Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Mail-in voting? A “political question” which only State Legislatures and Congress may decide

By Publius Huldah

It has become obvious that one of the purposes of the COVID-19 scam is to bring about unrestricted mail-in voting in the toss-up and Red States so that the upcoming presidential election can be stolen by the Left for the senile Joe Biden and his constitutionally ineligible running mate, Kamala Harris.

On September 9, 2020, the Left achieved their goal for the Red State of Tennessee – unless the Tennessee State government enforces the US Constitution and rejects the federal judge’s unconstitutional order.

1. The absurd Order from the US District Court, Middle District of Tennessee

The Tennessee Code permits mail-in voting for certain categories of people [Tenn. Code § 2-6-201]; but requires those who register by mail to appear in person at the official place of voting and bring proof of identity when they vote for the first time [Tenn. Code § 2-2-115 (b) (7)].

Our elections are already tainted by the “ghost voters” described in Deroy Murdock’s article (published 2017) [here]. Murdock showed that throughout the United States, over 3.5 million persons who didn’t exist were registered to vote. But that number wasn’t sufficient to elect Hillary Clinton; so the Left needs more ghost voters. With mail-in voter registration, dead people can be registered to vote; and with unrestricted mail-in voting, those dead people can vote forever.

The Plaintiffs in this action claim to be distressed about the statutory requirement that first-time voters (who registered by mail) appear in person to vote because it forces them to choose between their “health” [they might catch COVID-19 if they go to the polls] and their right to vote. 1

On September 9, 2020, federal judge Eli Richardson issued a preliminary injunction which has the effect of setting aside, for the upcoming presidential election, the statutory requirement – established by the Tennessee Legislature – that persons who registered by mail, show up in person the first time they vote.

Here is Richardson’s 29 page Order.

So let’s cut 29 pages of bunk down to its essence: Richardson ruled that the Tennessee Legislature’s requirement that the first-time voters (who registered by mail) physically appear at the polls, imposes a “moderate burden” on voting rights; and the State failed to show the Court that Tennessee has a “legitimate state interest” to justify that burden. 2

Even worse: Throughout his Order, Richardson writes repeatedly [some 20 times] of Plaintiffs’ “First Amendment right to vote”; and says at the end of para 31 of his Order,

“…it is likely that Plaintiffs will prevail on their claim that the first-time voter requirement violates the First Amendment right to vote…”

But the First Amendment makes no mention of a “right to vote”. 3 Furthermore, in footnote 22 of his Order, the Judge says:

“In a prior order, the Court declined to address any suggestion that there is no First Amendment right to vote, for any purposes at all, by mail in particular… The Court was well aware that McDonald supports such a suggestion, but the Court simply did not need to opine on that matter. The Court likewise does not need to do so here…”

What? The Judge declined to address whether or not a First Amendment right to vote actually exists even though he has already determined that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the requirement that first-time voters (who registered by mail) show up in person to vote “violates the First Amendment right to vote”!

2. Why do Plaintiffs and the Judge repeatedly speak of a “First Amendment right to vote”, when the Judge isn’t prepared to say that such a right even exists?

They may be aware that the federal court has no jurisdiction over this case; but are attempting to fake it by claiming that the case “arises under the Constitution” via the First Amendment.4

The judicial power of the federal courts is limited to those few categories of cases enumerated at Article III, §2, clause 1, US Constitution. Not one of the categories invests the federal court with jurisdiction over this case. This case can’t be said to “arise under the Constitution” because there is no “right to vote” in the US Constitution; and the remaining categories listed in Article III, §2 are clearly inapplicable.

So it appears that Plaintiffs have fabricated a mythical “First Amendment right to vote” in order to provide a pretext for the federal court to exercise jurisdiction in this case – and that the federal judge let them get away with it.

3. Article I, §2, clause 1, US Constitution, negates the absurd claim that there exists a federal constitutional right to vote.

At Article I, §2, cl. 1, the States expressly retained their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters:

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” [italics added]

Accordingly, those who are eligible to vote for Representatives to their State Legislature are the ones eligible to vote for Members of the federal House of Representatives. 5

With four later Amendments, the States agreed that they would not deny eligibility to vote to Citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), and for those 18 years of age or older on account of age (26th Amendment). It is important to note that these four amendments do not grant the “right” to vote to the persons described in the Amendments – merely that the suffrage will not be denied to those persons on account of their race, sex, etc.

So the States retained their original authority to set whatever qualifications for voting they deem appropriate, subject to their agreement that they would not deny suffrage on account of a Citizen’s being in one of those four categories.

So there is no “right to vote” set forth in the US Constitution. To the contrary, voting is a privilege granted or denied on the basis of whether applicants meet the qualifications for voting set forth within their State Constitution. 6

4. What does our Constitution say about how the President and Vice President are to be elected?

Article II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment set forth the procedures for electing President and Vice President. Those procedures are described here under the subheadings, “Electors appointed by States were to choose the President” and “The 12th Amendment establishes procedures for voting by Electors”.

Our current procedures bear no resemblance to the Constitutional requirements. 7 It’s too late to obey the Constitution for the upcoming presidential election; so let’s see what our Constitution says about the federal elections to Congress.

5. US Constitution: the “times, places and manner” clause

Pursuant to Article I, §4, clause 1, State Legislatures have the power to prescribe the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for US Representatives 8 and US Senators.9

This clause also provides that Congress may make laws which override such State laws.

So the power to determine the time, place and manner of holding such federal elections is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State and federal governments.

It is up to the State Legislatures to decide which “burdens” are appropriate with respect to the place of voting – with Congress having power to override what a State Legislature decides. The Judicial Branches of the state and federal governments may not substitute their views as to which “burdens” are appropriate and which are not. These are “political questions” granted to the Legislative Branches to decide; and the Judicial Branches – state and federal – may not lawfully interfere. 10

It is clear that “manner of voting” includes such matters as a requirement of personal presence at the place of voting. This is what our Framers contemplated, as shown by their words quoted in footnote 8 below. When a State legislature decides that personal presence is required – that decision can be overturned only by Congress.

So Judge Richardson’s view that the Tennessee Legislature doesn’t have a good reason for requiring first time voters (who registered by mail) to vote in person and present ID is irrelevant, and his Order is ultra vires.

6. What is the State’s remedy against the unlawful Court order?

So! You have seen that determining the “place and manner of voting” is a political power delegated exclusively to the State and federal Legislatures. It is thus a “political question”; and the federal [and state] Judicial Branches may not substitute their views for those of the Legislative Branches.

And since there is no “right to vote” contained in the US Constitution, the Federal District Court has no jurisdiction over this case. This case doesn’t “arise under the Constitution” or fit within any of the other categories of cases enumerated at Article III, §2, cl.1, US Constitution.

So the pretended Order of September 9, 2020, is ultra vires and lawless, and the State of Tennessee has no obligation to obey it.

The duty of the elected and appointed State and local officials is to obey the US Constitution. When the dictates of a federal [or State] judge contradict the Constitution, State officials must side with the Constitution and against the judge. 11

And what will happen if the State of Tennessee refuses to comply with the Judge’s order? The Judge can’t enforce his Order. He has to depend on the Executive Branch of the federal government to enforce it. 12 Do you believe that President Trump will send in federal troops to force the State of Tennessee to comply with Judge Richardson’s ultra vires Order?

Note:  In addition to the Offices of President & Vice-President, many other offices will also be on the Ballot:  the entire US House of Representatives is up for grabs.  So is the House in the State Legislatures all over the Country.  1/3 of the US Senate will be on the ballot; and a proportional number of Senate Seats on State Legislatures throughout the Country will be on the ballot.

EVERY REPUBLICAN LEGISLATOR NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND:  Your Seat is likely to be stolen in this upcoming election.

So you better wake up and get your State Legislature to smack down the federal & state judges who are assisting the Left in stealing your Seat.  And if Congress doesn’t act, they will lose control of the Senate and most likely every seat in the House.

Why should the Left stop with stealing only the Presidential election when they can also steal YOUR seat?


1 How do they get their groceries?

2 Order at paras 29 – 31.

3 The First Amendment says,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment is a limitation on Congress’ powers to make laws – it doesn’t grant a “right” to vote!

4 In Federalist No. 80 (2nd para), Hamilton states that cases “arising under the Constitution” concern

“…the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union [the US Constitution]…” [boldface added].

In the 3rd & 13th paras, Hamilton illustrates what “arising under the Constitution” means: He points to the restrictions on the power of the States listed at Art. I, §10 and shows that if a State exercises any of those powers, and the fed. gov’t sues the State, the federal courts have authority to hear the case.

5 The 17th Amendment [ratified 1913] provides that those who are eligible to vote for Representatives to the US House are eligible to vote for US Senators.

6 With the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Congress usurped the retained power of the States to set and enforce eligibility standards for voting. In a series of 3 papers, the last of which is here, I show how the assertions about The Federalist Papers made by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, in their attempts to justify their unconstitutional judgments, are false.

7 Our disregard of these constitutional provisions doubtless contributed to the creation of the current chaos.

8 Our Framers told us what “times”, “places” and “manner” mean:

In Federalist No. 61 (4th & 5th paras), Alexander Hamilton shows that “Time” refers to when elections are held. He explains that under the Articles of Confederation [our 1st Constitution], States had been conducting elections from March to November; and that uniformity in the time of elections is necessary “for conveniently assembling the [federal] legislature at a stated period in each year”.

“Place”: Hamilton also points out that the suffrages of citizens living in certain parts of the States could be defeated by restricting the place of election for Representatives in the House to “an INCONVENIENT DISTANCE from the elector” (2nd para). [caps are Hamilton’s].

“Manner” of holding Elections refers to such things as paper ballots or show of hands, the place of voting, and whether the States will be divided into congressional districts for purposes of electing Representatives. James Madison discusses the “Manner” of holding Elections in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2, August 9, 1787:

“Mr. Madison: … the Legislatures of the States ought not to have the uncontrouled right of regulating the times places & manner of holding elections. These were words of great latitude. It was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the discretionary power. Whether the electors should vote by ballot or vivâ voce, should assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts or all meet at one place, shd all vote for all the representatives; or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district; these & many other points would depend on the Legislatures and might materially affect the appointments …. what danger could there be in giving a controuling power to the Natl. Legislature? Of whom was it to consist? 1. of a Senate to be chosen by the State Legislatures … 2. of Representatives elected by the same people who elect the State Legislatures…” [emphasis added]

Rufus King in the Massachusetts Convention said in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 3, January 21, 1788:

“Hon. Mr. King rose … It was to be observed, he said, that in the Constitution of Massachusetts, and other States, the manner and place of elections were provided for; the manner was by ballot, and the places towns; for, said he, we happened to settle originally in townships…” [emphasis added]

9 When Art. I, §4, cl. 1 was drafted, the State Legislatures were to choose the State’s Senators to the US Congress – so the “place” of choosing the US Senators would be wherever the Legislature met. With ratification of the 17th Amendment, Congress gained oversight over State laws addressing the “place” of election of US Senators.

10 In Marbury v. Madison [link], decided 1803, the Supreme Court explained the concept of “political powers” and that the manner in which political powers are exercised is beyond the reach of the courts:

“By the Constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. …whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and, being entrusted to the Executive, the decision of the Executive is conclusive … [and] can never be examinable by the Courts.”

Marbury addresses the political powers exercised by the President. That same deference to the exercise of political powers has long been extended to the acts of the other political branch, Congress. Where the Constitution grants a political power to Congress, the manner in which Congress exercises the discretion is also beyond the reach of the Courts. So, for example, if Congress were to exercise the power granted to it by Article I, § 4, clause 1, to make a law banning mail-in voting; its action can never be examined by the Courts – the Courts may not substitute their views for those of Congress.

11 Marbury v. Madison also stands for the Great Principle that when an Act of one branch of government violates the Constitution, the other Branches must obey the Constitution and not the unlawful Act.

12 Alexander Hamilton made this same point over 200 years ago – see Federalist No. 78 (6th para). If law schools had made The Federalist Papers required reading, our Country wouldn’t now be in such a mess.

September 20, 2020 - Posted by | 12th Amendment, 1st Amendment, Article I Sec. 4, COVID-19 scam, dead voters, Elections Clause, Eli Richardson, federal election of 2020, ghost voters, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, mail-in voter registration, Mail-in voting, Nullification, political questions, Red States, Times Places and Manner clause, Toss-up states, US District Court Middle District of Tennessee, voter registration | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. […] Mail-in voting? A “political question” which only State Legislatures and Congress may decid…September 20, 2020In “12th Amendment” […]


    Pingback by Defeat “COVID” Mandates by restoring the Genuine Meaning of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses | Founders Apprentice | August 25, 2021 | Reply

  2. […] is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political […]


    Pingback by What Can We Do To Get A Reasonably Honest Election? | Building Blocks for Liberty | May 11, 2021 | Reply

  3. […] is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political […]


    Pingback by What Can We Do To Get A Reasonably Honest Election? – Building Blocks for Liberty | December 12, 2020 | Reply

  4. […] is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political […]


    Pingback by What can we do to get a reasonably honest election? – Do not comply…Nullify | October 30, 2020 | Reply

  5. […] is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political […]


    Pingback by What Can We Do To Get A Reasonably Honest Election? – News With Views | October 24, 2020 | Reply

  6. […] is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political […]


    Pingback by What can we do to get a reasonably honest election? « Publius-Huldah's Blog | October 15, 2020 | Reply

  7. […] is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political […]


    Pingback by What can we do to get a reasonably honest election? | | October 12, 2020 | Reply

  8. If Judge Eli Richardson told the truth when he said in para *5 of his Order that “the State’s own expert [witness] debunks and rejects [voter fraud] as a reason for not expanding access to voting by mail”; then the lawyers who represented the State of Tennessee in this case are total incompetents and as naive as they come.


    Comment by Publius Huldah | September 29, 2020 | Reply

  9. […] Publius Huldah opines on the legalities of mail-in voting. Mail-in voting? A “political question” which only State Legislatures and Congress may decide […]


    Pingback by Publius Huldah: Mail-in voting? A “political question” which only State Legislatures and Congress may decide – Lower Valley Assembly | September 22, 2020 | Reply

  10. At the start PH stated:

    “It has become obvious that one of the purposes of the COVID-19 scam is to bring about unrestricted mail-in voting in the toss-up and Red States so that the upcoming presidential election can be stolen by the Left for the senile Joe Biden and his constitutionally ineligible running mate, Kamala Harris.”

    All news channels including Fox repeatedly state over and over again “200,000 people have died in the United States because of the Covid-19 virus.” An email received by me several weeks ago or was it a Youtube presentation, stated clearly a report from the CDC confirmed that 94% of all Covid-19 deaths in the United States had an underlying medical condition such as heart attack or pneumonia etc. In other words, a person who died of let’s say a heart attack and tested positive for the virus was labeled a “Covid -19 death. So, the actual number of deaths attributed to the Covid-19 virus would be 6% of 200,000 or 12,000 deaths plus or minus.
    Granted, the Covid-19 virus is dangerous, perhaps more so than the flu viruses floating about so let’s protect the elderly and those most venerable with a Sheriff’s Deputy at the front door of each nursing home, assisted living home etc.

    Open up the schools and all businesses. Those that tremble in fear can stay home and collect unemployment. Where I work was closed in March. They reopened in June and I had a choice, to continue to collect 3 times the amount in unemployment or go back to work. I chose work. Thousands of people everyday come through the store and Yes employees wear a mask and no one has contracted the Covid-19 virus. Way back in February I was sick with a fever, chills and aching muscles but in a couple of days I was back to my old self. If a teacher is afraid to teach a regular class she/he can stay at home.

    The dems don’t want the economy to bounce back and they want fear to reign. As PH said “…so that the upcoming presidential election can be stolen by the Left…” Herd immunity is the key and the sooner it is achieved the quicker fear will dissipate. If the Networks would start telling the truth that would certainly help also. I don’t think the hospitals will be overwhelmed and with all the treatments and medicines that are available today to lesson the severity of the symptoms few would need hospitalization. DRS

    PS I’ll leave my views of Kamala Harris’s ineligibility for another day. Perhaps, to a reply from a PH blog on the subject. Just a quick horrible thought. If Biden wins and is unable to fulfill his duties as President and Kamala Harris is ineligible then Nancy Pelosi would become President. I’d bet money that that has certainly crossed the minds of the DNC people.


    Comment by Douglas Smith | September 21, 2020 | Reply

    • I have lots of stuff on natural born citizen (NBC):

      My most definitive exposition – with links to the Proof – is the earliest in time all the way to the bottom of the posts at the above link.

      In a nutshell: Only the babies of parents who are already US Citizens, are NBCs. Babies assume the status of their parents: if the parents are slaves, the babies are born as slaves. If the parents are US citizens, their babies are born as NBCs.

      It is said that Kamala Harris’ parents weren’t US Citizens at the time she was born. If that is true, she can’t be an NBC.

      I doubt that the plan is for Congress to declare Kamala ineligible so that Nancy can be president. If obama’s father was the Barak Obama from Kenya, then Barak was ineligible to be President. The Democrats didn’t care. Congress never had the guts to declare him ineligible. Ted Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to be President – yet his supporters didn’t care [I got more hate mail from Ted Cruz supporters for my video {which Trump re-tweeted) than anything else I’ve ever done].

      Democrats and establishment Republicans don’t care whether a candidate is constitutionally eligible or not if they support the candidate.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 21, 2020 | Reply

      • Obama was an ineligible President and therefore anything he signed is of no effect. All the legislation that he signed is of no effect. Kamala Harris is not eligible to succeed Biden should he win election therefore she should step down as his running mate. But then as you said the Demonrats do not believe in the Constitution or even know how to read or understand it. If the people of the United States knew what the Constitutionsaid about this and reasoned with their head instead of their emotions Obama never would have been President and this country would have been in a much better situation than it is.


        Comment by unionjack07 | September 21, 2020 | Reply

        • “all the legislation that he signed is of no effect”.

          I can’t say that because, if people give it effect – then it has effect.

          He may not have been constitutionally eligible to be President – but he was President and most acknowledged him as such – and he actually held the office.

          It may well be that the 16th Amendment was never ratified – BUT tell that to the Judge if you are being criminally prosecuted for failure to file…. My point is: It doesn’t matter, as long as people in power treat it as having been ratified.

          Same with obama being ineligible. Congress is the body which has the final say on eligibility of President and VP And they never declared him ineligible.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 21, 2020 | Reply

          • That being so the Constitution is still the law of the land. Because of the democrat controlled congresses ignorence of the Constitution this was allowed to continue. It still does not make Obama a legitimate President nor does it make the legislation he signed legal. The Constitution lays out the eligibility for the office of President. If someone shoots and kills a congressman and everyone knows in Congress sees who does it and that person is not prosecuted does that make the murder then legal? Your reasoning that because Congress failed to do their duty makes Obamas Presidency legal does not hold water. The Constitution under that reasoning then becomes a living document that can be interpreted to fit any situation.


            Comment by unionjack07 | September 21, 2020

          • You are letting your pre-conceptions get in the way of understanding what I said.

            But assume, for the purpose of argument, that what you are saying is true. So what do you propose be done about the legislation obama signed? And how are you going to make them do it?


            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2020

  11. Your very last statement about the law schools requiring the Federalist Papers to be required reading is correct and I would add that they should be required in High School civics classes also. I attended a meeting with a Congressional Representative a few years ago with a copy of the Federalist Papers in hand. Quoted a few sections on the subjects that arose and he was totally lost. He had absolutely no knowledge of the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments. I left the copy of the federalist Papers with him and the comment that if he wanted to arrange it I would come to Washington and conduct education classes for him and his fellow congressmen if he wanted because they were all ignorant of the system of government we are supposed to follow.


    Comment by John Watson | September 21, 2020 | Reply

    • Let me guess: the Congressman never invited you to conduct the education classes.

      Our Country arose on one belief system – it is collapsing BECAUSE we adopted a completely new (and destructive) belief system. Our Framers’ generation understood that PRINCIPLES and objective standards must be followed – so they thought everyone should learn and obey our two foundational documents. The Federalist Papers were written to explain our Constitution and why it was necessary to replace the Articles of Confederation.

      but Americans of today don’t believe that – they want to go by their own opinions on matters. So why should they read the Constitution or Federalist Papers????? They know what they “think”, or what they want, and they go with that.

      but the irony is that those who are NOT guided by PRINCIPLES and objective standards go with the tide – they go along with whatever the prevailing dogma is. I have been trying ever since obama was elected to get Americans to understand this. But I haven’t had much success. People won’t listen because they think they already “know” what they need to know.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 21, 2020 | Reply

      • You are absolutely correct in your statement that I never heard from the congressman again but karma works. He was forced to resign over an extra-marital affair later on. What you said as to people not wanting to listen is very tue. However we must continue to keep on trying to educate people. I have found that if you show people the thruth that then there will be some that will understand and alter their thinking. Unfortunately there are always those that no matter how much evidence you show them they continue to be too indoctrinated in the lies from the so-called education system.


        Comment by unionjack07 | September 21, 2020 | Reply

  12. Have you been able to speak to any legislators about this???KarenSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


    Comment by Karen Bracken | September 20, 2020 | Reply

    • I was contacted a moment ago by a legislator from another State.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 20, 2020 | Reply

  13. Thank you, thank you thank you; I have been studying this Constitution for 38 Years and could not have explained it better, I will forward this to those in my family who amount to 40!Thanks again.  This needs repeating           ….


    Comment by | September 20, 2020 | Reply

    • Rick, the text of the rest of your comment was all messed up with weird characters and symbols.

      but as to what was clear in your comment, thank YOU! I worked almost non-stop on that paper from the time I got the Judge’s 29 page Order and sent my paper to the publishers. It’s difficult to explain to The People some points of federal court jurisdiction and such Principles as “judicial abstention” from cases involving “political questions”! Thanks for letting me know that I did it!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 20, 2020 | Reply

  14. Great article, Joanna!

    Mike Hill 850-232-3909 Sent from my iPhone



    Comment by Mike Hill | September 20, 2020 | Reply

  15. It is surprising how many people don’t understand the difference between a Right and a privilege. What about the lawyers who wrote the brief and filed it with the court. They took an oath to support the Constitution and yet they will continue in their positions of “authority” with impunity. I might imagine that tomorrow, it the money is sufficient, they would argue the other side. Pardon my expression of disappointment with a majority in the legal professions, present company excepted. As time and events transpire I am beginning to see some truth in the saying that is bantered about by the common folk ” Ninety percent of attorneys give the 10 percent an bad reputation.” To the 10 percent I say “Give them hell”. Well said Publius. Thank you.


    Comment by Douglas Smith | September 20, 2020 | Reply

    • Thank you, Douglas! I was beginning to think that I had lost the ability to write so that people could understand what I wrote.

      The lawyers for the Left are committed Leftists – really, I know the type [I was a litigation attorney]. The lawyers for the Left are ideologically committed, and they are BOLD and AGGRESSIVE. They are also well-funded.

      But the attorneys for our side are weak, timid, and cowardly. They couldn’t think out of the box if their lives depended on it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 20, 2020 | Reply

      • You write quite eloquently and you are easy to understand. Speaking of weak, timid and cowardly attorneys. I have witnessed several feeding frenzies on Monday mornings at the arraignments in the local courthouse. Attorneys that can’t make it any other way fight for $40 an hour from the state to represent individuals who can’t afford good attorneys. Yell Constitution and they run for the nearest exit.

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by Douglas Smith | September 21, 2020 | Reply

        • When I was young, I watched Perry Mason and became convinced that the finest thing in the world is to represent innocent people who had been falsely charged. So I started out as a criminal defense attorney in the Army JAG. When I got to my first duty station (Berlin, Germany), I knew nothing about how to defend a client. So the senior defense counsel took me under their wings and showed me how it is done. In a law firm, it’s usually just about the money and competition with the other lawyers. I was never about money. For a new defense lawyer who needs mentoring (and all new lawyers need it), a “government” job [Public Defender’s Office or military JAG] is a great place to be! There are some good senior lawyers in those places – and they aren’t competing with each other!

          But yes, only a few lawyers know the original intent of the Constitution. They don’t even think in those terms – they just go by what the Supreme Court says. THAT is what we were all taught to do in law school.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 21, 2020 | Reply

  16. That makes it abundantly clear. And as you say, if law schools made it mandatory to read “The Federalist Papers” our present fix could be greatly eliminated, I would add, if our school system would make it mandatory & teach understanding our Constitution for graduation we could also eliminate much of our woes. As you always teach, it is not hard to ask yourself before obeying any edicts, laws or regulations – “What does the Constitution say”?
    Thank you PH for all you do.


    Comment by N S | September 20, 2020 | Reply

    • The lack of response to this paper has so far been discouraging. It was first published Sep 16 here: and on News with views and Sons of Liberty the following days – and I’ve received little feedback. It was almost totally ignored on Twitter. I concluded it was just over Peoples’ heads – or is it that they love scandal so much they just don’t have time for something which requires a functioning brain to to comprehend? All they want to hear about is nice stuff or reports about how all the bad people are going to be arrested and indicted…any day now.

      Yes, “Tell me what I want to hear – don’t tell me the Truth!”


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 20, 2020 | Reply

    • I’d be happy if the law schools simply made constitutional law a degree requirement. As it turns out, Harvard law School, and perhaps others, does not require constitutional law as a degree requirement. That tells me that constitutional law is no longer the law of the land according to colleges like Harvard. Pretty sad, eh?

      BTW, reading both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-federalist Papers should be required as well. IMO.


      Comment by highlanderjuan | September 20, 2020 | Reply

  17. Excellent analysis and discussion. Thank you. If you have no problem with my doing so, I will post a PDF version on for my own readers to enjoy..


    Comment by highlanderjuan | September 20, 2020 | Reply

  18. Thanks for the post. I will get it out to all on my gmail account. Have a nice day. Fall is in the air!! On another subject, Dwayne Stovall finally came out as the non-constitutionalist he is. Here is a copy and paste of comments on a post I made with regard to the intent of Art. 1, Sec. 1. Please see his comments. Dwayne Stovall “Administrative Procedure Act of 1946” * * * · Reply * · 51m * Bob Hilliard The above act legitimizes those agencies. The exact opposite of the founders intent. * * · Reply * · 22m * Dwayne Stovall The Founder’s intent is no longer relevant, as the document itself is not longer relevant. The US Constitution hasn’t limited the federal government in any serious way since pre Lincoln. … See More * * * · Reply * · 15m * Bob Hilliard There are no words. * * * · Reply * · 6m * Dwayne Stovall Bob Hilliard there is one word: separation. And it will happen one way or another. History is clear on this. * * * · Reply * · 3m Write a reply…

    * * * * Bob Hilliard Dwayne, I think your account has been hacked by someone. Or you have been hiding under cover pretending to be a constitutionalist. * * * · Reply * · 1m Write a comment…

    * * * *


    Comment by wethepeoplehandbook | September 20, 2020 | Reply

    • If he’s the guy I met when I was there for the debate: yes, he is a fake “constitutionalist”. He’s like one of those dolls which have a little button on their belly – and when you press it, they will chant a pre-programmed sentence. People like him repeat “conservative sounding phrases” – pretend to be a “Jeffersonian”, but they are merely chanting stuff which people like to hear.

      When you forward the post, be sure to delete the “unsubscribe” link at the bottom – otherwise, someone can UNSUBSCRIBE you and you won’t even know about it! You just won’t get any more notices from my web site.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 20, 2020 | Reply

  19. Reblogged this on Founders Apprentice.


    Comment by Founders Apprentice | September 20, 2020 | 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: