times funds are withheld, or they do not get re-elected.

            Interestingly, in Texas a pct can have from 100- 5,000 people, which might be as many as 20-30 delegates at the county level, not only to vote on measures, but to serve on committees, etc. Oddly, it is not uncommon for only 6-8 people actually show up at the precinct convention level, and those 6-8 represent the voice of that area. it is from those that the delegates must be chosen to the next higher level. So, the area that could have had 30-50 has a voice strength of 6. and I can assure you that this is where the grassroots battle is waged…and its a numbers game–if you are outvoted then you lose. If you do not have the votes, no matter how many you are allotted, then that is all you get…no gripes for not showing up..for you may rest assured that those who believe adverse to you will show up, for they do. If they carry the day its because there were not enough votes to defeat them, and that is because someone did not show up.

            So, if you do not want such things as I listed going into the party platform as reflecting the voice of the people, then you simply must be there to make your voice heard.

            And, even further, it is from the county convention that delegates are elected to the State convention, where the process is repeated, refining, and refining the voice. The opportunities are endless for serving on committees, meeting those ho are running, making your voice heard, etc…

            But my friend, if you do not show up, then you have no voice at all for you did not voice it when it mattered and you had the chance and someone else did.

            Hope you will change your mind and actually get into the process.
            God bless


            Comment by M. Craig Elachie | March 1, 2016

  9. “The power to determine whether the president elect or the VP elect are qualified has been delegated to CONGRESS. ”

    In that case, Congress would also have the power to define eligibility.


    Comment by Bob Grenier | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Thank you – you are right, I didn’t state it well. So I re-worded it.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  10. PH, “shame on us” can’t be all there is, can it? What actions do WTP have that we can take to remove a fraud holding the office pf POTUS, as we all know Ovomit is doing, after congress has failed to do their sworn duty? There must be SOMEWAY for WTP to remove him !

    Please help!!!


    Comment by Mike Travis | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Mike, We failed to elect people who knew the Constitution and had the spine to enforce it.

      Right now – the Progressives are making progress to get an Article V convention where they will impose a new Constitution. I can’t stop it. WHY? Because the elected Republican State legislators THINK THEY KNOW ALL ABOUT IT and so they won’t listen to someone who really knows and has proved it.

      At some point, the tipping point of stupidity, ignorance, and ego makes the whole thing collapse…

      There is no lawful way to get rid of obama before the end of his term other than impeachment and the 25th amendment

      This is the price we pay for our negligence, laziness, apathy as a People. Unfortunately the majority of Americans have the numbers to ruin it for the few of us who know better.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  11. Debate: Is Ted Cruz a natural born Citizen? Streaming live at 7:00 pm EST on Thursday, Feb 4, 2016.

    Note, actual debate will probably begin at about 7:20 pm. Here’s a link to it:


    Comment by Dave3200 | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  12. We have a corrupt government and the people are still too comfortable in their skin to do anything about it.


    Comment by Sang Ward | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  13. I can’t find sec. 3 of the 22nd amendment


    Comment by | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Slap my hand and thank you! I’ll fix that. I need an editor.
      Please keep doing it – I appreciate it very much.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  14. Let’s say that you are correct, and Ted Cruz is not eligible under Vattel’s “patrilinial” definition of citizenship. And yes, I accept that as an accurate definition. The problem is that the progressives have long since diluted the rule of law to the point that the U.S. Constitution is now a “dead letter” for all practical purposes. We no longer have a functioning constitution. Our country has been taken over by insurgents and traitors. We are in the same fight that our founders were in at the time they signed the Declaration of Independence. NONE of us are citizens any more. We are ALL Ted Cruz’s, because we are fighting to RESTORE our rights and to put Fedzilla back in its cage of Article 1, Section 8. Picking on Ted Cruz is like condemning one of our original founders AND ourselves as freedom fighters. Cruz is the ONLY one of the candidates who is a true constitutional constructionist, AND YOU KNOW IT. So, get off his back and recognize that we are in a guerrilla war, and are not playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules, and won’t be until the rule of law is restored.


    Comment by Tired Of Idiots | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • So are you saying that we should IGNORE the Constitution b/c YOU think that Cruz should be President even though he is not constitutionally eligible?

      So it’s OK to ignore the Constitution when it suits YOUR purposes?

      So how can you fault others who ignored it when it suited THEIR purposes?

      That’s the problem! We have abandoned Principle for the sake of Expediency.

      And no, Cruz is not a supporter of the Constitution. You haven’t been looking at his actual record on federal gun control, Fast Track, and the North American Union.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

      • Ms. Hulda,
        Thanks for your reply!
        You have argued (for years) that the constitution is NOT being followed. I am agreeing with you! It has been set aside years ago. That being true, a constitution that is not being followed is a dead letter, null and void. Yes, we would like to restore it, and yes it is good that we try to get our political leaders and the courts to follow it, but they do not and will not. It is time that we recognized that it is a fait acompli. But, there is a new rule of law, “man’s law” (case law) that has eliminated U.S. citizenship as defined under the 1776 constitution by rendering its rules per the original intent of the founders, unenforceable. Therefore, how can you say that I am ignoring the constitution? If Cruz has used poor judgment on the things you pointed out, yet is a constitutional constructionist on 99.5% of everything else, how does that make him a villain? Who do you know that is 100% correct on everything? I am agreeing with you on the Emer De Vattel’s patrilineal definition of citizenship as understood by the founders, and that Cruz would not qualify under the old dead letter’s definition. What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is that the progressives have stripped us of our citizenship rights, and, without those rights, Cruz and the rest of us are now freedom fighters, and no longer citizens of the old order. It is well and good to argue the righteousness of U.S. Constitution, but strict constitutionalists are now considered as a “fringe group”, not part of the mainstream political thought. We are outsiders who don’t seem to realize that we have been disenfranchised. Our citizenship rights have been stripped away, and though we decry the bloodless coup under Obama, we still cling to the illusion that our citizenship is intact. No! The new regime, our current government is a Marxist oligarchy that is rapidly being inculcated with an Islamic ideology. I don’t know about you, but I do NOT consider myself a citizen of a Marxist-Islamic regime. Either we have a functioning constitution or we don’t. We can’t have it both ways.

        How is it fair to hold Cruz to a natural born citizenship rule that applied to this country at a time when America WAS a “republic” under a constitutional rule of law? You have said that our founders were “grandfathered” as citizens at the time of the Declaration of Independence. Vattel defines our current Marxist-Islamic oligarchy as a “monarchy”. By that standard, he defined us as “subjects” as long as we do not “DISSOLVE THE POLITICAL BANDS” from our current oligarchical regime. How can you not agree that Cruz and the rest of us who are fighting to restore the constitution are just as qualified to be grandfathered as citizens, if and when we prevail? While it is true that we have elected representatives, they have been reduced to the role of pleading or bribing a monarch for favors.


        Comment by Tired Of Idiots | February 9, 2016 | Reply

        • While your post no doubt accurately describes your panicked emotional state, none of the Facts you allege are true. And I suggest you look with open eyes at Ted Cruz’ actual RECORD – instead of the marketing his campaign puts out. I wouldn’t vote for Ted Cruz for ANY public office.

          Now, please review the rules for posting comments. This is NOT a forum for visitors to push their candidates for public office. This is about what our Constitution says.

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 10, 2016 | Reply

  15. Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.


    Comment by gamegetterII | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  16. Publius-Huldahs,

    It seems obvious to me that the issue of deciding who is eligible should be determined before the individual becomes a candidate. Each person, before he goes into the primary process, should send in his request to Congress to be certified as eligible to run for President of Vice-President.

    Ron Bass New Jersey.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by ronbass2010 | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Take the time to learn what the Constitution says about the election of President.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | 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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: