Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Compact for America’s Scheme for Pre-ratification of a Massive New Taxes Amendment

By Publius Huldah

Do you remember the public discussions which went on for years about the proposed equal rights amendment to our federal Constitution?  That’s how it’s supposed to be before an amendment is ratified: The People get an opportunity to hear the arguments, discuss it among themselves and their state legislators, and reject amendments which are bad.

What if someone found a way to circumvent this pesky public discussion, and get an amendment ratified before The People found about it? And even before the state legislators who ratified it found out what they had done? And what if this amendment delegated massive new taxing powers to Congress?

Such a scheme has been developed by Compact for America (CFA). They present their already prepared compact legislation to state legislators as a “balanced budget amendment”; and urge them to get it passed by their state legislature.

The provisions which authorize Congress to impose the new taxes, and which provide for pre-ratification of the new taxes amendment, are buried in some 15 pages of single-spaced excruciatingly convoluted and boring writing. Rare is the legislator who has the time to wade through the verbiage and figure out what it says. 1

Once three fourths of the States have passed CFA’s compact legislation, the new taxes amendment is thereby ratified.

So that’s how an amendment to our Constitution which delegates massive new taxing powers to Congress can be ratified before The People know what has been done to them; and before the state legislators who did it find out what they have done to the American People. 2

The scheme was passed several years ago by state legislators in Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, and North Dakota; was passed this year by Arizona Legislators as HB 2226 and signed by the Governor of Arizona on March 30, 2017; 2 and is now pending in Missouri as SB 13, in Oklahoma as HB 1434, and in Texas as SB 959. Arkansas rejected it a week or so ago.

Let’s look at the particulars of the compact legislation using the Arizona Bill as the example.

HB 2226 does nothing to control federal spending or “balance the budget”

Section 1 of the Compact [page 2, line 16 of the pdf edition] allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes or add to the national debt!  But that’s what Congress has been doing!

Sections 2 & 3 [page 2, lines 20-37] permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree.

Section 4 [page 2, lines 38 et seq.] is a joke:  Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress?

CFA’s BBA is an actually a grant of MASSIVE new taxing powers to Congress.

The true purpose of the compact legislation is hidden behind promises such as, “cutting federal spending”, “balancing the budget”, and “scaring Congress”. The true purpose of the Compact is to delegate to Congress MASSIVE NEW TAXING POWERS. Specifically, it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT).

This is where the grant to Congress of the new taxing powers is set forth:

Section 5 [page 3, lines 4-6] permits Congress, by a 2/3 vote of each House, to impose a new or increased “general revenue tax”.

Section 6 [page 3, lines 24-26] defines “general revenue tax” as “any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…”

There it is! All Congress needs to impose a national sales tax and/or a national VAT tax (in addition to the income tax) is a 2/3 vote in each House!

Section 5 also permits Congress, by a simple majority of each House, to impose a “new end user sales tax” which would replace the federal income tax. But nothing requires Congress to impose a “new end user sales tax” to replace the income tax.

It will be up to Congress to decide whether to impose a new national sales tax and/or VAT tax on top of the existing income tax (if they get 2/3 vote of each House); or whether to impose a new end user sales tax to replace the income tax (if they get only a simple majority in each House).

So! CFA’s version of a BBA is not about “balancing the budget”, or “scaring Congress”, or “reducing federal spending”. It’s about giving the federal government massive new taxing powers!

A value-added tax is a “turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions” and raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide.”

When State Legislatures pass compact legislation such as HB 2226, they are actually pre-ratifying the new Amendment to the US Constitution which grants these massive new taxing powers to Congress.

Please note: When State Legislatures pass bills like HB 2226, they are RIGHT THEN AND THERE RATIFYING THE AMENDMENT.  I’ll show you:

HB 2226 says in Article IV, Section 7 (e) of the Compact [page 6, line 43, et seq.]:

When any Article of this Compact prospectively ratifying the Balanced Budget Amendment is effective in any Member State, notice of the same shall be given together with a statement declaring such ratification and further requesting cooperation in ensuring that the official record confirms and reflects the effective corresponding amendment to the Constitution of the United States…” [boldface mine]

Article IX, Section 1, of the Compact [page 11, line 41 et seq.] says:

Each Member State, by and through its respective Legislature [passage of HB 2226], hereby adopts and ratifies the Balanced Budget Amendment.”

There it is: When State legislatures pass bills like HB 2226, they are thereby ratifying an amendment to the US Constitution which delegates massive new taxing powers to Congress.

When 38 States have passed legislation like HB 2226 – and when Congress approves it, 3 our Constitution is thereby AMENDED and Congress now has constitutional authority to impose a new national sales tax and a national VAT tax – even while keeping and increasing the income tax.

The provisions of the compact which deal with a convention – Articles V through VIII – are a smokescreen which obscures from state legislators the fact that when they pass legislation like HB 2226, they are pre-ratifying the amendment to our federal Constitution.

The convention is a formality – a free trip at taxpayers’ expense.

What’s the Solution?

Don’t feed the beast by giving it massive new taxing powers. The solution is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.

Our Constitution already limits federal spending to the enumerated powers – learn what those powers are, and enforce the Constitution we already have.

And use your heads! You who foolishly believe that a BBA [whether CFA’s version or another version] will force Congress to reduce spending, know this: a BBA is a mandate for Congress to increase taxes, among other horrors.


1 Legislators don’t read the bills they vote on. That’s why they have bill summaries. The Compact legislation filed in Arizona has two bill summaries: HERE and HERE. Can you find where Arizona Legislators were informed they would be pre-ratifying a new taxes amendment to the US Constitution if they passed the compact legislation?

2 Arizona Republican Legislators were warned over & over & over again; the Governor of Arizona was also warned. But they ignored the warnings, and are without excuse.

3 Pursuant to Article I, §10, last clause, US Constitution, CFA’s Compact is not effective unless Congress approves it. Will Congress approve a Compact Amendment which delegates massive new taxing powers to them?

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

April 3, 2017 - Posted by | Compact for America, national sales tax, national value added tax, national VAT tax | , , , , , ,


  1. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1

    “he may require the Opinion, in
    writing, of the principal Officer
    in each of the executive
    Departments, upon any Subject
    relating to the Duties of
    their respective Offices”

    suggests there is a power not usually included in the “enumerated” powers. I think that is the power under which Hamilton’s *Report on Manufactures* was produced. Does not the federal government have almost unlimited powers of research based on A2S2P1?


    Comment by egbegb | November 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Ed, I don’t know where to begin to address that. So I’ll just say, “No way” to both.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 7, 2017 | Reply

  2. Would you like a BBA that passed through congress (assuming it would) but forced any tax increases to pass a majority or supermajority popular vote? That’s what is used in several local municipalities including my own and works fine. Thoughts?


    Comment by Carrielynn | April 13, 2017 | Reply

    • James Madison always said that when the States want amendments, they should instruct their State Congressional delegations to propose them in Congress so that Congress can then propose them to all the States. So any Amendments we want, we should instruct our members of Congress to propose them in Congress.

      That said, a federal BBA is the 2nd worst idea since sin. Here’s why:


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 13, 2017 | Reply

  3. Dear Publius

    I left you a very detailed critique of your CFA paper, supportive of some aspects and opposed to others. You appear to have deleted it.

    I see that you are as much of a supporter of free speech and open debate as those on the left.


    Comment by Stephen Duval | April 6, 2017 | Reply

    • I have to apologize. It appears that my comments remain. When I first looked at the comment section, my comments did not appear or my eyesight is failing.

      I would appreciate any comments that you would have to make.

      Thank you


      Comment by Stephen Duval | April 6, 2017 | Reply

      • My comment is that it would be a good thing if you would go through your 3, 4 or 5 posts, combine them, delete the talking points, and set forth only the gist of the mistakes or flaws you found in my analyses.
        And remember, brevity is good.

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2017 | Reply

    • No, you didn’t leave a “detailed critique” of my CFA paper! What you left were 3 or 4 or 5 LONG comments which regurgitate CFA talking points. One can go to their website to read what you submitted as posts to my site! Or listen to the canned presentations of legislative sponsors of the CFA.

      If you are able to think independently – as opposed to regurgitating talking points – then prove it by submitting a comment which reflects independent analysis which actually addresses the substance of what I wrote.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2017 | Reply

      • I did leave a detailed critique of your paper and it is not a regurgitation of CFA material.

        1) You said that the Compact for America’s amendment “does nothing to control federal spending or “balance the budget”.

        I agreed with this point for different reasons. I am pretty sure that the CFA site does not agree with this assessment.

        2) You said that Compact for America’s amendment is “actually a grant of MASSIVE new taxing powers to Congress.” “Specifically, it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT).”

        This is incorrect. A sales tax and a VAT are taxes upon consumption. As the first Publicus said in Federalist 21 “imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption,” and “It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption”. And from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations “ The impossibility of taxing people in proportion to their revenue by any capitation seems to have given occasion to the invention of taxes upon consumable commodities; the state, not knowing how to tax directly and proportionally the revenue of its subjects, endeavors to tax it indirectly by taxing their expense”.

        The written Constitution grants Congress the power to tax consumption in the Tax and Spend clause.

        The CFA amendment restricts the taxing power of Congress by requiring a 2/3 majority to increase taxes rather than a simple majority.

        3) You said “When State Legislatures pass compact legislation such as HB 2226, they are actually pre-ratifying the new Amendment to the US Constitution” and The Article V “convention is a formality”.

        This is not something that CFA hides. This is the major selling point for the CFA approach.

        “What if someone found a way to circumvent this pesky public discussion, and get an amendment ratified before The People found about it?” The CFA is at 5 States and you have started to attack it. George Soros is funding Common Cause and other left groups to attack an Article V Convention. At 20 States there will be much discussion. At 30 States it will be on the news nightly.

        I also listed 3 improvements to the CFA approach: ditch the Compact, ratify conditionally using both Modes of ratification, and an informal Convention of the States to draft the amendment that will be in the joint resolution passed by 38 States. This material is not on the CFA site.

        4) There is no discussion on the CFA site as to why your method of dealing with a runaway Federal government is ineffectual. You suggest impeach Federal judges, elect different people to Congress, and nullification. You are never going to elect 67 Senators willing to impeach Supreme Court judges for deciding a case incorrectly. There is no hue and cry to impeach John Roberts for his Obamacare decision. Nullification will lead to secession and/or civil war.

        I find it very strange, given your reverence for the written Constitution, that you reject Article V of the Constitution. A Convention of States is the only effective method of stopping our runaway federal government. This method was provided by the Founding Fathers. If we want to “Save Our Republic”, we had better get on with it.


        Comment by Stephen Duval | April 6, 2017 | Reply

        • I have seen no detailed critique from you!

          1. You make an error in Logic and so misread the Federalist Papers: excises and imposts are “taxes on consumption” – and those are the forms of taxes on consumption which are authorized by the federal Constitution.

          An ad valorem sales tax and a value added tax (VAT) are also “taxes on consumption” – but the federal Constitution doesn’t authorize the fed gov’t to impose those forms of taxes on consumption over the Country at Large. [Of course, the federal Constitution doesn’t prohibit the States from imposing sales or VAT taxes. Throughout his papers on taxation, Hamilton discusses the States’ concurrent power to tax (except on imports & exports)].

          And if CFA asserts that Congress already has constitutional authority to impose a national sales tax and a national VAT, then why did CFA specifically authorize a national sales tax and a national VAT in their Compact Legislation? Why don’t they remove that authorization?

          2. The “tax and spend clause”? Show me the Article, section, and clause where this is set forth. Are you suggesting that this clause nullifies the “enumerated powers” aspect of the Constitution?

          3. You have to confess, if you are honest, that your last para is a COS talking point. I have seen it many times regurgitated by others.

          a) Where does Article V provide for a “convention of states”? Quote the words in Art. V which show that the convention provided for there is controlled by the States.

          b) Show me an Amendment proposed by COS, Mark Levin, Michael Farris, or Randy Barnett which would stop our runaway federal government. Every proposed Amendment I have seen from them increases the powers of the federal government by legalizing powers it has already usurped, or strips States of Natural Rights they now possess.

          c) Provide the actual quotes & link to the original source documents where our Founding Fathers said an Article V convention is the only way to stop a runaway fed gov’t. [I am amazingly well-read on this issue and have never seen where anyone said that.]

          If you believe it to be true – then do ask those who told you that to PRODUCE THE QUOTE! What will you do if they can’t produce it?

          WARNING: I will not post any further comments of yours until you have properly addressed the points I here raise.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 7, 2017 | Reply

  4. Reblogged this on standupspeakoutblog.


    Comment by standupspeakoutadd | April 5, 2017 | Reply

  5. Apparently Senator Gerald Allen is the proponent of this bill in the great state of Alabama.

    I phoned his office and they confirmed this. They were, of course, ignorant of the pre-ratification process at the national level.


    Comment by wisdomdepot | April 4, 2017 | Reply

    • I think that’s from several years ago – we fought it and it didn’t pass in Alabama. Legislators don’t have time to read and understand the bills they sponsor, co-sponsor and vote for. They believe what lobbyists tell them.

      As a People, we have been looking at legislation the wrong way. We have been conditioned to believe that the answer to every problem is to “make a law”. We call them “lawmakers” – that makes them believe that their job is to “make laws”. So they sponsor, co-sponsor, bills all the time which they don’t have the time to read and understand.

      We should start calling them “law repealers” – their goal should be to repeal as many State laws as necessary.

      I remember when State governments were small. Medical care was inexpensive! Little children were safe playing outside without adult supervision. Except for Jim Crow and racial segregation and discrimination, life was better then.

      But then we moved into the socialist regulatory welfare State.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2017 | Reply

    • Wisdom, would you email me?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 30, 2020 | Reply

  6. Reblogged this on Bob's Opinion and commented:
    Keep our eye on the Constitution, and what happens when pay attention to political propaganda…


    Comment by R.S. HELMS | April 4, 2017 | Reply

  7. Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.


    Comment by gamegetterII | April 4, 2017 | Reply

  8. PH, you are such an ongoing blessing to us all, God love you. How are you? Have you been at home much lately? Or traveling to give talks? Sending love, Carol



    Comment by Carol Boggs | April 3, 2017 | Reply

  9. Reblogged this on free31498 and commented:
    Wake Up America – Why feed the Beast?


    Comment by filia.aurea | April 3, 2017 | Reply

  10. Ok, need time to study.




    Comment by sicilianthing | April 3, 2017 | Reply

    • Study is good. Focus on original source documents – what do they say.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2017 | Reply

  11. I don’t understand PH’s comment about this amendment granting any more power to Congress than it already has. Check out the first clause of Section 8 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, where it says “The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes…”. It does not limit in any way the form a tax may take, be it an income tax, a sales tax, a VAT tax, a healthcare tax, or any other form of tax..

    Regarding debt, the second clause in the same Section states that the Congress shall have the Power “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;” There currently is no limit in the Constitution as to how much money can be borrowed by the Congress or when it needs to be paid back. In other words, Congress currently has credit card with no charge limit and no requirement that any money borrowed ever needs to be paid back.. Now you know why many members in Congress would consider it to be a waste of time to budget and prioritize under this outrageous scenario. That is why Thomas Jefferson lamented only 10 year after the Constitution was ratified that he wished only one change to the Constitution – to take away from Congress the power to borrow.

    It is unfortunate that both the power to tax and the power to borrow can be accomplished currently with only simple majority votes in each House. This amendment would actually make it harder to pass new taxes by requiring a 2/3 supermajority vote in each House. The amendment would also make it harder for Congress to borrow money because it establishes a constitutional debt limit that cannot be raised by Congress unilaterally, as it will take a majority of the state legislatures to approve an increase in the debt limit in the future.

    All of this represents an incremental return of the power to the state legislatures that they once held under the original Constitution when they controlled half of the Congress by being authorized by Section 3 of Article I to chose the U.S. Senators. This was the biggest hammer given by the founders to the state legislatures in the Constitution’s balance of federalism. And unfortunately, they willingly gave it up with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Now, Article V, which was only intended to be a backup to the big hammer, is the sole remaining power of the state legislatures in the Constitution to make any difference in our federal government.


    Comment by Chip DeMoss | April 3, 2017 | Reply

    • Chip! Do you actually believe what you said?

      1. Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1, US Constitution, doesn’t permit Congress to lay any kind of tax – but only specific kinds of taxes: Congress may lay and collect “Taxes” ; “Duties”, “Imposts”, and “Excises”.

      “Taxes”: These are the “direct Taxes” assessed against the States pursuant to Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3.

      “Duties”: Go here and type “duties” in the Search box. You will get a large number of Federalist Papers which show that “duties” are taxes on imports or exports.

      See also, Art. I, Sec. 9, clauses 1, 5 & 6; and Art. I, Sec. 10, clauses 2 & 3; which show that “Duties” are levied on imports or exports.

      “Imposts”: Ten or so of The Federalist Papers discuss “imposts”, and they are a tax on imports. Type “imposts” in the same search box, and you’ll get a list of the Papers which show this.

      “Excises”: Excise taxes are a tax on a unit of goods – such as the infamous whiskey excise tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion. It imposed a flat tax per gallon. The tax was payable for domestic whiskey at the distillery (§ 17 of the Act) and the casks were numbered and marked to show the tax had been paid (§ 19 of the Act). You can read the March 3, 1791 Whisky Tax here:

      2. Everybody knew the above during 1913. That’s why the federal government needed the 16th Amendment to impose the income tax. And if you say that Congress already has the constitutional authority to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax, then why did you specifically include the power to impose these taxes in your Compact legislation?

      3. Re debt: Yes, Article I, Sec. 8, clause 2, authorizes Congress to borrow money. But listen to this: Congress may lawfully borrow money only to carry out the enumerated powers delegated to it!

      If you go through the Constitution and highlight all the powers delegated to the federal government, you will get a complete list of the objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money. If follows that Congress may lawfully borrow money only for those same enumerated powers. Read the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist No. 41, where James Madison lays it out.

      4. You say your scheme imposes a “constitutional debt limit”. But our Constitution already establishes a limit on the objects on which Congress may spend money. Everyone ignores it.

      And you want to rely on the States to control federal spending??? Not only is it Congress’ job to limit their spending to the enumerated powers delegated; the States have demonstrated over & over & over again that they will sell ANY reserved right or power of the States or The People to the federal government for money – even borrowed money which is added to the national debt.

      5. Re your last paragraph: All States have to do is man up and stop submitting to unconstitutional acts of the federal government. That’s what manly men who are well-informed do – something of which we are today in short supply. Stop taking the money to participate in unconstitutional federal programs and resist unconstitutional acts of the federal government!

      What our Framers told us to do when the federal government usurps powers is proved here:

      You can’t find any errors in those two papers.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2017 | Reply

      • I do think that nullification is a tool that should be used, but I don’t know how you nullify Congressional spending or nullify $20 trillion in debt. We need to use all the tools at our disposal, including the tool of Article V.

        Regarding taxes, my understanding is that the Constitution divided governmental levies into two mutually exclusive categories: indirect taxes subject to the uniformity requirement, and direct taxes subject to apportionment. Indirect taxes, which the Framers assumed would fund the national government in ordinary circumstances, were “Duties, Imposts, and Excises”—generally taxes on articles of consumption. These taxes were considered safe because, regardless of who collected them, the burden was thought to be shifted to consumers. If Congress became greedy and raised rates too high, fewer taxed goods would be purchased and revenue would decrease. It was thus in the “nature of the thing,” wrote Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 21, that further constitutional protection against congressional overreaching was unnecessary.

        The recent Supreme Court ruling in ObamaCare pretty much assured that whatever Congress wants to tax, it can. So our initiative is designed to provide high hurdles that the Congress must overcome if they want to raise taxes or to continue to borrow. Until we take away the unlimited credit card, Congress will continue to buy votes and there is nothing we can do to stop it. It is unlimited borrowing that is the root cause of the problem – exactly what was predicted by Thomas Jefferson.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Chip DeMoss | April 3, 2017 | Reply

        • 1. It is an impossibility to “nullify” a Fact of Reality [though insane persons try to do it all the time].

          2. But States and Persons certainly have the natural right – and the positive DUTY imposed by the Oath of Office – to refuse to submit to acts of usurpation by the federal government. THAT is where the States and The People failed.

          The States sold the retained powers and rights of the States and The People to the federal government. Look at this chart and see what percentage of the States’ Revenue is from federal funds.

          The People just LOVED living at other peoples’ expense. They LOVE their social security and Medicare. So the People are guilty – not only in taking unconstitutional handouts; but also in failing to elect to State and federal offices people who obeyed the Constitution.

          What Article, Section, and clause of the federal Constitution authorize the federal government to meddle in the medical care of the people? In education? There is no constitutional authority! How did the federal government get States to go along with these and other federal usurpations? They paid the States to go along with it. Tennessee didn’t nullify obamacare because we’d lose $6 billion in federal funds. I’m told Tennessee was paid 1/2 a billion to adopt Common Core. All that money is added to the national debt.

          3. You can’t fix these problems by changing the Constitution! And it’s absurd to suggest that one can.

          4. Right, “indirect taxes” are the import & export taxes and excises which must be uniform throughout the Country. “Direct taxes” are those subject to the rule of apportionment among the States (Art. I, Sec. 2, clause 3). The 16th Amendment [wickedly] added the income tax as another direct tax.

          5. No, the supreme Court does not have the power to override the Constitution. The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution [it was created by Art. III, Sec. 1), and is completely subject to its terms. Our Framers told us over & over [it’s in my nullification paper] that the States are the Final Authority on whether their “creature” [the federal government] has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other; and that the States have the same right to judge the acts of the supreme Court as they do the legislative and executive branches.

          And I remind you further that Art. III, Sec. 1 says federal judges serve during “good Behaviour”; and that in Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton said that when federal judges usurp powers, Congress should impeach them and remove them from the bench. [So Yes, Congress has the DUTY to judge the acts of the federal courts – that is the “check” the legislative branch has over the judicial branch.]

          6. Americans have developed a HORRIBLE & WICKED habit of believing whatever “everyone says” and of accepting the prevailing dogma and presuppositions without checking them out for themselves. Americans are easily led astray by charlatans and demagogues because they never troubled themselves to learn the SHORT LIST of enumerated powers delegated to the federal government over the Country at large.

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2017 | Reply

          • I don’t disagree. But what enables the federal government to buy the states is unlimited access to money through the power to borrow. IMHO,until that power is curtailed, the ability of the federal government and members of Congress to buy votes by spending without limit will always win out in the end. I want to attack that problem through nullification, through Article V, and through whatever other means we have, to try and restore the balance of federalism that our Founders envisioned. I want to throw the equivalent of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Special Forces into the battle until it is won. I believe what we are proposing is a tactic worth pursing and I will support all other efforts and encourage them to move forward simultaneously,


            Comment by Chip DeMoss | April 4, 2017

          • Chip, the federal government doesn’t “borrow” money in the sense meant in Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 2.

            Instead, with the unconstitutional federal reserve banking system which was created 100 years ago by the federal government in order to fund the unconstitutional regulatory welfare state, elite bankers were given monopoly power to manufacture credit out of thin air.

            Furthermore, the federal gov’t doesn’t force the States to take this “money”. If we elected worthy people to office in state governments, they would refuse the bribes. The States don’t need to employ nullification when they are offered bribes to implement unconstitutional federal programs – such as mixed sex bathrooms in the public schools. All they have to do is say, “No!”.

            Nullification has its proper place in States refusing to comply with unconstitutional federal court opinions [Remember, our Framers said the States are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other]; and in refusing to comply with unconstitutional federal dictates.

            The 3 branches of the fed gov’t will be returned to their constitutional powers only when the States and The People insist on it.

            And since the Constitution already restricts the federal gov’t to a tiny handful of enumerated powers; and everyone in Office is already required to take an Oath to obey the Constitution, it is impossible to amend the Constitution to rein in the fed gov’t. So it’s absurd to say that we can “use Article V” to restrict the federal gov’t. The Constitution already restricts the fed gov’t to a mere 18 or so powers over the Country at Large. Everyone ignores it. Here’s the list of powers delegated to the fed gov’t over the Country at large:


            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2017

          • I love your knowledge and passion and would urge you to keep up the good fight. We will continue to do so on our end. It is a huge lift, but with folks like you involved, we have a fighting chance.

            And in case some of your readers are not familiar with the Thomas Jefferson quotes on debt, here are a few. And look how this thoughts on debt and borrowing changed over just a ten year period from his quote in 1788 to his quote in 1798.
            “Though much an enemy to the system of borrowing, yet I feel strongly the necessity of preserving the power to borrow. Without this, we might be overwhelmed by another nation, merely by the force of its credit.” –Thomas Jefferson to the Commissioners of the Treasury, 1788. ME 6:423

            “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:64

            “I sincerely believe… that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Chip DeMoss | April 5, 2017

          • Thank you for your kind words, Chip.

            Re Jefferson’s quotes on borrowing – I read them in pari materia – and so don’t see them in conflict. I give each quote it’s own sphere of operation:

            1. As Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 34, our biggest expense will be Wars, and we have to have the ability to borrow money to pay for it. [Jefferson’s quote of 1788].

            2. For the other two quotes: I think he is embracing the PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM which I endorse as a General Principle. This also has the salutary effect of reducing federal spending: If people are taxed right now to pay for spending right now, such tends to discourage unconstitutional and frivolous spending. But when money is borrowed [or as we do it today, more debt is created] in order to spend, the “pain” of the spending is pushed into the future. That is wicked!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2017

  12. Dear Publius,
    Thank you for all you do to keep us properly informed. We have a local online newspaper,, and I wondered if we could have permission to republish your article. Of course, we will give you credit and a link back to your website.


    Comment by Lynn Kocal | April 3, 2017 | Reply

    • Of course! I’ll be honored.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2017 | 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: