Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution


right out of law school & newly commissioned US Army JAGC

Lawyer, philosopher & logician.  Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution.  Passionate about The Federalist  Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus.

“Publius Huldah” is the nom de guerre of Joanna Martin, J.D., who is a thoroughly nice person, in addition to all the above.  And if you hear otherwise, consider this from Socrates, who reportedly said, “When the debate is lost, slander is the weapon of the loser”.

*     *     *

WARNING AGAINST A CON-CON a/k/a “constitutional convention” or “Article V convention” or “Convention of the States”:  Do not be deceived by the people who are calling for a convention.  Go here and read the warning of James Madison and former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger.  Be sure to read “Twenty Questions About a Constitutional Convention”:

See also this article by Phyllis Schlafly  which addresses Mark Levin’s false claims about a “convention called by the States to propose amendments”.

In these two articles, investigative journalist Kelleigh Nelson exposes the nefarious forces – on the phony “Right” – involved in the push for an Article V convention.  The People you think are on your side are betraying you.

Dr. Edwin Vieira reminds us that the “necessary & proper” clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause)  vests in Congress the power to make all laws necessary & proper to execute its delegated powers.  Since Article V delegates to CONGRESS the power to call the convention, Congress would be  within its constitutional authority to organize the Convention anyway it wants, and to appoint whomsoever it wishes as delegates.

John A. Eidsmoe, a law professor who actually knows what he talking about, wrote a fascinating paper on all aspects of Article V:  Put this paper in your permanent files!

Do not be deceived by the “scholarly research” of former law professor, Rob Natelson.  Natelson trumpets the crazy theory that alleged “customs” practiced in our “Founding Era” provide binding principles which govern conventions called under Article V of our Constitution!  Here is JWK’s excellent expose’ of Natelson’s absurd theory:

Read former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg’s warning against an Article V convention HERE.

Believe no one. You must check everything out for yourself.  Our future hangs on your being able to tell the difference between Good and Evil.  And on your caring about the difference.


The Constitution is the Standard which our creature, the federal government, must obey.

The Constitution is the Standard which our creature, the federal government, must obey.

*     *

The Acceptance Con by Selwyn Duke explains (brilliantly) how moral relativism has destroyed our Country.  Libertarianism carries within itself the seeds of Destruction.  Oh, my Friends, take heed!

*     *     *

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. they are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted”, February 5, 1775.

*     *     *

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.  On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.”

H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun,  July 26, 1920.

*     *     *

“If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?”   Johnwk

*     *     *

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian.”  Attributed to Henry Ford.

*     *     *

I saw a movie where only the military and the police had guns:  Schindler’s List.

*     *     *

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”     Autobiography of Mark Twain

*     *     *

PERMISSION to re-post: You may re-post my papers on your own sites, provided you do not change the text, retain all the hyperlinks, and have a link back to my website.   However, since I periodically revise my papers,  the better practice is to post a para or so and have a “continue reading here” which links to my site.   That way, your readers will have the most recently revised edition.

*     *     *

To the Department of Homeland Security:

I am delighted to  learn of your intense & increasing interest in learning the original intent of Our Constitution!  Please feel free to browse around to  your hearts’ content.

Also, if any of you have questions as to the original intent of  any provision or provisions  of  Our Constitution, please feel free to post your questions.

To learn Our Constitution, you will need to get a copy of The Federalist Papers; and for word definitions, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language.  You can find The Federalist Papers on line; and here  is an online copy of Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

As I trust you know, word meaning are like the clouds:  meanings change as time passes.   So, naturally, we want to focus on the meanings enjoyed by Words during the Era of our Founding.

OK!  Here is your homework assignment:  Get a hard copy of The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.   Read them cover to cover.  Using different colored pencils, highlight (1) the powers of Congress, (2) the powers of the Executive Branch, and (3) the powers of the judicial branch.

With a 4th color, highlight all references to God in both Documents!

Please pay particular attention to what the Declaration says about the SOURCE of our Rights.  Mark that with a 5th color.

Surprising, isn’t it?

I will look for a good source from which you can buy pocket copies of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution  so that you can buy lots and distribute them to your co-workers, family and friends.

Again, do not be shy about posting your questions!  I am just a little old lady, and  do not bite.

Kindest regards,  Publius  Huldah.

Web Analytics Made Easy - Statcounter


  1. Love you thank you for your hard work and dedication to keeping our Republic!
    Hi to Frank,
    Kelly Khuri
    Clark County Indiana


    Comment by Kelly Khuri | July 5, 2022 | Reply

    • It’s good to hear from you, Kelly! Thank you for your visit and comment.
      We are well & working hard.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2022 | Reply

  2. Greetings Huldah. i’ve been trying to find an originalist who can explain Article V in a simple school-like way, Are you the one?


    Comment by William Rance Ranney | March 10, 2021 | Reply

    • Well, I tell the Truth and write as simply as I know how. I’ve written much on Article V convention. Have you seen my flyers? Shall I email them to you?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2021 | Reply

  3. Hello Joanna,

    Why is there no category on the District of Columbia Act of 1871?

    Thank you for your consideration.


    Comment by Whatisthetruth | February 22, 2021 | Reply

    • Because the claim that the US government became a business “corporation” by means of the DC Act of 1871 is hogwash (1) dreamed up by a ignorant person who is writing on matters he doesn’t understand, and who also doesn’t understand the semantic ranges of meanings of words; or (2) it’s black ops designed to distract the Americans who would rather focus on theories blaming SOMEONE ELSE for our problems instead of themselves who failed to buckle down and actually learn our Founding documents and what the Framers said about them; and enforce those documents with their votes and actions.

      Larry BeCraft, J.D. wrote an excellent article on this:

      I wrote a commentary on this theory here and scroll down to: The U.S. government is NOT a Corporation!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 22, 2021 | Reply

  4. Have you written or spoken about the Idaho State Constitution? Is so where can I find it?

    Have written or spoken about health boards shutting down different Businesses? Where would I be able to read or hear your thoughts about this. Idaho has a mix of Dillion and Free governances of the county’s and city’s .


    Comment by Eva Selleck | September 23, 2020 | Reply

    • 1. Here is the Idaho state Constitution:

      Focus especially on the Article dealing with the Executive Department: Does that Article authorize the Governor to shut down businesses? Does anything in the State Constitution authorize “Health” Boards to shut down businesses?

      Look at the Declaration of Rights: Which rights are being violated by the Orders “requiring” businesses to shut down?

      2. Representatives Dorothy Moon and Tammy Nichols are excellent Legislators in Idaho. Representative Priscilla Giddings is also excellent. Representative Heather Scott is FABULOUS!

      3. In various States, lawsuits have been filed under the federal civil rights Act, 42 USC 1983. I’ll email info to you – watch for email from Law suits have also been filed under State law. Our side has been winning these lawsuits.

      The gist of what is illegal and unconstitutional about ALL these shut-down orders, mask-wearing orders, etc., is that the State Constitution doesn’t authorize anybody in the State or local governments to shut down lawful businesses. These shut-down orders also violate rights and privileges guaranteed to The People by the federal Constitution. Watch this one minute video by a State Supreme Court Justice in Wisconsin and you will see exactly what I mean:

      God bless her!

      WHERE does YOUR State Constitution authorize anyone in state or local gov’t to close down businesses and put everyone under house arrest?

      Don’t accept any of that rubbish about “emergency powers”. Demand that they show you Article, Section, and clause within the STATE CONSTITUTION which gives them authority.

      Americans! Man up and reclaim your sovereign power!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 24, 2020 | Reply

    • In my first response to you, I mistakenly didn’t include Representative Heather Scott who is FABULOUS! If I were in Idaho, I would go meet her and team up with her. I subscribe to Heather Scott’s updates – you can’t get better than her. I’m forwarding to you her most recent legislative Update. CHECK YOUR EMAIL! did you get my first email to you?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 25, 2020 | Reply

  5. Love your lectures and writings and so I need you to correct me if I am wrong. The duty of a judge, as per their oath of office, is limited to protect and defend the rights and liberties of the litigants in the case before the court and to ensure equal treatment in the proceedings of the case. A judge does not sit in judgement of the law unless the case actually involves the lawfulness of the law itself. If the litigants cannot prove by compelling evidence in either side the judge must find for the rights and liberties of the individual. Correct?
    In a jury trial it is the duty of the jury to either rule guilty, not guilty or nullification of the law itself.
    Understanding, as I do, that most, if not all, judges are married to precedence is it possible to present evidence, based on the Founders and Framers, to negate court precedence. Consideration, in this case, given to the codified rights and liberties listed in the US Constitution Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights codified in each State Constitution. Can those principles be used to establish errant opinions of previous court opinions?

    I’m not a lawyer…just a critical thinker.


    Comment by Richard Kramer | January 11, 2019 | Reply

  6. Just watched your video on federal gun control being unlawful. I agree with you. However, here is a saying for you. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. What I mean by that is that if someone violates the ATF rules, they will take you by force, they will convict you in their corrupt court, and lock that person away. Most jurors do not know about jury nullification. My wife and I have not received a summons for jury duty since they found out that we are informed jurors. I sincerely hope we can restore the Republic, deep in my heart, I fear the tree of Liberty is going to be watered very soon.


    Comment by Derrell Self | July 18, 2016 | Reply

    • That is why I have been saying that State Legislatures should pass laws directing their Citizens, firearms & ammo dealers in their State, all law enforcement authorities in their State, all federal and State judges, etc., to ignore all such pretended federal laws and unconstitutional rules, and that the State Attorney General should defend and protect any Citizens of their State who are unlawfully harassed by federal agents enforcing unconstitutional federal laws and rules. The States must draw the line here, at least. No matter what. The States must “interpose” (stand between) their Citizens and the lawless & berserk federal government.

      And remember that it is never our own agreement which matters – what matters is whether what is said is True or False. If it is True, then one must accept it as a moral duty.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2016 | Reply

  7. With the current SCOTUS vacancy due to the passing of Justice Scalia, and the president’s nomination not being considered by the Senate, I was wondering the constitutionality of that decision? Is the Senate allowed under Advise and Consent to not interview the candidate?


    Comment by jeffmiller | April 6, 2016 | Reply

    • Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 2 doesn’t require The Senate to expeditiously consider the President’s nominations. While the manly course of action would be to hold the vote and REJECT obama’s nominee; the next best course of action is to postpone the vote and never act on the nomination. Remember! Congress is not subordinate to the President.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 7, 2016 | Reply

      • Thank you for the reply and your site. It is wealth of information.


        Comment by jeffmiller | April 7, 2016 | Reply

        • You are welcome! And thank you for your kind and encouraging words.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2016 | Reply


    Sandor Balogh, Ph. D.

    They have crossed the Rubicon. The war is on.

    No, not between gays and straight people. The war is between the runaway court system, including the Supreme Court, and people with Christian values. It is judicial lawlessness and tyranny versus moral Christians who refuse to obey the invalid laws of our Godless justices.

    The first casualty of this war is a law-abiding public servant in jail. According to the New York Times,

    “ASHLAND, Ky. — A Kentucky county clerk who has become a symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage was jailed Thursday after defying a federal court order to issue licenses to gay couples.

    The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained for contempt of court…”

    She can remain in jail, until she would agree to violate her religious beliefs and marries homosexual couples.

    Let’s look at the background: God created Adam and Eve, man and woman. According to the Old Testament, Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorra for their sins. This much for the religious background.

    For social and cultural background: In 1945 anthropologist George Peter Murdock did a study of “cultural universals,” that is, patterns of behavior that can be found in every culture. (George Peter Murdock, “The Common Denominator of Cultures,” in THE SCIENCE OF MAN IN THE WORLD CRISIS, Columbia University Press, 1945, p. 140)

    In analyzing the family structures, he notes that there are “various family forms, but all known societies have the same fundamental form, the nuclear family of father, mother and children.” He adds a footnote that “there was not a single exception to this rule in the study of 220 societies, or in any other society known to the author from his general anthropological studies”

    “In contrast to many lower animals, the father is always a member of the human family. In all societies the nuclear family is established by marriage… This coincidence of behavior is truly remarkable in view of the diversity of responses in other departments of culture.”

    Homosexual marriage never existed in any society that has left a record. In ancient Greece homosexuality was approved, but there was no homosexual marriage. Our culture is breaking ground, for better or worse. I am afraid, for the worse for mankind and for future generations.

    As for the “equal rights” argument, unlike some primitive cultures, we have “marriage equality” already: every man has equal right to marry the woman of his choice, and every woman can marry the man of his choice. We do not need more equality.

    Against this background, earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court, usurping its constitutional authority, assuming powers the Constitution never gave the Court, declared gay marriage a constitutional right.

    Amidst national dissatisfaction with this instance of judicial creation and grant of constitutional rights that cannot be justified by any twisting of the constitutional authority, the elected clerk in Kentucky, refused to follow a court order ordering her to follow the illegal order, went to jail.

    There is no other justification than passive precedents, acquiescence to the court’s say so. John Marshall, in the name o f the Court illegally assumed in Marbury v. Madison that they are above the Congress and can declare it’s law unconstitutional. The Judicial Act of 1789 adds to the Court constitutionally granted a new jurisdiction, one that Chief Justice John Marshall found politically inconvenient, so instead of using, he declared it unconstitutional. Based on this precedence, judicial review and the power to interpret the constitution was born. But this grab of power was never legitimated. The decision is also faulty, because John Marshall’s was the Secretary of State who signed but failed to deliver Marbury’s appointment that was the issue in the case, so he should have disqualified himself from the case.

    Speaking of disqualification, two of the justices ha performed gay weddings, so by law they should have disqualified themselves but did not, so the decision was illegal on procedural grounds.

    Furthermore, regulating domestic matters is a state function, and the federal involvement, even by the Supreme Court, violates the tenth Amendment. The case that the 14th amendment “federalized” the human rights issues also should be impartially examined.

    We should also examine the case of forcing a baker to prepare a gay wedding cake against his religious belief violates the 9th Amendment, which states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    The word “enumeration” must include all right included, explicitly or later “found” in the constitution by the Supreme Court. So the baker’s rights can not be taken just because the Court discovered a new right for homosexuals.

    Last but not least, the results of the several Supreme Court cases undermining the Christian culture of the United States, from the erection of the Wall of Separation, the school/prayer cases, the abortion cases, support for the homosexual agenda, including the gay right to marry, all indicate that the Supreme Court has its own agenda to undermine the Christian values of the Country.

    They did this without a vote in Congress, with a majority vote of nine unelected old men and women, who are not accountable to anybody, no matter how faulty or damaging their decision is. In their decisions they often use faulty logic ridiculous argument and decide without any basis in the Constitution. They remake the culture and social structure, or rather, destroy morality in the country, without a vote being cast by the elected Congress. This is intolerable in a representative form of government.

    In the year of Donald Trump, when 80-85% of Americans are dissatisfied with the federal government, there is enough reason to think, that Supreme Court would not fare much better.

    With so many things wrong with the decision, now is the time for some much needed reform. Therefore it is proposed that

    A. the governors of the several states should rebel against illegal decisions of the Court, and they should declare such rulings constitutionally null and void, in the name of the people of their respective states.

    B. Congress should establish a special committee to investigate the Court’s use of judicial review: how it originated how it has been used, and what, if any, corrective action in needed.

    C. Presidential candidates should make an issue of the Supreme Court, and pledge to support any corrective measure necessary to reign in a runaway court system, and to make it an impartial Court, rather than a “Constitutional Convention in session,” creating new constitutional provisions at will.

    Proposed by

    Dr. Sandor Balogh

    Prof. emeritus,

    political science


    Comment by Sindor Balogh | September 11, 2015 | Reply

    • Welcome, Professor! Thank you for your comment.

      Yes to what you say, except consider these:

      1) Marbury is widely misunderstood: Actually, Marbury says that when there is a conflict between the Constitution and an Act of Congress, SCOTUS must side with the Constitution. Hamilton said the same thing during 1788 in Federalist No. 78.

      Each Branch has a check on the other branches. Of course SCOTUS has the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional when they violate the Constitution! Congress is not the sole judge of the extent of its powers! SCOTUS has a check on Congress by declaring its acts in violation of the Constitution.

      Congress has a check on the federal courts (Federalist No. 81, 8th para) and on the President (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para & No. 77, last para) when THEY violate the Constitution: impeachment.

      [There are other checks between the branches.]

      Our Framers, in various places in The Federalist Papers, warned of the dangers when two or more branches of the federal gov’t connive to usurp powers. It is the Checks between the Branches which were designed to prevent such connivance. If Congress makes a law which is unconstitutional (eg. obamacare), and SCOTUS doesn’t declare it unconstitutional, SCOTUS would be conniving with Congress to usurp power over the American People. It was SCOTUS’ duty to side with the Constitution over Congress and declare obamacare unconstitutional.

      2) RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM FEDERAL JUDGES! Rights have a transcendent origin – a hallowed origin – they come from The Creator God! That is one of our Founding Principles set forth in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence.

      3) Our Constitution already sets forth the remedy for federal judges who usurp power! Impeachment, trial, conviction, and removal from the Bench. Hamilton specifically says this in Federalist paper No. 81 (8th para). It’s already in the hands of Congress. We don’t need any special commissions.

      Our fundamental political problem is that the American People are so ignorant and morally blind that they elect to Congress people who are cowards, go with the flow, and don’t know squat about our two Founding documents.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 11, 2015 | Reply

    • The clerk was right to deny a marriage license to anyone other than a man or a woman but for the wrong reason. The Federal Courts have zero jurisdiction. I am an expert on the subject. I know how to preserve marriage between a man and a woman independent of the US Supreme court’s ruling.


      Comment by J. | May 27, 2016 | Reply

  9. I am so happy and relieved to have found and read your articles I am in such distress regarding our current administration !!!! I talk to so many people and they are not aware or they do not seem to care. Why don’t they wake up ?????


    Comment by Susan Mitchell | May 19, 2015 | Reply

    • Thank you! Many will not wake up until disaster is right upon them. They don’t want to know …


      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 19, 2015 | Reply

  10. Thank you for the Sunbeam of Truth you are sharing…


    Comment by Steve Bland | February 17, 2015 | Reply

  11. Publius, I am very thankful to see you here.
    Hope to see you in March.


    Comment by Mark Wolfe | February 2, 2015 | Reply

    • And I am glad to see you here, Mark. And I Look forward to meeting you.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2015 | Reply

      • PH, I cannot access your profile on facebook. Can you please look into that? Thanks PH!


        Comment by Mike Castellano | February 5, 2015 | Reply

        • Facebook shut me down!


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2015 | Reply

  12. Isaiah 55:10-11 NIV

    As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

    If you can’t make it here it is understandable. Your words enlighten many.
    The snow has purpose, if He directs you here -Godspeed.


    Comment by Mark Wolfe | February 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Mark, I am so happy to see you here – and thank you for your encouragement. I hope I am put here to change minds and turn on lights; instead of being here so He can say, “You were warned, but you refused to listen. So now take what is coming to you.”

      I’m in touch with my host so will know ASAP whether they cancel or proceed. I am READY!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2015 | Reply

  13. […] Publius Huldah, former attorney and Constitutional scholar, will be speaking in person at the Bachelor Creek Church of Christ in Wabash, IN on Monday evening, February 2, at 7 PM.  She is very outspoken against an Article V Convention, and has all of the proof needed to show that the proponents maybe misleading about their promotion of it.  She is an expert on the Constitution, and it will be a privilege to hear her speak. […]


    Pingback by Publius Hulda speaking in Wabash on Monday! | The Allen County Tea Party | January 31, 2015 | Reply

    • Thank you for your kind comments! I have REALLY been looking forward to this event – However, I got a notice from someone that the event had been canceled due to the weather. I have emailed the man with whom I made all the arrangements to confirm the cancellation and haven’t heard back.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 31, 2015 | Reply

    • Hummmmm, it appears that the notice of cancellation due to inclement weather which I got earlier today was a FAKE sent by someone who doesn’t want The People of Indiana to hear what I have to say……..


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 31, 2015 | Reply

  14. I hope this helps
    Article VII US Constitution

    IN A US SUPREME COURT STUNNING 6 TO 3 DECISION JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and
    administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights and has the power to enforce law and remove people from office. (See US Supreme
    Court Decisions, Volume 504 pages 36 to 49 year 1992)


    Comment by Ron | August 21, 2014 | Reply

    • What you have provided is someone’s interpretation of an unidentified supreme court opinion. That has no value.

      What I need is the full name of the case. I don’t have access to a law library; but with the name of the case, I can find it on line.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 21, 2014 | Reply

  15. What are your thoughts on Common Law Grand Jury as in Amendment VII and Judge Scolia’s statement of it being in effect the 4th branch of government Dixie Co. Fl just had 2 True Bills come out of their Common Law Grand Jury. I can provide you with copies.


    Comment by Ron | August 16, 2014 | Reply

    • Grand juries are not involved in civil actions. Only petit juries are involved in the trials of civil actions. So the 7th Amendment does not deal with grand juries. Grand juries are involved only in criminal actions.

      Furthermore, the 7th amendment deals only with civil actions tried in the federal courts. The original intent of the so-called “bill of rights” was that it restricted ONLY the federal government. It was not until Gitlow v. People (1925), that judges on the supreme Court asserted that the 14th Amendment (which applies to the States) incorporates the 1st Amendment so that the 1st Amendment now restricts the powers of the States. Since then, judges on the supreme Court have decided that now this, and now that, provision of the “bill of rights” applies so as to restrict the States.

      Can you provide a link to Scalia’s statement you referenced? I need to see the context and precisely what he said.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 16, 2014 | Reply

  16. I am trying to learn about OUR Constitution and what it means. I read in one of your papers that George Washington had only four departments. Where does it say in our Constitution that a these four are the only Constitutional ones.


    Comment by Carolyn | May 19, 2014 | Reply

    • 1. It is true that Washington’s cabinet had only 4 members (Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General).
      2. It is also true that those 4 functions are authorized by our Constitution.
      3. Are other functions authorized by the Constitution such that additional cabinet positions would be constitutionally permissible? Yes! It is constitutionally permissible to have a Secretary of the Navy (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 13); a Secretary of the Interior until such time as “federal” lands are disposed of by returning them to the States (Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2); a Postmaster General (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 7). And doubtless additional positions in the cabinet would be constitutionally permissible. All you need is the Article, Section, and Clause of our Constitution which authorizes the function. See?
      4. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the Secretary of Health and Human Services? Secretary of Education? Secretary of Agriculture? Secretary of Housing and Urban Development?
      Do you see?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 20, 2014 | Reply

  17. The 16th Amendment did not Change the tax laws of the Constitution and did not add any new tax laws. Read all about this in Peter Eric Henderson’s books: 1.0 “Cracking the Code, The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America” and 2.0 “Was GrandPa Really A Moron?” Go to to “www.Lost Horizon’” and read and watch the few pages there and buy Cracking The Code, The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America By Peter Eric Henderson,$25.00. He has a excellent discussion of the origin and followup of The Income Tax. The Tax started in 1862 with With-holding and by the Lincoln Administration. He has many Supreme Court citations that prove there were no changes or additions to the income tax by the 16th Amendment. The real changes were by usurpation via The IRS, 1943.


    Comment by Fallon T Gordon Sr. MD | September 19, 2013 | Reply

    • Oh dear, I hate to see people joust at windmills. We need them for productive work!

      The 16th amendment was a very bad idea and should be repealed. Congress should be returned to its enumerated powers. Enough said!

      We need to be learning the enumerated powers of the 3 branches of the federal government; and then joining Alan Keyes’ Bucket Brigade!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 19, 2013 | Reply

      • I DO NOT JOUST OR JEST ABOUT WINDMILLS OR ANYTHING AS IMPORTANT AS OUR LAWS. The INCOME TAX EXCISE uses ordinary words that have had their meaning changed by the government to a different legal meaning. “INCOME, WAGES, EMPLOYER or EMPLOYEE” and other words have specialized narrow legal meanings that apply to those who have “Special activities and privileges” and work for or are connected to federal or state governments. The Supreme Court declared the meaning of the word “INCOME” to be fixed and confined to objects proper to an excise . . Objects proper to an ‘INCOME’ excise are privileges or activities not of common right. So the only objects of the income tax [the government calls it an excise even though the dictionary of 1928 and now say excises are commodities] are activities that are paid by the federal government, or a federal agency or activities connected with public office and paid by the federal government or a state government. — There are many Supreme Court decisions on the 16th Amendment, The first was by Chief Justice White where he said the 16th Amendment did not authorize any new tax , nor did it repeal the tax clauses in the Constitution, art. one sections 2 and 9. Also see Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 [1916] and Peck v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165 [1918] AND OTHERS. — Your teachings of the meanings of our Constitution, Declaration and The Bill of Rights are excellent!; The best!. I refer your writings to others every day. Please read the Supreme Court rulings on the 16th Amendment and if possible read the book references above and add “Upholding The Law” by the same author. His teachings about the INCOME EXCISE should be known by all. The Income Excise is not in the Enumerated Powers but still should be understood, just as you would understand both sides of a court proceeding, [ YOUR SIDE and the other side]. Fallon T Gordon Sr.


        Comment by Fallon T Gordon Sr. MD | May 7, 2014 | Reply

  18. You give the affirmation every time I suspect the Judiciary has worked an effort to usurp my freedom! There are many of us trying to gain traction in State Legislatures. Just hope I can help get the word out!


    Comment by lgcvano | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • You have to educate your State legislators. They don’t know. They don’t understand our Founding Principles. Make use of the time when your Legislature is out of session to get to know them.

      Yes, the supreme Court has been a virulent cancer in our Country. But we elected the Presidents who appointed them, and we elected the U.S. Senators who confirmed them.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

      • But, we also elect Congress… which body being closest to the people has two powers which it regularly fails to use:

        1) Clipping the wings of subject matter over which the Supreme court is allowed jurisdiction;

        2) Removing any one or all of the court entirely! These were at one time feared outcomes! They reflected their power in that the court confined itself to it’s Constitutional mandate of upholding the very document which brought it into existence!

        The solution speaks for itself!


        Comment by JSBach | May 5, 2014 | Reply

  19. […] is a good place to start? On her About page,  Publius Huldah has an excellent two-part video. Check it out. Perhaps then understand the […]


    Pingback by WHY HAS OUR CREATURE HAS BECOME A RAVENING MONSTER? | Citizen Tom | June 8, 2013 | Reply



    Comment by JOE L'AMARCA | March 13, 2013 | Reply

    • People are screwed by believing the rubbish ignorant people like you put out.

      You don’t know what you are talking about. You have no understanding of the function of amendments. Amendments change the Constitution.

      The 11th Amendment reduced the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 13, 2013 | Reply

  21. […] The speaker is Publius Huldah, a pen name, for a former college professor of the Constitution. She has many articles covering the Constitution. SEE WEBPAGE […]


    Pingback by Gun Control Debate: Constitution vs Communism | March 12, 2013 | Reply

    • never a college professor! I actually fought in the trenches as a litigation attorney.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 12, 2013 | Reply

  22. Today, March 5th 2013 I came across one of your video presentations and I was singularly impressed with your delivery, your knowledge, and your passion concerning our Constitution. Bravo!!! I look forward to your thinking and your future presentations. Wouldn’t it be great if you were able to present your arguments to the Supreme Court? A new fan.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by tlperdue | March 5, 2013 | Reply

  23. 2013 02 27 I am watching you and the tv program where you are at the TN State Senate. I stopped fixing breakfast, I put on my recorder, and didn’t move until, well, it isn’t over yet. I think you are the most wonderfully perfect speaker, and your mind is incredible to behold. I just thought you might want to know that I believe you completely got to the heart of the matter. I went through a similar process several months, and know that something needs to be done.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by JEWELANT | February 27, 2013 | Reply

    • Is the video online somewhere so more of the Tennessee-ans can see it?


      Comment by Ed Bradford | February 27, 2013 | Reply

    • THANK YOU, my dear!

      But the way Brian kelsey conducted the hearing reminded me of the old saying:

      “Whoever loves sausages and respects the law shouldn’t watch either of them being made.”

      And I must say, I expect his Mama is ashamed of him for his bullying, boorish behaviour.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2013 | Reply

  24. I am glad that I have “stumbled” upon your blog, your knowledge of the Constitution is the best since Rawles wrote “Views of the Constitution” in 1828!
    Please continue to edify the ignorant!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Daniel Bostock | February 1, 2013 | Reply

  25. […] Understanding the Constitution 7 Feb Lawyer, philosopher & logician.  Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution.  Passionate about The Federalist  Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand… via […]


    Pingback by Understanding the Constitution « muttonhead59 | February 7, 2012 | Reply

  26. […] To the Department of Homeland Security: I am delighted to  learn of your intense & increasing interest in learning the original intent of Our Constitution!  Please feel free to browse around to  your hearts’ content. […]


    Pingback by Publius Huldah | Grumpy Opinions | January 2, 2012 | Reply

  27. Is there a way to search your blog site?


    Comment by Ben | August 28, 2011 | Reply

    • Thank you, Ben. I am realizing I need a professional web designer. We are ‘puter illiterates in this household. But in the meantime, someone is trying to set up a search function here.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 28, 2011 | Reply

    • Control F works for me.


      Comment by Bob Thompson | July 3, 2012 | Reply

  28. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I’ve never had the opportunity to sit under the teaching of those who hold our Constitution as a scared document for our country. I will be checking in now and then to learn even more.


    Comment by tphobbitwoman | August 24, 2011 | Reply

  29. Thank God for your insights and energy! Your material are great to confront the so-called progressive agenda of the left, and against Sharia law. Keep up the great work. Stay well and blessed!


    Comment by Donald A. Westcott | August 21, 2011 | Reply

  30. I like most of what McNiel says.
    1. A new party — I think the probability of tAking over the Republican party is much higher than success with a third party. Only active people will support a third party and they are only a small proportion of the voters. Better to claim the people who know what is right but don’t have time to think about it by commandeering the Republican party than try to create a third party. TR failed!!
    2. Constitutional convention — Bad idea. The folks sent their representatives to Philadelphia to “modify” the Articles on Confederation. The group came up with a whole new constitution. Do you trust the state legislatures to stick to you “issues”? I don’t.

    Go with changing the Republican party to stand withyour tax an congressional committee ideas and I’m with you.



    Comment by Ed Bradford | August 22, 2010 | Reply

  31. Publius,

    I was introduced to your blog through a link on Facebook. What a breath of fresh air! I will be coming back often.

    You may be interested to know that there are other concerned Americans out here working to restore our freedoms from another perspective: sound accounting principles and economic law.

    When you get 5 free minutes, check out my 21st century economic plan to restore freedom to ALL American citizens at

    First, read “The Plan – An Overview”. Then read the 12-page “Economic Freedom Act”, which is based on a return to Constitutional principles.

    In this age of 2,000 page bills that take our freedoms away from us, it seems impossible to believe that they can be restored in 12 pages. But, it is true.


    Bob McNeil
    American Citizen Party


    Comment by Bob McNeil | August 22, 2010 | Reply

    • Bob, On this site, I explain the original intent of The Constitution. To do this, I use the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787, the Bible, and Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

      This is not a forum for pushing any political party. I don’t think it matters what parties we have if the people in them do not understand our founding documents. No program, party, or plan will save us. Just knowledge of our founding documents and repentance. I focus on that alone.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 23, 2010 | Reply

  32. Thanks for your site. A political buddy first mentioned you and I’m putting a toe in tonight. So here’s a question: What are you doing/have you done to avail Arizona of your tremendous understanding? Have you contacted the Governor directly, offered your legal services and counsel? Have you taken all steps possible, since the direction of the specific court action began jumping off of the constitutional rails,to insinuate yourself into the process and keep things going as they should?


    Comment by Seward | August 10, 2010 | Reply

    • They know about it, Seward. But there are many dark corners to light up. Look at all the trouble we are having with Oily in the comment section of my last paper! Their minds are not only dark, they are slammed shut!


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 10, 2010 | Reply

      • Linguistics has fascinated me from day one, but sometimes the trees cannot be discerned from the forest. I have seen nothing of your contentions in the media, and, therefore, I wonder the allegiance of our pen masters or the accuracy of your admonitions.

        I am most interested in hearing and reading about the outcome to this most interesting turn of events.

        As the populace might say, “Rock on!”


        Comment by Terry Kuehn | September 8, 2010 | Reply

  33. I would do any thing for all this in book form.where can i buy it.


    Comment by c wilson | August 1, 2010 | Reply

    • Thank you! I’m computer illiterate but will see what I can do about getting a print function added to my website. Meanwhile, maybe you know someone who can show you how to print things from this site? I’m sorry I can barely find my way around on ‘puters. I’m from the parchment & quill pen generation.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 1, 2010 | Reply

      • One can do a screen shot and save and print it.


        Comment by justdeva | January 7, 2012 | Reply

        • Thank you, justdeva. In my household we have been meaning to take ‘puter classes, we just never get around to it.

          Will most people know how to do screen shots?


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 7, 2012 | Reply

          • The best way to get a printed version of an article on a page that does not yet have a print feature is to highlight the text (hold down the left mouse button and highlight just like using a highlighter) then right click on the highlighted area and select copy. Then open a word processing program and paste. You can then print from the other program.


            Comment by dflickiss | July 4, 2013

          • Thank you, dflickiss!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2013

  34. What a wonderful discovery I have made in finding you. May we link to your blog from ours, the Conservative Party USA?

    National Chairman


    Comment by Simeo (Sam) Gallo | July 31, 2010 | Reply

    • You certainly may! And thank you very much! After all the hate mail, I really appreciate the friendly ones! Publius


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 31, 2010 | Reply

  35. Publius-Huldah

    I am enjoying the read of your blog that I newly discovered, thrilled that there are still lawyers out there that are not (Evolutionists) and can help frame the serious work that needs to be done to wrestle back control of our Country from socialists thieves. Yes we can vote out House and Senators but how do we attack the bigger villian the COURTS from chewing away our rights in tortured language and logic to render them as foreign from truth to our understanding as farm animals checking the barn door as in Orwell’s Animal Farm. We must find the first precedents that radically deviated from intent and attack the false legs holding that legal standing to have hope to reverse the damage already done.
    I look forward to reading all your papers.
    Respectfully Claudia


    Comment by Claudia crazy like a fox | July 29, 2010 | Reply

  36. It is my belief that nothing is impossible. You say “burn it”. I don’t see that happening. I do see Scalia’s argument being picked apart by forcing it to confront common sense. As Scalia quoted, in so many words, you can’t build “inference upon inference” to reach anywhere in American life.

    Using Thomas’s thinking and other dissents from the cases

    2004 – Gonzalez vs. Raich [Medical Marijuana] 6-3
    1942 – Wickard v. Filburn Private Wheat Produciton. 5-4

    I think a case for reversal can be built. Also, under “takings”, I don’t
    understand what the return value is. If the government takes my property
    aren’t they supposed to reimburse me with just compensation? If I don’t
    use any medical care, where is my just compensation?

    Finally, a lot of the Social Security and medical bills depend on the word
    “insurance”. If you look that up in the dictionary, it doesn’t bare much resemblance to what is described in the laws. Confronting the courts with the common sense observation that Medicare is NOT insurance, but a redistributive tax might be a useful path.

    I don’t like the expansive thinking but stare decisis is part of the mechanics of the law. Without it every trial would produce a new interpretation of the same words. What is bad about stare decisis is that it builds upon error. I don’t know how legal philosophers deal with that aspect of the law.

    Just a few thoughts on this. Still reading.



    Comment by Ed Bradford | November 15, 2009 | Reply

  37. Originalism will never win until Justice Scalia reverses himself on 2004 – Gonzalez vs. Raich [Medical Marijuana]. Read his opinion and say otherwise. A large concerted effort could yield to “common sense” a victory over expansive interpretations of “substantially affects interstate commerce”. All seems based on the 5-4 decision in
    1942 – Wickard v. Filburn Private Wheat Produciton case.

    Both Gonzalez and Wickard defy common sense and would genuinely surprise our founders and even John Marshall.

    All “government can’t force me to buy health insurance” arguments pivot on these two decisions, at least for the commerce clause part of the justification. The earlier one was 5-4 and the later was 6-3. Demolition of these two decisions means a lot for the country and the strengthening of the constitution.



    Comment by Ed Bradford | November 14, 2009 | Reply

    • Yes, my dear Friend Ed,

      Reading Justice Scalia’s opinions is often like getting stabbed in the back by someone whom you thought was your friend. Scalia, like those who signed onto the majority opinion, does not go by The Constitution. Instead, he goes by supreme court decisions – 220 years of precedent – which rarely bears any resemblance to The Constitution.

      Justice Clarence Thomas is my favorite. I would add, of course, that regulation of “drugs” is NOT one of the enumerated powers of Congress! Just as banning alcoholic beverages is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. That’s why they had to pass the 18th Amendment – to give Congress authority to make laws banning alcoholic beverages!

      If you will look at my revised edition of “Congress’ Enumerated Powers” on my site here, you will see that I added a paragraph proving the original intent of the “necessary and proper clause” – I PROVE it by quotes from Hamilton & Madison in The Federalist Papers.

      And in my paper on whether the “interstate commerce” clause authorizes Congress to force us to buy health insurance, I present an expanded proof of the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause.

      Finally, do you notice how, throughout, these Judges cite prior decisions of the Court as AUTHORITY? That is shocking! The court’s only power is to decide those FEW cases which they are authorized by Art. III to hear (See my paper on the jurisdiction of the federal courts), their opinions affect ONLY the parties to the case before them, and their opinions are NOT “Law”!

      I think the best thing to do with the 220 years of supreme court precedent is, as Braveheart said of the English nobleman’s fort, “burn it”.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | November 15, 2009 | Reply

      • As Judge Bork has said (many times), “precedent is not dispositive.” The Supreme Court is not bound by previous decisions. While one might argue that it would be disruptive in the short run simply to overturn all of their previous anti-Constitutional opinions as fast as possible, we don’t have to repeat and extend their mistakes just because they made them previously. We don’t have to “burn it” — we should ignore it, and go back to the text and intent of the Constitution. President Jackson, in response to Worcester vs. Georgia, is alleged to have said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” The Supreme Court has no power except our respect for their opinions; having forfeited that respect, they will have to earn it back, one case at a time.


        Comment by Mark P. Fishman | July 11, 2011 | Reply

        • Amen, Friend! My “burn it” comment was inspired by William Wallace when he ordered his men to burn the English fort. I love that line!

          But you are right – subsequent SCOTUS decisions should repudiate the earlier cases by name, expressly overrule them, and then give the constitutional decision. It would facilitate legal research if the unconstitutional opinions are expressly overruled. Otherwise they hang around as precedent which is still on the books. And would confuse future generations of lawyers – and we have seen how easily they are confused. I have an internet friend who is a math professor. He thinks part of the problem with lawyers is that they don’t study the “hard” sciences. I expect he is right. I studied Logic as a young child and as an undergraduate – that was as “hard” as my studies ever got – in the sense of dealing with “hard” FACTS and not opinions. Oh, I had high school geometry which I loved.


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 11, 2011 | Reply

  38. Publius,

    I know little in life, comparatively, but have learned how to find answers. With respect to your Q & A interest, I can research to see if it is possible on WordPress. Please e-mail me with some instruction on how you would like to see a Q & A function.



    Comment by Braveheart | November 11, 2009 | Reply

    • Dear Braveheart,

      Thank you! I sent you an email. PH


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | November 12, 2009 | Reply

  39. Thrilled to find your blog! I know I will be referring to your posts often. God bless!


    Comment by Gretchen | October 20, 2009 | Reply

  40. I don’t understand ‘puters at all. I need a helper – it’s so hard to move from the pen & ink generation to the ‘puter generation. But did learn how to replace my beloved footnotes with hyperlinks when I can find an on-line source!


    Comment by Publius/Huldah | October 14, 2009 | Reply

    • Which template are you using in WordPress? I can probably help you with adding comments to your site, Q&A.


      Comment by William - Freedoms Voice | November 12, 2009 | Reply

      • Dear William, Thank you for your kind offer! But “Braveheart” is already looking into it. My computer was down most of the day yesterday – hence the delay in answering. Your friend, PH


        Comment by Publius/Huldah | November 14, 2009 | Reply

  41. Publius Was pleased to find you on AsAMom! And to check out your site. This is such a great site! You ought to be able to find some freeware that would let you do FAQs… or just a .pdf file, take the questions in on your sites and upload your .pdf periodically to you page on various sites. Hope you get it worked out, looking forward to it! J


    Comment by Jane Harnagy | October 14, 2009 | Reply

  42. P/H,

    Where did you go on
    I could not find you.

    You were a lot of help !

    Can i contact you here?

    Neil J


    Comment by J Neil Jednoralski, P.E. | October 3, 2009 | Reply

    • Hi, Neil,
      I am not computer literate, but want to find out if I can set up a Q & A section on this blog! That would be good, don’t you think? I’m glad you found me here. Stay in touch!PH


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | October 3, 2009 | Reply

  43. Claudia, dear,
    THANK YOU! The night before I got your comment, I lay awake much of the night wondering why I was doing this. You reminded me.


    Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 6, 2009 | Reply

  44. Dear Publius,
    YOU ARE FABULOUS! It is such a shame that “education” has failed so miserably in this country. I taught U. S. History, World History and Political Science in North Carolina a while back and I was one of a few teachers who would challenge the lies in the textbooks. Hopefully I was able to impart my passion for this country to some of my students. I pray that these students, who are now well into the workforce and almost middle-aged, will stand up with us against these fascists in this government.

    Thank you for your dedication to our freedom and your annotations of the Constitution (the most brilliant document every written.)


    Comment by Claudia Henneberry | September 4, 2009 | Reply

    • Claudia,

      How did you present “Manifest Destiny” to your students?


      Comment by CharlieSeattle | February 17, 2015 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: