Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

The States Determine Qualifications for Voting and Procedures for Registration, and only Citizens may Vote

By Publius Huldah

1. Summary

The federal government is usurping the powers of the States, expressly retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1, US Constitution, to determine qualifications for voting. And by perverting Art. I, §4, cl. 1, it is also usurping the States’ reserved power to determine procedures for registration of voters.

Consistent with Principles of Republican Government, every State in this Union has restricted voting to Citizens. 1 But on October 26, 2010 in Gonzales v. Arizona, a three judge panel on the US Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) construed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and asserted that Arizona has no right to require applicants for voter registration to provide proof of citizenship. I wrote about it at the time HERE. On rehearing, the en banc Court of Appeals agreed with the panel; and on June 17, 2013, in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed.

A few months thereafter, California passed a law which permits illegal aliens to get drivers’ licenses; and during 2015, consistent with the unconstitutional NVRA, passed “Motor Voter” providing that when one gets a drivers’ license, one is automatically registered to vote. 2

The federal government is unlawfully mandating that illegal aliens be allowed to vote in our elections.

2. The Concept of “Citizenship”

Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations was a Godsend to our Framing Generation because it provided the new concepts our Framers needed to transform us from subjects of a Monarchy to Citizens of a Republic.3 Book I, Ch. XIX, defines “citizens”, “inhabitants” and “naturalization”:

· “Citizens” are the members of the civil society who are bound to it by certain duties, subject to its authority, participate in its advantages and in the rights of citizens [§212].

· “Inhabitants” are foreigners who are permitted to settle in the country and are subject to its laws, but do not participate in all the rights of citizens [§213].

· “Naturalization” is the process whereby the country grants to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society [§214].

So “citizens” have civic advantages and political rights which are not extended to “inhabitants” – and certainly not to aliens who have unlawfully entered a country.4

Accordingly, our Constitution permits only Citizens to serve in Congress (Art. I, §2, cl. 2 & §3, cl. 3); the President must be a “natural born Citizen” (Art. II, §1, cl. 5); Article IV, §2, cl. 1 & §1 of the 14th Amendment refer to the “privileges and immunities of citizens”; and the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments5 refer to voting by “Citizens”.

3. The Federalist Papers show that voting is a privilege of Citizens alone

The slaves in America were “inhabitants”, not “citizens”. They weren’t allowed to vote. Federalist No. 54 (5th para from bottom) tells us:

“…The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not…the same… [in the several States]. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives… the Southern States might… [insist]…that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens…” [boldface added]6

In Federalist No. 60 (1st, 2nd and last paras), Hamilton speaks of the “fundamental privilege” of citizens to vote, and that citizens who are conscious and tenacious of their rights would flock to the places of election to overthrow tyrants. In Federalist No. 61 (2nd para), Hamilton speaks of “the suffrages of the citizens”, and of voting as an “invaluable privilege”.

Over and over, The Federalist Papers show that voting is restricted to citizens:

“In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffragees of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power…” (No. 22, 6th para from bottom)

“If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents (No. 57, 7th para) … “… that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens…” (No. 57, 7th para from bottom)

“There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter. The peculiarity lies in this, that one branch of the legislature is a representation of citizens, the other of the States…” (No. 58 at 3.)

“…A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations …” No. 68 (3rd para)

4. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows our Founding Generation saw voting as restricted to citizens

Suffrage is:

“1. A vote; a voice given in deciding a controverted question, or in the choice of a man for an office or trust. Nothing can be more grateful to a good man than to be elevated to office by the unbiased suffrages of free enlightened citizens.”

Citizen is:

“5. In the United States, a person, native7 or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise…”

Franchise is:

“1. … the right to vote for governor, senators and representatives, is a franchise belonging to citizens, and not enjoyed by aliens…”

Inhabitants and aliens may not vote unless they become naturalized citizens and meet whatever additional qualifications for voting are set forth in the State Constitution. Naturalization is:

“The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen. naturalization in Great Britain is only by act of parliament. In the United States, it is by act of Congress, 8 vesting certain tribunals with the power.”

5. State Constitutions set forth the Qualifications for Voting

When we operated under the Articles of Confederation (our first federal Constitution),9 the States determined the qualifications for voting in state and local elections and in elections to the Continental Congress. These qualifications were set forth in the State Constitutions, and varied from State to State.

In our federal Constitution of 1787, the States expressly retained (at Art. I, §2, cl.1) their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters; and ordained that those whom they determined were qualified to vote in elections to their State House of Representatives would thereby be qualified to vote for their federal Representatives to Congress.

Our Framers specifically rejected the idea that the new Congress or the State Legislatures would determine who was eligible to vote. Instead, only The People of each State were competent to define the right of suffrage for their State, and their definition was enshrined in their State Constitution. In Federalist No. 52 (2nd para), James Madison tells us:

“…The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.10 It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper … To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper … To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention … must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments…”[boldface added]

Remember! Since the federal and state governments are merely “creatures” of constitutions, they have no power to determine who may vote. That power belongs to the “creators” of the governments. Only The People are competent to set the qualifications for voting; and our determinations are enshrined in our State Constitutions.

6. The States reserved power to determine procedures for voter registration

Our Constitution of 1787 created a federal government to which we delegated only “few and defined” powers [see chart]. Nowhere in the Constitution did we delegate to the federal government power to dictate procedures States must use in registering voters. Accordingly, it is a “reserved” power.11 Until the federal government usurped power over this issue, the States always determined their own procedures for registration. Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent  in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. [at II. A. 2]:

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

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

7. The federal government has usurped the States’ powers to determine who may vote and determine procedures for voter registration

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) purports to require States to “accept and use” a federal voter registration form! The Ninth Circuit asserted that since the federal form doesn’t require applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship, the States may not require it. This paper exposes some of the false arguments made by the Ninth Circuit’s three judge panel, and sets forth what Hamilton and Madison actually said as to the genuine meanings of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1: Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument.

But the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit. Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, swept Art. I, §2, cl. 1 under the rug and ignored Hamilton’s and Madison’s explanations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1.  Scalia asserted:

“The Clause’s [Art. I, §4, cl. 1] substantive scope is broad. “Times, Places, and Manner,” we have written, are “comprehensive words,” which “embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including, as relevant here and as petitioners do not contest, regulations relating to “registration”….” 12

Scalia said,

“…the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form…”

and concluded,

“… the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is “inconsistent with” the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form…”

IF Scalia understood that the NVRA was unconstitutional, it was his DUTY to say so even though Counsel for the State of Arizona apparently failed to raise the issue.

So what should we do when federal courts  – as here – issue unconstitutional opinions?

8. Our Framers said nullification is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression

The federal government has refused to control our borders and, as a result, we are being invaded. The federal government is demanding that invaders be allowed to vote in our elections. We have no obligation to obey unconstitutional dictates of the federal government. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense. What does your State Constitution say about qualifications for voting? Demand that your State government enforce your State Constitution.

And Remember! As Hamilton told us in Federalist No. 78 (6th para), federal courts can only issue judgments – they must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce them. So the President’s “check” on usurping federal judges is to refuse to enforce their opinions. States must man up and obey the Constitution instead of unconstitutional dictates of the federal Legislative and Judicial Branches. Do you think that President Trump will send out US Marshalls or the National Guard to FORCE States to allow illegal aliens to vote? The iron is hot – the time to strike is now.


1Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. says (2nd para):

“…Exercising its right to set federal voter qualifications, Arizona, like every other State, permits only U. S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and Arizona has concluded that this requirement cannot be effectively enforced unless applicants for registration are required to provide proof of citizenship…” [boldface added]

2 The California legislature thus violated Article II, Section 2, California Constitution which says, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.”

3That Vattel had such influence is proved HERE.

4All men everywhere possess the rights God gave them. But in a civil society, the members possess political or civic rights which are not extended to inhabitants, lawful visitors, or illegal alien invaders.

5 With these four Amendments, the States agreed they would not deny suffrage to Citizens on account of race, being a female, not paying the tax, or being between 18 to 21 years of age. States retain power to deny suffrage to any Citizen on account of other factors (e.g., illiteracy, being on welfare, or stupidity).

6 Freed slaves were naturalized by §1 of the 14th Amendment.

7Vattel §212: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” [See §§ 215-217 for other places babies may be born as natural-born citizens.]

8Art. I, §8, cl. 4, US Const.

9 The Articles of Confederation were ratified July 9, 1778.

10A “republic” is a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people.

11The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” (10th Amendment) [italics added]

12 Counsel for the State of Arizona made a major strategic error in [apparently] failing to challenge the constitutionality of the NVRA as outside the scope of powers granted to Congress and as in violation of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1, US Const. 

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


August 16, 2018 - Posted by | Arizona's Proposition 200, Article I, Sec. 2, Elections Clause, National Voter Registration Act, Voter eligibility, Voter Qualifications | , , , , , , , , ,


  1. Article 1. Section 2. Cls. 1.

    Can you please explain the terminology of it…
    I understand the first part of the cls. But where it reads “…and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”


    Any help would be great!


    Comment by Blake | March 10, 2022 | Reply

    • I remember when I was figuring that same clause out for myself! And it wasn’t so long ago since we didn’t read the US Constitution when I was in law school some 50 years ago. It was only when Obama got elected and I realized that I better put away the fun stuff and get to work that I actually read the US Constitution. I expect most American Lawyers of my generation and younger have never read it.

      So the clause addresses who [i.e., the “electors”] is eligible to vote for the US Representatives for their State. And what it says is that those who are eligible to vote for US Representative will be those who are eligible to vote for the Representatives in their own State Legislature.

      So whoever the State Constitution says is qualified to vote for Representatives to their State Legislature are the ones who will be eligible to vote for the US Representatives.

      So the States retained the authority to set the qualifications for voters.

      I wish I could put that in red type for emphasis. The federal government has NO constitutional authority whatsoever to determine who is qualified to vote in federal or State or local elections.

      With the four “voting amendments” (15th, 19th, 24th & 26th) Amendments, the States agreed that they would not deny the privilege of voting on account of being in one of those categories of persons. But other than that, the States have retained the power to set whatever qualifications for voting their People deem appropriate. States may even require that voters be Citizens! States may require that voters be fluent in English! Imagine that!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2022 | Reply

      • Thank you for your understanding and wisdom. I have one more follow up question for you if you don’t mind. In article 1. it reads “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

        Maybe my brain can’t grasp this… but what does this mean? “…and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”


        Comment by Blake | March 11, 2022 | Reply

        • Yes, it is confusing – fortunately, in modern day English, we abandoned that construction [i.e., manner of saying something].

          It means this: If you have NOT attained the age of 25 years; you are not eligible to be a US Rep.
          And if you have NOT been a Citizen of the United States for at least 7 years; you are not eligible.
          And if you are NOT an inhabitant of the particular State; you are not eligible.

          So, to put it in modern English: To be eligible to be a US Rep, you must be at least 25 years old; have been a citizen of the US for at least 7 years; and you must live in the State for which you want to be US Rep.

          As an aside: the qualifications for US Senator are set forth at Art. I, Sec. 3, clause 3: apparently, Ted Cruz, the totally FAKE “conservative”, is still not eligible to be US Senator – but his adoring “conservative” republican fans don’t care.

          And we have never seen any documents showing he became a naturalized US Citizen.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 14, 2022 | Reply

  2. […] wrote about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion [here] and the Supreme Court’s opinion [here]. Both opinions are monuments to judicial incompetence – or worse. The assertions made by the […]


    Pingback by Why the States must Nullify the National Voter Registration Act Now! « Publius-Huldah's Blog | February 27, 2020 | Reply

  3. […] wrote about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion [here] and the Supreme Court’s opinion [here].  Both opinions are monuments to judicial incompetence – or worse.  The assertions made by […]


    Pingback by Why the States must Nullify the National Voter Registration Act Now! | American Freedom Journal | January 15, 2020 | Reply

  4. What can North Carolina citizens do about N.C. Federal Judges overthrow of N.C. citizens voting for voter ID?

    Federal Judge Set to Block North Carolina’s Voter Photo ID Requirement


    Comment by Patricia Asbill | December 28, 2019 | Reply

    • How did you find you find my article? Thank you for reading it. So now you see that the federal government has absolutely no authority to meddle in North Carolina’s voter registration requirements. None!

      So what’s required is MANLY or REAL WOMEN state government officials in North Carolina [do ANY of them have Brains and a Spine?] to tell the federal judge to “go hug a tree”. Specifically, the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina should inform the federal judge that she has no constitutional authority to meddle in the voter registration requirements of the State of North Carolina; that it is a State matter; that she has no constitutional authority over this issue; that North Carolina won’t participate in the litigation; that she can issue all the Orders and Judgments she wants, they will all be void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction and as in violation of Article I, Sec. 2, clause 1, US Constitution; and North Carolina will ignore them.

      So what could the federal judge do about such a PRINCIPLED response from North Carolina? She has no Army. She has no power to enforce her silly unconstitutional little judgments. She has to depend on the Executive Branch of the Federal government to enforce her Judgments.

      So now we could find out whether Trump is a bag of hot air who says what Patriots wants to hear and is just another Fake (like Republican Presidents in the past): If he is a Fake, he will send in the National Guard to enforce the Judges’ Order.

      But if Trump lives up to his FINE WORDS, then he will refuse to send in the National Guard to enforce the unconstitutional Judgment; and North Carolina will have won the Battle and set a shining example for other States to follow.

      PEOPLE! This how you fight tyranny: You resist!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 29, 2019 | Reply

  5. ONLY CONGRESS HAS AUTHORITY OVER ALIENS UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION!! ALIENS have no rights or privileges to vote and the states lack authority over them while within the geographic area of the United States!! …. ….


    Comment by Rick Urias | August 30, 2018 | Reply

    • Dear Rick,

      You filed a long comment – let’s see if I can make it simple:

      1. At Article I, Section 9, clause 1, US Constitution, Congress obtained the delegated power as of January 1, 1808, to control immigration to this Country. So Congress has constitutional authority to make laws determining who may – and who may not – migrate here.

      Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clause 4, Congress has the delegated power to make the rules for who may become a Citizen and the procedures for becoming a Citizen.

      It is the President’s duty to enforce the laws Congress makes on these issues.

      2. But if aliens (whether legally here or not) commit any crimes within any of the States, the States have criminal jurisdiction over those aliens. Aliens are also subject to being sued in state courts in civil [non-criminal] actions.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2018 | Reply

  6. Well done, Publius!


    Comment by Mike Hill | August 19, 2018 | Reply

    • Thank you, Mike!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 19, 2018 | Reply

  7. Reblogged this on Bob's Opinion and commented:
    Thank you Publius, This is a great Post and helps us to understand just what is up at the polling stations.
    Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion .


    Comment by R.S. HELMS | August 17, 2018 | Reply

    • Thank you! Now I hear that some States want Congress to amend the NVRA to “permit” them to require proof of US Citizenship.

      Can you believe what a Country of weak sissies we have become?

      Our founding generation would man up, ignore the Supreme Court, and demand proof of citizenship.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 17, 2018 | Reply

  8. Reblogged this on stepman2001 and commented:
    The fact that certain states are attempting to allow illegal aliens certain rights afforded only to citizens is an example of the progressive degradation of our society. Allowing persons, that are not citizens, especially illegal aliens, to have the power to change laws and elect representatives, will eventually lead to illegal aliens being allowed to run for office as well. Look at all the so called lawyers that are here illegally and openly defending these illegal aliens lawbreakers. We need and will use these words as ammo in our fight to Save OUR Republic. Thank you!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Edward Durfee | August 17, 2018 | Reply

    • Tell me about it, Friend! Ted Cruz, US Senator from Texas, apparently isn’t even eligible to be US Senator.

      Art. I, Sec.3, cl. 3, US Constitution, requires that US Senators have been a US citizen for at least 9 years. But apparently, Ted Cruz didn’t renounce his Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014

      Thank you for being in this War.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 17, 2018 | Reply

  9. Your tireless work, Publius, is appreciated by all lovers of truth and justice; and those of us citizens who wish to have these sentiments continue to be associated with America as the founding principles of the USA. My personal thanks, and whatever your beliefs, I pray that the Father of Jesus Christ continues to protect you from all those who would have it otherwise.


    Robert A. Ogrodny, citizen/voter of the USA


    Comment by Robert Ogrodny | August 16, 2018 | Reply

    • Thank you for the encouragement! Just last night, I was reading Psalm 91 which says God sends His angels to protect us.

      I do need the Prayers for Protection. Thank you for those also!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 17, 2018 | Reply

  10. Thank you!!
    I thank God for you, and how He is using you, Publius-Huldah!!


    Comment by jesusvictorious | August 16, 2018 | Reply

    • Thank you, dear Lady, for the encouragement.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 16, 2018 | Reply


    It is to be remembered that the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof are the supreme Law of the Land! Article VI Section 2; at section 3 makes clear who are the subjects of this constitution; Article I section 8 clause 17 expressly states where and upon whom the laws may be enforced.
    Bovier’s (1859) Law Dictionary defines “person”. – PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. [emphasis added]
    The rank “citizen” has privileges and rights, is protected by Constitution and Law of the United States made in pursuance thereof! Any other “person,” such as an “alien,” has a different rank in society unless he is designated with the adjective “resident” as defined in Law; his rank in society changes and not only receives privileges but also rights! See Wong kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ; HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION. 342 U.S. 580 (1952); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Rick Urias | August 16, 2018 | Reply

  12. Thank you once again for crystal clear definitions and explanations of Constitutional law as it applies to voting. It beggars understanding how SCOTUS (especially Scalia) could violate the obvious intent of the Constitution. Their ruling has endorsed states violating their own Constitutions.

    George A Gianopulos



    Comment by George Gianopulos | August 16, 2018 | Reply

    • Wonderful to hear from you! I trust you are well?
      Yes, I am surprised that Scalia wrote such an ignorant and clearly wrong opinion. This issue came up again now because some States & organizations are now openly talking about registering everyone to vote. So I was asked to provide ammo on this issue.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 16, 2018 | Reply

  13. Jerry Brown was clearly dropped on his head as an infant … Gavan Newsome is even worse. Please pray for California, Publius.

    Cristi Ritchey


    Comment by Cristi Ritchey | August 16, 2018 | Reply

    • The rest of the States aren’t that far behind California. I do pray. But Christians better start learning our Founding Principles and talking about them.
      As a People, we have abandoned the Belief that we must be governed by external, transcendent PRINCIPLES. We just want what we want.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 16, 2018 | Reply

      • Good article.

        Concerning California.

        Basically the LA Area and Bay area control politically what happens in the complete state of California. That is why the northern (less populated) area of the state wishes to separate and become two new CONSTITUTIONAL states.

        Now it looks as if California will succeed from the union (united States) to become an independent socialist country with the assistance of “Republican” states. It is critical for the people of California who are not in accord with leaving the union, socialism/communism, etc. When California leaves the union the part of California directly north of Sacramento (city), the width of the state wishes to stay with the union, and become the republican form of government States of Jefferson and Northern California. To do this, the proposed states of Jefferson and Northern California will need the permission of the rest of the states (I believe). Both Jefferson and Northern California have their state Constitutions written, counties involved agreed, etc. Jefferson has its web pages, flag, seal all created. Northern California is creating those still.

        That would give the union 51 states, or, if the union would prefer to not have to change much of what they already have in place, we can stay with the union as one (1) state since both Jefferson and N. California are in agreement with the US Constitution being supreme, and republican form of government for the state(s). Elections run constitutionally, and no political parties allowed as our framers recommended. Sheriffs and Militia, not governmental professional law enforcement, etc. The people of the state(s) will be required to train as the Militia.

        George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept. 17, 1796: “And of fatal tendency … to put, in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party – often a small but artful and enterprising minority. … They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

        John Adams: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” Plus he also said: “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”

        Alexander Hamilton: “Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.” (Federalist 1, October 27, 1787)

        Alexander Hamilton: “We are attempting, by this Constitution, to abolish factions, and to unite all parties for the general welfare.” (Debates in the Convention of the State of New York on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Tuesday, June 25, 1788. In: Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton (Federal Edition), Vol. 2, New York, 1904, p. 57)

        Jefferson and N. California will need the permission of the other states to stay with the union, please support this.


        Comment by Cal | September 24, 2018 | Reply

        • Why do you say that Jefferson and N. California will need the permission of the other states to stay with the Union?

          Have you read Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, US Constitution?


          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2018 | Reply

  14. the 9th Circuit clowns can go to hell too !




    Comment by SFH | August 16, 2018 | 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 )

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: