Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause”.

By Publius Huldah

Art.VI, clause 2 says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

That tells us:

1. Only THREE things are eligible to comprise the “supreme Law of the Land”: The Constitution, Acts of Congress, and Treaties. Supreme Court opinions are not included! Supreme Court opinions aren’t even “law” [contrary to what lawyers were told in law school] – they are merely opinions on the law suits or proceedings before the court.

2. Furthermore, Acts of Congress must be made pursuant to Authority granted to Congress by the Constitution before they qualify as part of the “supreme Law”. If Acts of Congress are not authorized by the Constitution, the acts are mere usurpations and must be treated as such. See:…/nullification-smacki…/

3. Treaties must likewise be made under the Authority of the United States before they qualify as part of the “supreme Law”. From where do the President and the Senate obtain their Authority? From the Constitution. The Constitution must specifically authorize the national government to act in an area before they may lawfully make a treaty addressing the object. The national government may not circumvent the limitations imposed by the enumerated powers to do by treaty what they may not lawfully do pursuant to the enumerated powers. E.g., our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects.…/treaty-making-powers…/

The Supreme Court’s opinion in the homosexual marriage cases was a grotesque usurpation of powers not delegated.…/searching-for-marria…/ And the opinion of these FIVE (5) morally degenerate lawyers is not “law” in any sense of the word. Only Congress is authorized to make “law” (Art. I, Sec. 1).

So County Clerk Kim Davis is a Heroine of the Republic for standing up to Tyranny.  Like Rosa Parks.

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

September 6, 2015 Posted by | Article VI, clause 2, homosexual marriage, Kim Davis, Marriage, same sex marriage, Supremacy clause, Supreme Law of the Land | , , , , , | 37 Comments

What the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to do on January 6, 2021

By Publius Huldah

1. The Rule of Law is being erased in our Land

Several years ago, I saw a movie on TV. The setting was Berlin, Germany just after WWII at the time the Soviets were laying rolls of barbed wire on the ground to mark the border between East and West Berlin. The main characters were a young American woman and a young German man. He had gotten a law degree while Hitler was taking over Germany; but he never practiced law. She asked him why and he said, “The Law disappeared”.

And that’s what’s going on in our Country: The Law – as the standard which those in government must obey – has disappeared and is being replaced by the age-old system where those with the power do what they want, and the cowards go along with it.

Just as the cowards in Germany went along with Hitler; cowards in America are going along with the Left’s brazen theft of the recent election. Countries are destroyed by such cowards; and that may be the reason Revelation 21:8 lists cowards as the first to be thrown into the Lake of Fire: Tyrants couldn’t get to first base without the acquiescence of cowards.

So this paper calls upon each Member of Congress to rise up and restore the Rule of Law to our Land.1 Knowledge of Truth – and the Love of Truth – make us strong. So learn the Truth, embrace it, and restore the Rule of Law.

2. We must read each Part of the Constitution in the Light cast by the other Parts

It is impossible to understand any Part of the Constitution without understanding how that Part fits into the Whole; and how each individual Part is affected by the other Parts addressing the same subject. Accordingly, it is an ancient rule of construction that constitutional provisions or statutes that are on the same subject (in pari materia) must be construed together [link].

So it is a serious misconstruction of the 12th Amendment to assert that Congress’s role on January 6 is the passive one of merely counting numbers; or that the Presiding Officer has discretion to do whatever he wants.

As shown below, specific provisions of the Constitution impose on Congress the Duty to determine whether the Electors were lawfully chosen; and whether the putative President elect and Vice-President elect are qualified for office.

3. When it meets on January 6, Congress must enforce these Constitutional provisions respecting the Appointment of Electors

Article I, §4, clause 1; Article II, §1, clause 2; and Article II, §1, clause 4

Art. I, §4, cl. 1 says that only state and federal legislatures have the power to make laws addressing the Times, Places and Manner of conducting federal elections. So Judges and State executive officials have no lawful authority to change the election laws made by the Legislatures!

Art. II, §1, cl. 2 says that the Electors for President and Vice-President are to be appointed in such manner as the State Legislatures shall direct. So Judges and State executive officials have no lawful authority to change the election laws respecting how the Electors are to be chosen!

So Electors who were appointed in violation of these two provisions were unlawfully appointed and hence are not legally competent to cast votes for President and Vice President.

Art. II, §1, cl. 4 provides that Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors. At 3 USC §1, Congress set the time for chusing Electors for November 3.

So Electors who were appointed after November 3 by means of late ballots (which was made possible by unconstitutional changes to state election laws which unlawfully extended the deadlines for receiving ballots past Nov. 3) were unlawfully appointed and hence are not legally competent to cast votes for President and Vice President. 2

4. Congress must also enforce these Constitutional provisions respecting the qualifications for the Offices of President and Vice-President

Article II, §1, clause 5

Art. II, §1, cl. 5 sets forth qualifications for the Office of President. After our first generation of Presidents [who were all born as subjects of the King of England] had passed away; the qualifications for President are that he must be a “natural born citizen”, at least 35 years of age, and have been for at least 14 Years a Resident within the United States.

The last sentence of the 12th Amendment shows that no person who is ineligible to be President is eligible to be Vice-President. 3

The 22nd Amendment

The 22nd Amendment imposes term limits on the office of President. So any person who has already served two terms is constitutionally ineligible to be President.

The 20th Amendment, §3

§3 of the 20th Amendment addresses what happens when the President elect and/or Vice-President elect “fail to qualify”. So §3 underlines Art. II, §1, cl. 5; the last sentence of the 12th Amendment; and the 22nd Amendment: If the President elect or the Vice-President elect “fail to qualify”, they are to be passed over.

So! The Constitutional scheme is that the Electors’ choice is subject to Congress’ determinations of:

♦whether the requirements of Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl.2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4 were obeyed when the Electors were selected; and

♦whether the persons whom the Electors chose meet the requirements of Art. II, §1, cl. 5; the last sentence of the 12th Amendment, and the term limits provision of the 22nd Amendment.

If not, Congress must disqualify the persons.

5. Congress is also bound by these Constitutional provisions

The Guaranty clause at Article IV, §4

Art. IV, § 4 says:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” [emphasis added]

Since the essence of a “Republic” is that power is exercised by Representatives elected by The People; 4 the violations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2; and Art. II, §1, cl.4 (which made massive election fraud possible) strike at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.

When Electors are selected in violation of our Constitution by means of last minutes changes unlawfully made to state election laws; and/or an election is stolen by means of fraud, the Right of The People to choose their Representatives is taken away from them – and the Republic is destroyed.

Art. IV, §4 imposes on Congress the Duty to guarantee lawful and honest federal elections. Congress can do this by enforcing Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl.2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4 by disqualifying the Electors chosen in contravention of those provisions.

Congress may (and should) also disqualify Biden and Harris on the additional ground that their pretended election was procured by cheating.  They must be stripped of their sham “win”. 5

The Supremacy clause at Article VI, cl. 2

Art. VI, cl. 2 says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” [italics added]

Only those Acts of Congress which are consistent with the Constitution are part of the supreme Law of the Land. 6

Accordingly, Sections 5 and 15 of the Electoral Count Act (3 USC §§1-21), are unconstitutional to the extent they purport to:

♦require Congress to accept slates of Electors who were appointed in violation of Art. I, §4, cl.1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4;

♦require Congress, in the case of dueling slates of Electors, to choose the slate signed by the Governor of the State and reject the slate approved by the State Legislature; 7 and

♦eliminate the 12th Amendment’s dispute resolution procedures under which the House of Representatives chooses the President; and the Senate chooses the Vice-President. 8

But, contrary to what some have asserted, the 12th Amendment most manifestly does NOT vest exclusive authority and sole discretion in the President of the Senate (Vice-President Mike Pence) to determine which slates of Electors for a State are to be counted and which slates are to be rejected!

As President of the Senate, the Vice-President has certain Parliamentary powers at his disposal; but he has no “discretion” in deciding whether he will adhere to the Constitutional framework governing the Election. He – and every other Member of Congress – must adhere to and enforce each Constitutional provision.

The Oath of Office at Article VI, cl. 3

Every Member of Congress is bound by Oath or Affirmation to support our Constitution. On January 6, you must lay aside all personal considerations. Do your DUTY as set forth in the Constitution. And remember: This isn’t about Trump – this is about whether our Republic is to survive. If you permit violations of the Constitution and the resulting fraud to prevail; you will destroy our Republic.

6. Our Constitution sets up an elegant system of checks and balances

One of the benefits of the “separation of powers” Principle is that it provides a mechanism for one power to correct violations made by another power. Within the federal and State governments, powers are divided into three Branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Each Branch has the duty to “check” the violations of the other Branches.

Likewise, the power of the State governments is separated from the power of the federal government. When people within State governments violate the Constitution – as was done in the recent election – it is the Duty of the federal government to “check” the violation. Since Electors were chosen in violation of the Constitution; Congress has the Duty to check the violations and reject those Electors.


1 The term, “rule of law”, is defined here at Point 7.

2 The same Principle applies to Electors who were chosen before Nov. 3 pursuant to [unconstitutional] state election laws which permit early voting for selection of Electors.

3 It appears that at the time Kamala Harris was born, her parents were not US Citizens. If so, she is constitutionally ineligible to be President or Vice-President [link]. Congress has the Duty to inquire into this matter; and if they find that she is not a “natural born citizen” within the original intent of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, it is Congress’ Duty to disqualify her. Congress is the body which is charged with determining the eligibility of the President and Vice-President [link].

4 Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison): “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, … *** … The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; …”

5 If you win a medal at the Olympics; and it’s later discovered that you cheated by taking performance-enhancing drugs, you will be stripped of “win” and medal – and both will be awarded to your runner-up. The same Principle applies to stolen elections.

6 Federalist No. 78, 10th para (A. Hamilton): “…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; ….” [emphasis mine]

7 Art. II, §1, cl. 2 provides that the State Legislatures have the power to direct how the Electors are to be appointed! The State Governor has no constitutional power whatsoever in the selection of Presidential Electors!

8 To the same effect, see the Complaint recently filed by US Representative Louie Gohmert [link].

January 5, 2021 Posted by | 12th Amendment, 20th amendment, 22nd Amendment, Article IV, Sec. 4, Election of President, Elections Clause, Electoral College, Electors, federal election of 2020, free and fair elections, Kamala Harris, Mail-in voting, stop the steal, Times Places and Manner clause | , , , , , , , , , , , | 31 Comments

Delegates to an Article V Convention Can’t be Controlled by State Laws!

By Publius Huldah

Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding Principles that:

♦  All men are created equal.

♦  Rights come from God.

♦  People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).

♦  When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.

These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.

These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”: Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.

This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.

The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates

Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution), the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 appointed Delegates and  instructed them to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.  2

But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution (the one we have now is our second Constitution).  Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at a convention today (which will surely result in a third Constitution).

The Delegates to the 1787 convention also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.

 Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?

So! Do you see? If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a third Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:

♦  Fifty years ago, the Ford Foundation produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.

♦ The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.  The text of their proposed constitution is HERE.

♦ The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.

Do you know about the North American Union (NAU)?  During 2005, George W. Bush met on his ranch with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico and they sketched it out.  The three countries merge and a Parliament is set up over them.  HERE is the Task Force Report on the NAU by the Council of Foreign Relations – Heidi Cruz was on the Task Force which wrote this up.  The United States will need a new Constitution wherein we surrender our sovereignty to the North American Union.   People!  If there is an Art. V convention, the Delegates can impose such a new Constitution with whatever mode of ratification will guarantee approval; and before you know it, we will be a Member State of the NAU.

Warnings from the Wise

Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoral to dismiss their warnings:

♦  Alexander Hamilton writes of “the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…”  Federalist No. 85 (9th para); and that he “dreaded” the consequences of a new convention because he knows that there are powerful individuals in several States who are enemies to having any kind of general [federal] government.  This could result in our losing the Constitution we have (No. 85, last para).

♦  James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country.

In Federalist No. 49, Madison shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.

♦  Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

♦  Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…” 

♦ Former US Supreme Court Justice Scalia said on April 17, 2014 at the beginning of this video:

“I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?”

Can State Laws Control Delegates?

Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling their Delegates.

Really? Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (father of our Constitution), opponents of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.

But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t – I will show you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented. Let’s use House Bill 148, recently filed in the New Hampshire Legislature, to illustrate this:

Section 20-C:2 I. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” [italics mine]

Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:

“any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New Hampshire”.

What is wrong with this?

♦  If the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison used and always advised.

♦  New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.

♦  It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving a new Constitution.

♦  It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

♦ Delegates to an Article V convention are performing a federal function – they are not under the authority of the States.

♦  Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.


Section 20-C:2 II. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V convention.”

What is wrong with this?

♦  What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings secret? At the federal convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers made rules restricting publications of their proceedings.

♦  What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.

Section 20-C:2 III. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:” “I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]

Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last clause, of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution. Who today honors his Oath of Office?

Section 20-C:2 IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”

Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:

♦  As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.

♦  Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.

♦  The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.

♦  If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.

♦  The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?

Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates.

Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain

If there is a convention today, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t know. Do you trust them?

Our Framers never said that when the federal [and State] government violate the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution they violate.

They never said the remedy is to file a lawsuit and let federal judges decide. They expected us to act as they did – with “manly firmness” 3 – and resist unconstitutional acts of the federal and state governments.

Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read and enforced by our votes; and failing that, by manly opposition – resistance – nullification.


1 Rhode Island boycotted the Convention.

Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of amendments by the Continental Congress and by every State.

HERE [from Farrand’s Records, vol. 3, Appendix B, p. 559-586] are the Credentials of the Delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787 and Instructions from their States.  These Instructions encompassed:

♠ “alterations to the Federal Constitution which, when agreed to by Congress and the several States, would become effective“:  Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, S. Carolina, Maryland, & New Hampshire;

♠ “for the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution”: Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Delaware, and Georgia; 

♠ “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”: New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut;

♠ “provisions to make the Constitution of the federal Government adequate”: New Jersey.

3 The 7th paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” [boldface mine] PH

Published Feb 1, 2015
Revised July 9 &10, 2015; Oct 25, 2015; Jan 8, 2017

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

February 1, 2015 Posted by | Amendments to the Constitution, Article V, Article V Convention, Convention of States project, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, Faithful Delegate Laws, New Hampshire Faithful Delegate Law | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 59 Comments

Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny

By Publius Huldah

For 100 years, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated to it in our Constitution.

What should we do about it? Should we reclaim our existing Constitution and put an end to the usurpations?

Or should we “modernize” the Constitution by changing it so as to delegate to the federal government the powers it has usurped – so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?

Mark Levin begins “The Liberty Amendments” by saying he doesn’t believe the Constitution requires “modernization through amendments”. But he then proposes a series of amendments, six of which modernize our Constitution to delegate to the federal government most of the powers it has usurped during the last 100 years.

And each of his six amendments does the opposite of what its title promises. I’ll show you. 1

Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” [p 99-100 of his book]

George Washington’s cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General. Those functions are authorized by our Constitution. 2

But today there are numerous agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government. Where is the constitutional authority? What Article, Section, and Clause authorizes the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Labor, Transportation, HHS, HUD, DHS, EPA, SBA, etc., etc., etc.?

There is no constitutional authority! Accordingly, all these agencies are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated in our Constitution.

Well then, a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand that these agencies be closed, and their functions returned to the States and The People, right?

But Mark Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all these agencies. It says:

“All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

As long as Congress periodically “reauthorizes” the agencies – they remain.

Levin’s amendment thus changes the constitutional standard for whether an executive agency lawfully exists from whether it carries out an enumerated power [as in Washington’s Cabinet] to whatever the President wants and Congress agrees to. Do you see?

Now look at Section 2 of Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy”. It says:

“All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.”

Article I, §1, of our Constitution says only Congress may make laws. 3 But since Woodrow Wilson, executive agencies in the federal government have been churning out regulations which govern all aspects of our lives. These comprise the now gigantic Code of Federal Regulations.

All these regulations are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1! 4

Well then, one would expect that a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand the repeal of existing regulations and an end to all future rulemaking, right?

Not Levin! Section 2 of his amendment legalizes all existing regulations and the rule making process. Levin’s “fix” is merely to form a congressional committee to review certain regulations before they are imposed on the American People.

And so, federal executive agencies will continue to churn out millions of pages of regulations – but now, they will be constitutional because Levin’s amendment makes it all lawful.

Do you see? Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and does the opposite of what he claims.

Levin’s amendment “to limit federal spending” (p 73 -74)

Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the size of the GDP. Do you see?

The reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits – already set forth in the Constitution – on its spending.

Well then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?

But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers. It says:

“Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”

Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President to lawfully spend money on whatever they want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t authorize it.

Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections 6 & 7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt. 5

Levin’s amendment “to limit federal taxing” (p 75)

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to levy taxes so that Congress and the President will have the funds to spend on whatever they want.

Congress may lawfully levy taxes only to raise the funds to carry out the enumerated powers. Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 say:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States …” [and] “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

Immediately after clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers we delegated to Congress for the Country at Large. 6

Add to this short list of enumerated powers, the “housekeeping powers” itemized elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., the census); the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; and you see the purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money, for the Country at Large. 7

So! Congress should not be levying taxes except to generate revenue for its constitutional functions. If Congress restricted its spending to those few powers delegated in the Constitution, the federal government would need very little money from us.

One would expect that a person who wants to “limit federal taxation” would demand that the federal government stop taxing to raise money to spend on unconstitutional purposes, right?

Not Levin! While his amendment limits the federal income tax to 15% of income – it institutionalizes the present practice where Congress lays & collects taxes for any purposes whatsoever. 8

Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” (p 137)

The federal government has no lawful authority to own land for any purpose other than those enumerated in the Constitution. Article I, §8, next to last clause, permits the federal government to have exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction over the District of Columbia [which was not to exceed “ten Miles square”], and Places purchased with the Consent of the State legislatures for the erection of forts, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings (e.g., federal courthouses, post offices) to carry out the enumerated powers.  So the federal government may lawfully own buildings and lands which are purchased to carry out its enumerated powers.

The federal government has no lawful authority to own national parks, grazing areas, forests, and such, because those are not enumerated powers. 9

And the federal government has no lawful authority to restrict peoples’ use of their own land. Nowhere in our Constitution did we delegate that power to the federal government! Accordingly, all federal laws and regulations (EPA, etc.) which pretend to restrict an owner’s use of his land are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

Furthermore, the States’ and local governments’ powers of eminent domain and other “takings” of private land are addressed in their own State Constitutions and laws. This is NOT a federal issue!

But Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” changes all of the above. It says:

“When any governmental entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for a public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.”

Levin’s amendment:

Changes the constitutional standard for federal ownership of lands from carrying out an enumerated power to whatever someone in the federal government deems a “public use” [which can be anything];

Legalizes what are now unconstitutional holdings of lands by the federal government – such as grazing lands;

Legalizes “takings” by regulation – restrictions via regulations on the use of private lands – by all levels of government;

Takes from the States and The People their retained powers over eminent domain and regulatory takings, and makes it a federal issue under the control of the federal government; 10 and

Provides that as long as a taking does not reduce the value of the property by more than $10,000, the governments don’t have to pay the property owner one red cent. So! If your local or State or federal government takes some of your land, or restrict its use by regulation, Levin’s amendment requires compensation to be paid if the “taking” exceeds $10,000. If the government decides that your loss is less than $10,000, you eat the loss. The amendment legalizes government theft of private property.

Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” (p 183-184)

Before our Constitution was ratified, the States qualified & registered voters. Qualifications were set forth in their State Constitutions, and requirements differed from State to State.  This power was expressly retained by the States with Art. I, §2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. 11

The four voting amendments reduced this retained power of the States, and delegated to the federal government power to stop States from denying suffrage to citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), or age for citizens eighteen years of age or older (26th Amendment).

Except as restricted by these four amendments, the States retain their pre-existing power to set qualifications for registering citizens to vote, as long as they do not deny it on account of race, sex, failure to pay a tax, or age for those 18 years or more. States remain free to deny registration on other grounds – such as conviction of a felony or illiteracy. And of course, States retained power to restrict voting to citizens!

But the retained powers of the States to set voter qualifications for registration were diminished far beyond the scope of the amendments, due to usurpations by the federal government, and because the States forgot that they retained at Art. I, §2, cl. 1 most of their original power to qualify & register voters.

In Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument, I show how the federal government infringed upon the States’ retained powers over voter qualifications & registration; and how the two judges in that case wrongly ruled that Arizona could not require applicants for registration to provide proof of citizenship!

So! What should we do about non-citizens voting? Here is a novel idea: The States should man up and reclaim their powers retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1; tell Eric Holder to take a hike; require all currently registered voters to provide proof of citizenship; and refuse to register new voters unless they provide proof of citizenship. Enforce the Constitution we have!

   But Section 1 of Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” says:

“Citizens in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documents demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a requirement for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.”

Levin’s amendment (it has 5 Sections) rewards the federal government for unlawfully forbidding States from requiring applicants to prove they are citizens, by transferring more power over voter qualifications & registration to the federal government. 10

But Levin’s amendment does even more harm than vesting in the federal government a power it already usurped – it ushers in a national ID card. Who thinks the feds won’t dictate the contents of the card and keep copies? [Do you really think a national ID card is a great idea?]

To add insult to injury, Levin’s amendment doesn’t even prohibit non-citizens from voting – it merely requires citizens to get an ID card before they can register to vote. Non-citizens are not required to get ID cards. The supreme Court (which will now lawfully have judicial power over this issue) will decide whether aliens can vote.

Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” (p 117)

In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (11th &12th paras), Hamilton & Madison explain the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause:  It is to prohibit States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. Until the mid-1930’s, this was widely understood. Here is a full proof of the original intent of that clause and the story of how the supreme Court usurped power over interstate commerce.

The original intent of that clause is still the supreme Law of the Land! 12 So the States must man up and enforce that original intent. They must ignore – nullify – all pretended federal laws, regulations, and judicial opinions which are contrary to that original intent.

Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” says:

“SECTION 1: Congress’ power to regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant of power to the federal government to regulate and control economic activity but a specific grant of power limited to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several states.”

“SECTION 2: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce does not extend to activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.”

Section 1 broadens the powers of the federal government from prohibiting States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling, to prohibiting the States from doing anything which “impedes” commerce and trade between and among the States.

Many things can be said to “impede” commerce and trade. And who will decide what “impedes” and what doesn’t “impede”? Five judges on the supreme Court.

Section 2 mentions two instances where Congress’ power to regulate Commerce does not extend. This is dangerous because of the legal maxim, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other).

Accordingly, Congress’ power to regulate commerce would extend to other instances. Which ones? We don’t know – the supreme Court will decide – on a case by case basis.


Levin’s amendments legalize – make constitutional – the very abuses they purport to correct, nullify the natural rights of the people, and fundamentally change the constitutional design.

Even though our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government lawless! The true rule of law is still on our side, 13 but not for much longer if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be re-written.

P.S. added Nov. 10, 2015: Here, from Levin’s own website, is a list of “conservatives” who support Mark Levin’s proposed amendments.  I suggest Americans STOP letting other people tell us who is a “conservative”.  STOP blindly accepting other peoples’ words as Truth.  Most of the time, most people don’t know what they are talking about – they are merely repeating what they have heard.  But YOU can stop this in yourself, and you can help stop other people from doing it. Here is the link:


1 Telling the Truth about a person’s proposals isn’t “demonizing” him. People angrily reject valid criticism of Levin’s proposals because they have made an idol of him. If their loyalty were to Truth – instead of to their idol – they would want to be set straight.

2 Article II, §2, and:

Secretary of State: Art. I, §8, cl. 3

Secretary of Treasury: Art. I, §2, cl. 3; Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Art. I, §9, cl. 4-7; Art. VI, cl. 1

Secretary of War: Art. I, §8, clauses 11-14

Attorney General: Art. I, §8, cl. 6, 10 & 17; Art. III, §§2 & 3; Art. IV, §2, cl.2

3 Article I, §1, says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” [emphasis mine]

4 They are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.

5 I explain the problems with “balanced budget” amendments here.

6 These are the enumerated powers over the Country at Large listed at Art. I, §8:

    • Clause 3: regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];

    • Clause 4: uniform laws on naturalization and bankruptcies;

    • Clause 5: coin money & regulate its value, and fix standard of weights & measures;

    • Clause 6: punish counterfeiting;

    • Clause 7: establish post offices & post roads;

    • Clause 8: issue patents & copyrights;

    • Clause 9: set up federal courts inferior to the supreme court;

    • Clause 10: punish piracies & felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;

    • Clauses 11-14: war, letters of marque & reprisal, Army & Navy, and rules for the military

    • Clause 15-16: the Militia.


7 The anti-federalists objected to Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & 2. They claimed:

“…the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”

James Madison answered in Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras) that clauses 1 & 2 permit Congress to levy taxes & borrow money only to carry out the enumerated powers! Madison said:

“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning … is an absurdity…” [boldface mine]

So! Article I, §8, cl.1 is merely a “general expression”, the meaning of which is “ascertain[ed] and limit[ed]” by the clauses which “immediately follow” it. In other words, clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; and clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2. Do you see?

8 Levin’s amendment also corrects – on behalf of the feds – the following: When the 16th Amendment was ratified, “income” apparently didn’t include “wages”. Accordingly, it would be unconstitutional to force people to pay “income” taxes on “wages” – and such would thus be a proper object of nullification by States. But Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and rips this remedy from the States.

9 When our Constitution was ratified, the new federal government acquired (from its predecessor) the Western Territory (Federalist No. 7, 2nd & 3rd paras, and Federalist No. 43 at 5.) over which the new federal government was delegated, by Art. IV, §3, general legislative powers. As the Territory was broken up into new States, the general legislative powers would expire and sovereignty [except as to the few powers delegated exclusively to the new federal government] would be transferred to the new State.

10 Amendments to the Constitution generally increase the powers of the federal government: They usher in implementing federal statutes & executive agency regulations, and judicial power over the issue is transferred to the federal courts. Art. III, §2, cl.1, says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution …” Do you really not see?

11 Article I, §2, cl. 1, says:

“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. [boldface mine]

So! Whoever votes in elections for their State House, is eligible to vote for members of the federal House of Representatives. See also Federalist No. 57 (5th para) & Federalist No. 52 (2nd para).

12 Article VI, cl. 2, the “supremacy clause”, states that only our Constitution, federal laws made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution, and Treaties made “under the Authority of the United States”, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Supreme Court opinions are NEVER part of the supreme Law of the Land! But we have wrongly made them the only Law of our Land.

13 What is “the Rule of Law”? What is the Rule of Man?

Our Constitution is based on God’s model for civil government as set forth in the Bible. The foundational Principle of God’s model is that the civil authorities are under the law. God is The Lawmaker – the kings are to apply God’s Law:

    • Deut. 17:18-20: The king is to write out a copy of God’s Law. He is to have it by him and read from it all his life so that he may keep, observe, and apply it.

    • 1 Kings 2:1-4: King David on his deathbed tells Solomon he must conform to God’s ways, and observe his statutes, commandments and judgments, as written in the Law of Moses.

The parallel in our Constitution is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law which the civil authorities are to obey. Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary defines “constitution”:

“…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

So our Constitution is the Standard by which the validity of all Acts of Congress, all acts of the Executive Branch, all judicial opinions, and all Treaties is measured and judged (Art. VI, cl. 2).

So law comes from a higher source than the civil authorities. The “Rule of Law” prevails when the civil authorities obey that higher Law – be it God’s Law or our Constitution.

Tyrants, on the other hand, claim that they are the source of law. The Roman Caesars, Stalin, Hitler, the dictator of N. Korea and Obama all claim that their will is “law”. Consider Obama’s usurpatious executive orders and rules made by his executive agencies. This is the “Rule of Man” – when the civil authorities deny they are subject to a higher law (be it God’s Law or the Constitution), and hold that their will is “law”. Do you see? PH

revised Jan 10, 2016.

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

April 25, 2014 Posted by | Amendments to the Constitution, Liberty Amendments, Mark Levin, The Liberty Amendments, Voter eligibility, Voter Qualifications | , , , | 38 Comments

Daily Commentary

The NAZIS were NOT “right wing”!

We often hear people parroting words to the effect that the communists & socialists are “left” wing, and the NAZIS are “right” wing.

The mindset thus instilled into those who hear & believe this rubbish is that tyranny is at both ends of the political spectrum; so the best place to be is right smack dab in the middle!

And they don’t know what is in the middle except that it involves not taking a position.

This is an illustration of mass manipulation of a peoples’ belief system.  It is destructive because people believe there is no alternative to tyranny.

The lie that NAZIS are “right wing” has been disseminated in order to deceive the unthinking.

Someone said recently that “anti-semitism is on the rise on the ‘far right’ as well as the left”.

Sadly, it is true that anti-semitism is on the rise.  But it is not on the rise among people who love our Founding Principles as set forth in our Declaration of Independence, and in the original intent of our Constitution.

The German NAZIS and the American neo-NAZIS are NOT “far right”!

“NAZI” is the acronym for “Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”.   The literal English translation is, “national socialist German workers’ party”.

The NAZIS were socialists! They were “national” socialists, as contrasted with Marx & Engels who were “international” socialists.

NAZIS have been called “far right” in order to sabotage the thinking of the American people. This is how the sabotage works: The Communists are “far left”. The NAZIS are “far right”. Gee! I better be in the middle – a moderate!

So under this false model, both “extremes” are presented as bad. Only the moderate middle is good. And the best alternative [limited constitutional civil government] does not appear at all.

But the TRUTH is that collectivism with all its variants (communism, fascism, Fabian socialism, syndicalism, etc.) are all on the same side [collectivism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, terror, & government tyranny]. The distinctions between these variants are only minor and technical.

The alternative to all of them is limited constitutional civil government – such as our Framers gave us.

The above insight, which should be obvious to anyone who knows a bit of German or who can think, is not original with me.  Ayn Rand pointed it out somewhere many decades ago…..

June 9, 2013.

*     *     *

The U.S. government is NOT a Private Corporation!

Here is a really silly video which says things which are not true:

But I will tell you the Truth on this issue:

The US Code is complex. [It shouldn’t be, but it is.]

1. Let’s look at 28 USC §3002 (15): It is found within Title 28, Part VI, Ch. 176, Subchapter A, United States Code.

So let’s break that down:

Title 28, United States Code, deals with the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Part VI – deals with Particular [legal] Proceedings.

Ch. 176 – deals with Federal Debt Collection Procedure

Subchapter A, §3002 provides definitions for the terms used in Ch. 176.

Subsection (15) provides a definition for “United States” which includes “a federal corporation”.


One may not properly look at a tiny subsection within a federal act except in the context of the act as a whole. The “federal act” here is “The Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act”, which is codified at 28 United States Code §§ 3001-3015.

2. So what is “a federal corporation”? This site gives a simple and excellent explanation:

“A federal corporation is an entity created by the U.S. Congress to perform a public service. The Congress creates a federal corporation by passing a law that defines the size, purpose, structure, and authority of the entity. The U.S. Postal Service, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are examples of federal corporations.”

Here is a list of the various federal corporations which have been created by Congress:

So the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is an example of one of the federal corporations which have been created by Congress.

Congress has been creating corporations (such as the FDIC and the Postal Service) to perform the various “public services”. The post office is a “lawful” corporation (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 7).  The FDIC is unlawful because there is no constitutional authority for the FDIC.

So the United States government is NOT a  private corporation. The federal government is NOT a private corporation. But Congress has been making laws to create “public service” corporations which are generically referred to as “federal corporations”.

Say you owe Amtrak money – you have been shipping your products on their trains and you owe for freight charges. Well, this Act applies to you. For purposes of the Act – to collect the debt from you – Amtrack is classified as a “federal corporation”. It is a “corporation” formed by Congress. Amtrack is unconstitutional (b/c it is not authorized by the Constitution). However, you were using it to ship your products and so you must pay for the service. If you don’t pay, Amtrack has the right to sue you for what you owe.

So, when dealing with such complex statutory schemes, one must read each provision in the CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE.

We have a terrible problem with the ignorant rubbish put out and pushed by the people on our side who don’t know what they are talking about. It really is immoral to speak on matters of which one is ignorant.

 May 25, 2013.

April 25, 2021 update:  See this excellent article by Attorney Larry Becraft, “United States of America is Not a Private Corporation: Analysis of the “Act of 1871″ Nonsense”

 *     *     *

The Straight Scoop on Impeachment:

1. It is NOT necessary that the president, other officers in the executive branch, or federal judges commit a felony before they may be impeached & removed.

Alexander Hamilton points out in Federalist Paper No. 66 (2nd para) & Federalist Paper No. 77 (last para), that the president may be impeached & removed for encroachments, i.e., usurpations.

He points out in Federalist Paper No. 81 (8th para), that federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations.

2. Throughout The Federalist Papers, it is stated that impeachment is for “political offenses”.

3. The House has the SOLE power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2, last clause).  The Senate has the SOLE power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3, next to last clause).   The decision to convict is not reviewable by any other body – and common sense tells us what that means!   The House may impeach, and the Senate may convict, for any reason whatsoever; and their decision cannot be overturned.

4.  The language at Art. II, Sec. 4. about “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is far broader than one might at first glance think.  Somewhere I saw a scholarly paper showing that the “high” refers to the status of the official – it does not refer to the severity of the offense.

Now!  Pay close attention:  “Misdemeanor” has a much broader meaning than a lesser category of criminal offenses.  Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows the primary meaning of “misdemeanor” to be:

“Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.”

This shows – proves – that a president, vice-president, and all civil Officers of the United States may be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office for “mismanagement”.

“Mismanagement” and “encroachments” have never before been so aptly applied to a civil authority as to Obama, Hillary, and their minions; except, perhaps to Nero, who also fiddled while Rome burned.

Errant members of Congress are never impeached – they are expelled (Art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2).

Military personnel are never impeached – they are court-martialed (see UCMJ – Uniform Code of Military Justice).

NOTE:  See updated version -which answers questions People had – here:

May 9, 2013

*     *     *

Are Opinions of the Supreme Court Really “Supreme”?

The supreme Court claims that their decisions are “settled law”.  And this is what all American law students are told in law school.   Accordingly, 99.999% of American Lawyers (most of whom are incapable of independent thought) accepted the indoctrination and believe that EVERYTHING the supreme Court does is “the final word”; that they are gods; and that once they have ruled on an issue, the issue is “settled”.

But the Truth is that the opinions of the supreme Court are nothing more than opinions in the cases before them.

Furthermore, they rule on a whole host of issues they have no constitutional authority to decide.  See, e.g.,

The supreme Court has been usurping power for a very long time.  They usurp power when they rule on cases they have no authority to hear.  Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 lists the categories of cases they are permitted to hear.

Now look at the “supremacy clause” at Article VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution:  Are supreme Court opinions part of the “supreme Law of the Land”?

Of course not!   It is astonishing that progressives get away with the Lie that supreme Court opinions are “settled law”.

Is there a remedy?  Of course!  Our Framers were very wise men.  Federal judges serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1); and when they usurp powers, impeachment is the proper remedy (Federalist Paper No. 81, 8th para, Alexander Hamilton).

It is not true that federal judges have “lifetime appointments”!

March 21, 2013.

*     *     *

May the Federal Government Lawfully Make ANY Restrictions on  Our Guns & Ammo?

By Publius Huldah.


When you look at it from the perspective of limiting the federal government to its “enumerated powers”, it all becomes very easy and clear.  We haven’t been looking at it this way because we are so ignorant of our Constitution that we don’t know that it delegates  “enumerated powers” only to the federal government.

The Truth is, that when WE THE PEOPLE “created” the federal government, we itemized (“enumerated”) in the Constitution all the powers WE delegated to it.

We nowhere delegated to any branch of the federal government power to restrict, infringe, etc., guns, ammo, etc.

So any federal laws or BATF rules for the Country at large which purport to restrict, infringe, etc., guns or ammo, are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government in Our Constitution.

THIS is what we need to get people to understand.  Their misplaced focus on the 2nd Amendment as being the “source” of our right to keep & bear arms, has been a disaster:

Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, enumerates the powers of the federal courts – it lists the types of cases they may hear.  One category of case they may hear is “all cases or controversies arising under this Constitution”. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution.  That is how they claimed judicial power to decide the scope and extent of our “rights” under the 2nd Amendment; and hence, what federal restrictions on our “2nd Amendment rights” are  “reasonable”.

Do you NOW see why you must point to The Declaration of Independence (2nd para) and  assert that your right to keep and bear arms – to self-defense – comes from GOD and is Unalienable?

PEOPLE!  Wake up!   The federal government has only “enumerated powers”.   NOWHERE in the Constitution did we delegate to the federal government  authority to impose ANY restrictions on guns, ammo, etc.  They violate Our Constitution when they impose these restrictions.

And YES, private American citizens can have armed ships!  Remember the Privateers who fought the British ships in the War of 1812?  Remember Letters of Marque & Reprisal (Art.I, Sec. 8, cl. 11)?  Our Framers contemplated an American People who were so heavily armed that they could be Privateers, as well as wreak vengeance on our enemies via letters of Marque & Reprisal.

So be a patriot and buy a tank …  or an armed ship!

Currier print

Originally, Congress had no problem with the Right of Citizens  to own  Warships.   During some of our early conflicts,  Congress would contract  (Letters of Marque) with the owners to assist our Navy and raid enemy ships.
‘In this painting the American privateer, General Armstrong, fires on British ships during the War of 1812′ (painting by Nathaniel Currier, courtesy Library of Congress, LC-USZC2-1904).

Many Thanks to Grumpy Opinions for the photo and his caption

Oh! And do read this on the BURN BARRELS!   This is how manly men & womanly women act in response to tyranny:

January 29, 2013

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

*     *     *
Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws

The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be armed) can’t be repealed because to do so would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws”.

Who dreams up this stuff? Does anyone check it out before they spread it around?

Of course we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc.

In addition, the 2nd Amendment recognizes this God-given right.

Our Framers were all for an armed American People – they understood that arms are our ultimate defense in the event the federal government oversteps its bounds (see, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46).

Furthermore, the federal government is nowhere in the Constitution granted authority to restrict, in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, ALL laws made by Congress, ALL regulations made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BAFT), are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution.

Furthermore, all pretended regulations made by the BAFT are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, which vests ALL legislative powers granted by the Constitution in CONGRESS.   Executive agencies have no lawful authority whatsoever to make regulations of general application!

In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly.   Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not do it by Treaty.   See,

But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic.

And the assertion that Congress can’t repeal the Dick Act because a repeal would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws” shows that whoever wrote that doesn’t know what he is talking about. He obviously has no idea what a “bill of attainder” is, and no idea what an “ex post facto law” is.

This accurately explains what a “bill of attainder” is:

An “ex post facto” law RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when it was done.

Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a law retroactively criminalizing barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution), even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.

Now, say Congress passes a “Law” making possession of firearms a crime and ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Only if you do not turn in your guns will you have committed a “crime”.  That is not an ex post facto law because if you turn in your guns, you won’t be criminally prosecuted. The “crime” is the failure to turn in your guns – not the prior possession of guns.

Such a law would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because gun control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Thus, the law would be outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress.

It would also be unconstitutional as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But it would not be an ex post facto law.

People shouldn’t sling around terms, the meanings of which, they do not understand. It is immoral.  So always ask someone who really knows.

If TRUTH spread as rapidly as lies, our problems would have been resolved long ago.  If People loved TRUTH more than they love lies, we wouldn’t have gotten into this trouble in the first place.

We must stop forwarding and circulating stuff until we have checked it out!

December 31, 2012.
*     *     *     *

Restrict Spending To The Enumerated Powers:  That’s How We Balance The Budget!

What those who ignorantly support the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) overlook is that our Constitution is one of enumerated powers only.  That means that everything which WE authorized the federal government to do is actually listed in the Constitution.

Look at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 3-16:  It lists – itemizes – most of the powers WE THE PEOPLE delegated to Congress.

Now this is the Key:  Congress is authorized to spend money ONLY on the enumerated objects of its powers.  I.e., Congress may spend money on operating a patent office because issuing patents and copyrights is an enumerated power delegated to Congress.  See: Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8.

But Congress is NOT authorized to appropriate funds to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink alcohol responsibly.  That is not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress.

Congress is NOT authorized to appropriate funds to provide medical care to old people or poor people.  That is not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress.

SO!  It is the list of Congress’ enumerated powers which is to control and limit its spending.

See, e.g., this paper:

at the subheading, Article I, §8, clauses 1-16: What it Really Means.

That is how Congress is to control its spending:  They may lawfully appropriate funds ONLY on the  objects of its enumerated powers.

So, Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, requires Congress to periodically publish the list of what it has appropriated funds for (e.g., such and such amount for salaries of federal judges [authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 9 and Art. III, Sec. 1]; such and such amount to build ships for the Navy [authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 13]; and such and such amount to pay the salaries of the people who mint the coins and the guards at the mint (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 5).

Congress is also required by Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause to publish the receipts it took in.

Our Constitution contemplated that the federal government would obtain its revenue [which was to be spent ONLY on the enumerated objects of Congress’ powers] in two basic ways:  (1)  import & export tariffs, excise taxes (e.g., tax on whiskey) and  (2) apportioned contributions from the States.

So, if the federal government had a shortfall in its constitutionally authorized expenditures on the enumerated objects, and the revenues from the tariffs and excise taxes, the federal government would make up the shortfall from the States.  The amount due from each State would be apportioned based on population [Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3]

Congress never had a “budget” until the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.  The Progressives wanted to substitute a “budget” for the enumerated powers.

This was the beginning of the wholesale ignoring of Our Constitution.

Do you see?

December 22, 2012


WARNING AGAINST A CON-CON  (a/k/a “Art. V Convention”)

Rob Natelson can’t be a big States’ rights guy – I expect that is a mere pretense to sucker people into supporting him in his push for a con con – the same kind of deceit & trickery which got the American People to support various disastrous Amendments to the Constitution (such as the 17th).

I expect the ploy is this: One pretends to be for something (e.g., the 10th Amendment) in order to induce the supporters of THAT to trust the deceiver on another issue (e.g., a con con).

Perhaps I should write a formal rebuttal of the two glossy pdf’s two nefarious organizations are disseminating in order to deceive State legislators throughout the Country into supporting a con con.   I hadn’t before b/c others have already done such a great job of explaining why – if there is a con con – our existing Constitution is CERTAIN to be superseded.  The national Eagle Forum website has a page with several papers and letters on the dangers of a con con; and the late Henry Lamb wrote a short and brilliant paper, “No, no con-con” which you can read here:

Also, here is an excellent (though longish) explanation of the certain perils of a con con from the American Policy Center.

In a nutshell, the TRUTH is this: That if there is a con-con, Congress “calls” it (see Art. V). Congress [the ones who gave us $16 trillion in debt] will have the power to appoint the delegates, since they are the ones who “call” it.  Congress may appoint whomever they wish: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John “The Backbone” Boehner, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, every wacky left wing law professor in the country, and those who pretend to be all for the 10th Amendment while they connive to take Our Constitution away from us altogether.

Some people are laboring under the delusion that the States will get to appoint delegates – but they really are delusional. CONGRESS “calls” it – so CONGRESS APPOINTS THE DELEGATES. CONGRESS WILL APPOINT DELEGATES WHO WILL DO WHAT CONGRESS WANTS.

And we all know what a great job CONGRESS has done in controlling spending and in overseeing judicial nominations and in controlling the innumerable usurpations of the  Executive Branch!

IT WAS CONGRESS WHO RAMMED OBAMCARE DOWN OUR THROATS. Now, we want a con con where  CONGRESS will appoint the delegates?

Supporters of a con con also tell us the monstrous lie that we need not worry, b/c whatever the con con comes up with will have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. But THAT is a requirement of Our Existing Constitution – the new Constitution may well set up an entirely different mode of ratification – e.g., a majority vote of Congress.

So, the proponents of a con con are either the biggest liars in the history of our Country, or they are the most gullible people ever, or they are truly stupid, or they are mentally ill, or they are incapable of rational thought and analysis.

There is no innocent explanation – THIS is the greatest danger our Country has ever faced. THIS is their opportunity to take away our guns, ban Christianity, eliminate private property, legalize a whole host of new perversions, etc.

WHY would we agree to give this power to CONGRESS? Remember! Whoever appoints the delegates determines the outcome.   CONGRESS won’t send people like James Madison and George Washington to a con con.

November 28, 2012

*  *  *  *  *  *

What Would Really Happen if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned by SCOTUS?

Liberals/progressives say their constituency should vote for obama because if Romney is elected, he will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade; and this [so they say] will mean the end of abortion in our Country.

Since abortion is a Sacrament to the left, they can think of nothing worse than outlawing the baby-killing they so delight in.

So when obama/biden tell their blood-hungry constituency that a Romney Presidency would mean the end of baby-killing, they fall for it.

But let us look at the Truth:

Roe v. Wade is merely an opinion issued in a lawsuit by SCOTUS.  What it purported to do was to overturn all STATE Statutes (“laws”) which outlawed abortion. If a future SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, it would merely return the issue to each of the 50 States [where it belongs] for each of them to decide what to do about it.   Some State Legislatures would outlaw it, others would permit it.

So it is not true to say that overturning Roe v. Wade would result in the outlawing of abortion throughout our land.

To get the issue back before SCOTUS, all that is needed is (1) a case where abortion is an issue and (2) SCOTUS would need to accept review – agree to hear it (or as lawyers say, “accept cert”). It would not be difficult to get this back before SCOTUS! Some State legislatures would need to get some Spine & Moral Character and then pass strict anti-abortion laws for their States. Then the baby killers will file suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the anti-abortion state statutes. Whoever loses takes it up to the US Circuit Court of Appeals. Whoever loses there asks SCOTUS to accept review. Piece of cake!

Of course, the better course of action by far is for the States to wake up and Remember that they are Sovereign – that decisions about abortion is one of the powers retained by The States and The People – that power over abortion was never delegated to the federal government, and that SCOTUS’ opinions on the same are irrelevant as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government and to that Court.

October 24, 2012

Jury Nullification in Criminal Trials in Federal District Court

OK! You have been summoned for jury duty (“petty jury”) for a trial in federal district court. Here are a few things you need to know:

1. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, shows that the federal courts are granted permission to hear several categories of cases. You may be called to be a juror in either a “criminal” case or a “civil” case.

a) A criminal case would most likely involve an alleged violation of the U.S. (i.e., federal) criminal code.

b) A civil case would most likely involve a case between citizens residing in different States over some non-criminal issue as breach of contract, negligence, etc.

2. The issue of jury nullification arises in criminal cases where Defendant is charged with an unjust, unfair, or unconstitutional federal [or State] law.   E.g., the “crime” of failing to buy health insurance.

Here is the Issue: Even if the Prosecutor proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant failed to buy health insurance, do you, as a Juror, have the Right – or the Duty – to refuse to convict?

a) The Prosecutor & the Judge insist that you do NOT have that Right! In fact, the Judge is most likely to instruct you that if you find – as a matter of FACT – that Defendant failed to buy health insurance, then you MUST find him guilty.

b) Defense counsel desperately wants to tell you that the Judge is lying to you, and wants to tell you about your Right – really, your “Duty” – of Jury Nullification. BUT JUDGES DO NOT ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SO INFORM YOU! They will jail defense counsel for contempt before defense counsel can tell you.

3. So I will show you here that Jurors have the Right  – the DUTY, really – of Nullification in criminal cases in federal courts. Art. III, Sec. 2, last clause, U.S. Constitution, says:

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury…”

Now note the entry for “Jury” in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

“…Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions…” [emphasis added]

When Our Constitution was ratified, our Framers understood that Jurors had the Right to decide the law in criminal trials! This means that the Jurors have the Right to judge the “law”. And if you find the law unfair, unreasonable, unconstitutional, unfairly applied, that Defendant has been unfairly singled out,  or whatever; then you have the right – the Duty, really – (in a criminal case) to find the Defendant NOT GUILTY.

Alexander Hamilton, a lawyer, was well aware of the problem of unjust criminal statutes. He says in Federalist No. 83 (12th para):

“… arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared to me to be the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all relation to criminal proceedings….” [emphasis added]

4. But the Judge in the case where you are a Juror will probably require you to take an Oath that you will follow the Law as  s/he explains it to you and that if you find that Defendant violated the Statute, then you MUST find him guilty.

If you say anything about “judging the law” or “is the Statute under which Defendant is charged constitutional”, then the Prosecutor will kick you off the Jury “for cause”.

Before the trial starts, both counsel have the right to ask potential Jurors questions during “voir dire” to determine whether each will be a good Juror for their side.  You are under Oath to tell the Truth when you are being so questioned.  So, if the prosecutor asks you about “Jury Nullification”, do you know about it, do you agree with it,  YOU MUST TELL THE TRUTH!  You don’t want to be tried for perjury. 

But you have the right to assume that the Judge is fair & impartial and will obey the Constitution (since s/he took an Oath to do so – Art. VI, clauses 2 & 3). So, when you take the Juror’s Oath, you have the right to assume that the Judge will obey the Constitution.

But once you are seated, and find out what Defendant is charged with, and hear the evidence,  and learn to your shock & horror that the Prosecutor & the Judge both spit on the Constitution they each swore to support,  and you then go into the Jury Room to deliberate;  you must do as your conscience dictates.

5. Here is a very good short article written by a law professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia: “Jurors’ Handbook A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty”:

There is much on that web site. I had concerns about some of the stuff, and I didn’t have time to read everything on the site.  But what the law professor says in the linked paper is Right On! PH

August 28, 2012


The Opinion of Obama Puppet John Roberts upholding obamacare:

We have seen several articles recently which purport to show how John Roberts did us all a great favor by upholding obamacare.

It is astonishing that anyone could be so easily deceived.  Yet, some are!  “Talisker” is one  who is deceived – see his post at Free Republic

In Truth, Robert’s opinion has probably done more to destroy our Country than anything which ever before spewed from the fetid minds of the judges on the supreme Court.

First, let’s look at what Our Constitution actually says about the powers of the federal government to tax:

1. The Constitution is specific about the types of taxes Congress may impose:

(a) “Direct taxes” which must be apportioned. A “direct tax” is a tax paid directly to the federal government. The original idea was that the federal government would assess each State it’s pro rata share of the tax bill based on population. So if the federal government needed $100,000., it would assess each State it’s pro rata share based on its population and the States would collect it from the People.   See  Art. I, §2, cl. 3 & Art. I, §9, cl. 4.

(b) Import tariffs and excise taxes on certain articles of commerce: These taxes are paid by the consumer to the seller who then sends it to the federal government.   Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Art. I, §9, cl. 1 [which permitted Congress to levy an import tax on slaves brought here]; Art. I, §9, cl. 5 [which prohibited the levying of taxes on articles exported from any State]; Art. I, §9, cl. 6 [which prohibited the assessment of taxes on ships traveling from State to State]; and Art. I, §10, cl. 2 & 3 restricted the powers of States to levy certain taxes in commerce.

(c) A tax on incomes– 16th Amendment.  Not Estates.  Not gifts, just “incomes”.

So!  Our Constitution is very specific about the kinds of taxes which the federal government is permitted to assess and collect!

2. Furthermore, the purposes for which Congress may lay and collect taxes are limited by its enumerated powers! So it may lay and collect taxes (of the 3 types authorized) to fund the military, pay the salaries of the people at the patent & copyright office, etc.; but it may NOT levy and collect taxes to fund programs which are not among the enumerated powers.  I prove the foregoing in this paper:

3. What John Roberts did was to look at Art. I, §8, cl. 1 and say it permits Congress to levy any kind of tax it wants for any purpose whatsoever.

It is the final destruction of our Constitution.

Roberts should be impeached, tried, convicted, kicked off the bench and prohibited from ever holding federal office again (Art. I, §3, last clause). And the bars of which he is a member, should disbar him.  It is clear that federal judges may be impeached – and should be – for usurpations of power (Federalist Paper No. 81, 8th para, Alexander Hamilton). PH

July 24, 2012

*   *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Four Ways to Get Rid of Obamacare:

1.  The supreme Court may declare obamacare unconstitutional when this case gets to them.   Anthony Kennedy is the “swing vote”, and court watchers tend to think Kennedy will vote that obamacare is unconstitutional.

2. The President has the power and the duty (imposed by his Oath of Office) to refuse to implement it.  He should issue an Executive Order directing federal executive agencies not to implement obamacare.  But this requires us to elect a President with a BRAIN and a SPINE  who will actually HONOR HIS OATH  to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.  If we did, obamacare could be dead as soon as the new President takes office.

3. Congress could repeal it – but we have to send people to Congress who will do this.

4. State officials are required by their oaths of office (Art. VI, 3rd clause, U.S. Constitution) to refuse to implement obamacare.

It really is in the hands of The People.  We just don’t seem to have the wisdom to elect people who will honor and obey The Constitution.  We go by image & personality.  Watch all the gushing among the people on our side over their candidate of choice for the nomination:  None of the discussion is about obeying Our Constitution.  We are like silly high school girls gushing over a silly boy. PH October 1, 2011.

October 1, 2011 Posted by | | 69 Comments

God’s Gift of Unalienable Rights & Article VI of the Constitution: The Sword & Shield to stop the islamization of America.

By Publius Huldah.

This is an encouraging paper, because it explains the moral and constitutional justifications to stop the islamization of our country.

We face a grave threat – the Muslims are infiltrating our country and taking over.  We seem powerless to resist:  Our governments won’t acknowledge the threat; we are told Muslims have “constitutional rights” to come here,  proselytize everywhere, build mosques, and implement shariah in their communities and in the public square; and our governments are letting them do it.

The Muslims seek to replace our Constitution with shariah – their totalitarian political, economic, military, social & legal system – with the goal of incorporating our Country into a global Islamic caliphate.

They are making progress in islamicizing our Country because we are not resisting.

And the dreadful message we are getting from all sources is that our Constitution renders us powerless to resist islamization.

But read on, and I will show you how our Constitution & Declaration of Independence – properly understoodactually give our federal, State & local governments justification and authority to stop the islamization of our Country.  Once we understand two things, it becomes clear what we may – and must – do:

One:  Islam is not a “religion” in the sense we understand religion.  Islam is about TOTAL POWER.  It is a system which controls every aspect of the lives of those who have the misfortune to be subjected to it.  It masquerades as a religion, but once we understand that it is just another totalitarian system – like soviet communism, we can deal with it and defeat it.

Once in place, Islam is enforced with stone-age barbarism. It masquerades as a religion to recruit gullible fools who become suicide bombers, and to provide “cover” for officials in the Western countries who, indoctrinated with the Lies of multiculturalism & political correctness, look for an excuse to do nothing.

Two:  We must understand Our Founding Principles – these are our Sword & Shield – that (1) Rights come from God alone, (2) Muslims do not have the right to divest us of our Rights, and (3) the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights God gave us.

Now let us learn more of our Sword and Shield.

1.  Let us first consider Our Rights. What are our rights, and where do they come from?  The Constitution?  The First Ten Amendments?  NO! The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, …

Those words are golden:  Our Rights come from God Who Created the Universe; and the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

God gave us many Rights: Life! Liberty! Pursuit of Happiness!

To work and enjoy the fruits of our own labors.  To earn, inherit and keep private property.

To demand that the civil authorities obey the Law – and to hold them accountable when they don’t.

To have a civil government which protects our God given rights, protects us from invasion and criminals, but gives fair trials to accused persons.

Equal treatment under the law:  Courts are not to favor the rich, or the poor, or males or females.

God means for us to enjoy life!  Healthy food, wine and strong drink (in moderation); attractive dress for women, the marriage relation between man & woman, prosperity, and liberty!

As long as we obey the criminal laws (don’t murder, steal, bear false witness, and the like), we have the right to be left alone.

Liberty is the rule in God’s Model for civil government.  That is why our Liberty Bell quotes Leviticus 25:10  – “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

2.  Do Muslims respect the rights God gave us?

Life?  Theirs is a culture of death: murder, honor killings & suicide bombers.

Liberty?  Theirs is a culture where women are slaves and prisoners, little girls toys for old men, and conversion to Christianity a capital offense.

Pursuit of Happiness? Theirs is a culture of torture & sadism. Young Muslim girls in America who talked to non-Muslim boys were shot to death by their father in the back seat of his taxicab. Wife-beating is commonplace. Women who don’t cover their hair are lashed. Women are mutilated and maimed on the faces and even in their private places.

Freedom of Speech?  Theirs is a culture where criticizing Islam leads to a terrible death.

You can go down the list:  For every Right God gave us, the Muslims take it away.

Let’s look at just one God-given right – the Right to a fair trial:

Bearing false witness is condemned  (The Ten Commandments);  the evidence of two or more witnesses is required to prove a case (Deut 19:15 & Matthew 18:16);  public trials are required (Exodus 18:13); &  judges are required to be fair, impartial, & without favoritism.  (Deut. 1:16-17).

Do Muslims respect this God-given right to a fair trial?  NO!  In Iran, judges in “morals” cases (adultery) are allowed to make their own subjective determinations that a person is guilty even in the absence of any EVIDENCE!

Do Muslims have the “right” to impose in this Country a shariah system which takes away the rights GOD gave us? No!  God did not give Muslims the “right” to take away from us,  the rights He gave us!

3. We are told Muslims have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here.  But is that what the First Amendment says?  No!  Let’s read it:

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 doesn’t grant any rights to anybody! All it does is prohibit CONGRESS from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly!

So Muslims do not have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here.

4. Not only do Muslims claim the “right” to impose shariah in the Muslim communities springing up throughout our Country, they also claim the “right” to impose shariah law in the public square:  They demand shariah compliant financial institutions, foot baths in public places, that wine, sausages, and the like be banned from their presence, that they be allowed to shut down public streets for “prayers”, etc.

Do Muslims have the “right” to apply their law here?  No! Art. VI, clause 2 of Our Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

OUR Constitution and laws authorized by OUR Constitution are the supreme law of this land – and anything to the contrary must fall.  It violates Our Constitution for Muslims to practice shariah here!   Muslims who thus seek to overthrow Our Constitution and replace it with shariah are guilty of criminal sedition.  The federal government has the duty to prosecute them for sedition – or deport them.

5. Can the federal or state or local governments properly extend to Muslims a “right” to build mosques & proselytize here?  No! Because The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights God gave us.  Muslims seek to take away our God-given Rights.  Civil government is supposed to protect us from those who seek to divest us of our Rights.

We must insist that our federal, State, and local governments STOP the islamization of Our Country.  We must insist that they live up to the one legitimate purpose of civil government: to protect our GOD-given rights.

6. WE are a Christian Country based on Judeo – Christian principles. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.  It does not require us to permit Muslims to take Our Country over and destroy Our principles and impose their barbaric totalitarian system on us.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes God as Creator, supreme Judge and Regulator of the World, and as our Divine Protector.

Article VII of Our Constitution, just above the signatures, recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It says,

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven …

7.  So!  Let us summarize the above three Principles:

(1) Our Rights come from God – they predate & preexist the Constitution. Our Constitution doesn’t give “rights” to anybody.  So Muslims don’t have “constitutional rights” to come here, build mosques, proselytize, and impose shariah.

(2) All the Evidence shows that Muslims take away from People the Rights God gave them.  Since Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges that the purpose of civil governments is to secure the Rights GOD gave us, it is the duty and responsibility of civil governments at all levels to protect us from islamization.

(3) Article VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution – the “Supremacy clause” – makes it unconstitutional for Muslims to practice shariah law ANYWHERE in Our Country.

8.  The Center for Security Policy recently issued a scholarly (but readable) report: “Shariah: The Threat to America”.  Important suggested policy changes are listed on pages 141-144.  Tell your tea party groups!  Take delegations to your local, state, and federal representatives and tell them about it.  Most of them are weak & ignorant, so you must educate them and demand that they do their job and defend your community from islamization.

9.  Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders lists ten steps western countries must take to stop the islamization of their countries. All ten steps are mandated by our Declaration of Independence, and consistent with our Constitution:

(1)  Stop cultural relativism: We must formalize the Idea that we have one dominant culture that is based on Judaism & Christianity [Wilders adds “humanism”].

(2)  Stop pretending that Islam is a religion.

(3)  Show the true face of fundamentalist Islam. It is a brutal totalitarian ideology.

(4)  Stop all immigration from Muslim countries.  For Muslims who are already citizens, tell them that if they adhere to our values and our Constitution, they may stay as equals.  But if they deviate, we will expel them.

(5)  Outlaw shariah and deport practitioners.

(6)  Require Muslims to sign legally binding pledge of integration and allegiance.

(7)  Stop building mosques.

(8)  Seek reciprocity with Saudi Arabia for western churches & synagogues.

(9)  Close all Islamic schools – they are fascist institutions teaching hate.

(10) Remove our current weak leaders.

It is time to boldly stand up for Our God, OUR Declaration of Independence, and Our Constitution, and say, “No!” to those who are taking over Our Country. It is time to use Our God-given unalienable Rights and Our Constitution as the Sword & Shield they are meant to be.  We can and must use these to defeat Islamization.  PH

September 19, 2010

Post Script added July 22, 2011

Watch Melanie Phillips explain how the abandonment of the concepts of  Objective Truth and the embracing of moral relativism & multiculturalism is permitting the islamization of England:

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

September 19, 2010 Posted by | Article VI, clause 2, Declaration of Independence, Rights, Supremacy clause, Supreme Law of the Land | 25 Comments


%d bloggers like this: