Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

3,018 Comments »

  1. Everyone seems to be missing the huge tragedy in Nevada. Judge Navarro vs Bundy etal. I’m speaking to the actual in court activity of the judge. If half of the reports are true. How on Earth can that woman remain a judge? I understand impeachment would remove her. A1 S2 C last? The sad reality, no one in the House of Representatives has any inkling to bring her up on impeachment charges. This drives home the point of our country’s moral and integrity decay. This is about being an impartial judge. Following the rules of the court. All of which she seems to ignore and write her own rules as she goes. Thirty some odd prosecution witnesses only 4 for the defense? That’s not even logical. Prohibiting wives from taking the stand to defend their husbands. Making them refrain from showing emotions. Striking remarks from the record, that went against the prosecution. This did not happen for the defense a single time in 6+ weeks of trial? Railroaded the defendants. She has effectively rendered her decision before the case(s) have been heard.

    Why aren’t the ABA or other Law groups not pushing to get her impeached? Has the Attorney/Law profession fallen that far into moral and integrity decay in both personal and professional life? The overall theme from the judiciary currently is “we know better than you” and “better luck next time, sucker!” How do We The People fight this judicial abuse?

    I know her actions do not and will not speak for all JD’s. But this is a serious black eye to the profession and to government in general. This is certainly not needed when our society is already fractured and tensions are high on many facets.

    Like

    Comment by masonsands | April 26, 2017 | Reply

  2. PH
    Have you ever considered publishing a book of your articles? A chapter explaining each enumerated power. You could title it BACK TO BASICS or TIME TO GET BACK ON TRACK.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | April 25, 2017 | Reply

    • I mean to do that!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2017 | Reply

  3. Hi PH

    I may have missed an answer to this posted elsewhere, but here is my question anyway.

    Is there anything under the general heading of “alien and sedition” laws that would allow the state or federal governments to fight efforts to establish/enforce shariah laws? I am thinking about laws that would not just enforce civil and monetary penalties, but might even involve jail time, criminal investigation, and/or deportation to a (Muslim) mother country.

    My concern is that state and local governments are being pressured to “accept” such laws as legal in many communities that are increasingly Muslim in culture — even to the point where police/fire/rescue forces are forbidden or at least reluctant to enter. And although it may not be a major issue at this point, if left unchecked it could easily become a severe problem nationwide.

    Not only are these laws strict and often abusive, but also antithetical to the God-given Judeo-Christian laws and principles that form the basis for our Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and U. S Constitution. And if enacted, shariah would tend to subvert, undermine and de-legitimize the liberties and freedoms we value and fight to preserve.

    If this subect is covered elsewhere, perhaps a simple link is all that is needed.

    Thank you for all the work you do to help educate us!

    paradigmrw

    Like

    Comment by Bob Waterbury | April 23, 2017 | Reply

  4. mark levin is a phony

    Like

    Comment by steve | April 22, 2017 | Reply

  5. Hi PH

    I’m wondering if there is any merit to Mark Levin’s latest act or if it is just another one of his publicity stunts that isn’t going anywhere.

    I’ll c/p what the Daily Wire wrote:

    “On Thursday, Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation filed an amicus curiae – a “friend of the court” request – to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, requesting that the FISA Court direct a full-scale investigation into the Obama administration’s alleged leaks of classified information to the press, as well as allegations of improperly targeting political opponents with FISA requests.”

    It seems to me that everyone is playing loosely with the facts for political purposes

    Where does the Court’s authority come from to direct a full-scale investigation for plaintiffs or accusers who are deficient in their incriminating evidence?

    And since President Trump has claimed repeatedly to be the victim of such political targeting, why hasn’t he or his Attorney General ordered the Justice Department to conduct a fail-scale investigation into all of this?

    Like

    Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 22, 2017 | Reply

    • This is an illustration of a gimmick which accomplishes nothing (except help in fund raising); but which makes people believe that the gimmicker is on their side. This tactic works! Hamilton warned that Republics are destroyed by demagogues:

      “History will teach us that … of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

      http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed01.htm (5th para)

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 22, 2017 | Reply

    • Blue Tail Gadfly…..Levin’s petition cannot go anywhere although it would be refreshing if some method of discovering the full truth about FISA Court warrants and their actual use could occur.

      The truth is, a president can order investigations but getting at the truth is something else again because officials simply don’t cooperate fully, actually hide data or deliberately lie, and sadly little ever comes of it. Just look at James Clapper, John Brennan, Keith Alexander who all lied and got away with it, and the inept or tricky Dir. of the FBI Comey who botched the Hillary email scandal investigation.

      It appears unless a whistleblower comes forward, or Wikileaks discovers the means to reveal clues to the truth, a president and the public cannot really depend on what becomes public from officialdom.

      Like

      Comment by nelsonaire1 | April 22, 2017 | Reply

      • True. What you describe is the result of Americans electing to office people who don’t care about righteousness and truth and our Constitution. ALL our problems are the result of the moral and intellectual decline of the American people.

        Nothing can fix that but a moral, spiritual, and intellectual regeneration.

        An Article V convention sure won’t do it. All that will do is permit the malignant elite to complete their Revolution against us.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 22, 2017 | Reply

      • what we have is a government rigging the system in their favor to keep the people from their corruption

        Like

        Comment by steve | April 22, 2017 | Reply

      • Yes. Why would anybody petition a Court created by an Act of Congress for redress of grievances committed under the imprimatur of that Court? If the FISA court was used improperly, the body that created it,should investigate. That would be the Congress. Oh, wait, our Congress critters said FISA could do no wrong, back when the Snowden/NSA brouhaha situation was uncovered. So if blanket warrants, in clear violation of the 4th Amendment, are just A-OK with our Congress, in which there is no probable cause, just trolling for juicy tidbits, why all of a sudden did it start dawning on a few people that that outfit Congress created could be used for political shenanigans?
        in the latest round of he said-she said, the justification for recording Trump associates was that they were talking to the Russian Ambassador. But everybody who knows the Russian AMbassador says he’s a swell guy, life of the party, gets along with everybody, friends with Dems and Repubs alike, in no way a terrorist threat. Yeah, espionage and all that. Espionage been going on since Christ was a carpenter, and way before that. Big deal.
        In the mean time, the evil Russians tip us off that the Tsarnev’s are terrorists, and our guys go “Oh come on!”
        The last time our Congress took it’s oversight role seriously was when they impeached Nixon, for doing a whole lot less than has been going on lately.

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | April 22, 2017 | Reply

  6. Yeah, but its the reason we will maybe regret our governments actions!

    Like

    Comment by Robert | April 8, 2017 | Reply

  7. Please don’t flame me for this source. Chemical weapons are created as “binary” chemicals. A and B are benign. Mix A and B and you have chaos hell! The first pic here, I saw elsewhere and thought, what weapon comes in a binary container? None but chemical. Certainly not barrel bombs. It looks like they were using a binary agent for a long time on many flights. There are probably ~100 containers here. The story calls them Russian.
    https://www.infowars.com/is-this-proof-assad-did-launch-chemical-weapon-attacks-from-the-base-trump-bombed/
    This brings me to the conclusion that Russia is indeed the chemical supplier. Why you ask? Well it all goes back to the supply of natural gas to Europe. Russia has a monopoly on gas via pipelines from Central Asia. The Sunni’s on the West coast of the Persian Gulf want a pipeline from their countries through Saudi Arabia, Iraq. Syria, Turkey into Eastern Europe. Syria is the only nation state to deny the right of way, we removed Saddam for them. They have bought our politicians for decades to have the USA achieve this for them. I’m cynical! Russia will go to nuclear war to maintain monopoly control of nat gas to Europe. That is what is at stake here.
    Bob

    Like

    Comment by Robert | April 8, 2017 | Reply

    • OK, this is really off topic. This isn’t a site for chemists, military strategy, and such like. It’s about the Constitution.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2017 | Reply

  8. That got a little far fetched. it sounded more like Nancy Drew and the Hardy boys with magnifying glasses…

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | April 8, 2017 | Reply

  9. Assad is a fabricated enemy just like Saddam and Ghadaffi. The reality is, Assad did not use C weapons on his people. The US wanted Assad out years before MSM frogs started bellowing about CW warnings in 2013. “The world is watching; don’t cross the red or else” Then lo and behold, US convicts Assad of using CW months later. Assad is not stupid. He is an extremely intelligent western trained physician. Watch him destroy western journalist on you tube and turn wests evils on it head. The question is who stands to gain? Hmm, it’s sure not Assad. The rebels and US gain tremendously. Only an insane mad lunatic would bomb children and women knowing the imminent retaliation from the world, when peace is right around the corner and Trump administration is calling it quits in Syria.

    The first set-up CM attempt failed when Confirmed at UN it was terrorist rebels who were guilty. Not a peep from slimy MSM croakers. By the way, where was the picture bombardment of 500 thousand Iraqi children who were starved by US sanctions that M. Albright confirmed. What about the millions of innocents killed, maimed and displaced by US illegal wars over the last 15 years.

    What Trump did is Illegal and an act of war. Assad has been innocent from the get-go and is just another victim on the deep pit state hit list given to General Wesley Clark right after 9/11. It on video.

    Our ignorance about the global agenda is getting millions of innocents killed, maimed and displaced.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Dwain | April 8, 2017 | Reply

    • I have to admit I was surprised to hear that Assad had used nerve gas against the rebels, especially since he was falsely accused of gassing them by Obama and his regime, and later exonerated as you pointed out.

      I guess I just assumed that Trump would not have acted as he did unless the charges were true this time. But as you say, it doesn’t make much sense for Assad to use chem. weapons.

      I certainly hope Trump did not approve a false flag operation as Obama did. If the intelligence community ran a false flag without alerting Trump, and he was fooled by it, then heads should roll. I mean those responsible should be tried for treason and executed.

      Like

      Comment by topcat1957 | April 8, 2017 | Reply

  10. No argument that POTUS can order defensive action if our country is invaded. Syria is not part of our country, we don’t – to my knowledge – have any treaty that puts us as the defender of Syrian subjects. Our constitution does not give POTUS the role of policeman for the world. Without a declaration of war, we have NO AUTHORITY to engage in acts of war against another country, no matter how bad the reprobate is who rules it.

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | April 8, 2017 | Reply

  11. If I’m out of line, don’t hit me with a Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. A good Leroy Jethro Gibbs head slap will suffice to get my attention. Learning should be fun.

    Syria: Another nightmare for America and her military.
    Was America’s security in danger by any facet of the Syrian government? I say no. Syrian Govt doesn’t care for us, but a lot of countries don’t like us. That certainly doesn’t give America the logical reasoning to bomb them. Surely that cannot be concocted to be a valid reason? This isn’t a game of Risk. Or am I at fault for being naive enough to think they don’t think that way? Sadly it’s the latter, isn’t it? Sigh

    Last I checked Congress had not declared a war since Korea? How is president Trump acting as CIC? (A2 S2 C1) If we’re not at war, the president technically is not the CIC. What gives him authority to strike any nation? I watched the linked video of John Bolton(I believe most see him as a solid resource) but am confused or ignorant of how he says president Trump acted Constitutionally. Both the strike and Bolton’s comments of support, feel worthless for America’s overall future. http://therightscoop.com/john-bolton-trump-had-full-constitutional-authority-to-act-against-syria/

    A hat tip to our friends Building Blocks for Liberty(http://www.buildingblocksforliberty.org/) Enjoyed their class in February. They introduced me to you and re-invigorating me to learn about America and her founding documents.

    Thank you for offering your knowledge

    Like

    Comment by masonsands | April 8, 2017 | Reply

    • Article II, Sec. 2, clause 1, & Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 15, show that the President is CINC of the regular Military 24/7/365 for his entire term; and that he is CINC of the “Militia” only when it is called into actual service of the United States. [But We no longer have “militia” b/c it was federalized with the abominable “Dick Act” of 1903. The State National Guards are merely an adjunct of the federal military. This was a HUGE Mistake on the parts of the States – but they went along with it b/c they got …. federal funds for doing so! Yippeeee!]

      As CINC, the President is the top General and top Admiral: See Federalist No. 69, 6th para down http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed69.htm

      Say an armed fighter jet invades our air space. Does anyone have the authority to order it shot down? Yes. Who? The top military leader. That would be The President. There is no time to convene Congress and ask for a Declaration of War. The President must make a decision within seconds of getting word of the invasion.

      I wish Trump had asked Congress for authorization for going into Syria – but it’s hard to delay when you see the photos of gassed children and parents.

      and yes, Building Blocks for Liberty is great. I urge all to attend their Boot Camp when you can. The Camps are generally in Ohio and Kentucky.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2017 | Reply

      • PH, re your example of an armed fighter jet invading our airspace and a president’s authority to shoot it down…

        I’m unsure that or if you intended this valid example of war authority for Trump to be used as equal justification for his unleashing 60 cruise missiles against Syrian targets because Assad used chemical weapons to kill small children and babies??? In my mind, there is no comparison because nothing happening or that has happened or conceivably will happen in Syria’s civil war that presents a direct threat to the United States in any way that I can see, and the chemical attack certainly was not evidence of an actual or imminent attack on the US. Trump acted in an emotional way one would better attribute to John McCain or Lindsay Graham, two war hawks who seem impatient to get us into another shooting war in the Middle East or against Russia.

        Our ‘leaders’ are preaching that use of chemical weapons in Syria is a direct threat to our ‘national security’ or our ‘vital interests’ but I keep searching for some actual valid rationale to accept that and can’t find one. Seems to me that our only interest is to govern our actions by adhering to what the Constitution allows and not succumb to emotional responses even in heart-rending situations like this. After all, Assad has already killed some 1/2 million of his country men and we didn’t respond aggressively; how much more heinous are the deaths of those he killed by the chemical attack that suddenly we must bomb them? The dead are dead no matter what instrument was used to kill them.

        Like

        Comment by nelsonaire1 | April 8, 2017 | Reply

        • I can’t imagine why you would think what you suggested I might be thinking.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2017 | Reply

          • PH….The notion that your example of presidential military action authority applying to the Syrian situation seemed to me to be so foreign to your long history of sense and truth that I felt a need to ask. Thank you for the clarification and I hope you don’t resent being asked in the first place as my respect for you is boundless.

            I’ll blame my fog on two things: the seemingly endless examples of people saying one thing and meaning another these days resulting in my skepticism about nearly everything anymore, and perhaps my advanced age compounded by a recent change in critical medications…..but I should have known better! I’m mightily relieved to know that at least one person remains true and honest these days! Thank you, PH.

            Like

            Comment by nelsonaire1 | April 9, 2017

          • We’re good. And when we doubt a person, we should ask for clarification.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 9, 2017

        • PH was very clear with the response to my original question. Trump is the Top General of the US Army and Navy, he gets to call the shots. I originally though it was only during times of war. And it does make perfect sense for the Top General to make quick decisive actions. We all may agree or disagree, but that was the choice made.

          And it’s fair to say he was swayed by emotion, who isn’t in this case. I believe Americans are exhausted from playing the real life game of Risk. It’s fruitless. What will America earn from anything done in Syria? A clear conscious for a few weeks, to “feel good” about helping the world. Will any of this help the Christians in Syria? Assad is keeping ISIS from killing them currently. Somehow that is overlooked. Trump needs to conjure Calvin “Cautious Cal” Coolidge. Trump did say repeatedly-campaigning he did not want to be the worlds policeman, well look where he is now. Backing out is a no win situation, too. With Americas house being in a state of serious disorder, how can we effectively help others? America needs a 75/25 split of attention in her favor.

          Asking Congress would’ve re-established order and expectations under this presidency. That is a primary reason why people told their electors to vote for him. Give us a sense of slowing down Federal activities, overreach, pointless spending and spending etc. And move America closer to it’s foundation principles.

          Like

          Comment by masonsands | April 8, 2017 | Reply

      • Re: “…but it’s hard to delay when you see the photos of gassed children and parents.”

        And that is precisely why the Framers delegated only Congress to be able to declare war.

        “This system [the U.S. Constitution] will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large;–this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives; from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion, that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.”</em ~James Wilson, to the Pennsylvania ratifying convention of 1787

        “”In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. … War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.” ~James Madison, Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794

        “Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty [as President] to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided. I have barely instructed the officers stationed in the neighborhood of the aggressions to protect our citizens from violence, to patrol within the borders actually delivered to us, and not to go out of them but when necessary to repel an inroad or to rescue a citizen or his property.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Special Message to Congress on Foreign Policy (December 6, 1805)

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 8, 2017 | Reply

        • Btw, Mark Levin is now advocating for another amendment to the Constitution. Now he wants to legalize the unconstitutional War Powers Act, thus turning the presidency into a monarch.

          “We should be making the case that we need to amend the Constitution” to deal with modern circumstances, Levin said. “Not because it’s living and breathing! But because we have enemies that are acquiring nuclear missiles that will be able to hit our cities!”

          For someone who claims to be a constitutionalist and who respects the wisdom of its Framers, it’s interesting how Levin’s list of amendments to fundamentally alter it keeps growing. One gets the impression he doesn’t like our Constitution very much at all.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 9, 2017 | Reply

          • Hopefully, we all understand that no Amendment is needed to authorize the President, as CINC (top general of the Army, top Admiral of the Navy), to order that the armed fighter jet invading our air space is to be shot down.

            Even though all Levin’s proposed Amendments increase the powers of the federal government by legalizing what is now unconstitutional, or by stripping States of Natural Rights they have always had, my Question is this: How is he able to fool so many people? His actions show that his pretenses are false. Yet many Americans blindly worship him! His proposals reveal him to be a statist. Hamilton warned us in Federalist No. 1 that Republics are destroyed by Demagogues – nothing ever changes, does it?

            I’m afraid that Americans are going to prove that People really are too stupid to be free.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 9, 2017

  12. Mike Travis, you seem to believe that the Bill of Rights is what is giving us our God-given rights and that if one of those amendments is changed, it alters our rights. Those amendments did not give us our rights, they restricted the government from interfering in our rights. Technically, we did not need the bill of rights to have our rights. Sorry PH for butting in here.

    Like

    Comment by Mike Foil | April 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Many Americans believe that the “bill of rights” can’t be amended out of existence. I don’t understand why they believe that. Throughout human history, God given rights have been spit on and trampled by governments. The reason our Constitution was a 5,000 year Miracle is because for the first time, we enshrined God given Rights as a self-evident fact which civil government was obliged to honor.

      But Americans forgot what our Declaration of Independence says. Yes, God lets us suffer the consequences of our actions and failures.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi Mike,
      Thanks for you remark. I may not have expressed myself adequately so let me clarify that I completely agree with your comment that God gave us our rights which were enshrined in the Bill of Rights to 1) identify them and 2) prevent the government from taking them. Hope this clarifies my stance.

      As PH said, our rights are only as good as is our commitment and determination to defending them, regardless of the cost. Language is a fragile thing, one that is sometimes difficult to express properly in written form.

      Like

      Comment by Mike Travis | April 7, 2017 | Reply

      • I think I understand your position: In the Declaration of Independence, we say God-given Rights are unalienable; yet here I am saying that thugs take them away from People all the time; and we can get Amendments to our existing Constitution which repeal the “bill of rights”; and if there is an Article V convention, we can get a new Constitution which permanently strips us of all our God given Rights.

        But we know as a fact of reality – all human history proves it – that for most of human history thugs have been taking God-Given Rights away from People. These thugs are acting in violation of God’s Law. No one can properly strip another of his God-given Rights.

        And obviously, the “bill of rights” is not a complete list of the Rights God gave use – and it didn’t prevent the government from taking the rights mentioned in the “bill of rights” away from us. The Constitution is not self-enforcing. It was to be enforced by The People. They failed to enforce it.

        The “bill of rights” was added because some of the States ratified the Constitution on the basis of a promise that a “bill of rights” would be added.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 7, 2017 | Reply

        • Mike I think you are answering your own question, if I understand you. As you point out, the Declaration correctly states that our God given rights are unalienable, i.e. God made us to have those rights, and no one can change that.
          The founding fathers created a government which recognized that fact, and which was created in such a way as to prevent this new government itself from infringing upon those rights. The Bill of Rights was added to spell that out in specific terms regarding some of those basic rights, though it was not an exhaustive list of our God given rights. In short, our government was designed to safeguard and protect the people against tyrannical government infringement of the pre-existing rights God already gave us.
          By God’s creation, by nature, those rights belong to us and that cannot be changed.
          But evil governments may refuse to recognize this, and seek to dominate and control us by trampling our rights.

          Your question features a lexical ambiguity I think. How can the Bill of Rights be revoked if our rights are unalienable? The Bill of Rights, and our God given rights are separate entities.
          Our rights are unalienable since they are God given.
          But the Bill of Rights, the man made protection of those rights against government infringement. Since that protection was created by man, it can be altered by man. But our rights remain.
          We still have those rights, but our gov. safeguard of those rights may be damaged or destroyed.

          The issue is that evil men who seek to control us, to infringe upon our rights, and to rob us of liberty, are seeking to alter the safeguards and protections the founding fathers built into our beautiful Constitution.

          Sorry for repeating myself. I keep trying to improve the way I express a thought when writing so I tend to repeat the idea over and over again.

          PH, if I have erred in my understanding of this issue, please correct and advise.

          (I read something once; the writer claimed that calling our rights unalienable was an error because, he said, our rights may be infringed. But I think that writer made the error of confusing our rights with government protection of our rights. The fact that our rights are unalienable, that by divine law they belong to us, is precisely what makes the infringement of those rights an evil act.
          …. I believe the founding fathers said it perfectly.)

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by topcat1957 | April 8, 2017 | Reply

          • I am dazzled, my Dear Friend! Bravo! You said it much better than I did!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2017

  13. Syria has done nothing to us. We are not required to react for the actions of foreign nations against their citizens.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | April 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Absent a Treaty, we are not required to protect subjects from the tyranny of their governments. [I substituted “subjects” for “citizens” simply because only Republics have “citizens”. Totalitarian dictatorships and Monarchies have “subjects”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2017 | Reply

  14. What are the odds that Trump will request a declaration of war against Syria before he undertakes military action there?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | April 6, 2017 | Reply

    • I do believe that Trump’s heart is in the right place; but he sure could use some tutoring on our federal Constitution. I suspect he is so smart that I could teach him all he needs to know in under an hour.

      But as to whether he knows what Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 11 says: I don’t know if we have had any President since James Madison who has actually READ our federal Constitution.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2017 | Reply

      • Yes. Trump acted like a bystander who witnesses a bully pummeling a smaller, weaker kid. That isn’t a perfect example, but it is sort of similar. He may not have had the proper legal authority to protect the people being gassed. But he saw video of children dying horrible slow deaths from the use of a WMD, and he wanted to punch the bully in the nose.

        I do hope he gets some extremely competent, constitutional advisers, as well as some very savvy public relations/advertising type help, so he can present his constitutional actions to the people and teach them the legal way to govern (-presupposing that he does get and follow good advice on constitutional issues).

        I would love to see Trump learn and follow the Constitution, and use his bully pulpit to educate the nation. I know it would be an uphill battle, given the leftist stranglehold on the news media, [a.k.a. leftist propaganda, fake news, slander, and libel mill].
        But at least the issues would be raised, and the public mind would be forced to examine the issues. That is a necessary step.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by topcat1957 | April 8, 2017 | Reply

  15. Does anyone know how to get your rely into a White House web blog–perchance the President’s people might bring it to his attention?

    Like

    Comment by Bob | March 18, 2017 | Reply

    • I don’t know – but I sure do need to talk with him or with Kellyanne Conway for 30 minutes.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 18, 2017 | Reply

  16. Also Congress can defund a rogue court. Defund them and they have no ability to hear cases. The 9th circus can be dissolved and 3 separate new appeals courts can be formed. The circus already have broken themselves up into 3 sub panels of 10, 10 and 9 judges. Doing this would only require majority votes by Congress not two thirds votes. Imagine you’re coming before the 9th and they just rule something off the wall. That costs you millions to right their arrogance.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | March 17, 2017 | Reply

    • As long as federal judges are in Office, their compensation shall not be reduced: Art. III, Section 1.

      However, Congress can disestablish some or all of the lower federal courts.

      Creating 3 new Circuit Courts out of the 9th Circuit is a REALLY BAD IDEA.

      The problem is that we elect as President, and to the Senate, morons or evil people who nominate and confirm BAD PEOPLE as judges.

      The American People are the problem. They have the government they voted for. Americans are too lazy and apathetic to learn our Declaration of Independence and our federal Constitution; and besides, they think their own opinions on government are more important than what those two Documents say.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2017 | Reply

      • PH, couldn’t agree more about the American People being the problem…I’ve run into more than a few “idiots” on different posts claiming to support the Constitution, but think it’s government’s job to provide health care, regulate guns etc. believe the Supreme Court is the final word on everything and can make law.

        Like

        Comment by Timothy Martin | March 17, 2017 | Reply

        • For 100 years, ever since the Progressives took over, we have all been told that it’s the federal government’s job to do these things.

          That is NOT the original intent.

          However, at least the “classic liberals” want to keep our Constitution. We can have civil debates with them over the proper role of government under our existing Constitution. And they are capable of civil discussion. And they are honest. Mistaken, but honest.

          But the con-con lobby wants to get rid of the Constitution we have and substitute a new one. They are not capable of civil discussion. And they are not honest. There is no common ground with them. They are our enemies.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2017 | Reply

      • Mom,

        Can I use the last part as a quote? What is it with people and their hubristic approach to everything?

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by JohnnyDollar74 | April 3, 2017 | Reply

        • Of course, Son. When People reject God – as Americans have done – they worship new gods: Demagogues and their own precious selves.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2017 | Reply

  17. why cant WE the people file a suit against the judges.. they are public servants and the right of the people to fix a failing government is our right

    Like

    Comment by steve | March 16, 2017 | Reply

    • Where would you file the lawsuit against federal judges? In federal court. Need I say more? Furthermore, all judges have immunity for their judicial acts.

      The remedy already set forth in the Constitution is impeachment of federal judges who aren’t in “good Behaviour”. Our job was to elect to Congress people of wisdom and integrity who would obey the Constitution and support it by removing federal judges [and Presidents] who usurped powers.

      WE are the ones who failed. WE elect to Congress scoundrels and airheads who don’t know what the Constitution says, don’t care, but are in our party and tell us what we want to hear. So WE have the federal government WE voted for.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2017 | Reply

  18. I can add nothing but a big “AMEN”! Our congress is negligent in serving the People by not protecting and abiding by our Constitution.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Jim MacLellan | March 16, 2017 | Reply

  19. Shouldn’t Congress impeach the judges that ruled against Trumps EO’s? Their reasoning certainly wasn’t following the law as much as totally political. The judge in Hawaii was appointed by Obama and was a classmate of his at Harvard. On the news tonight they said that Obama made a quick trip to Hawaii the day before the ruling was delivered. Just a coincidence? Isn’t it this the kind of thing that the founders were worried about, and the reason for putting the holding office during good behavior language in Art. III?

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | March 16, 2017 | Reply

    • Trump’s obligation is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States. THAT is his only obligation – all else is secondary. So if federal judges issue unconstitutional rulings, the President must spit on them. That IS his obligation to his Oath. The President must make his own independent determination as to whether an act of the other two branches is unconstitutional. He must NEVER look to the federal courts for that determination. THAT would put the federal courts above the executive branch. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/the-oath-of-office-the-check-on-usurpations-by-congress-the-executive-branch-federal-judges/

      YES, When federal judges usurp power, a remedy already exists within the Constitution: Article III, § 1 says federal judges hold their offices “during good Behaviour”. In Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton said that when federal judges usurp power, the remedy is for Congress to impeach them and remove them from the Bench. But Congress has failed to exercise this existing Constitutional remedy because the people in Congress aren’t sufficiently enlightened to know the difference between “a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority” – or they don’t care.

      So our Constitution empowers CONGRESS to make THEIR OWN DETERMINATION as to whether federal judges have acted unconstitutionally.

      If people would just USE the brains which are in their heads – they wouldn’t miss such OBVIOUS STUFF. Yet somehow Americans got indoctrinated into the idiotic belief that only the federal judges can determine constitutionality.

      Why that’s almost as stupid as saying that when everyone ignores the Constitution, the solution is to amend it.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 16, 2017 | Reply

      • PH…..I second your call that President Trump should simply ignore the rulings of the federal district court judges where they’ve accepted cases filed by states against the president’s EOs on immigration policy. My reason is, Article 3 Section 2 clearly says: “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY, (my emphasis), the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

        Seems clear enough to me that federal district courts may not even hear such cases as they did on cases from Washington State and Hawaii. The judges in those courts should have refused to accept them, acknowledging that they had no authority, and referred them to the Supreme Court. Or could I be wrong?

        It is astounding to me that this hasn’t ever been mentioned anywhere on the news that I’ve seen or heard, to say nothing of the Trump administration being ignorant of it. But maybe Trump doesn’t want these things to go to the Supreme Court until his new nominee is confirmed?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by nelsonaire1 | March 17, 2017 | Reply

        • Don’t be astonished that this hasn’t been mentioned anywhere. Lawyers don’t know about it – See these two articles and the comments: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/original-and-appellate-jurisdiction/

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2017 | Reply

        • Agreed. He should simply say the judges’ rulings are unconstitutional, and are therefore null and void, and order the new rules to be carried out. Let the press have a field day with it. Then once the national press is in an uproar over it for a week or two, he could give a nationally televised statement, laying out the clear and simple facts.

          He could cite Art. 2 Sec. 3, and refer to the founding fathers’ belief that the Constitution was written simply and clear enough, with The Federalist Papers as clarifying reference, that anyone who studies it can know its meaning and determine the constitutionality of laws, policies, etc.

          He could then cite his oath to uphold the Constitution, and declare that he meant what he said when he took the oath. He did not declare to uphold the rulings of judges whose decisions are clearly in error.

          The press, by creating an uproar over Trump’s dismissal of the judge’s ruling, would bring the issues of who has jurisdiction to hear cases on this issue, and judicial misconduct, to the national attention. And because of the uproar, any statement the President makes would have national attention. And being that his position would be correct and irrefutable by any honest person, many who look at the question would see Trump is correct to ignore the faulty decision.

          I may be more than a little naive to imagine things would go that smoothly. I am sure the press would hyperventilate over ‘the NERVE of the President to ‘presume’ to understand the Constitution better than a judge, and to say that a judge is wrong!’ — or statements to that effect.

          But the issue of judicial misconduct needs to be brought to the attention of the nation. And the President must not have his lawful conduct held hostage by partisan and unlawful judges.

          Like

          Comment by topcat1957 | March 18, 2017 | Reply

  20. To take care of the judicial branch interfering with EO’s on immigration issues can’t congress pass a law under their Art. III, sec. 2 power and list immigration issues as an, “*** exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make?”

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | March 7, 2017 | Reply

  21. PH
    There has been a great deal of talk about federal grants to states, universities, communities, etc. The Preamble says one of the goals or purposes of the constitution was to promote the general welfare. Art. 1, sec. 8 says taxes can be raised to “provide for the common defense and general welfare…”
    To me “general” means just that, not specific welfare, so a grant to one community would mean it should be given to every community.
    How can we stop this madness if our elected officials are either that ignorant about the constitution or are that that easy to buy off?
    If a suit were brought, wouldn’t the courts just ignore it, or rule against it since they to are recipients of grants.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | March 2, 2017 | Reply

    • Oh, Klaus, we never say, when discussing our Constitution, “to me it means….”.

      We must always look for the OBJECTIVE MEANING. We must NEVER read into the Constitution our own subjective definitions.

      Use The Federalist Papers to find out what it means. I have several papers on the “general welfare” cause which set for the original intent of the term, “general welfare”. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/general-welfare-clause/ Read all of the papers on the topic and it will sink in.

      Also use Webster’s 1828 Dictionary for word definitions. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 2, 2017 | Reply

    • Klaus….James Madison had this to say about ‘general welfare’:

      “If Congress can employ money indefinitively to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. Were Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America”.

      Clearly, use of the term has nothing at all to do with giving specific or general powers to Congress.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by nelsonaire1 | March 3, 2017 | Reply

      • That’s an amazingly valuable quote! Can you find the link to it? Preferably from a reliable original source such as an online edition of his collected works.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2017 | Reply

        • PH….as it happened, that quote was just given me yesterday by a friend as we were also discussing ‘general welfare’. I hadn’t yet checked it for accuracy until just this minute.

          It comes from Madison’s remarks concerning the Cod Fishery Bill, granting bounties, House of Representatives, February, 1792, according to the Constitution Society’s link at:

          constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.,html.

          Madison’s entire remark is given and it appears the quote I first posted is a condensed version of it but accurate nevertheless. That’s all I have on it.

          Like

          Comment by nelsonaire1 | March 3, 2017 | Reply

          • Excellent! We all should keep it handy. Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras) where he discusses the “general welfare” clause, is tedious reading.
            His comments on the Cod Fishery Bill are almost poetic.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2017

          • Correction to the link:
            http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm

            Like

            Comment by Mike Foil | March 3, 2017

          • Thank you, Mike!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2017

          • Hi PH

            Though they all basically say the same thing, here are several more quotes by Madison on the subject of enumerated powers and the General welfare clause.

            Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper which broaches a new constitutional doctrine of vast consequence and demanding the serious attention of the public, I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government, as contrary to the true & fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.

            https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0174

            With respect to the words “General welfare” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation,” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning every thing, had the former meaning taken for granted.

            https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-2332

            And a bonus from Thomas Jefferson:

            …that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action…

            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8_1s25.html

            Unfortunately the heinous 16th Amendment allows the Congress to tax for whatever purposes they desire, yet they are still not legally allowed to spend it on non-enumerated powers. Which is where the Balanced Budget Amendment comes in, it finishes the job of destroying limited government.

            Like

            Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | March 5, 2017

          • Excellent quotes, Blue Tail! Thank you!

            But the 16th amendment doesn’t permits the fed gov’t to tax for whatever purposes they desire. It is the BBA which would officially remove the enumerated powers limitation on taxation and spending!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2017

  22. Hi Publius. Hope all is well. Were infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, or the Interstate Highway System constitutional? As far as I can tell, they were all very beneficial to our country. How about NASA? Obviously the constitution says nothing about space exploration so would that make NASA unconstitutional?

    Also, I would like to know what you think about Trump’s executive orders? Isn’t it hypocritical of us to criticize Obama for his abuse of executive orders and yet now we praise Trump who seems to be doing the same thing? Or has Trump kept his executive orders within their constitutional limits? Thanks

    Like

    Comment by Santiago | March 1, 2017 | Reply

    • Let me ask you: Cite Article, Section, and clause of our Constitution which authorizes Congress to determine whether we change to the metrics system: The answer is Article I, Sec. 8, clause 5.

      Now that you know what I’m looking for: Cite the Article, Section, and clause which authorizes the federal government to build the Hoover Dam.
      To construct the Panama Canal?

      Article I, Sec. 8, clause 7 authorizes Congress to establish post offices and “post Roads”. What’s a “post Road”? Well, we’d have to do research. Why was the interstate highway system built? This is one of the few instances where the answer isn’t completely clear. I suggest the better course of action would have been to get an Amendment to the US Constitution to authorize the interstate highway system.

      Right, “space exploration” isn’t an enumerated power.

      Don’t fall into the old statist trap of thinking that only “governments” can build dams, overseas canals, interstate highways, and do space exploration! In a free market, private enterprise always does this stuff better and much less expensively.

      To learn about what Executive Orders the President may lawfully make – whether we like him or not – see this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-presidents-enumerated-powers-rulemaking-by-executive-agencies-executive-orders/

      And finally: The Standard for whether the federal gov’t may lawfully do something is whether our Constitution says they may do it. The test is NEVER whether it’s a “good idea”, “will be helpful”, or will (in someone’s view) be “beneficial”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2017 | Reply

      • Had they restricted the space program to military uses I guess it would have been justified.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by topcat1957 | March 1, 2017 | Reply

        • Right!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2017 | Reply

  23. The problem is the states have no power to instruct anyone at the national level. Repeal the 17th amendment. Currently Pennsylvania is being rolled for “Real ID” compliant drivers licenses and non-driver ID cards.
    If this convention happens do you think the states give (3/4) approval if big taxes are included? Thanks

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 13, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi, Robert,

      1. Yes, the 17th Amendment was a huge mistake. But Americans are easily deceived. They seem proud of being gullible.

      2. The States are NOT victims of federal tyranny – the States have been enthusiastic participants in federal tyranny. According to the PEW Report, for FY 2014, 30.8% of Pennsylvania’s revenue was from federal funds. What retained rights of the States and The People did your State government sell to get that money? HOW MUCH IN FEDERAL FUNDS IS PENNSYLVANIA GETTING TO IMPLEMENT “REAL ID” drivers’ license and other ID cards? The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to force States to do this – that’s why they pay – BRIBE – the States to do it.

      As long as we have State governments who, like Aldrich Ames, will do anything for money, we will HAVE A FEDERAL GOV’T WHICH USURPS POWER.

      The American People need to pay a whole lot more attention to the people they elect to their State legislatures. They have been electing people who have NO knowledge whatsoever of what our Founding Documents say.

      If there is an Article V convention, the Delegates won’t propose Amendments to our existing Constitution. We will end up with an entirely new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. The global elite wants us moved into the North American Union. See the most recent post on my blog.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  24. Yes Ron, the big bad wolf said he wouldn’t eat Little red Ridinghood too. Would you allow a child to play with a Boomslang? That is the equivalent of entertaining the CFA as a good idea, the analogy is apropos

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  25. Ron Swanson don’t you believe a bit of it. That is the beginning of a walk through hell.
    The only way I would give anyone plenipotentiary powers is if I was holding a loaded pistol to his head to have even a little confidence that he would carry through.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • In CFA, the delegates really don’t have that much power. The states that pass what is equivalent to a COS resolution, are signing a compact that they “pre-ratify” the amendment, which is specified in the compact. The convention is limited to 24 hours. The rules are very strict. It’s not open at all like even the BBA application. Read some of the info on this link. http://www.compactforamerica.org/single-post/2014/11/29/Got-the-Runaway-Convention-Blues It’s pretty full proof.

      Like

      Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • The purpose of the Compact is to get an Amendment pre-ratified BEFORE State Legislators and The People find out what has been done. The pre-ratification aspect circumvents all that pesky public discussion.

        Americans would NEVER support an Amendment which delegates massive new taxing powers to Congress. So the way to get such an Amendment ratified is to bury the actual import of the Amendment in convoluted writing and get State Legislatures to pre-ratify it.

        Ron Swanson: Did YOU know that CFA’s proposed Amendment actually delegates to Congress the power to impose a new national sales tax AND a national Value Added Tax (VAT) on top of the existing income tax???

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

    • “The Compact automatically terminates and recalls any member state delegate who deviates from its rules and agenda.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Oh, Ron! You show your hand – at first I thought you had questions about the CFA scheme. Now I see you know all about it…..

        As you well know, once a State Legislature passes the Compact Legislation – they have pre-ratified the NEW TAXES AMENDMENT. The provisions about the convention, the sentence you just now quoted, etc., etc., is all window dressing to conceal the actual import of the pre-ratification of the new taxes amendment.

        How could you push such a wicked scheme to deceive the American People?

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  26. Thanks. It looks like they are reinventing the wheel.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  27. What about XVIII/XXI? Nothing is sacred.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • I pointed that out – to no avail.
      Patriot myths get firmly embedded.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  28. Curious as to your thoughts on the lmmigration kerfluffle.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/12/28/usappeals-court-approves-iranian-student-deportation/3930b354-c5c6-45be-8124-22cfd6cff296/

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • I’ve printed out the E.O.s and the trial court’s Order – will look at them and write it up – as soon as I can get to it. I spend all my time now trying to stop the con-con.

      I’ll have to begin with asking how Americans ever let themselves be manipulated into the Lie of Multiculturalism. Our Framers weren’t multiculturalists!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  29. What do you think about the Compact for America Article V Convention? I was curious, because they seem to take all the possibility of a runaway convention out. http://www.compactforamerica.org/single-post/2014/11/29/Got-the-Runaway-Convention-Blues

    Like

    Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi, Ron,

      My two papers on the CFA re here: What it actually does is delegate to Congress massive new taxing powers: The power to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) – on top of the existing income tax. Read the paper at the bottom first https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/compact-for-america/

      The language of the actual compact legislation is so boring it is difficult to read – nevertheless, I read it all, and then re-read!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Wow. Thanks for your info! In general, what do you think of the process CFA is trying. Is that a good way to go about doing an Article V Convention if there was a decent amendment?

        Like

        Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

        • I have two papers on Compact for America’s (CFA) phony “balanced budget amendment” (BBA). It is actually a massive new taxes amendment – it delegates to Congress the power to impose two new national taxes: a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) on top of the income tax! See the two papers here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/compact-for-america/

          The “compact method” of obtaining amendments to our Constitution is unconstitutional. Article V of our Constitution sets forth the two methods of obtaining amendments. James Madison always said that when States want amendments, they should instruct their Delegations to Congress to propose them.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  30. Authorizing someone (delegates) to exercise plenipotentiary powers in respect to our Constitution, in a new Article 5 Constitutional Convention, might aptly be compared to giving a general & unlimited power of attorney to one trusted friend and the very same power of attorney to 49 strangers at the same time, and trusting them all to respect our rights and best interests.

    By the time the strangers finished emptying our bank accounts or transferring our properties, it would be too late to rescind the power of attorney authorizations. Our money and our property would already be gone. It could easily be the same with a COS, considering the wide variety of forces that are pushing for an Article 5 Convention from both Democrats and Republicans (and others) with each group looking to gain additional federal governmental powers or restrictions to help their particular special interest group. Our individual rights or even our system of divided powers could be fundamentally altered in an Article 5 Convention. It only takes several words inserted here, or a phrase inserted there, to make a substantial difference kn the reading & meaning of the Constitution.

    The “giving power of attorney to a stranger” analogy (above) is sort of like the “giving a blank check to a stranger” argument that I’ve used when speaking to our State legislators against requesting that Congress call an Article 5 Convention, or a COS, or a Constitutional Convention (they are all the same).

    Not one of the legislators that I’ve spoken to yet has told me that they would give a blank personal check to a stranger (or to 49 other strangers) and trust them to not abuse that trust… and that’s exactly what calling an Article 5 Convention would amount to.

    Most people that I know would be hesitant to even give a blank check to many of their own relatives, and knowing some of their relatives I don’t blame them.

    I am also confident that none of my legislators would be willing to give a general power of attorney to even one stranger let alone 49 others that they could not intimately & unconditionally control. And as we know, that is impossible.

    I have simply asked them not to do the equivalent with our Constitution, and to NOT request that Congress call a Convention.

    If they think that the Constitution is not adequate to meet today’s needs, and if they wish to amend the Constitution, let’s use the very same method that brought us the 13th Amendment or the Bill of Rights. In doing so, we will know the exact proposed language of the new amendment BEFORE it is even voted on by Congress or sent to the States for ratification. Special interests will have no opportunity whatsoever, to meddle with or otherwise alter, our rights, our freedoms, or our fundamental system of governmental checks & balances.

    Like

    Comment by B. Carson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  31. So your saying then that the bill of rights are subject to abolishment to , correct ? so thats why i believe the bill of rights were create to keep the original amendments safe by calling them rights and put in a seperate document

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution can be repealed by later Amendments. They aren’t in a separate document – they are additions to the original Constitution.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  32. where did it say in the constitution that slavery was permitted ? so if slavery was permitted they could make another amendment to abolish it ?

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • The original Constitution accepted slavery as an ongoing institution: Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3 and Article IV, Sec. 2, clause 3.
      The 13th Amendment superseded those provisions and abolished slavery.

      Abolitionists were at the federal convention of 1787 (e.g., Alexander Hamilton); but other Delegates at that convention wouldn’t hear of abolishing slavery….and so we fought a war and huge numbers of Americans were killed.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  33. Steve, I suggest you read the preamble to the Bill of rights. they would be no Bill of rights if they were not demanded by the people. a number of states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends to this institution. the bill of rights were interwoven into the one whole cloth Constitution with many Chapters mixed together make them One Book of Law which we call our Constitution

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  34. being it is totally seperate from the constitution and called the bill of rights

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • No, Steve, that is not correct. You are taking a wrong turn. The first ten amendments are part of the Constitution. The idea that they “can’t” be amended is a myth.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  35. THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION, THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Really? From where do you obtain such a ….. novel idea?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

      • theres 3 .. 1. declaration of independence , 2. the bill of rights and 3. the constitution.. all three created separately or have i been mis reading how and why they were created ?

        Like

        Comment by steve | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • 1. The Declaration of Independence (DOI) is The Fundamental Act of our Founding.

          2. The Constitution drafted at the federal Convention of 1787 implemented – to a great extent – the Principles set forth in our DOI. See this chart: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

          [Obviously, to the extent the original Constitution permitted slavery, it violated the Principle in the DOI, that “all men are created equal – that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. Other than that manifestation of fallen human nature, the Constitution of 1787 was a 5,000 year miracle.]

          The 27 Amendments are part of the Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  36. If it can be amended out of the constitution where in the Constitution did we grant anyone the enumerated power to do so? I didn’t think so. where is the Articl, section, and Clause?

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Con Ma, the procedures for ratification of new Amendments is set forth in Article V, US Constitution.

      Congress decides whether a proposed Amendment is to be sent to the State Legislatures for ratification or rejection; or whether the States are to call conventions within their respective States to decide whether to ratify or reject a proposed Amendment.

      An Amendment to our US Constitution may address ANY provision in the Constitution including the Amendments. E.g., the 21st Amdt repealed the 18th Amdt.
      And many of us would dearly love to see Amendment repealing the 16th & 17th Amendments.

      So yes, State legislators or state convention delegates could vote to ratify an amendment repealing the “bill of rights” or any portions thereof.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

      • Do you think its a good idea to make the Bill of Rights amendable? I’m not so sure that it is. They are the only thing protecting our rights.

        Like

        Comment by Santiago | March 1, 2017 | Reply

        • Somewhere someone started the rumor that the “bill of rights” couldn’t be amended! Of course they can!

          Furthermore, one former US supreme Court Justice has already drafted an amendment to the 2nd amendment which would restrict guns to persons on active duty in the military.

          Anything in the Constitution can be amended; taken away; wiped out. If there is an Article V convention; the entire Constitution can be taken away and replaced with a new Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2017 | Reply

  37. In re the fed. district ct. judge’s TRO on Trump’s immigration halt. As I understand it, the plaintiffs are states.
    If that is so, then does the part of Article 3, Section 2 which says “…In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”…..does that mean a district Ct. judgeis out of bounds issuing a TRO?

    Like

    Comment by bobmontgomery | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, if the States are parties to cases involving federal issues such as this, then you are correct: The trial should take place in the Supreme Court.

      Here are my two papers on that issue when the feds sued Arizona – the earliest one is at the bottom: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/arizona-lawsuit/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

      • Thanks, PH. I thought original jurisdition meant what it said, and how an “opinion” or even a statute can either absolve SCOTUS from it’s duties or infringe upon it’s constitutional mandate is beyond me. But still, even if it ends up that SCOTUS is the tryer of the case, can a district judge issue a TRO until SCOTUS takes it up, even if the district judge doesn’t have “original jurisdiction”?

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Well, actually the federal district court has no jurisdiction in this matter – so his acts are “void” for lack of jurisdiction. He can’t lawfully do anything except remove it to the Supreme Court.

          But look! Long ago, Congress passed a statute (!) saying federal district courts would have original jurisdiction in cases like this and lawyers all went along with it – most of them don’t know what Art. III, Sec. 2 says, anyway; and they don’t care, they just go along with what they’ve been told….. no one thinks independently – except for a very few of us. The others just go along with what everybody else says and does…

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  38. only the constitution can be amended.. the bill of (secured) rights had to be created before the constitution was ratified

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  39. is not the 2d amendment not in the bill of rights ? the bill of rights can not be changed

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • Of course it can be changed – it can be amended out of the Constitution, just as slavery was amended out of the Constitution. Or, if we get a new Constitution, such as “The Constitution for the Newstates of America”, we will all be disarmed.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

      • the 13th amendment was added to the constitution. as thats what the constitution is for

        Like

        Comment by steve | February 5, 2017 | Reply

        • Right, the 13th Amendment was added to our Constitution during 1865; and it superseded all provisions to the contrary in the preceding parts of our Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

      • PH, re changing the Bill of Rights, how does one change a “God given” right? Logically one must conclude that a right given by God cannot be changed regardless of what man wishes. Where am I going wrong. or am I?

        Like

        Comment by Mike Travis | April 6, 2017 | Reply

        • People and governments deprive others of their God given rights all the time! Every murderer, rapist, thief, slanderer, etc. is depriving someone of his God-given rights. Look at the horrors of the last century. Look at the Muslims of today.

          But these criminals are acting unlawfully in violation of God’s law.

          If there is an Article V convention and the Constitution we have is replaced by another Constitution – such as the Constitution for the Newstates of America – which denies us God given rights, “can” they do this? Well, if the American People are foolish enough to permit this to happen, then, yes, the enemy “can” do it. They did it – thanks to our own laziness, apathy, and stupidity.

          God permits us to suffer the consequences of our own laziness, apathy, and stupidity.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2017 | Reply

  40. Re. Sanctuary city’s or States have to sware or affirm to do their best to do their duty to preserve protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. they have violated their Oath in California, they have an ordinance which restricts gun rights. Not everyone voted for the gun restriction but from what is available the ban is State wide. James Madison Said that no majority can take away the rights of the minority. (Albert Gallatin of New York Historical Society, October7, 1789) that alone is enough to bring charges of discrimination and violation of the full faith and credit clause. Also violates the General Welfare clause which remains unamended and still holds the meaning as it was ratified. the 1828 Dictionary says Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity;The enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government. The violations by the State can and most assuredly will, bring litigation costs in the millions when the greedy figure it out.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 5, 2017 | Reply


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: