Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

3,350 Comments »

  1. Hi PH, I have a question that concerns art one, section 8 (“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) The state of Illinois new law, “In addition to raising liquor license fees across the board, Illinois recently beefed up penalties on those illegally shipping or transporting wine from out of state. In some cases, unauthorized interstate alcohol sales can even result in a felony charge. Furthermore, Illinois’ protectionist liquor laws have sparked something of a trade war between the Land of Lincoln and other states – leaving wine consumers and small businesses in the lurch.” https://www.illinoispolicy.org/interstate-shipping-ban-chills-illinois-wine-business-ices-out-wine-consumers/ . If congress was granted the power over interstate commerce, how does the state of Illinois lawfully punish wine sellers? What am I missing?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | December 6, 2017 | Reply

    • I’ve written lots on the original intent of the federal interstate commerce clause: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/interstate-commerce-clause/

      So it seems from your comment that Illinois imposes HIGH taxes on alcoholic beverages AND criminalizes the importation of alcoholic beverages [which are taxed at a lower rate] from other States.

      I can’t research this now – but think it may be addressed by Art. I, Sec. 10, clause 2, US Constitution.

      and I vaguely recall a US Supreme Court case which involved this situation: You buy a new car in Ohio and pay the Ohio sales tax on it and then you drive it to your home in Illinois. And when you register it there, Illinois says you have to pay them what the Illinois sales tax on the car would have been if you bought the car in Illinois. I bet you can find this supreme Court opinion on Google. I don’t remember the States involved, but the case had to do with buying a car in one state and registering it in another state and whether the State doing the registering could charge a tax on the car. Google is good at finding judicial opinions. I’m sorry I can’t do it now – but if – when – you find the US Supreme Court opinion, please send me the link – or post it in a comment in this thread.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 6, 2017 | Reply

      • Hi PH, my eyes are open now. “In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (9th & 10th paras), Hamilton and Madison explain the primary purpose of the clause: To prohibit the States from imposing taxes & tolls on merchandize as it is transported THROUGH the States for purposes of buying and selling. Now, we must find out what “regulate Commerce among the several States” means. The Federalist Papers, written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in order to explain the Constitution to the People and induce them to ratify it; and The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 kept by James Madison.

        These authorities prove that the purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause are (1) to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported THROUGH the States for purposes of buying and selling; and (2) to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports and exports, both inland and abroad.” This new Illinois law pertains to transporting alcohol INTO the state, not through the state. Sorry I wasted your time, it was a foolish error in thinking on my part. I hope you have a nice Christmas

        Like

        Comment by Spense | December 7, 2017 | Reply

        • Oh no, I think your question was excellent and important.

          In fact, I’m not sure what the answer is! I would want to see what our Framers said about this; and for general background info, read that US supreme Court opinion re importation of cars from one state to another.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 7, 2017 | Reply

          • PH, I’ll see if I can locate that SCOTUS case you reference. I’ll try this evening. I have a busy afternoon.

            Like

            Comment by Spense | December 7, 2017

          • Dear Spense,

            Get out your ruler and smack my hand hard: Your question is answered by Section 2 of the 21st Amendment.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 12, 2017

          • According to Wikipedia, “The second section of the 21st amendment bans the importation of alcohol in violation of state or territorial law. This has been interpreted to give states essentially absolute control over alcoholic beverages” That answers my question…. in hind sight I should have checked the 21st amendment from the start. Sometimes, things hide in plain sight… LOL. Merry Christmas and thanks!

            Like

            Comment by Spense | December 12, 2017

          • Well, it hid from both of us – for a while.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 12, 2017

        • what limits high taxes on products (aka illinois and cigarette taxes) and being there is no actual law about taxes being mandated on personal income / earnings federally can a state create a tax on them ?

          Like

          Comment by steve brandt | December 7, 2017 | Reply

  2. Does a free market allow a company to knowingly sell people low quality dog food that could potentially lead to health problems, such as kidney failure, in their dogs without any kind of penalties, besides people just protesting with their dollars by not buying it once these problems come to light?

    Like

    Comment by Chuck | November 14, 2017 | Reply

    • A “free market” neither allows nor denies. it’s the buyers & sellers in the market who decide.

      Cheats sell adulterated products – they always have and always will. It accompanies the disappearance of Virtue from a culture. E.g., in the United States, “honey mustard” is mustard with corn syrup added. “Olive oil” is cheap oil with some green stuff added to make it look like olive oil. And the federal pure food & drug laws [which are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated] didn’t protect us from the food cheats.

      So consumers must get informed and act accordingly. When Virtue disappears from a culture, it’s “Buyer Beware”. About pet food, we should ask our vets to recommend a brand.

      About adulterated food: Have you looked at the lists of ingredients on the packages for the manufactured food for humans sold in our grocery stores? Don’t eat ANY of that garbage.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 15, 2017 | Reply

      • Publius Hulda – On this topic – Do you agree that any of (or all of) the several States could however, according to their individual Constitutions, might have authority to act on behalf of their citizens to take measures to curtail ‘food cheats’ as you characterize them. IOW – If Fred’s Dog Chow & Storm Door Company in Podunk, Oklahoma was selling bad products, some local, city or state entity could in fact take action against Fred’s business. It’s simply not in the realm of the General Government to do so. Am I correct?

        Thank you!
        Regards, Pete

        Like

        Comment by cgdustdevil | November 15, 2017 | Reply

        • Yes, to what you say: State Constitutions typically delegate unlimited powers to the State government restricted only by the Declaration of Rights in the State Constitution – and, of course, by limitations in the US Constitution such as Article I, Section 10, which is a list of things the States agree they won’t do.

          So State governments would have authority to regulate food quality, including food imported into the State from other States.

          And the feds have no authority over this issue.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 15, 2017 | Reply

          • if states have unlimited power then are they immune to the police power and as stated in the constitution.. the constitution is the supreme law of the land .

            Like

            Comment by steve | November 15, 2017

          • I should have added in my reply to cgdustdevel that the States are also limited by the US Constitution – e.g., Article I, Section 10.

            what do you mean by “immune to the police power”?

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 15, 2017

          • the powers not delegated to the federal government are given to the states and/or the people. so if the states can create powers as you say food , education , driving privileges etc.. would not the police powers be heavily restricted ? given that they seem to create laws thats clearly volate the constitution both state a federally today

            Like

            Comment by steve | November 15, 2017

          • I wondered where you got your understanding from, so I googled “police powers”. I saw the definition from Cornell. They are wrong.

            This is TRUE: THE PEOPLE, acting thru special ratifying conventions in their STATES, created the federal gov’t when they ratified the Constitution. In the Constitution, THE PEOPLE, acting though the special ratifying conventions in their STATES, delegated specific enumerated powers to the government of the new “Federation of States” which the Constitution created. The States and THE PEOPLE RESERVED all powers not delegated to the federal government. The 10th Amendment recognizes that the undelegated powers were RESERVED. They weren’t “granted” by the 10th Amendment.

            “Police powers” describe those powers which are exercised for the good and orderly regulation of society. These powers were NOT “granted” to the States by the 10th Amendment. Rather, those powers were reserved by the States and The People. All the 10th Amendment does is to recognize this RESERVATION of powers.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 17, 2017

          • Wasn’t it Michelle Bachmann who wanted to institute mandatory Constitution training for all incoming members of Congress? Is that why she fell out of favor with the Establishment?

            Like

            Comment by bobmontgomery | November 17, 2017

          • I think it was Bachmann who said she wanted constitution classes for Congress members.

            But she didn’t know the Constitution! She supported the “balanced budget” amendment and REFUSED to pay attention to our dire warnings about it. For that reason, I began to believe she was a fake conservative: They say what we want to hear – but they act in the opposite manner or never accomplish anything.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 17, 2017

          • thank you for questioning my statement.. now you see the misinformation that on the internet and even education websites. so now that you see i asked a legitimate question lets zero in on the wide range of powers the states seem to be engaged as i stated.. lets take mandating car insurance. the state is FORCING people to buy something they dont want or can afford. lets address that using police powers. how can a state mandate people to buy car insurance ? i ask that because even the federal government used states mandating auto insurance to force healthcare mandations ( tax penalty)

            Like

            Comment by steve | November 17, 2017

          • 1. Law schools have helped destroy our Constitution. The Enemy wants to get us away from the Idea that Rights come from GOD, and that the purpose of government is to secure the rights GOD gave us (see 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence); and they want us to believe that rights come from Constitutions. Change the Constitution, and the “rights” “granted” by the Constitution can be changed.

            2. Re auto insurance/ health insurance see: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/refuting-the-bad-health-insurance-auto-insurance-analogy-a-lesson-in-federalism/

            3. Re States requiring people to have liability insurance before they can get driver’s licenses: It is based on the Biblical Requirement that we are to make RESTITUTION for the harm and damage we cause!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 19, 2017

  3. PH, I’m going to swerve into another topic here. I’ve heard on a local talk radio show that there is bill proposed which will require every employer in the US to use E-Verify. While that sounds great and all, I’m I correct in saying that would be Unconstitutional since there is no delegated authority to FedGov with regards to employment. Which I assume would be the Department of Labor as well.

    Like

    Comment by Tim | November 14, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes & yes! You are right!

      The federal gov’t has the authority to control immigration (Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1); but they are to do that by controlling the borders. They may NOT use the results of their REFUSAL to control the Borders as an excuse to meddle in the employer – employee relation in private business and private [non-federal gov’t] employment.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 14, 2017 | Reply

      • Apparently Arizona has been requiring employers to use E-Verify since 2008, which I’m thinking they can do…10th amendment and all. However, they are using an unconstitutional federal program (E-Verify), and it has resulted in a reduction of illegals in the State. Of course the proper remedy would be for the Feds to do their job and control the borders.

        Like

        Comment by Tim | November 14, 2017 | Reply

        • The Constitution for the State of Arizona would determine whether the Arizona State gov’t has the constitutional authority [under the State Constitution] to require employers in the State to use E-verify.

          And yes, the fed gov’t should do their job and control the borders and protect us from Invasion. And cut off welfare to illegals. It is absurd: The fed gov’t draws the illegals here with welfare and then requires employers to use E-verify so they don’t hire them [to keep these parasites on welfare, perhaps?]

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 14, 2017 | Reply

  4. “PragerU is Wrong About COS”
    The John Birch Society – Published on November 2, 2017

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Merry Christmas | November 3, 2017 | Reply

  5. PH
    This is probably a silly question, but was the first amendment’s right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” ever meant to include a foreigners right to lobby congress?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P Lindner | November 3, 2017 | Reply

    • 1. Let’s begin with foundational principles: IF Congress were restricted to its enumerated powers – what would there be to lobby over? If you read this short article, you will see what I mean: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/term-limits-a-palliative-not-a-cure/

      2. Contrary to what everybody says, there is no such thing as a “first amendment right”. Read the text of Article I: does it grant rights? Or does it say that CONGRESS shall not make laws in those 5 areas? What does the Declaration of Independence say about the origin of Rights? And the Purpose of government?

      3. If foreigners have a grievance against the United States, they may [depending on the circumstances] have a remedy by filing a lawsuit against the United States. The jurisdiction of the Federal Courts is set forth at Art. III, Section 2, US Constitution. It can get complicated – so one can’t answer an hypothetical question.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 3, 2017 | Reply

  6. IF California divides into three states, do two of them realize they don’t automatically becomes states and they will have to petition to become states of the Union. Or will they have to petition to become a possession such as Puerto Rico or can only become a possession IF the U.S. Congress so designates them. Am I missing something? Where do they become automatically another State in the Union?
    Bob B.

    Like

    Comment by Bob B. | November 1, 2017 | Reply

    • did you read Article IV, Section 3, US Constitution?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 1, 2017 | Reply

      • How did West Virginia come to exist? Sure looks like a violation of Art.4 sect. 3. Thanks.

        Like

        Comment by Robert | November 2, 2017 | Reply

        • Why do you think it was a violation of Art. IV, Sec. 3? I haven’t looked up the original documents to see how West Virginia came into existence.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 2, 2017 | Reply

          • WVA was carved from Virginia 1863.

            Like

            Comment by Robert | November 2, 2017

          • If the procedures set forth at Article IV, Section 3, clause 1 were followed, then the creation of West Virginia out of Virginia was properly done.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 2, 2017

          • It was at at a time of insurrection/war. Please explain.

            Like

            Comment by Robert | November 4, 2017

          • Robert, I don’t know the FACTS about how West Virginia came into existence. So I don’t know whether it was done in compliance with Article IV, Section 3 or not.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 5, 2017

  7. P.H. My question is as follows does Congress have the authority under the necessary and proper clause to pass a budget.

    Like

    Comment by James Kriner | November 1, 2017 | Reply

    • Please read the entries under the Category, “Necessary and Proper clause”, and then, you tell me the answer to your question

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 1, 2017 | Reply

      • ” The Congress shall have Power”… ” To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,…
        Since the enumerated list is already executed a budget would be unconstitutional.

        Like

        Comment by James Kriner | November 1, 2017 | Reply

        • Did you read any of the posts on the “necessary and proper” clause? Can you explain briefly its purpose?

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 1, 2017 | Reply

      • Publius, Thanks for your recent post on the subject.
        The “necessary and proper” clause (Art. I, §8, last clause)

        This clause delegates to Congress power to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article”; a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power, and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a “tautology or redundancy” (Federalist No. 33, 2nd & 3rd paras). Madison writes to the same effect in (Federalist No. 44, under his discussion of the SIXTH class of powers).

        So the clause “permits the execution of powers already delegated and enumerated in the Constitution.” No additional substantive powers are granted by the clause.
        Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of delegated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes. 1.The constitutional powers of the national government were supposed to be exercised with the proceeds of excise taxes & impost tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by an apportioned assessment on the States based on population. In conclusion! A “Budget” is not an enumerated power executed in the Constitution.The necessary and proper clause only applies to those on the list and nothing else. ~Jim Kriner

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by James Kriner | November 4, 2017 | Reply

        • The “necessary and proper” clause applies to all powers delegated in the Constitution. e.g., Article V delegates to Congress the power to call a Convention when 2/3 of the States have applied for it. So Congress has the authority pursuant to Article I, Sec. 8, last clause, to pass all the laws “necessary & proper” to make effective their Call for a convention.

          The real problem with a constitutional amendment authorizing a “Budget” is that it would change the present constitutional standard for spending from whether an object is an enumerated power to whatever the President or Congress put into the Budget. So it would legalize all of the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 5, 2017 | Reply

          • A “Budget” operates outside of Congress’ enumerated powers. If it’s not on the list it is not a delegated power. A Budget is not in the constitution, Article V is listed. A balanced budget amendment would make constitutional the current unconstitutional budget that Congress operates under. Thanks Publius.

            Like

            Comment by James Kriner | November 5, 2017

          • You are welcome!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 5, 2017

  8. I noticed recently the COS Project has performed a bait and switch on the American People. They went from assuring us how a “Convention of the States” will be limited to specific amendments to now advocating for it to be called on subjects. From their website:

    “1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the following purpose: Limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.”

    Limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government? isn’t that what our Constitution already does? But if that is going to be the subject of the Convention, it creates a unlimited convention that can address all of the federal government’s enumerated powers as well as create new ones, which is what the COSP defines as a Constitutional Convention.

    It doesn’t take a prophet to see the kind of volatile constitution we will get with people like them writing it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | November 1, 2017 | Reply

  9. Hey PH.

    Someone tried to tell me that the rights not listed in the Constitution are covered under the 9th amendment after I said the rights not listed are left to the states and the people.

    Like

    Comment by Bob | October 31, 2017 | Reply

    • How should I respond to that?

      Like

      Comment by Bob | October 31, 2017 | Reply

      • I would respond by telling him that the Declaration of Independence says that rights come from God and that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

        that our Constitution doesn’t list OUR Rights. What it lists – enumerates – are the powers our Constitution delegates to the federal government.

        I would say that you and your friend are arguing about nothing and that your differences arise because you two haven’t read the Document carefully: The 9th Amendment addresses “rights” and says just because a “right” isn’t listed in the Constitution doesn’t mean we don’t have it. The 10th Amendment deals with “powers” not delegated to the fed gov’t and says that such “powers” are reserved to the States or the People.

        This article shown how the powers delegated to the federal gov’t secure specific God-given rights: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/how-our-federal-constitution-secures-our-god-given-rights/

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | October 31, 2017 | Reply

        • What’s the point of the 9th amendment? Can it be used to justify anything the left wants, like gay marriage?

          Like

          Comment by Bob | November 1, 2017 | Reply

          • Here’s your assignment: You must start at the beginning: Read the Declaration of Independence over & over until you know what it says. Then read the US Constitution – over & over.

            This chart will help you organize your learning: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 1, 2017

          • Bob, The DOI states our rights come from God, do you think the God of the Bible gave anyone a right to same-sex marriage? The God of the Bible certainly did not grant that right and as such no one can squeeze such a right from the 9th amendment.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Spense | November 1, 2017

  10. PH, the new video on the Prager University You Tube channel is by Jim DeMint. He is now an advisor to the Convention of States Project, evidently, and is advocating for an Article V convention in the video. Your characterization of that camp’s arguments is spot-on. DeMint presumes that the States will send the delegates of their own choosing and that each State will have only one vote. He also claims that 38 States will have to ratify the amendments, so there is little fear of a runaway convention. He even paraphrases Antonin Scalia as saying that the risk of destroying the Constitution through an Article V convention is minimal. He does not mention Burger or any other judge who spoke grave misgivings about such a convention. Finally, DeMint states that the Founding Fathers wrote Article V into the Constitution for just such a time as this–to fight back against a bloated federal government.

    Like

    Comment by CWB | October 31, 2017 | Reply

    • Jim DeMint never was the sharpest knife in the drawer – and as I recall, his actions as a politician didn’t align with his rhetoric. I think he is one of those politicians who told “conservatives” what they wanted to hear.

      Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Michael Farris, Mark Levin, all the State COS leaders and lemmings, etc, all chant the same script – it’s almost identical as to content, wording, and phrases – and it’s all false – as we have proved, over and over.

      Yet they keep repeating the same lies. For example, consider Scalia’s position on an Article V convention:

      They quote law professor Scalia from 1979 when he didn’t oppose an Article V convention.

      They completely ignore the wiser Justice Scalia who said on April 17, 2014:

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

      Here’s the April 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4&feature=youtu.be&t=1h6m2s at the 1:06 minute mark

      That sort of brazen dishonesty permeates everything they say. But many of their lemmings are so ignorant that they are unaware that they are repeating lies.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 31, 2017 | Reply

    • And I have repeatedly asked the COS leaders and lemmings to show me WHERE any of our Framers or Founders said that the purpose of an Article V convention is to fight back against a bloated federal government. No one can produce the quote – and Michael Farris misrepresented what George Mason said. See https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/the-george-mason-fabrication/

      It is sad that some Americans are so stupid and gullible that they will believe whatever they are told – and they don’t demand to see the Proof!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 1, 2017 | Reply

    • The COS Project is a fraudulent organization through and through.

      One of the arguments the COSP makes is that a Convention of the States is not a Constitutional Convention. Which is actually correct, but not for the reasons they give. If you tell them a COS is a concocted term, they will cite Virginia’s Resolution on November 20, 1788 where the term is used.

      http://cdn.loc.gov/service/rbc/rbpe/rbpe17/rbpe179/1790100c/1790100c.pdf

      Or if you are Mark Levin, you say Article V itself says Convention of the States.

      What they are doing is counting on people to either not read or comprehend their sources, and to just accept their egregious interpretations as facts. And sadly they are correct to a large degree. Because if people were to actually take a little time to review their findings, they would see a Convention of the States is not a Convention for proposing amendments at all, it’s in reference to the individual State Conventions for ratifying the proposals of either the Congress or the Constitutional Convention.

      Regardless of what name they wish to call it, the States will be applying for a Article V Convention and will get a Constitutional Convention when called by the Congress. But once this reality occurs, it will be too late to stop it from proceeding.

      Like

      Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | November 1, 2017 | Reply

  11. Hey PH.

    In your paper, “The Lie of Separation of Church and State…” you said, “I will show you how judges on the supreme Court changed the historical definition of that term so that they could eradicate the Christian religion from our public square and eliminate speech they don’t like.”

    What were these justices trying to prove? Were they not Christians themselves? Did they secretly despise Christianity? Did they have an agenda and if so, what do you think it was and why? Or did they really believe they were doing the right thing?

    Thanks

    Like

    Comment by Bob | October 28, 2017 | Reply

    • Well, I can’t speak as to their internal motives because I don’t know them or the inner recesses of their minds or psyches. All we can know is what they did. I proved that they fabricated a new definition of “established religion” and used that new definition to ban Christian speech in the public square. Their acts were unlawful and unconstitutional.

      Since they are supposedly the smartest lawyers in the Country, I assume they knew exactly what they were doing when they did it.

      The shame and disgrace is that the States caved in and submitted to this unconstitutional opinion. The state legislatures should have passed laws directing their State School Boards and Department of Education to ignore the Supreme Court’s opinion.

      But Americans have become a cowardly people.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 28, 2017 | Reply

  12. Hi PH. It’s clear that Donald Trump is quite fascinated with Andrew Jackson so I was just wondering what you thought about him. How well did he follow the constitution?

    Like

    Comment by Santiago | October 24, 2017 | Reply

    • Alas! I minored in American History – but that was sooooo long ago. I don’t remember the Answer to your question. Tell me what you know about this. I am curious – but don’t have time to dig out his Record on this.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 24, 2017 | Reply

    • I did some research recently on Andrew Jackson, and from what I could discern, he was solidly against any form of federal bank (think Federal Reserve). He did everything in his power to dismantle early vestiges of such.against almost overpowering forces.,Consequently, he succeeded in doing so during his time in office and for the first and only time EVER the United States operated for a whole year with any debt whatsoever. That changed with the following administration when he was out of office, however. And since then, the United States government has never operated without ever INCREASING DEBT!! Just that one fact was enough to raise my esteem for him. His other accomplishments were perhaps more obscure as relates to the U, S. Constitution. Other comments are welcome.

      Like

      Comment by paradigmrw | October 24, 2017 | Reply

  13. PH
    Article III, sec. 2 states, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity arising under this constitution***”, but says nothing about “standing”. Is this just something judges came up with on their own to turn away potential challenges to a law?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P Lindner | October 17, 2017 | Reply

    • 1. “Standing” is a legitimate doctrine: a person must show he has a direct interest in the subject matter of the law suit before he may maintain it. e.g., if I file a lawsuit against you alleging your yard is a nuisance because you never mow it, and you have old tires laying around and are breeding mouisquitos, my lawsuit will be dismissed for lack of standing. Your yard doesn’t affect me.

      2. Most of what the 3 branches of the federal gov’t do is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. So what’s the proper remedy? Filing a lawsuit in federal court? Really? That’s just what we’ve been told and conditioned to believe – that the federal courts are the ones to decide whether an act of Congress is constitutional. Do you have the money to maintain such a lawsuit? Few people do. So that remedy isn’t even available to most people because they can’t afford it. And why would we agree to let the judicial branch of the fed gov’t decide whether what the legislative branch of the fed gov’t has done is constitutional or unconstitutional?

      The Courts have shown us over & over that they have contempt for the Constitution.

      Our Framers were well aware that the Judicial Branch might collude with the Legislative Branch to usurp powers over us. That’s why our Framers told us what to do: (1) elect faithful representatives to office and (2) nullify unconstitutional acts of the fed gov’t – don’t comply. I’ve written tons on nullification.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 17, 2017 | Reply

      • Pro se in law and equity there is no fee. The court and judge must prove their jurisdiction in writing into the court. If your paper is deficient they must notify you with corrections. There is no need for an attorney, member of the BAR a foreign agent see FARA. Bar is a Communist organization states Congress 1952.

        Like

        Comment by ronvrooman38r | October 17, 2017 | Reply

        • What do you get these crazy ideas from? What you are saying is loony-tunes!

          The ability to speak is a gift – we must not abuse it by speaking nonsense and absurdities.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 17, 2017 | Reply

    • as requested.. does the 16th amendment apply to personal income or income from profits ?

      Like

      Comment by steve | October 17, 2017 | Reply

      • I did not practice in this area; but two criminal defense tax lawyers told me that when the 16th Amendment was ratified, “income” didn’t include “wages” for work done or services rendered. “Income” was the increase one got from property: “income” from rental properties, savings accounts, etc.

        However, over the years, the definition got changed to include “wages”. Is this constitutional? No! but those same tax lawyers would likely warn you that if you try to make this argument at your trial for failure to file, etc., you will lose.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | October 18, 2017 | Reply

        • my question to a court would be this… provide me the specific law that says i HAVE to pay taxes on my earned living . would that be a pretty specific request ?

          Like

          Comment by steve | October 18, 2017 | Reply

          • I assure you your question will NOT strike fear into the heart of the judge in your “failure to file” prosecution.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 18, 2017

          • good point..put everything on the record

            Like

            Comment by steve | October 18, 2017

          • Steve, no court will ever rule against its ability to fund itself!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Robert | October 18, 2017

          • anyone heard about this ? Skynet Funding Bill

            Like

            Comment by steve | October 19, 2017

          • do you have a link to the funding bill?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 19, 2017

  14. Dear PH, one of your many good points that I find very persuasive is that since the federal government has ignored the Tenth Amendment, we are foolish to think that it would now follow a few extra amendments regarding a balanced budget, etc. The Tenth Amendment is about as clear a bulwark against tyranny as we could have hoped our Founders would have given us. Yet, it is nonetheless ignored. Thank you for converting me from the convention-of-states camp. Please keep up the good work.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by CWB | October 16, 2017 | Reply

    • You made my day! Thank you.

      And the irony of a “balanced budget” amendment, is that it would convert the government created by our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only to one of general and unlimited powers because the amendment would grant to Congress power to spend money on – and hence have power over – whatever they or the President decide to put into the budget: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/12/28/balanced-budget-amendment-the-solution-or-deathblow/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 16, 2017 | Reply

    • Hey, CW – My first clue on this ConCon scam was when PH warned early on (years ago) that this was akin to Congress passing a law saying people had to obey the law. Hello? All that’s already in there somewhere. My second clue was when I read the proposed BBA by Nick Dranias or whatever his name is and the stupid thing was twelve pages long! Why, absolutely no possibility of chicanery there, huh?

      Like

      Comment by bobmontgomery | October 16, 2017 | Reply

  15. Does the Constitution apply to private property owners? Say a rancher, a home owner, a 5013(c), or any other business. Are any or all if these exempt from the Constitution?

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | October 16, 2017 | Reply

    • With the US Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE created the federal gov’t and defined its powers. So the Constitution addresses was the federal gov’t may lawfully do. And it also lists the powers the States agreed not to exercise [see primarily, Article I, Section 10.]

      The Constitution doesn’t address citizens – it doesn’t limit or regulate citizens.

      The stupid American People foolishly ratified the 16th & 18th Amendments which delegated power over individuals to the federal gov’t. The 18th was repealed. But because of the 16th Amendment, the federal gov’t now has direct power over individuals to the extent of taxing their “incomes”.

      So the federal Constitution “applies” to governments. It doesn’t “apply” to citizens – who are the ones who “created” the Constitution which created the federal gov’t.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 16, 2017 | Reply

  16. Publius, l’m confused- where can I find the definition of inane back in 1787?

    Like

    Comment by Con Mah | October 14, 2017 | Reply

  17. PH: This is not a question requiring much urgency but I hope you’ll find time to provide an answer at your leisure, which will be appreciated.

    I’m having a discussion with a friend about how we are to ‘interpret’ the use of the words ‘shall’, ‘must’, ‘will’ and ‘may’ as used by the Framers/Founders in provisions of the Constitution. We cannot seem to find in your archives a location which might help explain this. Could you direct us to any proper source?

    Many thanks in advance.

    Like

    Comment by nelsonaire1 | October 12, 2017 | Reply

    • The meanings of these words are Well-established in Law.

      “Shall” and “must” are mandatory.

      “May” is permissive.

      “Will” depends on the context. Cite the Article, section and clause, and I’ll look it up!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 12, 2017 | Reply

      • PH: Thanks so much for the quick response but I guess I didn’t make myself clear enough. What I am looking for are remarks or explanations from the Founders, especially during the convention debates or even elsewhere, where they might have stated exactly what THEY meant by the use of those terms: ‘shall’, etc. I know our Supreme Court has decided how they are to be considered in the application of American law but that, to me, isn’t the same thing as how they ‘must’ 🙂 be taken in Constitutional provisions. Or am I wrong on that?

        Like

        Comment by nelsonaire1 | October 13, 2017 | Reply

        • I expect I can’t give any answer which will satisfy you. So try this: Look up in The Federalist Papers the clauses in the Constitution which you are examining, and see what our Framers say about the meanings of the clauses which concern you.
          You can go here and type in the word “shall” and perhaps they quote the provisions you are looking at – in which case, you will find it. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ Do let me know if you find that “shall” really means “may”; and “may” really means “must”.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 13, 2017 | Reply

          • PH…. From reading numerous uses of ‘shall’ and ‘must’ in various of the Federalist Papers on various issues, plus seeing how the word ‘shall’ is always used in the Constitution itself, both to delegate power (examples: Article 1 Section 8 and to prohibit it (Article 1 Section 10), it seems clear enough to my non-legally trained mind that the Founders meant ‘shall’ to be an order or command and not related to any other possible use of it such as calling for some future event or action, for example.

            Also, use of the word ‘must’ always seems to infer or express a physical or moral necessity, as seen in the mind of the word’s user.

            In contrast, use of these words by our governmental departments and perhaps the law industry as a whole appears to be quite differently interpreted according to the link to follow, where ‘shall’ appears to be an optional suggestion rather than a command or order…..

            http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory

            My friend tells me the US Supreme Court has ruled in that vein but he cannot point me to the specific case and I haven’t found it yet. But my view is, Supreme Court determinations of what the interpretation of ‘shall’ or ‘must’ should be cannot change what was meant when the Founders used them in the Constitution. I don’t think Article 1 Section 8 is a list of suggestions.

            Thanks for your attention and for all you do to help us ‘ignoramuses’ learn the truth about our Constitution.

            Like

            Comment by nelsonaire1 | October 15, 2017

          • I’ve read thousands of federal & State Court opinions and don’t ever recall seeing any opinion where they said the words “shall”, “must”, and “may” mean anything different from the way Hamilton, Madison, and Jay used them in The Federalist Papers.

            I think your friend is wasting peoples’ time on a non-issue!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 15, 2017

  18. Hi Publius. My question is: Does the constitution say anything about lobbying? The current state of lobbying is obviously very corrupt but is it unconstitutional?

    Like

    Comment by Shaggy | October 10, 2017 | Reply

    • Shaggy, my first answer wasn’t very good. So here’s a more complete answer:

      1) Do you really need me to tell you whether the Constitution says anything about lobbying? Why don’t you read the Constitution for yourself and then, you will know! And you might learn some other things as well.

      2) Remember, with the federal Constitution, we CREATED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and we listed the powers it could have. The Constitution isn’t about what The People can do or can’t do. “Lobbying” is what People who are outside the government do to try to influence legislators in their votes. Lobbying isn’t inherently evil. When I try to educate legislators on the dangers of proposed legislation, I am “lobbying”. What is corrupt is legislators who take money or favors or free luxury trips and such like in exchange for their votes on legislation. THAT is corrupt.

      Now that you have read the Constitution [!], you are aware that only a tiny handful of powers is delegated to the federal government over the Country at large. If WE elected to Congress people who had actually read the Constitution – and who obeyed it – there would be no opportunity for corrupt lobbying! Who would bribe legislators with big bucks to change the standard of weights & measures (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 5)?

      Read this short post, and let me know if you see the point. The point is that if WE elected to Congress people who obeyed the Constitution, no opportunity for corrupt lobbying would arise. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/term-limits-a-palliative-not-a-cure/

      What I do is sooooo easy! It requires reading the Constitution (and Declaration of Independence) over & over till you know what they say and then……… using your own head and thinking!

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2017 | Reply

  19. Is FEMA unconstitutional?

    Like

    Comment by Bob | October 9, 2017 | Reply

    • Let me ask you: Read thru our federal Constitution, and focus especially on Article I, section 8. You will find that the federal gov’t has power over making rules for naturalization of new citizens, bankruptcy laws, coining money, fixing the standard of weights and measures, and so forth. All the items on which the fed gov’t has authority are listed. Do you see anything about the federal gov’t getting involved with “emergencies”? Floods, hurricanes, fires, etc.? No? So what does that tell you?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 9, 2017 | Reply

      • Thanks.

        Like

        Comment by Bob | October 9, 2017 | Reply

  20. PH, the President is planning to issue an executive order to permit Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines? As a policy, love the idea; but, I am concerned about its constitutionality. What say you?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | September 29, 2017 | Reply

    • That is an interesting question. Obviously, our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government ANY POWER WHATSOEVER over medical care (for the Country at Large). So if the federal government had obeyed our Constitution, Americans could have been purchasing health insurance [if they want it] wherever they want (assuming the laws of their State don’t interfere with this natural right to buy what you want from whomever you wish.

      This paper explains the enumerated powers of the President – including his power to make executive orders: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-presidents-enumerated-powers-rulemaking-by-executive-agencies-executive-orders/

      The President may lawfully make Executive Orders which direct the federal departments and agencies within the Executive Branch comply with the Constitution.

      So while as a normal matter, the President has no constitutional authority to issue Executive orders addressing such matters; when an unconstitutional federal Statute (which is an act of the legislative Branch] or federal agency regulation [which are acts of agencies within the Executive Branch] has been in force – the President may properly issue an Executive Order informing The People that they don’t have to comply with it.

      The President’s Oath is to preserve, protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION! It is not to go along with Congress or to uphold their unconstitutional acts. He should, via Executive Orders, direct the executive departments under his control to disregard unconstitutional acts of Congress.

      For another illustration: If I were President, I would look into issuing an Executive Order shutting down the federal Department of Education. I’d send those education parasites packing.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 29, 2017 | Reply

      • So far, and not surprisingly, the news coverage on this subject hasn’t broached the question of constitutionality, but yours is my take as well. Just needed some validation from you. All elected officials are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution. Thank you.

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | September 29, 2017 | Reply

      • Follow-up. So, if the State in which I reside prohibits my purchasing health insurance across state lines, then I’m out of luck. Right?

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | September 29, 2017 | Reply

        • Check your State Constitution to see what your State Constitution permits your State legislature to do. But sadly, the foolish American People generally ratified State Constitutions which delegated almost unlimited powers to their State governments – powers restricted ONLY by the Declarations of Rights in the State Constitutions.

          I can’t say for sure what the answer is in your particular case without reading the State law, the State Constitution, and the federal laws, federal agency rules, and Trump’s executive Order.

          Or you could do as I do and say, “A pox on health insurance. I’m not buying it.” I marvel that Americans got talked into believing that health insurance was something they just had to have!

          We will all die one day – whether we have health insurance or not. I suggest that instead of buying health insurance, Americans start eating a healthy diet, getting in shape, etc. Most of the diseases Americans get are diseases they gave themselves due to their horrible health habits – the junk they stuff their bodies with, etc.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 29, 2017 | Reply

          • Dear PH,
            May I interject a comment in reply to your remarks about how you marveled at how the American people were talked into believing they had to have insurance.

            My thought is that they were convinced they were entitled to it, so they “deserved” to have it given to them. There was never any discussion as to whether the government had the right to give the people health insurance, nor was there any attempt to demonstrate the government had the right to do so. Of course when has the government, here being federal though much the same applies to state and local, ever demonstrated it had the right to usurp powers not delegated to it by the Constitution? The answer is of course they have never even attempted to demonstrate they had the right to usurp any power not delegated to it which, in the view of a layman, makes them all criminals.

            Like

            Comment by WorJo353rdG5!727^ | September 30, 2017

          • Far too few of us were talking about “enumerated powers” and how our Constitution doesn’t delegate any authority to the federal government to manage the medical care of the People of this Country. Some were arguing that Congress had the power under the “general welfare” or “interstate commerce” clauses – and I addressed all their arguments here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/health-care/

            Ultimately, the Supreme Court claimed that Congress has the power under the “taxing clause” – I addressed that specious claim also at the above link.

            The People of our Country are in such a condition of deep moral decline that they no longer care about what the Constitution permits the federal government to do – they want what they want and that’s all they care about it.

            As a former criminal defense attorney, I have to point out that usurping powers can’t be a “crime” unless there is a previously existing Statute defining it as a crime. And that is a good thing! The criminal jurisdiction of the federal government is limited to only a handful of crimes: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/us-criminal-code/

            When the federal courts or the President or other executive officials usurp powers, the remedy built into the Constitution is to impeach them and remove them from office. See: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/impeachment-all-you-need-to-know-and-you-do-need-to-know-it/

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 3, 2017

      • Why do Executive Orders not expire at tge end if the term of the issuer?

        Like

        Comment by Randy Claywell | October 8, 2017 | Reply

  21. P.H, This may seem funny, but i can’t recommend highly enough “The rise and fall of the confederate government.” by Jefferson Davis. This book can be found for free online. The amount of the information in this multi-volume book on our founding and the constitution is amazing. Let alone the information it provides when it comes to the confederate gov. Now when it comes to information like this only original sources will do. Give me the originals! How bout you?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Blake | September 27, 2017 | Reply

    • I know nothing about the confederate gov’t. I’ll have to look at the book. My regret is that what I wish to know is much bigger than what I have time to learn. And the gap gets bigger every day.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017 | Reply

      • I hear ya, I have a list of “original” source books and writings i want to read and understand. I’ll never have the time to complete it however i just keep chugging on. However again i can’t recommend this book enough. The information is amazing.

        Like

        Comment by Blake | September 27, 2017 | Reply

        • I’ll find it and mark it – there’s time to read a chapter a day. Yes, I read only original source materials. I don’t read biographies – I learn about people from their own writings. I despise biographies. If a person wants to know about Hamilton, read his writings – don’t read, e.g., DeLorenzo’s bio. I hate it when inferior and spiteful people write negatively about their betters.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 28, 2017 | Reply

  22. Dear Publius Hulda,

    My question concerns itself with the scope of the U.S. Bill of Rights and its application as a restraint on State legislatures. You have written about the judicial mischief of the Supreme Court in the case of Gitlow v. N.Y. (1925) and its incorporation of the 1st Amendment via the 14th.

    Prior to Gitlow, it appears that the High Court had consistently viewed the US Bill of Rights to be ONLY a restraint on the General Government, and not the several States. It also appears that the aforementioned doctrine has its roots in an 1833 case (Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243) concerning an appeal based on a perceived NY State ‘violation’ of the 5th Amendment. The court refused to hear the case, citing lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the 5th Amendment (and indeed, the Bill of Rights) did not restrain governments of the several States. Chief Justice Marshall wrote a detailed opinion as to why they reached the conclusion they did which (in my view) made perfect sense.

    A summary is found here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

    So, do you agree with the 1833 opinion that the intent of the Bill of Rights was to restrain ONLY the US Government, and not the legislatures of the several States? The 1st Amendment is clear in its syntax of course. The 9th and 10th are equally obvious. However, the 2nd – 8th are the subjects of my curiosity. I have long thought that the 2nd Amendment was only a restraint on the General Government since it discusses (along with the Constitution) the requirement of State Militias. It makes no sense that a state would infringe upon the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms of its own Militia!

    Thank you in advance, and I am eternally grateful to you for the treasure trove of Constitutional information you’ve provided! Your work is an incredible resource!

    Respectfully, Pete Hodgkins

    Like

    Comment by cgdustdevil | September 27, 2017 | Reply

    • It is clear that the original intent of the 1st 10 Amendments was that they restrained ONLY the federal government. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) was correctly decided.

      Everyone understood this until 1925 when the US supreme Court decided Gitlow v. People. See the paper here at paras 10-12:
      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/separation-of-church-and-state/

      It was a monstrous usurpation of power. Since then, on a case by case basis, the Supreme Court has extended their damned “incorporation theory” to others of the first 8 amendments. This is how that court has claimed to have control over how STATES act with respect to the matters described in the first 8 amendments.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017 | Reply

  23. I’m so sorry. I have one more question for you.
    Does congress have the rightful authority to protect the Special Counsel from being fired by the president?

    Thank you so much,
    Penelope

    Like

    Comment by Penelope | September 21, 2017 | Reply

    • If the special counsel is hired by the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch would have no power to fire the special counsel. Remember the separation of powers.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017 | Reply

  24. Ms. Huldah,
    There is a college teacher in San Diego who is offering extra credit to students who admit to being recipients (or guilty) of “white privilege”.

    Are there any privileges or immunities or due process violations against these students on account of any federal laws/acts/titles that would cover schools which accept federal funding?

    I am sorry to ask you another ethnic related question, but as far as I can see, Judge Roy Moore is about the only other person I would trust to give the correct answer about this, and he is busy right now.
    :o)
    Thank you, Penelope

    Like

    Comment by Penelope | September 21, 2017 | Reply

    • I don’t deal with issues of race. I see race as irrelevant. I am concerned with a person’s moral character. Period.

      And THIS website is about our federal Constitution. Period.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 27, 2017 | Reply

      • Ms. Huldah,
        Thank you for taking time out to answer my question. I did not mean to ask something that wasn’t related to the Constitution. I thought that I had, though I already know that the feds have no authority to butt into the public schools or the colleges. I was thinking of a way to use their usurpation against them in the case mentioned above.
        Best wishes, Penelope

        Like

        Comment by Penelope | October 3, 2017 | Reply

        • Right, “education” over the Country at large is not one of the powers delegated to the federal government. So the federal Department of Education, and all their rules and regulations, and all of Congress’ laws pertaining to education over the Country at large are all unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. The rules of the Dept. of Education are also unconstitutional as in violation of Article I, Section 1, US Constitution.

          So how did the federal gov’t get control of education? Easy – they gave the States grant money to comply with unconstitutional federal education schemes. And if you talk to the education lobby about getting the fed gov’t out of education, they will scream bloody murder because they don’t want to lose the federal funds.

          A corrupt people get corrupt government.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 3, 2017 | Reply

          • Very true. And the very people who have neglected to teach the Constitution are the government controlled schools. Tragic.

            Like

            Comment by Penelope | October 5, 2017

  25. In 1991 federal judges took the Constitution out of their oath. without an amendment.

    Like

    Comment by ronvrooman38r | September 17, 2017 | Reply

    • would you send me the link to the oath federal judges take?

      I saw a page once which had the different historical versions of the Oath American soldiers (officer & enlisted) take. Interesting.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 17, 2017 | Reply

      • article 3 sec 1 talks about “inferior” courts. ad blacks law say. INFERIOR COURTS. By this term are understood all courts except the supreme courts. An inferior court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and it must appear on the face of its proceedings that it has jurisdiction, or its proceedings. will be void. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2529.

        so would state district court be inferior courts?

        Like

        Comment by steve | September 19, 2017 | Reply

        • Did you see my email to you of August 20, 2017? I said:

          Article III, US Constitution, deals only with federal courts. [States have their own court system as established by the State Constitution]

          In the federal court system we now have basically:

          about 94 or so federal district courts (almost all trials are conducted here)
          11 Circuit courts of appeal, plus a few additional circuit courts based on specialty and not geography; and
          1 Supreme Court.

          When Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 9, & Art. III, Sec. 1 refer to “inferior” courts, they refer ONLY to the federal district courts and the federal circuit courts of appeal. Those are the “inferior” courts which may be created from time to time by Congress. Only Congress has the power to increase or decrease the number of federal “inferior” courts.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 20, 2017 | Reply

          • i may have over looked it , i will go back and check better..i may not have put it in my file folder

            Like

            Comment by steve | September 20, 2017

          • Please – perhaps you thought I don’t have enough to do! Yikes!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 20, 2017

          • never said that but i expressed interest in learning the truth.. is there harm in that and so far ive been blown off on that.. i cant make up 30 years on knowledge and truth in a few weeks. so far all ive been told is to read our state constitution and have been left hanging.. im trying to be part of the solution and asked for a lil help. is that bad ?

            Like

            Comment by steve | September 20, 2017

          • I answered your question before in the email. but I can’t make you read it.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 20, 2017

          • humm seems my reply was … i may have misplace at email and that i would look for it… are you trying to run people off or maybe im not in the right class?

            Like

            Comment by steve | September 20, 2017

          • you may be too sensitive for this class!

            But in any event, I copied my email to you and pasted the text below.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 20, 2017

  26. Dear Publius Huldah,

    I would like your take on the following ideas that touch on the subject of immigration. Please bear in mind that as a Christian, I like you, believe all mankind is of “one blood”. Christ died so that any might come to Him.

    The USA is a signatory to two United Nations treaties which I believe are at play here. Whether or not we agree with the United Nations, the USA is still a signatory to the treaty against genocide (signed in 1947?) and to the treaty on self determination. Democrats (and some Republican) insist on our membership in the United Nations, so I believe these two treaties ought to be discussed along with the problem of immigration. If not for the purpose of legal consistency, but surely for the purpose of pointing out the shameful behavior of our government.

    The demographic shift in Americans from a predominantly white population to a soon-to-be a majority nonwhite bears examination in the light of these two treaties. Eliminating a racial group from a continent is indeed no small matter.

    So when did white Americans choose to become a minority group as they soon will be? Did they consent to it? Did they request it? I find such consent nowhere to be found.

    Is this unprecedented racial change not a result of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965? And did white Americans exercise “self determination” in choosing to make themselves a minority group?

    If white Americans did not choose to become a minority group, and the government by virtue of the 10 year census is fully aware that they are becoming one, isn’t the government in violation of the United Nations treaties against genocide and self determination?

    Isn’t the USA government committing the genocide of white people? And protestants?

    Most people think genocide must be the bloody and violent elimination or extermination of a particular group people. But that is not how the UN treaty reads. For example, males and females of reproductive age can be separated and prevented from having babies. That would cause genocide and fits the legal description of it.

    Also, for genocide to occur, it can occur in part. Meaning it does not have to exterminate the whole group. I believe that is now occurring. Whites are not exterminated, yet.

    Furthermore, a government does not have to openly admit to the genocide. The de facto elimination of the particular group is enough evidence.

    It appears to me that the criteria to indict a government of genocide have been met.

    The US government, whether intentionally or not, through the Hart-Celler Immigration Act, and through its continued acquiescence of invasions and subsequent amnesty of the invaders against the wishes of part of “victims” is de jure committing genocide and violating the right of self determination? Whether you or I subscribe to these treaties or not, is not critical here, but certainly the people who do subscribe to them appear to be violating them in a most heinous fashion.

    Imagine if leaders in a country in Africa, having 90 percent of its population is black, used an immigration program that changed the population to a majority of white people. Do you think the world would be in an uproar about it?

    Am I making any sense?
    Thank you, Penelope.

    Like

    Comment by Penelope | September 14, 2017 | Reply

    • I think you focus overmuch on race – the color of peoples’ skin.

      The focus should be on culture – and the content of peoples’ character.

      God made the “races” – it’s not for us to belittle any part of God’s handiwork.

      But man makes “cultures” – and some cultures really stink.

      OUR task is to clean up our culture

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 14, 2017 | Reply

  27. The USSC has said that campaign donations are covered as free speech. Could a law be passed by congress that limited all political contributions to just individuals? Since corporations are artificial entities and have no natural rights, couldn’t congress outlaw their political contributions. Share holders (individuals) would still be able to contribute on their own, but not the corporation.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P Lindner | September 13, 2017 | Reply

    • Before I answer your question, could you cite the Article, Section, and Clause of the US Constitution which authorizes Congress to get involved in “political contributions”? I have looked, but can’t find it!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 13, 2017 | Reply

  28. Hello Ms. Huldah,

    I was reading about the Cyberattack at Equifax and found out that Equifax has been lobbying for a number of years to limit liability. Can you discuss a little about lobbying? It was disclosed in the article I read that Equifax has spent at least $1.1 million each year since 2015 on lobbying activities. Does our government get that money?

    Like

    Comment by Donna Roesch | September 12, 2017 | Reply

    • You don’t disclose whether the federal or State governments are involved in this matter.

      The first question, when dealing with the federal gov’t, is always this: Where does The federal Constitution delegate power to Congress to get involved with this issue? Obviously, The Constitution doesn’t authorize Congress to get involved with credit bureaus. Accordingly, anything the federal gov’t did which addressed credit bureaus [for the Country at large] would be unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

      If you read Article I, Section 8, clauses 1-16 of our federal Constitution [that will take about 30 seconds], you will see that the powers delegated to the federal gov’t [for the Country at large] are few and narrowly defined.

      Generally speaking: Lobbyists are paid operatives who approach Legislators with the aim of inducing them to vote for or against a certain position or bill. Some of the money you mention goes to pay lobbyists. But some of it goes into the Legislator’s pockets or campaign funds. It’s totally corrupt.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 12, 2017 | Reply

      • Oh, boy. If Congress and the Supreme Court would do their jobs and get rid of about 80% of the departments and agencies extant, we wouldn’t be stewing and fretting over raising the debt ceiling.
        Speaking of credit and finance, I’ll just go out on a limb here and say the Constitution doesn’t provide for protecting “consumers’ finances” with a “bureau”, does it?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by bobmontgomery | September 13, 2017 | Reply

        • I love you, Bob! except the number should be 99% instead of 80%.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 13, 2017 | Reply

          • PH,

            The manner in which congress treats the issue of enumerated powers infuriates me. As just one of countless examples, I heard Teddy Cruz on Sean’s show say, while speaking on the ACA monstrosity, that congress would “give” the States the freedom to choose whether they would participate in the ACA or not. )I refuse to call it “Ovomitcare” for that gives far too much credit to that criminal). Ted’s comment, which he knows full well to be a violation of the powers granted TO congress by the States, proved yet again that congress is a crime syndicate, for they ALL took a sacred oath (sacred to us even if not to them) to preserve and defend the Constitution.

            The way Teddy and other self-proclaimed “constitutionalists” like Levin spew their lies absolutely disgusts me, for it is their lies that have led to the INTENTIONAL creation of most of the problems facing America. I say this for we would not have the enormous debt, illegal immigration, muslim invasion, attacks on Christianity, the destruction of our morality with the subsequent destruction of our families, and countless other crimes against America had congress not intentionally created laws that led to these crimes being perpetrated on Americans.

            The crimes committed by our own congress, multiplied by the cavalier way in which they routinely lie about them, forces me to conclude that the only way we will ever correct this is by a total restoration of our Constitutional Republic, a restoration that will require the arrest and imprisonment of nearly all government officials, for they all have, in my not so humble opinion, knowingly, intentionally, and repeatedly violated our constitution knowing full well their actions were taken to enrich themselves while leading to their satanic new world order.

            If I could type characters that illustrated the way in which I SPIT out these words I would do so, for this topic makes my blood boil like few others. I pray that enough Americans will
            awaken to the fact that if we do not act soon, we may lose America forever, a thought that terrifies me, not for myself but for future generations who would never know what America was like, nor would they know what it means to live in one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. God helps us if we fail.

            Like

            Comment by Mike Travis | September 14, 2017

          • I see the problem as the moral & intellectual collapse of The American People. Not a crime problem in Congress.

            Americans won’t read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution – in part, I expect, because they don’t really believe that ANYTHING is superior to what they like and what they want or what they think is a “good idea”.

            Since they refuse to be guided by any external, transcendent, Principles, they have no basis on which to choose candidates except, “I like him”. And so they go for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear.

            Teddy Cruz is an intellectually & morally contemptible person. I also find him personally repulsive – but as a former trial lawyer, I learned to see into peoples’ souls better than most. But Cruz says what many want to hear, and they (being for the most part morally blind) support him.

            Your comment went into spam. Normally, I never check spam file b/c there are so many and some are filthy. For some reason, I checked it today – and there you were.

            Yes, we are on the verge of losing our Country. ONLY a quick “about face” by the American People – and divine assistance – can stop it.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 14, 2017

          • The U.S. Constitution became a “dead letter” because the enumerated powers have been ignored and superseded by the will of the people rather than the rule of law. I agree that Mark Levin’s Article V COS is bogus, and that he is unteachable on that subject, possibly because he is so invested in book sales and can’t admit that he is dead wrong about it; however it is a mistake to not give his immense credit for his opposition to the “statist” policies formulated because the enumerated powers have been used, abused and kicked to the curb. He routinely excoriates the radical left and the Rinos. Be grateful for that! He has a blind spot but you and Hulda don’t have a log in your eye?? It is also wrong-headed to ignore the fact that the few true conservatives in the congress are having to deal with the reality that congress has so egregiously violated its limited authority and made so many laws in violation of the constitution that now it CAN “give” the States the freedom to choose whether they would participate in the ACA or not.” Ted Cruz (“Teddy” to you) recognizes that reality and is dealing with it, hoping that IF the congress does grant the states the freedom to participate, he believes and hopes that most WILL NOT! Please lose your personal animus toward those who are dealing the communist, internationalist, Islamic uprising as best they can with the fools and traitors who are trying to put the final nails in our beloved document that died when Lincoln converted us from a bottom-up system of sovereign, independent nation-states, to a top-down communist monarchy.

            Like

            Comment by John Noble | September 15, 2017

          • 1. Our Constitution is not a “dead letter”. Mark Levin is not opposing statist policies – his proposed amendments show he wants to legalize statist policies. We mustn’t go by what People say – but by what they do. Read Levin’s proposed amendments! They tell us who he is. Levin is a lawyer. I am a lawyer. Levin knows what he is doing.
            2. Oh, do name the “true conservatives” in Congress. We are all ears to find out who they are.
            3. Teddy Cruz may well be dealing with the islamic terrorists to the best of his ability. And if I [who have no medical training] perform heart surgery on someone, you may be sure that I will do the best I can.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2017

          • i cant wait for Publius to reply to this…. the court made a ruling saying the feds cant stop sanctuary city money… https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/sessions-can-t-deny-grant-money-sanctuary-cities-judge-says-n801846?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

            Like

            Comment by steve | September 15, 2017

          • If I knew Trump, I’d ask him to read this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/the-oath-of-office-the-check-on-usurpations-by-congress-the-executive-branch-federal-judges/

            The Supreme Court is NOT the “boss” of the Legislative & Executive Branches of the federal gov’t. The Constitution is the only “boss” each branch has.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 16, 2017

          • ok , let me see if i have this right.. the constitution has no authority to pay sanctuary cities to start with except through legislation(grants) which they still have no business doing. so , being the federal government DOES have the authority to regulate immigration for our safety then court who said the federal government cant withhold these grants which is his opinion can lawfully be ignored by the federal government .

            Like

            Comment by steve | September 16, 2017

          • Right, those in the Executive Branch are required by their Oath of Office to ignore unconstitutional opinions from the Judicial Branch.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 16, 2017

          • and the judge who over ruled the withholding of the grant money is not in good behavior should be impeached

            Like

            Comment by steve | September 16, 2017

          • And yes, Congress should impeach the federal judge who issued the unconstitutional order. Federalist No. 81 (8th para) and/or see this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/impeachment-all-you-need-to-know-and-you-do-need-to-know-it/

            plus, of course, the paper on Oath of Office

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 16, 2017

          • It is not surprising to me, given that there are 864 federal judges, that the City of Chicago was able to find one who said Jeff sessions MUST give them money. And it would not surprise me if an appeals court said that Jeff Sessions had to give them money because Congress passed a piece of legislation regarding favoring certain municipalities with generous grants of taxpayer dollars and Sessions can’t discriminate against these favored municipalities once the grants have been granted, because there was no clause in the legislation allowing for his discretion, even in matters of those cities co-operating with his department.
            But further, it would not surprise me if the Supreme Court of the United States found that not only MAY the Congress dole out money for purposes not included in Article 1, but that said Attorney General MUST dole out the money regardless of that city’s compliance in matters of the enforcement of federal law.
            Which of course is the exact opposite of the way the federal judiciary rules in matters, for example, coming under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, which is routinely allowed to not only withhold according to it’s discretion, but to TAKE, on a whim, private property or the use thereof.
            Am I wrong not to be surprised? And am I wrong in assumingthat there is no Article 37, Section 486, Clause g. which says Congress May or Shall or Can or Might Be Able To dole out money to local police departments or other entities through this mysterious “grant’ process? Unless of course, it is in furtherance of an otherwise lawful and Constitutional mandate, such as, oh, gee, immigration and naturalization, border enforcement?
            The common man would pronounce this a no-brainer. The only possible rationale for bribing state and local governments is a legitimate federal purpose.

            Like

            Comment by bobmontgomery | September 16, 2017

          • Well, I’m tired so I may be missing something in your comment I would otherwise see. But bottom line is this: If it isn’t on the list of delegated powers, Congress has no lawful authority to spend money on it. AND the Executive Branch needs to tell the Judicial Branch to, “mind your own business.”

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 16, 2017

          • I like the way you think.

            Like

            Comment by llotter2013 | September 17, 2017

          • I’m not in a good mood. Two problems with your “Ted Cruz knows” comment. First that presupposes that he both read and studied the Constitution. Not a good supposition when talking about politicians. Second he’s a combination politiciian and lawyer: why would you think that he cares?

            Like

            Comment by Randy Claywell | October 12, 2017

          • I’ve known thousands of lawyers – only met one who read the Constitution in law school. He was from Liberty law School in Virginia Beach, Va. Law students don’t read the Constitution in law school – they read US Supreme Court opinions.

            Ted Cruz is sleaze. He cheats on his wife and pretends to be God’s anointed choice as President of the US. I expect he’s never read the Constitution – he certainly never read the clause about how Presidents must be “natural born citizens”. Is Cruz even a US Citizen? As far as we know, he isn’t. He pretends to be a “constitutionalist” while he schemes with the Bush Family to move us into the North American Union.

            Just thinking about him makes me feel soiled. Amazing how so many people have been fooled by him. They have NO discernment.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 13, 2017

  29. Hello Publius,
    First I want to thank you for what you are doing.

    I am sure you have probably addressed this but I’m not sure where to look for it. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 says ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…. My question is when executive branch agencies and departments such as the EPA or ATF pass rules and regulations and then enforce them against the people isn’t Congress abdicating its duty and aren’t we being stripped of representation?

    Like

    Comment by Jeff Hill | August 28, 2017 | Reply

  30. Hi Publius. I don’t seen anywhere in the constitution where it says that the feder government has the power to deal with immigration and I’ve also read that immigration was a states issue until chy lung v. freeman. Wouldn’t that make Trump’s travel ban and proposed border wall unconstitutional? Thanks.

    Like

    Comment by Santiago Fernandez | August 27, 2017 | Reply

    • Diagram Article I, Section 9, clause 1, US Constitution.

      As of 1808, power over immigration (migration) was delegated to Congress.

      So Congress is to set immigration policy and the President, as Executive, is to carry it out. So it seems as if we have a President who is actually obeying the Constitution re immigration.

      Of course we have the power to control our borders!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2017 | Reply

      • what about govenors who sign laws to protect illegals and create a sanctuary state

        Like

        Comment by steve | August 27, 2017 | Reply

        • Scroll down – on this same page – to 3. for an earlier discussion of this point.

          Such governors would be acting unlawfully in violation of the federal Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2017 | Reply

          • i hope im reading the right area.. i found this but i cant seem to find where you pointed it out..

            One point further. PH described the law requiring the cooperation of local officials with ICE which is being violated. I think the better course of action would be to prosecute these officials under that law. Withholding funds effects the general safety in the community and could cause a significant political backlash. I am not arguing that the grants are constitutional!

            Like

            Comment by steve | August 27, 2017

          • Substitute “governors” for “mayors” – it’s the same principle. Neither governors nor mayors may lawfully establish sanctuary cities or states or counties, etc.

            Are you aware that state and local law enforcement is being “federalized” – i.e., taken over by the national government? Do you know how the fed gov’t is going about federalizing state and local law enforcement? WITH GRANT MONEY! Use your head – and read up on the East German STASI. A national police force is a very dangerous thing. And it’s being created right before our eyes – with federal grant money – and you don’t think we should stop it???

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2017

      • But isn’t the original intent of that clause that it should only deal with the slave trade, rather than immigration in general? Also what do you make of people like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson arguing that immigration was a states issue? http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/23/james-madison-and-the-first-american-immigration-crisis/

        Like

        Comment by Santiago Fernandez | August 27, 2017 | Reply

        • Did you see where I suggested you diagram Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1?

          Give effect to every word in the sentence. Don’t ignore a word just because its presence messes up your theory.

          Mike is one of the best men in the Country and he has done a lot to help our Country. But he overlooked Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1.

          Also, the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed BEFORE Congress got control over immigration [“migration”]. Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 tells us when Congress got control over immigration [migration]. It was the same time Congress obtained constitutional authority to abolish the importation of new slaves.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2017 | Reply

          • I must say I’m really surprised at the TAC’s fundamental misreading of the Constitution in regard to migration. However, that kind of misunderstanding certainly helps to explain why so many good folks in the so-called “Liberty” movements tend to see immigration and border controls as matters for the several States to decide. And it’s pretty clear (at least to me) that anyone who believes the U.S. General Government does not have a right and responsibility to treasure & guard her borders, and to examine those who migrate here, have never read the material that the Framers/Founders studied (e.g. Law of Nations, etc), and thus do not have the proper frame of reference in regard to the rights of sovereign nations and states. Nor could they hope to fully grasp the concept of “…common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”.

            Like

            Comment by cgdustdevil | September 6, 2017

          • I’ll set them straight as soon as I can find the time! Your comment is excellent!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 6, 2017

          • PH, I’d be very interested in your learned take on this. As understood by John Jay, this provision clearly appears to encompass slaves only, not the migration or importation of any other persons other than slaves, which was my initial understanding as well. Doc 19 suggests that the words “migration” and “importation” of persons…solely referred to slaves. My lingering concern is to be able to point to a constitutional provision which clearly and unambiguously grants the general government complete authority over non-slave immigration without conveniently linking it to Art I Sec 8 Clause 3.

            Independence Hall Home Search Contents Indexes Help
            Eagle
            Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

            Document 19

            John Jay to Elias Boudinot

            17 Nov. 1819Correspondence 4:430–31
            I have received the copy of a circular letter which, as chairman of the committee appointed by the late public meeting at Trenton respecting slavery, you were pleased to direct to me on the 5th instant. Little can be added to what has been said and written on the subject of slavery. I concur in the opinion that it ought not to be introduced nor permitted in any of the new States; and that it ought to be gradually diminished and finally abolished in all of them.

            To me the constitutional authority of the Congress to prohibit the migration and importation of slaves into any of the States, does not appear questionable. The first article of the constitution specifies the legislative powers committed to the Congress. The ninth section of that article has these words:

            “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the now existing States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808. But a tax or duty may be imposed on such importations, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”

            I understand the sense and meaning of this clause to be, that the power of the Congress, although competent to prohibit such migration and importation, was not to be exercised with respect to the then existing States (and them only) until the year 1808; but that the Congress were at liberty to make such prohibition as to any new State, which might, in the mean time, be established, and further, that from and after that period, they were authorized to make such prohibition, as to all the States, whether new or old.

            It will, I presume, be admitted, that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery, and of its discordancy with the principles of the Revolution; and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence, viz.:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

            The Founders’ Constitution
            Volume 3, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, Document 19
            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s19.html
            The University of Chicago Press

            The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay. Edited by Henry P. Johnston. 4 vols. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890–93.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | September 6, 2017

          • One must read the various writings of the time on Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 – plus read Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 itself [which is clear as can be to those who can read the elevated style of writing of our Framers’ time [it’s modern day Americans who need it all in reader’s digest style] – to see the original intent. One must also have the understanding of statecraft which cgdustdevil shows [see his recent comment in this thread].

            Modern day Americans decide on the result they want and read everything they see [no matter what it says] to support the result they want. And they ignore or angrily reject everything which contradicts their desired result. And they literally REFUSE to look at all relevant facts – and they fail to think things through. E.g., as cgdustdevil points out, how can the fed gov’t perform its duty to protect the States from invasion [Art IV, Sec. 4) if they can’t control the borders?

            Public school educated Americans have no comprehension of reading things in pari materia – that each part of a writing must be read in the light of other parts of the writing and of the writing as a whole. I.e., Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 must be read in the light of the Constitution as a whole, and in light of all passages in the Constitution dealing with the same or related subjects.

            Modern day Americans have been deliberated corrupted in the public schools to read their own opinions into any writing. They lift a sentence out of context – assign the meaning they want to it – and ignore the rest of the writing.

            And explain to us, if you can, the mechanics of how each of the several States goes about controlling immigration to their State?

            Someone who is not on our side – sold to certain patriotic elements of our population the idiotic idea that each state has control over immigration – and that the federal gov’t has no control over it. And because these patriotic elements hate the federal gov’t AND lack the critical reading & thinking skills of our Founding generation, they fall for it. The globalists want this Country to be overrun – they want to homogenize the worlds’ populations. And what has been the result? The feds haven’t been controlling immigration since 1965 – and it is physically impossible for the States to do it [thou we are all ears if you can show us how it’s done].

            What’s the result? We are overrun with 3rd world people who don’t assimilate, welfare parasites, and muslim terrorists.

            You may believe that you are standing up for “states’ rights” or some such; but you are actually carrying the water for the multiculturalists. Because ONLY the federal gov’t has the ability – as well as the authority – to control immigration.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 7, 2017

        • 1)Your point is moot, because their argument was made prior to 1808, the 10th amendment ceased to allow the states power over immigtation, in 1808 when Article I, Section 9, clause 1, US Constitution kicked in, the federal govt was granted the authority by our U.S. Constitution Remember, the 10th amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The power was delegated to the federal govt in 1808, because the immigration laws have to be uniform. 2) Article I, Section 9, clause 1, US Constitution “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person” It says Migration OR Importation of persons, persons who are imported are SLAVES, remember slaves were property; slaves do not migrate. Notice OR between Migration and importation in the article, its obvious the federal govt was granted authority over both.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Spense | August 27, 2017 | Reply

          • Right, Son, and well said! – except I know you meant to say that laws on naturalization must be uniform (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4). It was Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 which delegated power over immigration (“migration”) to Congress.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2017

          • PH, am still stymied by the word “migration”. So many self-identified “originalists” online seem to logically–not overtly tendentiously–describe the entirety of Art 1 Sect 9, Clause 1 as applying to slaves only. A couple pointed out that “migration” most likely refers to the interstate movement of slaves, not the immigration into the country of non-slaves, which makes some sense since the bulk of slaves–if not all–were transported from Africa in northern ships, many of those slaves being offloaded into northern ports then transhipped either by boat or road to the south. This may well explain why the term “migration” in this provision “importation” may have been necessary. My poor eyes getting bloodshot researching this. I’m not trying to find an answer which comports with my nonexistent preconceptions in this matter; just trying to intellectually satisfy my lingering curiosity with some reasonable level of certainty. My thanks to you for your guidance.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | September 10, 2017

          • It’s actually very simple: begin by diagramming Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1

            Then consider, how can the fed gov’t protect us from invasion (Art. IV, Sec. 4) if they can’t control the borders and immigration.

            Then consider, how would States go about controlling immigration if the feds don’t do it.

            There are many people on the internet who are writing of matters they don’t understand. One of the sacred cows of “libertarians” is that all borders must be open. One of the sacred cows of “the patriot community” is that States control immigration. The notion is absurd on its face – but they believe it and their minds are shut.

            What’s needed in your case is NOT to read the ignorant opinions of every Tom, Dick & Harry who thinks he’s a genius; but to start afresh – using your own head.

            and think about the questions I posed.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 10, 2017

          • Does anyone really think persons migrated to the U.S. to be a slave?? Slaves were purchased and imported because they were PROPERTY. Property does not migrate. Do cows and horses migrate to take up permanant residence or are they bought & sold? The clause states…. “The Migration OR Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be PROHIBITED BY CONGRESS prior to the Year 1808,…….. iF THE CLAUSE PERTAINS ONLY TO SLAVES, THE CLAUSE WOULD HAVE STATED “The migration AND importation OF SUCH PERSONS as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to 1808,……. Its obvious the federal govt was granted the power over migration (persons who want to take up permanant residence) and importation of slaves (persons who were property) in 1808. To suggest a slave could just lawfully walk away and migrate to another state is ludicrous.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Spense | September 10, 2017

          • Amen, son.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 10, 2017

          • Not to be confrontational, Spense, but I didn’t say slaves “migrated to the US”, but that they were transported between States after arrival, primarily north to south; thus, they effectively migrated, albeit forcefully, on an interstate basis, no different than any entrant into the country, slave or otherwise, who migrates state to state via whatever transportation might be available. Forced migration is still migration. Also, hate to burst your bubble, but, driven by instinct and a need to survive, animals DO migrate (source: Nat’l Geo and Random House Dictionary). I will continue researching until my lingering doubts are eliminated. An immigration counselor for 22+ years, there is considerable difference between “immigration” and “migration”. The former is statutory while the latter connotes geographical movement to or within a particular area/country.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | September 11, 2017

          • Jim, Dear: Don’t dig a deeper hole for yourself.

            This is what you must do:
            1. Wipe your mind clean on this issue.
            2. Diagram Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1
            3. Consider: How can the fed gov’t fulfill its duty to protect the States from invasion if the feds can’t control the borders.
            4. Consider: Mechanically, how do the States go about controlling immigration?

            That you were an “immigration counselor” [what’s that?] explains why you are so confused on this issue. Lay all that aside and start from scratch re-thinking this issue.

            And please: no more posts on this issue until you have done your homework.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 11, 2017

          • Not to be confrontational Jim Delaney, but you wrote this. “PH, am still stymied by the word “migration”. So many self-identified “originalists” online seem to logically–not overtly tendentiously–describe the entirety of Art 1 Sect 9, Clause 1 as applying to SLAVES only.” My response was to that statement. Here is a link to a 1828 webster’s, find the meaning of migrate and immigration there. Migrate: To pass or remove from one country or from one state to another, with a view to permanent residence, or residence of some continuance. – Immigration: The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of permanent residence. Domesticated animals that are property and owned by man do not migrate, neither do slaves.. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no real difference in meaning of “immigration” and “migration” when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

            Like

            Comment by Spense | September 11, 2017

          • Right, wild birds “migrate” from here to there according to the Season of the Year. But if I move to another State, and take my chickens, ducks and guineas with me, I’m “importing” them to another State; and may have to put them in quarantine and pay a tax or fee.

            But the Robins and Hummingbirds are free and migrate from there to here, and from here to there.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 11, 2017

          • Sorry, not authorized by PH to respond…

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | September 11, 2017

          • Say your response will be deferred until AFTER you have done your homework!

            And Spence and others will patiently wait.

            We all need to do mental housecleaning from time to time on this or that. I purged myself of all the lying propaganda I got in law School.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 11, 2017

  31. PH,
    Isn’t the Antiquities Act passed back in 1906 unconstitutional? The only part of the Constitution that authorizes the general government to purchase land in a state is in article I, sec. 17. That seems to be focused on land “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings….,” and also requires the “consent of the legislature of the state in which same shall be” In other words, the only authorized reason for the purchase of state land was intended for the purpose of national defense.

    Like

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

    • and don’t forget “other needful buildings”! So the feds may also purchase state land – with the consent of state legislatures – to build federal courthouses, US post offices, the US Mint, offices for US customs, federal prisons (but see this to understand the limited criminal jurisdiction of the federal (“general” or “central”) government: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/us-criminal-code/
      and other enumerated powers delegated to the federal government.

      I haven’t read the Antiquities Act of 1906. What does it do?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 25, 2017 | Reply

      • PH: The Antiquities Act (signed into ‘law’ by TDR) gave the president proclamation powers to create national parks out of ‘federally owned land’. Seems it could only be Constitutional if the land in question was properly acquired and done so for an enumerated purpose.

        Like

        Comment by cgdustdevil | September 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Right. If that’s what the Antiquities Act says, then it is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal gov’t. Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to be a major landowner. The feds may own land ONLY to carry out the enumerated powers [federal courthouses, military bases, etc.]

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 6, 2017 | Reply

  32. PH
    It was announced today that the City of Chicago will file a lawsuit that says that the withholding of federal funds by the Trump administration is illegal. That withholding public safety grants to Chicago and other sanctuary cities is illegal.
    If I’m not mistaken the federal government has no constitutional authority to use taxes to issue public safety grants or any other type of grant to cities, since it isn’t an enumerated power and thus can’t be a just power. Anyway, public safety is a local and state issue.

    Like

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

    • To lay the predicate for your comment, I copied this from a news article:

      Reuters reports that Chicago stands to lose $3.2 million worth of funding as a result of the Justice Department barring cities who do not co-operate with immigration agents — including by allowing them unfettered access to their jails — from receiving Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. Hundreds of American cities currently benefit from the grants, which provide federal criminal justice funding for equipment and law enforcement training.

      Trump is acting rightly:

      1. Immigration policy is set by CONGRESS, not by individual cities. See Article I, Sec. 9, clause 1 (immigration) and Article I, Sec. 8, clause 4 (naturalization).
      2. The President’s Duty is to carry out those acts of Congress which are constitutional. See Article II, Section 3.
      3. Neither Congress nor the President have the constitutional authority to dispense grants for criminal justice funding to the States and political subdivisions thereof. Such is not on the list of delegated powers.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017 | Reply

      • I hesitate as a mere chemist to venture into a question on the law but cynically I assume the courts will rule in Chicago’s favor since Congress passed 42 U.S.C. §3751(a) https://www.bja.gov/jag/index.html, even though the phrase “the Attorney General may, in accordance with the formula established under section 3755 of this title, make grants to States and units of local government, for use by the State or unit of local government to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice, including for any one or more of the following programs.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3751. To me the word may would indicate that the Attorney General has the discretion to grant or not to grant; consequently the suit should be thrown out on that basis as well. You can find a list of the grant amounts by state here: https://www.bja.gov/Funding/17JAGStateAllocations.pdf.

        Like

        Comment by Nelson Lazear | August 8, 2017 | Reply

        • The federal government has no constitutional authority to bestow “grants” on state or local governments. I can’t predict how the courts will rule. When no one obeys the Constitution, the people with the power do whatever they want.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017 | Reply

          • Absolutely, dear lady. And when no one faithfully executes his office and files criminal charges, the same thing occurs. What about this law: http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/2017/08/07/1907-title-8-u-s-c-1324a-offenses/

            Like

            Comment by bobmontgomery | August 8, 2017

          • EXCELLENT! Applause! Applause!

            but Unified Patriots is not a secure site. I’m told there needs to be an “s” near the beginning of the url. I’m told that in an unsecured site, thieves can steal passwords. Get the url fixed and then I’ll post on FB.

            Can you get the person in charge of the website to fix that?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 9, 2017

          • bobmontgomery and PH…I am not a techie, but try putting an “s” in manually after the HTTP: part of the URL. I don’t know if this would work or not, but I tried it and the same pic of Rahm Emmual was there along with the same comments on the right hand side.

            Like

            Comment by z1queenie | August 9, 2017

          • Try it Bob! My husband added the s to my url, so it’s can’t be difficult [we aren’t techies either].

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 9, 2017

          • I am no pro gearhead though I have built websites. My take on security is that converting a single page to a “secure” page is more involved than described here. Check out this site as it is by a real gearhead who knows his stuff: http://www.howto-expert.com/how-to-get-https-setting-up-ssl-on-your-website/

            In general security is a multi level issue and requires specific steps to comply with the required protocols. Good luck.

            Like

            Comment by Mike Travis | September 7, 2017

          • Thank you, I will pass it on.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 7, 2017

      • One point further. PH described the law requiring the cooperation of local officials with ICE which is being violated. I think the better course of action would be to prosecute these officials under that law. Withholding funds effects the general safety in the community and could cause a significant political backlash. I am not arguing that the grants are constitutional!

        Like

        Comment by Nelson Lazear | August 8, 2017 | Reply

        • Good! Because they aren’t constitutional; and accordingly, should be terminated.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017 | Reply

      • PH, is it constitutional for a city, town or county to arbitrarily opt to extend the right to vote in local elections to illegal aliens/non-citizens?

        Like

        Comment by Jim Delaney | August 8, 2017 | Reply

        • The answer to part of your question is in the following provisions of our Constitution:

          1. Article I, Section 2, clause 1, US Constitution, which says the States set the qualifications for voters.

          2. The 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th Amendments where the States agreed the federal government could stop them from denying suffrage to people on account of race, being a woman, not paying a tax, or age if the person seeking voter registration was at least 18 years old.

          3. Notice that those 4 Amendments all have one word in common: CITIZENS! So only CITIZENS may vote in federal elections. States should man up and tell federal courts who say that State election officials may not require proof of citizenship to … [beg your pardon] “piss off!”

          4. That said, I suppose States could allow aliens to vote in State and local elections. If they do, then Americans deserve what they will get: A Muslim takeover.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017 | Reply

          • You’re right, PH. We as a people no longer deserve a constitutional republic. Just as well, I suppose, since the republic died a long time ago. All we can do is hang on and do what we can to restore some reasonable semblance of constitutional order, if not in the nation, then at least in one or more of the States which might at some point soon wisely opt to secede. So tragic. We can be so stupid, self-destructive.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | August 8, 2017

          • I saw this today: https://libertyforeverblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/tolkiens-timeless-trilogy/
            Well worth reading. The message is “fight with all that you have!”.

            And if the author is the 17 year old girl, then I am most encouraged for our future. I passionately love our Country.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017

          • Just read the link. Stirring, to say the least. Thanks. At some point, however, we will need to organize, lest we each hang alone.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Jim Delaney | August 8, 2017

          • Yes, we better organize. Too many have given up. Shame on them, I say! They’d rather spend the rest of their lives playing golf and watching TV than fighting to restore our Constitutional Republic.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017

  33. Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional?

    Like

    Comment by robert paulson | August 2, 2017 | Reply

    • I haven’t read it and so can’t comment definitely. However, clearly the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban discrimination in private employment!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 3, 2017 | Reply

  34. PH,
    President Trump tweeted the other day about banning transgenders in the military, does that come under his purview as Commander In Chief? Or is that reserved to Congress under Article. I, Section 8, clauses 14 & 16?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | July 27, 2017 | Reply

    • Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 14, CONGRESS has the delegated authority to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the military forces. And I remember when I was a JAG officer (some 40 years ago), that homosexual soldiers were given an involuntary “administrative discharge” under “chapter 13” of the Service Rules and Regulations – which were, of course, enacted by Congress.

      So it is CONGRESS alone which has the power to ban “transgenders” from the military. However, as CINC, it is proper for The President to urge CONGRESS to make a Rule banning “transgenders” and providing for the involuntary administrative discharge of those now in the military who are “transgender”. And it is proper for the President to relieve of their commands and duties the high ranking military officers who do not support him on this issue. And I sure would. We need to get rid of the Generals & Admirals who were promoted by obama.

      I put “transgenders” in quotes because we can’t change our sex! “Transgenders” are disturbed people who have surgery & take hormones to make them look more like the opposite sex. They need psychological and spiritual assistance – not surgery and hormones.

      I read the series of tweets by the combat soldier describing how we can’t have people with screwed up minds & psyches serving in combat! It’s hard enough without bringing in people with serious personal psychological and spiritual problems.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 28, 2017 | Reply

      • In 1968 when the draft was still in vogue I Volunteered so I could choose which branch Iwanted join there was a preponderance of draftees who claimed they were
        Homosexual because they were not eligible to serve, however, the military had a two word response, PROVE IT.

        Like

        Comment by Con Mah | July 29, 2017 | Reply

        • Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

          The ban on transgender service that President Trump reaffirmed was there for eight years under Obama. It was there in his first term and his second term. And the media said nothing.

          Only in the summer of last year did the ban technically end. And, in practice, it remained in force. All the while there was no angry clamor about the suffering of potential recruits who couldn’t enlist. Those who are fuming with outrage now had hypocritically remained silent. Obama had done it. So it must be good.

          Obama had kept the ban in place for almost his entire two terms in office. And he found a way to retain it throughout his final months. With a year’s review, the transgender recruits could only be accepted after he was out of the White House. That way he could have his social justice cake and eat it too. He would get the credit for ending the transgender ban without dealing with any of the problems.

          And there were plenty of problems.

          45% of transgender persons in the 18 to 44 age range are suicidal. This is a serious risk for personnel who are around weapons or operating machinery or aircraft. If this were the only issue, it would be enough to justify the medical ban.

          Transgender operations and hormone therapy requires constant monitoring by a doctor. They carry serious health risks. Some of those risks require serious medications and ongoing management.

          That is not what the military usually expects to deal with from recruits.

          The Rand study being touted by transgender advocates who claim that medical expenses will only be in the millions relies on a statistical bait and switch. The actual cost is estimated to be in the billions.

          The Army and Air Force wanted to delay implementation for another two years. That was on top of the original year review that was lapsing. The issue had become a heavy burden that we didn’t need.

          So President Trump got rid of it. His policy is the same one that existed for most of Obama’s time in office. The televised outrage over it is shameless and cynical posturing by media hypocrites.

          The transgender ban isn’t a moral or religious policy. It’s a medical one. The military doesn’t have the resources and isn’t equipped to deal with the complicated medical and social problems involved.

          The Department of Defense fitness standards have an extensive list of disqualifiers. A “history of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex” is there in between pelvic inflammatory disease and missing testicles. These medical issues are there alongside missing fingers, a history of gout and numerous other problems. They’re there because the military wants healthy and able recruits.

          It’s that simple.

          Military readiness demands personnel who can deploy on short notice without ongoing medical problems holding them back. It wants recruits in prime health who can give all they have. Medical issues don’t just drive up costs so that hard choices have to be made. They also cost lives.

          Our armed forces run on teamwork. When members of the team can’t perform, they put lives at risk.
          Isn’t it best to get Reliable information before condemning the messenger with false or inseficient information?

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Con Mah | July 29, 2017 | Reply

  35. PH,

    I could be wrong but… Is this not saying, this portion of the constitution can be modified by the passing of a law.

    “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.”

    I was under the impression of you wanted to change the constitution you had to amend it.

    Your thoughts.

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 18, 2017 | Reply

    • Right, If we want to change the Constitution, we must amend it.

      Article I, Section 4, clause 2, US Constitution, provided that Congress would meet on the first Monday in December, unless Congress by Law, set a different date. So that provision of the Constitution permitted Congress to make a law to set the date.

      In the XX Amendment, Section 2, The Constitution says Congress shall meet at noon on January 3 of every year – unless Congress makes a Law to set a different date. So again, the Constitution permits Congress to make a Law setting the date they are to meet.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  36. PH, I keep trying to figure out the difference. A little help if you have time.

    I read … Art 1. Sec 8.

    Clause five states….(5) To establish uniform Rules of Naturalization;

    Clause six states…..(6) To establish uniform Laws on Bankruptcies;

    one is “RULES” the other is “LAWS” why the difference and what does that do for naturalization if it’s not law?

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 3, 2017 | Reply

    • Well, aren’t you the cat’s meow!

      I don’t know why they used “rules” in (5) and “Laws” in (6)!

      In litigation, we always referred to statutes as “laws”; and the “rules” of civil procedure (or the “rules” of criminal procedure or appellate procedure or evidence, etc. ) as “Rules”. The Rules of civil procedure [or criminal procedure, or appellate procedure, or evidence, etc.] are written by the supreme Court which has jurisdiction over the area, and then passed by the Legislature which has jurisdiction.

      See Webster’s 1828 http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Rule

      The “rules” of evidence or procedure or whatever, are binding. It may just be that this is the way lawyers have always talked. It’s the way I always talked. And thought. And Madison, Hamilton, etc., were lawyers.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2017 | Reply

      • P.H. – Is it not correct that the fundamental difference between “Rules of Naturalization” and “Laws on Bankruptcies” is the element of punishment? In the two examples cited in Clauses 5 & 6, the “Rules of Naturalization” do not imply any punishments, whereas “Laws of Bankruptcies” do.

        Thank you!

        Like

        Comment by cgdustdevil | August 14, 2017 | Reply

        • I don’t understand your question. The two are totally unrelated. “Naturalization” deals with who may be a citizen and the procedures for becoming a citizen.
          “Bankruptcy” has to do with the orderly liquidation of estates in order to provide treatment, which is as fair as possible, of the creditors of the bankrupt.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 14, 2017 | Reply

  37. PH, Have you taken the time to read any of the books i previously mentioned (6 months ago) to you by the founding father “John Taylor of Caroline”?

    Those book were…
    1. An inquiry into the principles and policy of the government of the United States.
    2. New views of the Constitution of the United States.
    3. Construction construed, and constitutions vindicated.

    He even has another one that i found very interesting and thought you might like.
    A defence of the measures of the administration of Thomas Jefferson

    I assure you these are well worth it…Great reads and by someone from the time period… as you say “Original source” material.

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 2, 2017 | Reply

    • I’m glad you enjoyed them. but no, I haven’t read them – no time.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 2, 2017 | Reply

  38. Does the Trump administration voter registration investigation meet the constitutional test?

    Like

    Comment by Marshall Prichard | July 1, 2017 | Reply

  39. Gentlemen: Respecting who has power over Immigration – the federal government or the States: Things are getting out of hand. This website is not a forum for people to post their “views” or “opinions” about the original intent of our Constitution. I will not engage in arguments with you about this. We must look to actual original source documents only. And when we cite them as authority, we should provide links to where the original source document can be read.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017 | Reply

    • lol.. i was just reading where the democrats say they can create a bi partizan committee to determine the presidents fitness to serve..lmbo

      Like

      Comment by steve | July 1, 2017 | Reply

      • Do read Edwin Vieira’s article out today: https://newswithviews.com/legal-audacity-is-the-answer-to-political-aggression/

        The nasty comment about Trump goes to prove Vieira’s point.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017 | Reply

        • so who invokes the title 18 ? it seems government doesnt know how to invoke those against each other… so who will do their job? seems the right of WE the people but those have since been removed .

          Like

          Comment by steve | July 1, 2017 | Reply

          • 18 USC Sec. 241 is a criminal statute – it could be prosecuted by the US attorneys.

            In addition, as a general Principle, one can sometimes sue in a civil [not-criminal] action for a “statutory tort” – which can be a breach of a statutory duty or violation of other statute. I would have to do research to find out if Trump can properly file a civil action against those whose conduct falls within 18 USC 241.

            Remember OJ Simpson? He was prosecuted for the murders and acquitted. Then the family members filed a civil action against him for the wrongful deaths. I believe the family members won those civil actions.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

          • can WE the people file such cases against the public servants ?

            Like

            Comment by steve | July 1, 2017

          • No because we don’t have “standing”. “Standing” is the right to sue.

            If someone committed a crime or a tort against you, I can’t file a lawsuit because I lack standing. But, depending on the circumstances, your wife or dependents or parents would have standing.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

          • ok , i see what you mean. so like in my traffic court cases , if i find my rights or feel ive been injured i can file a tort against them. am i correct.. im not trying to stray off but use an example i understand

            Like

            Comment by steve | July 1, 2017

          • Well, not necessarily. It depends on the facts.

            A federal prisoner who is beaten up (without provocation) by the guards has a cause of action under the civil federal rights act.

            If you are stopped from voting and can show you were stopped BECAUSE you are, say, a Black Person, then you would have a cause of action. But if you get a speeding ticket because the hand-held radar device they use is miss-calibrated, then you probably don’t have a cause of action.

            But now we are talking about what constitutes a “cause of action” as opposed to WHO has standing to file a cause of action.

            I live in TN. I don’t know where you live. But say I file a lawsuit against you alleging you never mow your yard, your yard is filled with old tires which are breeding mosquitoes, and I ask the court to order you to mow your lawn and get rid of the old tires. Your lawyer would filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that I lacked standing to file the lawsuit. [Your yard doesn’t affect me!] But it does directly affect your neighbors – so they would have standing to sue you to ask the Court to order you to mow your lawn and get rid of the tires.

            So we don’t have standing to file a lawsuit on Trump’s behalf to protect him!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

        • Thank you Ph. I’ve been struggling to find this 18 hours a day. Now I can get some well needed sleep. Much of the time was spent in bolstering the Boss Hog’s confidence. Thank God Justice will prevail. Keep praying…my eyes are leaking. Thank you for all you do for us every day.

          Like

          Comment by Con Mah | July 1, 2017 | Reply

          • Boss Hog?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

          • That is among some disabled veterans where I receive my treatments a friendly oral salute acknowledging the stars and scares he carries with him all of his life without regret.

            Like

            Comment by Con Mah | July 1, 2017

          • I’m emailing a photo to you. I don’t have an url or hyperlink.

            Thank You for your service!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

          • how about this situation… lets take illegals.. does the constitution apply to them and can they sue ?

            Like

            Comment by steve | July 1, 2017

          • The purpose of the federal Constitution was to create the federal government. Thus, it addresses the powers of its “creature”.

            I’ll need you to be more specific as to illegals. The federal government can’t lawfully do anything it has no constitutional authority to do.

            You asked, “can illegals sue?” Anyone can file a lawsuit. Whether the lawsuit will withstand a motion to dismiss is the first big hurdle.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 2, 2017

  40. PH: I’m having a discussion with a friend about Congress having Constitutional authority over immigration. I’ve referred to Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 on ‘migration’ as giving such power to Congress but there is considerable argument that this entire clause refers only to the importation of persons as slaves. That’s my friend’s position and he also says that since all authority given to Congress over the people is enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, and no such power is mentioned there or elsewhere, no authority is given to Congress at all over immigration.

    I know there is a vast body of evidence of Supreme Court cases in which the Court has confirmed Congressional power on immigration but, in the absence of any direct and enumerated provision, that all boils down to an ‘interpretation’ based on various other powers such as the Commerce Clause or power of control of foreign policy and the like, doesn’t it?

    If you have a defined opinion on this yourself, I would welcome it.

    Like

    Comment by nelsonaire1 | June 28, 2017 | Reply

    • Oh dear! I’m afraid your friend needs a refresher course in 7th grade English, as well as lessons in basic constitutional principles and statecraft. In 7th grade, we learned how to diagram a sentence – a lost art in America of today.

      Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 speaks of two categories of people: slaves who were imported and on whom the tax could be imposed – and migration of free persons on whom the tax was not imposed.

      Before January 1808, it was a free for all with respect to importations of slaves and anybody who wanted to could come here and settle. But Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 provides that Congress would assume power over these issues as of January 1808.

      Other Writings of the time confirm this distinction between slaves and free Europeans who migrated here. I have them in my files somewhere – I’ll find time to write this up. This is not an issue of “opinion” but of Fact.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 28, 2017 | Reply

      • PH, I’ve taken a careful look at Art 1 Sec 9, and remain reasonably convinced that it referred only to the “migration & importation of slaves”, this per the intent of the framers during the Constitutional Convention to encourage southern ratification. Have read a number of opinions regarding the original meaning of this Section and am left with the gnawing belief that Sec 9, per original intent voiced during the Constitutional Convention, did, in fact, solely refer to “slaves”–not the garden variety “immigrants”. Well after 1808, many States routinely administered their own immigration programs. Why do these things have to be so darned ambiguous? Very disconcerting. Would appreciate your further commentary.

        Like

        Comment by Jim Delaney | June 28, 2017 | Reply

        • No, no, no! One NEVER looks to “opinions”! Why on Earth would you accept someone’s “opinion”? One looks to original source documents, only.

          Furthermore, “migration” and “importation” are not at all the same.

          They aren’t ambiguous!

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 28, 2017 | Reply

          • Among other original sources, I read Madison’s ltr to Walsh in 1819 in which former explained the original meaning and intent. (When I mentioned “opinions” above I definitely didn’t mean unauthoritative judicial opinions, most of which are revisionist drivel.)

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 29, 2017

          • According to Madison in his 1819 ltr to a Mr. Walsh re Sec 9, “migration” appeared to refer to the interstate trafficking of slaves imported into the country.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 29, 2017

          • 1. Let me share with you what I have observed in some of those who support “Liberty”: Their starting point is their personal belief system: They believe that the federal government should have no power over immigration. Since that is what they believe, they reject the evidence that the States delegated this power to the federal government starting 1808.

            Some of them think that the “liberty” position is that the States control who migrates into their States.

            Others of them [the Libertarians] believe in open borders everywhere in the World – and they want open borders here; and then, they seem to believe, this wonderful idea will spread all over the world to places like North Korea.

            I suggest that those who believe that the States retained power over immigration haven’t thought it through: Imagine 50 States, each with its own immigration policies! And how will one State which prohibits muslim immigration keep them out? Checkpoints at ALL entrances to the States? That’s an impossibility. Even if they had checkpoints at all the roads and rivers, they’d have to build a monitored fence around the entire perimeter of each State to keep the muslims out. All this would wreak havoc with interstate vehicular travel.

            Only the federal government is in a position to control who enters this Country.

            2. Then there is the problem of reading comprehension: Americans are used to Readers’ Digest English. They have difficulty with late 18th Century English – even the extraordinarily elegant and clear late 18th Century English used in our Constitution. They stumble over Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 because it discusses two separate categories of new people entering the Country [in one sentence!]; and because the readers wrongly equate “Migration” with “Importation” as being synonymous, instead of opposites. They thus violate a fundamental rule of construction of Constitutions and Laws: one must give each word its due.

            3. When construing the Constitution, we absolutely must lay aside as totally irrelevant our personal opinions. Americans of today have lost the concept of reading for objective meaning. They were conditioned to use the literary deconstruction method of reading where a writing means what you want it to mean to justify the result you want. That is what the federal Judges have been doing for 100 years; and everyday Americans of today do it all the time.

            It is extraordinarily liberating to lay aside one’s personal opinions and to focus solely on the objective meaning of a text. When one is focused TOTALLY on reaching the TRUTH, and all personal considerations are discarded, the light comes on. Truly, TRUTH sheds her own light.

            4. Would you produce a link to Madison’s letter on which you rely? I read his letter to Walsh of March 2, 1819, and that doesn’t seem to be the one you referred to.

            Liked by 3 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2017

          • Further to your 6/29 8:33 AM reply, totally agree & understand importance of orig. text vs personal preconceptions, biases & danders of revisionist misinterpretation. (Devoted entire chapter in my book to properly interpreting orig. text.) Thus, am not burdened by the folly of opinionating. My sole intention is to understand framers’ clear meaning & intent–an exercise in objectivity which is challenging for all who seek accuracy in this regard. Re Art 1 Sec 9 Cl 1, am still diligently reading what original text I can find, and not until exercised dye diligence will I advance a conclusion about its meaning/intent.

            The recent sources I consulted during my search are “Document 20. James Madison to Robert Walsh. 27 Nov 1819. Writings 9:1-3. Also, Art 1 Sec 9 Clause 1. Doument 3. Recirds of the Federal Convention 2:95; Madison, 23 July 1787. How do you read these papers? In any event, remain determined to doggedly & objectively pursue the subject until its clear original meaning is clear to me. Thanks for your guidance & encouragement.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 29, 2017

          • would you post the hyperlinks to the original source documents on which you rely? If you’ve read the original source documents, you’ll already have the links. What you’ve posted looks like a footnote or bibliography from someone else’s works. That would be merely a “secondary” source – not a “primary” source. Madison’s actual letter is what must be read – not what someone said about it. That is why when I cite these original source documents as authority, I link to the actual primary sources themselves – so my readers can read the original source document for themselves and see if I told them the truth!

            I get most of my original source documents from The Library of Congress, the University of Virginia, and online library for liberty, etc. They have the books which we can rely upon as authentic.

            Here’s online library for liberty: http://oll.libertyfund.org/ I use it all the time for Madison’s letters.

            See, e.g., the footnotes here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/the-george-mason-fabrication/ When we cite a letter from one of them as authority, good scholarship requires one to show readers how to access it.

            And you mustn’t overlook the distinctions between the totally different concepts of “migration” and “importation”. Commodities – items which are bought and sold [like slaves] and on which import tariffs may be imposed – are “imported”. Persons, birds, and others acting freely, “migrate”.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2017

        • Jim Delaney….I’ve scoured all of the input at http://pres-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s23.html (The Founders Constitution) and believe that the only intent of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 was to tax ‘migration or importation’ of persons expected to be slaves. A couple of the writers express opinions which state that ‘migration’refers only to White people who are free and voluntarily move from their home countries into the US, while ‘imported persons’ definitely are brought here as slaves, so the intent of the provision is only to allow continued importation of the imported persons (slaves) until the year 1808 by imposition of a tax upon each one. There seems to be no Founder or commentator believing that such a tax was to be placed on anyone coming here as a free White migrant. I believe the thought was that the word ‘migration’ in the clause was far more intended to mean simply the ‘movement’ of the imported persons to become slaves rather than a definition of the actions of a free person since ensuing laws were aimed directly at the actual shipping/transportation of slaves. In fact, some feared that the possible imposition of a tax in that manner on simple ‘migration’ or free migrants would hinder the immigration of desirable white persons from Europe who were needed to bolster the economy of the new country as it expanded.

          Document by Charles Pinckney #23 and Joseph Story # 28 are especially informative here as also are numerous mentions from others that there contains within this provision no express delegation of power EXCEPT that of levying a tax for 20 years on importation of slaves; hence, IMHO, no delegation of power to Congress over ‘migration’ of free people.

          If the provision of the taxing power exists here, and it certainly does, the expiration of it after 1808 cancels the taxing power, it seems to me, if such removal of authorization exists, as it does, so does any implied power to restrict free immigration of migrants since no tax was imposed upon them in the first place.

          What do you think?

          Like

          Comment by nelsonaire1 | June 30, 2017 | Reply

          • I suggest you are deconstructing the selected writings to fit your opinion.

            Your link doesn’t work. Why not provide links to the complete documents from an original source?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 30, 2017

          • While it’s not a stretch to imagine that Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 4 logically implies federal authority over all immigration per authority cited in Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 18, I genuinely remain at a loss as to why the framers felt that the intrusion of the word “migration” in Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 9 was somehow clarifying. It wasn’t. This commentary alone attests to that. Best to have omitted the word “migration” entirely, and to have added authority over immigration in Art. 1 Sec 8 Clause 4 rather than imply federal authority over immigration by virtue of federal authority over naturalization. For me, such construction understandably and needlessly adds confusion and invites often errant opinions/interpretations or original source material–and our law school authoritarians just eat that up. SO, until there is absolute original source material which clearly questions or refutes that “migration” in Clause 9 refers to non-slaves , I will gracefully embrace your take. Thank you for your generous attention.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Jim Delaney | June 30, 2017

          • So, not only do YOU know more about the Constitution than I do – you also write better that the drafters of our Constitution!

            Have you lost your mind?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 30, 2017

      • PH: Thank you so much for your quick response. In my argument with my friend, I too stressed the difference between ‘migration’ and ‘importation’, my opinion being that a ‘migrant’ is acting voluntarily and a person being ‘imported’ is not. He doesn’t actually deny this but claims that all powers of Congress must be enumerated and this clause doesn’t do that; it merely implies that Congress may act to make rules on migrants after 1808.

        I do find it somewhat difficult to counter that argument since I’ve often stressed to others that the powers of Congress are enumerated and not inferred.

        I appreciate your longer reply to Jim Delaney below and your points make complete sense. However, it doesn’t dramatically cancel the ‘enumerated powers’ argument still in my own mind as I keep wondering why the ‘migration’ issue wasn’t simply addressed in Article 1 Section 8 instead of somewhat as a rather back door assignment of power in Article 1 Section 9 Clause1. The fact that the Supreme Court in numerous of its decisions on the authorized immigration power of Congress has turned to other rationales, such as the Commerce Clause or national sovereignty, for example, seems to indicate a big question mark over this issue even though it has consistently upheld the power of Congress despite the States themselves having had authority over immigration all along.

        But thanks again for devoting all of this effort to help provide the answer.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by nelsonaire1 | June 29, 2017 | Reply

        • Your friend makes idiotic arguments! There is no basis for his assertion that all powers delegated to Congress must be listed at Art. I, Sec. 8.
          I suggest you and he read through the Constitution and highlight all the powers delegated to the federal government over the country at large. And then remember that pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause, Congress has the power to make all laws necessary & proper to carry out those delegated powers.
          Your friend is the poster child for the saying, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”; except that in his case, it’s deadly and catching!

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2017 | Reply

          • good response, ph. that leaves me to wonder what federal powers usurped after ratification can be adjudged geninely “necessary & proper”. i bet clear thinkers can even justify fed health care based on the mangled interpretation of the “welfare clause”. and so it goes. looks like the Constitution can be a smorgasbord for opinionaters afterall. methinks i’m getting cynical.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by jim delaney | June 29, 2017

          • I think I am failing to grasp your point!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 30, 2017

  41. Mark Levin has a new book out. “Rediscovering Americanism.”
    I can only image what’s inside.

    Like

    Comment by Gary Blake | June 27, 2017 | Reply

    • Judging from what I’ve read and heard him say in the past, I expect his “new” book contains lots of stuff that sounds good on the surface and some misinformation.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 27, 2017 | Reply

  42. also this.. Section 3. INALIENABLE RIGHTS

    All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

    Like

    Comment by steve | June 26, 2017 | Reply

  43. Hello Ms. Huldah, I wanted to ask you about immigration laws although you have responded to questions and have written much about this subject. I just heard about a immigration law from the early 1900’s. It is something about “sponsors”, an immigrant coming to the US had to have a sponsor. It just jogged my memory that when I was a kid, this is going back to the early 1960’s, I just remembered that my Dad sponsored a family friend from Ireland. I can remember my Dad and the family friend always being in touch and remaining in touch for a long time. Can you tell me more about this law that obviously is now not being enforced.

    Like

    Comment by Donna Roesch | June 24, 2017 | Reply

    • Such a law is an excellent idea – the purpose being to help the immigrant ASSIMILATE into OUR Culture and OUR Values – and to help them get started working here so they could be self-sufficient.

      The law you describe may have been repealed with “Wrong-Turn” Teddy’s (Kennedy) Immigration and Reform Act of 1965. That is the execrable Act which opened the floodgates to massive immigration by people from 3rd world countries who went on welfare and didn’t assimilate. Which, of course, was the whole idea.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2017 | Reply

      • I seem to recall the same situation from the 60’s that immigrants had to be sponsored. I also recall that at one time Australia had a strict policy of those who wished emigrate, in that they had to have a skill set that was needed. That should be our policy as well, not only does one have to have “something to offer” but also be sponsored by a US Citizen.

        Like

        Comment by TIm | June 24, 2017 | Reply

        • Agreed!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2017 | Reply

          • Though I’ve been out of the immigration program scene for 15 yrs, in place at the time was a policy requiring that IMMIGRANTS must secure the sponsorship of relatives (I-134) in the US before they are permitted entry. Appropriately, access to welfare by the sponsored immigrant and his family are severely limited for five years since the sponsor is legally responsible for the immigrant’s living expenses during that period. Can’t think of a better way to encourage immigrants to become self-sufficient when one’s own relative is doing the pushing. (Of course, this doesn’t apply to asylees, refugees, C-H parolees).

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | June 24, 2017

  44. How hard would it be too put together a course to educate? This day and age with go to meeting like programs…you could run education seminars.

    Then get those who are educated to all run for office at the federal level. If 100 ran and 50 won and you continue the cycle couldn’t you replace every representatives in just a few years and get us back on constitutional track?

    Just a thought.

    Like

    Comment by Gary Blake | June 9, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, what you propose is an excellent idea. Education is the Key. But we also have to change the mindset of the American People. During the latter part of the 19th Century, Americans abandoned the belief that they ought to adhere to external higher standards [The Constitution, the moral laws, fixed Truths, etc.], and adopted the idiotic belief that their own “opinions” and “feelings” are valid guides to action. I explain that here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/how-progressive-education-and-bad-philosophy-corrupted-the-people-undermined-the-constitution-of-the-united-states/

      I knew a guy who wanted to run for Congress. I asked him if he knew the enumerated powers delegated to Congress, and would he adhere to the list of enumerated powers? He answered that no, he didn’t know what the Constitution said; if elected, he would be guided by his own common sense and the opinions of his friends.

      THAT is the mindset of virtually ALL of our elected politicians and appointed judges and executive officers, except that our politicians love bribes – I mean – large donations to their campaigns.

      So before they can learn the Constitution, they have to change their mindset so that they understand and accept that they must learn it so that they can obey it.

      But like original sin, instead of obeying God, men want to do what they want to do.

      So the question for us is: Are we willing to turn back before it’s too late? We are right now teetering on the edge.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 9, 2017 | Reply

      • I hear what you’re saying. I just find it hard to believe we couldn’t find 500 people put off 300million plus in our nation that would be willing to run and adhere to the constitution, and the founding principles.

        I would think with your site here and in your travels you would be able to recruit that many willing men.

        It’s sad if we can’t.

        Like

        Comment by Gary Blake | June 9, 2017 | Reply

  45. PH, Hate to keep pestering you with this query, but I’m eager for your learned reply. As you know, Congress may attempt to pass a bill which enforces concealed carry reciprocity between the states. The NRA, of which I am a member, has come up with a twisted justification for such a federal mandate and, with your astute analysis, I want to reply to them, but also post the analysis on my blog and Facebook. NRA’s foundational argument is that passage of such a law is constitutional because without such a law it restricts free travel between the states. Obviously, a huge stretch. Hoping you can find the time to craft an analysis of such federal mandate. Thanks so much. You’re a breath of fresh air.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 7, 2017 | Reply

    • OK, I’ll do it now. can you save me some time and send me a link to the bill which Congress is looking at?

      The NRA is worse than worthless – there never existed a Principle which they weren’t eager to compromise. They have no understanding of our Founding Principles, our Constitution, etc. Surely there are better gun rights groups! They should be doing all this stuff. But they won’t – so I’ll do it.

      As Dr. Edwin Vieira pointed out in one of his articles on revitalizing the Militia, the NRA should be leading the charge for States to revitalize their State Militia – but the NRA doesn’t even respond to Dr. Vieira’s letters. There is a very bad man on the NRA’s Board of Directors [I can never think of his name], and apparently the rest of them are just zeros.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 – Congress.gov
        Summary of H.R.38 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): Concealed Carry Reciprocity
        Act of 2017.
        https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22concealed+carry+reciprocity+act%22%5D%7D
        Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of … – Congress.gov
        Feb 27, 2017 … Text for S.446 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): Constitutional Concealed Carry
        Reciprocity Act of 2017.
        https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/446/text

        THANKS! Am also member GOA. They seem to be more level-headed.

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | June 7, 2017 | Reply

        • Oh my! Just read it – I’m on it!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017 | Reply

          • PH, have you had an opportunity to develop a brief analysis of the federal conceal-carry reciprocity bill Congress is considering for enactment? Also, one of your incisive, probing comments about NRA’s justification for such an overreaching law, that being “safe travel across State lines”. (I still can’t get over that one.) Thanks so much for ALL you do!!!!

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 24, 2017

          • I’m working on it now. It’s a truly BAD idea. Too few of us can think conceptually. You can. I can. But most Americans can’t; and their vision doesn’t extend beyond the immediate. And Americans love quick fixes. And they are shallow.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 25, 2017

          • change of subject for a minute… in reference of the cake shop case.. the supreme court will hear the masterpiece cake shop case involving a special request by the gay couple that the owner refused.. the tenth amendment states.. The powers not delegated to the federal government…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ~ ….. where does a state gain power to mandate the cake shop owner to provide a service the shop owner has power to choose or not ?

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 26, 2017

          • Actually, the only applicable governing authority over this cake shop case is The State Constitution. What rights are recognized and guaranteed by the State Constitution? Where (if at all) does the State Constitution authorize any governing body within the State to require that the bakery shop provide a cake for the homosexual “marriage”?

            It isn’t a federal issue, but because of the perversions of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment by the federal courts, they now claim judicial power over any evil they wish to legalize.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2017

          • would life , liberty and happiness prevail for the sore owner along with the protection of ones religion? we know how they twist that.

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 26, 2017

          • I just read the Press Release from Liberty Counsel, which is a reputable public interest law firm (for our side) http://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/062617-supreme-court-takes-the-cake-case

            The issue on appeal to the US Supreme Court is whether Colorado’s “public accommodations” law violates the First Amendment by requiring the baker to create custom wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. The state law currently states that businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.

            The original intent of the Bill of Rights is that it restricts only the federal government – see, e.g., Barron v. Baltimore (1833). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/32/243 It wasn’t until 1925 that the US Supreme Court fabricated the poisonous doctrine that §1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporated” the 1st Amendment so as to give the federal courts judicial power over the States on 1st Amendment issues [see https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/ at 12.]. It was the beginning of a massive usurpation of power by the federal Courts over the States.

            If American Lawyers understood our federal and State Constitutions [ha!], this would be decided under the Colorado Constitution. I haven’t read the Colorado Constitution, but I would check to see what it says about rights to free exercise of religion and rights of conscience, freedom of association, etc.

            It is an abomination to force people to participate in something they find morally repugnant. What if Muzzies want a cake to celebrate when they cut the clitoris [ahem, this is no time for modesty] off of a little girl? What if the Supreme Court “discovers” that having sex with 2 years old children is a “right” guaranteed by Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment? [They used that section to “discover” that women have the “right” to kill their unborn babies and homosexuals have a “right” to homosexual sodomy – so what’s to stop them from “discovering” that perverts have the “right” to sex with little children?] And what if they want a cake to celebrate the deflowering of a 2 year old child? Are we going to force bakers to bake a cake to celebrate this perversion and cruelty?

            Is there no limit? No, not when a People have abandoned Almighty God as the Author of the Moral Laws which we must obey.

            Liked by 3 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2017

          • ok , the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land so even if the state… real quick i found this from their constitution… Section 4. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

            The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by steve | June 26, 2017

          • Is there no limit? Oh, yes, there’s a limit. Don’t you dare ask a flaming homosexual Hollywood producer to accept a script and produce a movie glorifying traditional marriage and mocking the “anything goes” lifestyle. That’s a bridge too far. Our problem is either that the lawyers on our side are too timid or unimaginative to mount a “You really want to go there? defense” or we have 864 federal judges so all they have to do is walk down the street to the judge shop and get one to rule for the entire USof A. Or both.

            Abolish the Department of Education

            >

            Like

            Comment by bobmontgomery | June 27, 2017

          • As usual, every word which flows from your hand is true and reflects that you can think. [I follow you on Disquis and see many of your Comments, all of which are excellent.]

            Most of the lawyers on our side [like most Americans of today] got conditioned to unhesitatingly accept the prevailing assumptions and presuppositions of our time, and to work within those prevailing assumptions and presuppositions.

            Even though it is a simple matter to see that those prevailing assumptions and presuppositions are totally FALSE (and I show this every day), they still won’t examine their belief system.

            And then there is the sad fact that those who boldly challenge the prevailing assumptions and presuppositions get smeared and reviled!

            So it’s much easier to just go with the flow, and nibble at the edges of problems, perhaps slow the progression down a bit.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 27, 2017

          • Here it is: http://constitution.com/repeal-unconstitutional-federal-gun-laws-dont-add/

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 5, 2017

          • Many thanks, PH !!! In one way or the other, I will be sure to share this analysis with NRA and hope for a rational reaction. Thanks again for researching the issue.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | July 5, 2017

          • NRA has ignored Edwin Vieira’s attempts to get NRA to lobby the States to revitalize the States’ Militia. So best wishes in opening the eyes of at least some of them on the NRA board. Still, they may listen eventually.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2017

          • Many thanks, PH. Have already sent a distillation of your analysis far and wide–esp. to my fellow gun owners who were at first totally flummoxed. But, being good patriots, they quickly acknowledged the wisdom of your analysis. Dr. Viera’s ltr to the NRA was brilliant! Hope it does some good. Thanks a bunch!

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | July 12, 2017

          • I’m happy to see that the analysis resonated with people. Our Constitution is a miracle. I’m stripping away the misinterpretations, misconstructions, and perversions which have built up over the last 100 plus years. The basic problem is that Americans (judges and the people) no longer read a text and look for its objective meaning. Instead, they read in their own existing mindset, and say that’s what it means to them. Judges interpret the Constitution to get the result they want. This is literary deconstruction and I remember when it was being pushed in the American government schools. It’s now a universal practice – and people aren’t consciously aware that such is what they are doing because that is how they were trained to read a text: Not, “what does this mean?” but, “what does it mean to me?”

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2017

          • “Not ‘What does it mean?’ but ‘What does it mean to me?’ ” Eggs. Actly. The appeal to “ME” is a proven winner. I like to call it “unenlightened self-interest”.
            After you finish quashing the Art5 ‘COS’, would you make it your next campaign to quash the US Dept. of Education and at least let some of the individual states have a fighting chance?

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by bobmontgomery | July 13, 2017

          • “Unenlightened self interest” – you nailed it!

            The States could EASILY get the feds out of education: stop taking federal money to implement federal education programs. But the States REFUSE to say no to the federal government when it is handing out money. I’m told Tennessee was paid 1/2 a billion dollars to sign on to Common Core. All this money the States are paid to implement unconstitutional federal programs is added to the national debt. And then State legislators preen their moral outrage over out of control federal spending and demand a federal “balanced budget” amendment (BBA). And they are so ignorant they can not grasp the simple concept that a federal BBA changes the constitutional standard for spending from the enumerated powers and creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever they want to spend money on. This formally changes our Constitution FROM one of limited and enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. What I just said is over the heads of most Americans.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2017

          • its been really quiet here.. we have talked about federal judges in bad behavior , mayors making deal with foreign entity’s and ex presidents trying to sabotage the president . my question is, being they are supposed to make sure that they abide by their oath and what powers has been given them ( policing themselves) which isnt working . how do we uphold our right to take care of a government that’s become destructive of its duty’s ?

            Like

            Comment by steve | July 16, 2017

          • Our Framers did not place their hopes on Congress’ policing itself, or on the President’s policing himself, or on federal judges policing themselves. The only people I have seen insinuate such are the COS conspirators – and it seems they will say anything to hoodwink people into supporting their scheme which would permit the establishment elite to get rid of our Constitution and impose a new one [such as the new Constitution George W. Bush, the Council on Foreign Relations, Cruz, etc. need to move us into the North American Union].

            1. Our Framers built an elegant system of checks and balances into the Constitution. The federal courts’ check on Congress is to declare as such acts of Congress which are unconstitutional. Congress’ check on federal judges is impeachment, conviction, and removal from the bench. Congress’ check on the President is also impeachment, conviction, and removal. The Presidents’ check on both Congress and federal courts is the President’s solemn Oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”. So when, in the President’s independent judgment, he determines that Congress or the courts (or both in collusion) have violated the Constitution, the President is required to uphold the Constitution AGAINST Congress or the Courts.

            2. The supremacy clause at Article VI, clause 3, US Constitution, requires every State official and judge to support the Constitution. Their Oath is NEVER to obey the federal government – their Oath is to obey the Constitution even when it means that they must REFUSE to go along with unconstitutional dictates of any Branch of the federal government (or all 3 of them in collusion against the Constitution).

            3. Our Framers always told the States that they must REFUSE to submit to unconstitutional acts of the federal government: On “the rightful remedy of nullification”, see: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/16/nullification-made-easy/

            and http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/08/04/what-should-states-do-when-the-federal-government-usurps-power/

            4. Finally, We The People, failed in our sovereign duty to elect men of virtue and wisdom to public office. We The People were too darn lazy to learn our two Founding Documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution), and then to enforce them with our votes. Since we didn’t know what our Founding Documents said, we couldn’t see that the candidates for office we were so gaga over were also clueless about what they said – and also didn’t care what they said.

            5. As a People, our basic philosophical problem is this: We abandoned the belief that all must adhere to external transcendent standards (e.g., the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, the moral laws, etc.) and embraced the suicidal belief that we ought to go by our own feelings and opinions.

            And since we are now a Country of non-thinkers who know absolutely nothing and who go by our feelings and what “feels good”, we don’t even choose our own opinions and attitudes. They are instilled in us by our manipulators (TV shows, talk show hosts, popular culture, pop stars, and the like) – so that the opinions of which we are so proud aren’t even our own – we were conditioned to have them!

            We need to scrape those barnacles off ourselves, and return to First Principles and to Truth. And toss our precious instilled opinions in the trash where they belong.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 17, 2017

          • and yes, Dr. Vieira is brilliant! He is the world’s foremost authority on the Militia – plus he understands what the States must do to establish a sound money system in the States. Remember! Art. I, Sec. 10, clause 1, US Constitution, prohibits the States from making any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. But most would rather get their ears tickled.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2017

          • Well, relying heavily on your analysis I sent an editorial to the NRA magazine folks regarding this issue. Not surprisingly, I didn’t get a reply; however, in their latest edition not one article appeared advocating the glories of the national conceal carry reciprocity act. Maybe others have voiced their opinions to them as well. Let’s hope they drop their support, but I’m not holding my breath. Thanks again for your timely and scholarly assistance.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | August 24, 2017

          • You are so welcome!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 24, 2017

          • This bill is a sugar cookie full of arsenic. But unfortunately ‘gun folks’ are pumping their fists in the air thinking they’re gonna shove their little permits down some blue states’ throats. It’s a hideously bad bill for a boatload of reasons. I’m hoping the Republicans will fold like they did with the ACA repeal…

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by cgdustdevil | August 14, 2017

  46. can states and state mayors make agreement with the united nations

    Like

    Comment by steve | June 6, 2017 | Reply

    • States, cities, counties, etc., are prohibited from entering into treaties! See Art. I, Section 10, US Constitution. Only the President and the US Senate have authority to enter into treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 2).

      Furthermore, the President and US Senate can only enter into treaties which address the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. So the President and Senate can make treaties addressing, e.g., international copyright protection, because that is one of the enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 8). But the US government has no authority to enter into treaties addressing “climate change” and such like because “climate” is not one of the powers delegated to the federal government.

      See? You didn’t need me to tell you that!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2017 | Reply

      • thank you.. this compact of mayors which is a united nations agreement has over 200 mayors listed as being in the agreement and one city is close to me and i want to go to a city meeting and lay this on them that they are acting in treason to the constitution and start getting the word out to the rest of these mayors signing agreements about this paris agreement

        Like

        Comment by steve | June 6, 2017 | Reply

        • “Treason” is defined at Article III, Sec. 3, US Constitution. Signing on to the compact of mayors with the UN isn’t “treason” – but it is a violation of our federal Constitution.

          It’s a good thing if you go to a city meeting and protest this. Check the agenda of the city meetings to see when this will be brought up or how you can bring it up. And bring others with you – but don’t sit together, your allies should be scattered around the room and they should join in your protest against this unlawful act on the parts of the mayor.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017 | Reply

          • i gotcha.. would it be conspiring to over throw the constitution ? yes , i will take a few people and i appreciate the suggestion.

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 7, 2017

          • nah, it’s blithering ignorance, naivete, and going along with the prevailing dogma. The sad fact is that we elect fools to office – and we do it because we are fools. See this and learn and spread the word: http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/DefeatingDelphi.pdf

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017

      • Publius. would the logan act 1799 apply to the mayors and govenors signing these agreements / treatys ?

        Like

        Comment by steve | June 7, 2017 | Reply

        • No. The United Nations is not a “foreign government” within the meaning of the Logan Act; and the mayors who sign onto that idiotic compact are not trying to “influence” “the measures or conduct” of a “foreign government” – they are bowing to the idiocy of the global warming loons.

          As a people, we are too stupid and immoral to be free.

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 8, 2017 | Reply

          • what would the united nations be being they are a conglomerate of nations representing multi governments forming a (so called) world government or board?

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 8, 2017

        • I would have to say that the cities and states can not sign on to this treaty, but there is nothing that says they can’t follow it.

          They can pass laws a regulation that follow the accord until such times as the feds pass a law or the courts say they can’t.

          Like

          Comment by Boyd | June 8, 2017 | Reply

          • Hi, Boyd! Nice to hear from you.

            The distinction you make is well taken. But remember! All the actions local & state governments take to reduce “greenhouse emissions” have a dire effect on the citizens of the City and State. E.g., humans are THE biggest source of “greenhouse emissions”. Well, we know how to reduce those “greenhouse emissions”, don’t we? Kill some people – lots of them! The more people our governments kill, the better off the planet! http://www.worldwatch.org/node/563

            Do you see what is going on? Some people have an insatiable lust for killing other humans. The sociopaths and fools are in charge. The global warming hoax is the way to get rid of the excess people. And only the “superior” people, like Al Gore, will be left. And he’ll be so busy getting richer & richer by selling “carbon credits”.

            Um, from where did Al Gore obtain the “carbon credits” to sell?

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 8, 2017

          • would this apply to mayors and govenors that are dealing with foreign agreements ? 18 U.S. Code § 953 – Private correspondence with foreign governments

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 10, 2017

          • I’m writing a paper on this – so stay tuned. But for now, listen to a former criminal defense lawyer: 18 USC Sec. 953 is a criminal statute. Criminal statutes are strictly construed. If you compare the actions of the mayors and governors with the words of the statute, you see that their conduct does not fall within the reach of the statute!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 11, 2017

          • i will be looking for your writings on this issue as i want to address it soon with a local mayor was is on the compact of mayors list with the united nations.

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 11, 2017

          • For now, see this article from 2009: It shows that the United States has no constitutional authority to enter into “climate” treaties – “climate” is not one of the enumerated powers! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/climate-change-treaty-the-supreme-law-of-the-land-or-lawless-usurpation/

            Obama had no authority to sign the treaty. Trump was constitutionally correct to withdraw from an agreement the United States had no constitutional authority to enter into!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 11, 2017

          • and the states have no authority either and that goes for gov. and mayors correct..

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 11, 2017

          • Right! Cities and States may lawfully pass ordinances & statutes (applicable to their jurisdictions) addressing “greenhouse gas emissions” and such like – if permitted by their State Constitution. But they may NOT lawfully enter into agreements with foreign nations or with the United Nations addressing such subjects.

            We are witnessing right now the destruction of the United States, and our transformation into the global New World Order.

            Also: We are moving into a new Morality. Under the new morality, virtue is based on protecting the environment. Lying, stealing, adultery, sexual perversions, and such like, are now OK! What counts is, “Do YOU recycle?” “Are YOU exceeding your allotted carbon footprint?”

            God help us: Americans have lost their minds and are now totally stupid.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 11, 2017

          • publius, im no where on your educational level by far but im not afraid of going to the corruption and dealing with it personally.. im trying to keep records and research you have provided so i can call these traitors out in the state level

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 11, 2017

          • i couldnt find a section for the emolument clause so here goes…. two states attorneys claim trump is violating that clause of which congress has the authority over ..am i correct ? and just where are they all wrong other than trump isnt accepting gifts etc…

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 12, 2017

          • An “emolument” is a perk attached to an office. See Webster’s 1828 dictionary http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Emolument
            See also the Federalist Papers: I searched for “emoluments” and 12 Papers mention the term. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

            “Emoluments” are mentioned at Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, and at Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause.

            Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, prohibits any federal officer from accepting (without the consent of Congress), any present, Emolument, Office, or Title from any foreign State.

            Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause, prohibits the President from receiving additional Emoluments from the United States or from any State.

            The Emoluments now attached to the office of Presidency include living in the White House, with a full staff, Air Force One, security protection, and such like. Those perks can’t be increased or decreased – by the United States or any of the 50 States. And Trump can’t get a job lobbying for any foreign State while he is President.

            But this has nothing to do with Trump’s private businesses! George Washington’s Mount Vernon was a large business enterprise selling whiskey, flour, and such like. When Washington’s farm sold its produce, the proceeds weren’t “emoluments” within the meaning of the Constitution – they were the income from his farm.

            It has been so long since we had a President who did something besides live off the taxpayers while in public office, that we have forgotten that real men can have successful businesses BEFORE they run for office. And the Constitution doesn’t require Presidents to divest themselves of their businesses.

            If a President should corruptly run his commercial business – say grant favors [made possible by his official position] to those who benefit his commercial business [you know, like Secretary of State Clinton apparently granted official favors to those who donated to the Clinton foundation], then Congress can impeach, try, convict, and remove him from office.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 12, 2017

          • awesome.. i couldnt put it as yu did but i atleast was on the same track as your statement

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 12, 2017

          • You are most welcome!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 12, 2017

          • LOL…Yes I see your point, so I say let them lead by example. Wouldn’t it be nice.

            Like

            Comment by Boyd | June 8, 2017

          • Yes, the people who want the world population reduced – by force – should volunteer!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 8, 2017

  47. What do you think of the new Federalist Party (www.thefederalistparty.org)?

    Like

    Comment by mcguire302 | June 6, 2017 | Reply

    • I can’t tell from the website. Today, the Left has people pretending to be big “christians” and “conservatives” and “constitutionalists” – but they are none of those things. They say what we want to hear and they keep their true agenda hidden. They say one thing and do the opposite.

      In order to assess this organization, we need to see the NAMES OF THE PEOPLE BEHIND THIS!

      I am extremely suspicious of anyone who doesn’t disclose who they are but ASKS FOR MONEY. The website you linked to wants you to send money, but they don’t tell you who they are or how they will use the money.

      So if I had to guess, I’d guess it’s a scam.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2017 | Reply

      • JD Rucker is the name of the main person behind it. Almost all media interviews have him on it.

        Like

        Comment by mcguire302 | June 7, 2017 | Reply

        • I just read one of his posts at Red State: It chants the “conservative” line – with no specifics. That style of writing permits the reader to read in whatever he wants. Americans want to be rescued – they want to believe in a man on the white horse who will ride in and save them and our Country. So they want to believe that the “new guy” is the one who will save them.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017 | Reply

  48. A very minor detail. It is a pity that as a native Texan you don’t know how to spell y’all; which is a contraction of you and all. A POI from one Texan to another. I hope that y’all have a good day.

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | May 30, 2017 | Reply

    • and I thought it was spelled “yawl”

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 30, 2017 | Reply

  49. PH, you’re oh so terribly right. This is why I am a strong supporter of the Texas Nationalist Movement. (A wise citizen must always keep his/her options open.) If TNM ushers in an independent Republic of Texas, and if its leaders are willing to learn from the self-induced failures of the great “American Experiment”, and if TNM is committed to applying the lessons learned from this failed grand experiment, then some of those among us who still cherish individual freedom and the Constitution as originally intended will find political salvation, failing which we patriots and constitutionalists will surely be enslaved with the rest of the self-destructive nitwits who fancy themselves “citizens” of this once great Republic.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | May 26, 2017 | Reply

    • Ya’ll (I’m a native Texan) have to us (now live in Oklahoma) when you leave to make a new nation.

      Like

      Comment by Manfred | May 27, 2017 | Reply

  50. In my reading of the U. S. Constitution and related historical documents, it occurs to me that the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional and illegal organization. It is a private corporation that simply holds American taxpayers in bondage to some of the world’s largest banksters. And furthermore, it is in no way accountable to the federal government or U. S. voters.

    President Andrew Jackson was an early opponent of central banking, and abolished a form of central banking during his term. Thus, for a short period, the United States operated without debt for the first and last time in its history. But a form of Central Banking was re-introduced during the following administration.

    In these times, U. S. currencies were generally backed by physical assets such as gold and silver. But in 1913, a meeting was held at Jekyll Island, Ga in which government officials and representatives of the world’s most powerful bankers (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, etc.) who agreed to establish a Federal Reserve which would create and control the distribution of US currencies, and thus wealth. This was known as a fiat fractional reserve system that need not be backed by items of inherent physical value. Furthermore it was based on the unfettered creation of unbacked DEBT!!

    Later, President John F. Kennedy sought to stabilize the U. S. economy by stripping the Federal Reserve of its unconstitutional powers. He thus enacted Executive Order 11110 (which has never been revoked) that empowered the Treasury Department to create and distribute U.S. currencies backed by silver bars, ingots and dollars contained in the Treasury. This was strictly according to powers granted in the U. S. Constitution.

    The subsequent new “silver certificates” were being printed for use, but his best laid plans went unfulfilled. He was assassinated Nov 22,1963–a warning to any future presidents with similar ambitions!!

    And to this day we operate with Federal Reserve Notes that hold the American economy in bondage to some of the world’s worst banksters who are too big to fail, too
    big to bail, too big to prosecute, and too big to jail.

    My questions follow:

    1. What do you make of this?
    2. How can we rectify this?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by paradigmrw | May 26, 2017 | Reply

    • This is not my area of expertise; but as far as I know, all that you say is true.

      Governments & The People loved the fractional reserve banking system because it provided the credit to enable the federal government to construct the socialist regulatory welfare state which they – and The People – wanted. People still want a welfare state!

      Unless The People repent, and man up and demand a constitutional money system, things are unlikely to improve. And that repentance seems unlikely because our Country is now overrun by 3rd world parasites with no comprehension of the concept of limited civil government, AND the American People have been so dumbed down that they don’t know what’s what.

      It appears to me that absent divine intervention, there is going to be an Article V convention, where a new Constitution will be imposed which moves us into the North American Union; and from there, things will get much worse. Think Sweden and France.

      There is a heavy price to pay for stupidity.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 26, 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: