Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

1,758 Comments »

  1. You indicated providing a handout(s) in your “Nullification” video. Do you have available for download? Or is this on your blog somewhere?
    Thank you for your work and dispelling the lies being put forth.

    Comment by ambiguousfrog | April 26, 2015 | Reply

  2. forgive my few omissions and typos. I always miss something>>>>

    Comment by CarolynW | April 24, 2015 | Reply

  3. Publius, Recently I learned that the Virginia Constitution does not have an amendment protecting citizens against illegal search or seizure (like the 4th and 5th amendment in our U. S. Constitution. A Tea Party organization in Virgina has contacted the former attorney general for the state and together with a tea party member has drafted an amendment for consideration in our General Assembly. The proposed amendment has now been picked by Congress and here is the link: http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/4th-amendment-fight-from-virginia-hits-capitol-hill/#KU2OK4Rb1Go3Wk4B.99
    My question is this. If a State does not have a 4th amendment in their Constitution doesn’t the U. S. Constitution apply here because its the Supreme Law of the Law.

    Comment by CarolynW | April 24, 2015 | Reply

  4. https://archive.org/stream/virginiareportof00virgrich#page/22/mode/2up , maybe you can believe what is written here about “uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government,” this is a department under the executive branch does. not my words, theirs.

    Comment by david | April 21, 2015 | Reply

    • Why are you telling me this? I have quoted The Federalist Papers on this point over & over!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 22, 2015 | Reply

  5. Hi again, PH! I hope that this finds you well and as feisty as always!
    {:-)

    For obvious reasons, I thought of you when I clicked on the following link (I’ve been a NAGR member for some time, and this was featured in one of their emails):

    Of course, I was so ‘offended’ by some of the comments which were posted that I posted some thoughts of my own (and, completely without permission, some of yours!)

    Blessings and best regards, Ted

    Comment by Ted Hatfield | April 15, 2015 | Reply

    • Well, I searched for your name and didn’t find your comments. To whom did you reply?

      Use whatever I have written or said anyway you like.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  6. aturalization Act of 1790 doesn’t exist no more?… Naturalization Act of 1790 got replace with Naturalization Act of 1795. Then Naturalization Act of 1795 got replace with Naturalization Act of 1798. Then Naturalization Act of 1798 got replace with naturalization law of 1802. Then naturalization act of 1802 got replace with Fourteen Amendment in 1868. Fourteen Amendment means granted citizenship to people born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of their parents’…????

    Comment by jimcolomas | April 14, 2015 | Reply

  7. PH
    I came across and read a Supreme Court decision:
    A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
    Was this decision ever overturned by subsequent Supreme Court decisions? Or does the decision have standing in today’s fascist world?
    .

    Comment by rrstubbs | April 13, 2015 | Reply

    • For many many decades, law schools have taught that the Constitution is a living, breathing document which changes as conditions change. Law students are taught that the Constitution means whatever the supreme Court says it means. Most law students uncritically accept whatever they are told, so they got brainwashed into believing this.

      So, most American lawyers believe the Constitution “evolves”. In 1935 it meant what the supreme Court said when the Schechter Poultry case was decided.

      Today, it means whatever the supreme Court today says it means.

      See?

      WE THE PEOPLE kept electing and re-electing people who believe this crap. Obviously, if the Constitution means whatever 5 Justices on the Supreme Court say it means, then we have no Constitution at all. We are ruled by whoever seizes the power.

      Meanwhile, Americans are so stupid they are all gaga over a new crop of phony “conservative” politicians and talk show hosts who would continue the march towards the totalitarian police terror state which is right now being constructed around us.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  8. PH,

    Conscription is not specifically enumerated as a power delegated to the Federal Government while the power to “Raise and support” the army is listed.

    During the war of 1812, legislation authorizing Federal conscription was rejected by congress and one of the reasons was that it was unconstitutional.

    Since conscription is not listed, is it covered under the “Necessary and Proper” clause as “incidental” to the power enumerated or “great and substantial,” thus unconstitutional?

    Arver v. United States seems to be the “standing” opinion.

    http://www.jimelwood.net/students/crosscultural/friedman_(1969)_conscription_original_understanding.pdf

    And Kneedler v. Lane in the PA State court seems to be what upheld conscription during the Civil War.

    Comment by John Hindery | April 13, 2015 | Reply

  9. PH,

    Hillary and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation= violation if USC? Yet all the “Talking Heads” can babble about is missing e-mails.

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. ~ USC Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0415/clinton_foundation_exposed.php3

    Comment by John Hindery | April 13, 2015 | Reply

  10. I am more in the Philosophy of the Constitution, then the legal side. Have you read Bryce, “the American Commonwealth”(1913); Strong, C. F. “Modern Political Constitution”(1930); Laski, H.J., “the Foundations of Sovereignty(1921); and Willoughby, W.F. “An Introduction to the Study of Government of Modern States(1919). Well you not going to believe me on this, but it is very interesting. I just went today to the five and dime store and pick up an “Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Encyclopedia”(1931) its just a little book, the book mention are their reference on the Constitution, here is what is written “Its field is strictly limited by its own provisions, for the powers of the sovereignty of the United States have been divided between the federal and state governments.” To me the Federal government came first then the states governments. Now the “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” makes sense. now I have to found some of these books myself, very interesting.

    Comment by david | April 7, 2015 | Reply

    • If you would learn our two founding documents backwards and forwards, and speak of those, you would provide a great service to your Country. I do not read commentaries on the Constitution EXCEPT FOR those written by our Framers.

      The most important thing a citizen can do is to learn all the powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  11. Sorry about that, I am looking at the ” secure the Blessings of Liberty ” In Romans 13:1-7(NIV) how “the authorities that exist have been established by God.” or the Union is to secure these governments for these rights, again I am still learning sorry.

    Comment by david | April 7, 2015 | Reply

    • Does the Chart help? And the slides Brent Parrish prepared?
      What is so amazing about our two founding Documents is that the Declaration of Independence says that Rights come from God – and the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

      So in our Constitution we delegated specific powers to the federal government – and the delegated powers secure specific God-given rights in the manner appropriate to the national government of a Federation.

      It really was a 5,000 year miracle.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 7, 2015 | Reply

  12. hi, I know I not a writer but, I believe to solve this understanding of both the Declaration and the Constitution here is in the writing: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” to secure means to “fixes”, what do we fix to our Liberty? Law. “consent of the governed” is a Citizen. Blessing is “God’s favor and protection” which is the State government for the rights, the Union is to secure the Blessing, not the rights of the men, but the right of men to have that Liberty. Is the United States law securing the Liberty or the rights of men to secure this Liberty. Maybe I am talking in circles but if you understand and can write more on this matter maybe.

    Comment by david | April 7, 2015 | Reply

  13. “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare” Declaration, “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” “shall be the supreme Law of the Land” This Constitution of the United States is between God and the People of the United States. Got to hand it to our Founders.

    Comment by david | April 5, 2015 | Reply

    • Oh yes – Our Founders were great men.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 | Reply

  14. Since the law leaves it up to the States to implement the standards, wouldn’t it be appropriate opportunity for the States to “Nullify?”

    http://mises.org/library/appropriate-and-necessary-whatever-we-say-it

    Comment by John Hindery | April 4, 2015 | Reply

    • “Environmental protection” is not on the list of powers delegated to the federal government. So States with any manly men in them should ignore all pretended EPA regs, Acts of Congress, and federal court opinions addressing this topic.

      I.e., States don’t need the federal “law” to give them the option of not implementing the standards! Since it’s not on the list of delegated powers, States should ignore it all. See?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2015 | Reply

  15. PH;

    I know you’ve rejected my thoughts on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen before, but in view of the fact that a couple of new candidate Usurpers are on the horizon I would like to clarify my proposition of Constitutional Law by saying ;

    “once that the law is written that provides for the perpetuation of U.S. Citizens, including U.S. natural born Citizens, then the “original source” of the concept of “citizen, natural born and otherwise” is no longer of importance, except for the benefit of general knowledge.”

    As you know, I contend that “U.S. natural born Citizens” were provided for in the 1790 Act and the words “considered as” belies the notion that the Act provided only for their “foreign birth”, in that those that were “foreign born” were being compared to those that were “native born”.

    The ‘established uniform Rule” of the Act in whole provided that ; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise,”, which, when considered with the Doctrine of Coverture’s effect on the political status of women, made being born as a “U.S. natural born Citizen” UNAVOIDABLE when born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father,( two (2) U.S. Citizen parents), anywhere in the world from March of 1790 and January 1795, then thereafter only within the limits of the U.S.

    The un-reconciled consequence of the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship and Citizenship retention Act, was the previously not possible, under the laws, circumstance of ‘dual-citizenship at birth.

    The 132 years distance from the Ratification of the COTUS would seem to make the un-reconciled circumstance of ‘dual-citizenship at birth” a condition alien to the term of words in A2S1C5, (U.S.) natural born Citizen.

    Comment by slcraignbc | April 3, 2015 | Reply

    • Your thoughts? Why would our own thoughts on this be relevant or important? I say your thoughts on this are not relevant – NEITHER ARE MINE. That is why I searched to find documents written during our Framing Era to learn the definition of “natural born citizen” OUR FRAMERS USED. THAT is the definition locked into our Constitution.

      It’s NEVER what you think or what I think. It’s always, “What is the original intent of this clause?”

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  16. Thank you, PH. Yes I have read and have a copy of your article on the Vattel, and Natural Born Citizen.” I refer to it constantly as well as most of your other articles on Understanding the Constitutions.

    Comment by James | April 3, 2015 | Reply

    • Then tell them to Prove it or Retract it.

      They can’t prove it.

      And we have no reason to believe that it is a recent addition to Vattel’s book – John Jay, David Ramsey and others of the time used the identical term the same way Vattel used it.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2015 | Reply

  17. There is a debate going-on around my area about the Vattel’s writings. Some say that the term Natural-born Citizen didn’t appear in the Vattel’s writings until after the US. Constitution was adopted. Is that so? Did our Founders insert that into the Vattel’s writings after the fact?

    Comment by James | April 3, 2015 | Reply

    • Sounds to me like someone is making stuff up to bolster Ted Cruz’ candidacy. Did you ask them to provide PROOF that the text of Vattel’s book has been altered?

      If you will read my paper on this subject, you will see original source documents which use the term. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ Click on the hyperlinks and read the original source documents for yourself.

      and don’t believe what you are told. People lie or ignorantly repeat what they have heard. So you must always look for original source documents.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2015 | Reply

  18. I have a hard time understanding the difference between an individual or group of individuals stealing my property. Both would obviously be labeled criminal acts? Can a law, converted into an instrument of plunder by a lawless group justify theft?

    Lo and Behold

    Federalist No. 1: “A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” (Lo and behold, this rights crusading strategy of government barrels full steam ahead).

    Federalist No. 1: “An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.” (Lo and behold, the stale artificial bait has caught nearly every public official of the union).

    Federalist No. 6: “Favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage or personal gratification.”
    (Lo and behold, lawless officials arrogantly scruple at the expense of national tranquility to indulge in personal advantages and gratifications).

    Federalist No. 6: “Momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice.” (Lo and behold, government appeals to emotions, passions and immediate interests at the expense of the supreme law of the land, reason and justice).

    Federalist No. 8: “Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.” (Lo and behold, government is taking advantage of this clever tactic to justify the overthrow the citizen’s civil and political rights).

    Federalist No. 10: “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it.” (Lo and behold, wicked projects are so pervasive that the whole body changes laws into instruments of oppression and plunder. Governments fine or incarcerate citizens and wage war to protect wicked projects).

    Federalist No.17: “It may be said that [the principle of legislation] would tend to render the government of the Union too powerful, and to enable it to absorb those residuary authorities, which it might be judged proper to leave with the States for local purposes. I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons entrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description. The regulation of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition.” (Lo and behold, the general government embraces temptations to divest states of authority. States give in to luring temptations).

    Federalist No. 17: “But let it be admitted, for argument’s sake, that mere wantonness and lust of domination would be sufficient to beget that disposition;” “still it may be safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite.” (Lo and behold, ignorant masses are so incessant to gratify selfish appetites, they forfeit their independence and liberties to fill them).

    Federalist No. 22: “Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation.” (Lo and behold, false interpretations of the constitution have not only created dead letters but converted law into lawlessness and lawful defense into crime).

    Federalist No. 28: “When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.” (Lo and behold, the disease has spread from head to toe and medicine to cure it is rejected by states and citizens).

    Federalist No. 30: “Who would loan to a government that prefaced [began] its overtures for borrowing by an act which demonstrated that no reliance could be placed on the steadiness of its measures for paying? (Lo and behold, nations and ignorant citizens, inundated with financial propaganda, continue borrowing from the bankrupt federal government, 210 trillion dollars in the hole).

    Federalist No. 31: “I repeat here what I have observed in substance in another place, that all observations founded upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, not to the nature or extent of its powers. The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty. It is by far the safest course . . . to confine our attention wholly to the nature and extent of the powers as they are delineated in the Constitution. Every thing beyond this must be left to the prudence and firmness of the people; who, as they will hold the scales in their own hands . . . will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments.” (Lo and behold, the majority of citizens couldn’t care a less. They no longer comprehend the prudence or firmness required to preserve independence).

    Federalist No. 32: “The individual States should possess an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of their own wants. And making this concession, I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution.” (Lo and behold, states have sold out to violent assumptions of power by the federal government that abridges them of rightful authority).

    Federalist No. 33: “But it will Not follow . . . that acts of the large society [federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary [state] authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” (Lo and behold, law abiding Americans trying to treat usurpations as such are labeled enemies of the state and extremist).

    Federalist No. 33: “the supremacy of the laws of the Union . . . only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from “the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION.” (Lo and behold, public officials reject the supreme law of the land and framers writings explaining the limited constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government).

    Federalist No. 36: “The United States will either wholly abstain from the objects preoccupied for local purposes, or will make use of the State officers and State regulations for collecting additional impositions . . . If such a spirit should infest the councils of the Union, the most certain road to the accomplishment of its aim would be to employ the State officers as much as possible, and to attach them to the Union by an accumulation of their emoluments. This would serve to turn the tide of State influence into the channels of the national government. But all suppositions of this kind are invidious, and ought to be banished from the consideration of the great question before the people.” (Lo and behold, this spirit has infested the union. Invidious suppositions are entertained and embraced by nearly every politician and public officer).

    Federalist No. 8: “The perpetual menacing’s of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; The continual necessity for [military] services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionally degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants . . . are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights . . . The transition from this disposition . . . is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.” (Lo and behold, the US government media/military industrial complex cleverly concocts menacing dangers to justify tyrannical control. Alarmed conditioned citizens give up liberties for safety).

    Federalist No. 15: . . . The United States has an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. (Lo and behold, countless illegal regulations and agencies pilfer citizens, destroy liberty and commerce).

    Federalist No. 17: “The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. But let it be admitted, for argument’s sake, that mere wantonness and lust of domination would be sufficient to beget that disposition; still it may be safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite.” (Lo and behold, ignorant masses manifest the opposite disposition and couldn’t care a less to control federal and state governments extravagant usurping appetite).

    Federalist No. 28: Would . . . militia, irritated by being called upon [by the federal government] to undertake a . . . hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting [imposing] the chains of “slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants [instead], [tyrants] who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined entrenchment’s of [lawful] power, and to make them [federal officials] an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execrations? . . . If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.” (Lo and behold, the federal government presently employs these impossible preposterous ambitions with impunity. Unenlightened abused masses are not incensed one iota).

    Federalist No. 32: “The plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments . . . clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States”. (Lo and behold, the states have sold out many rights to the federal government).

    Federalist No. 43: “A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.” (Lo and behold, states reject their rightful authority and merge with the federal government to isolate themselves in despotic power).

    Federalist No. 40: “Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the “States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.” (Lo and behold, states have renounced much of their constitutional independence).

    Federalist No. 45: “Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness [liberty], it would be, abolish the Union.” (Lo and behold, the union has become inconsistent with happiness and liberty. Instead of abolishing the union, the people embrace dangers to happiness and liberty).

    Federalist No. 46: “If the people should in the future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration . . . And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain [enumerated] sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.” (Lo and behold, the states have much to apprehend but reject the apprehension).

    Federalist No. 46: “But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.” (Lo and behold the federal governments maddened drive. States are not alarmed but complicit).

    Federalist No. 46: “The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may . . . accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. To these would be composed of a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.” (Lo and behold, oath breaking public officials are actualizing their extravagant incoherent dreams while labeling resisting law-abiding militia as extremist enemies of state).

    Federalist No. 49: “Judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised by the legislative councils. . . . Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control . . . The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them.” (Lo and behold, judges legislate from the bench and exercise arbitrary control).

    Federalist No. 49: “It is equally evident, that none of them [branches of government] ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” (Lo and behold, the federal government grafts branches together and disregards law that imposes effectual restraints on respective powers).

    Federalist No. 49: “How are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance? There is certainly great force in this reasoning, and it must be allowed to prove that a constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary occasions.” (Lo and behold, the remedy of nullification provided by the framers for the present extraordinary crisis is rejected by government officials).

    Comment by Dwain | March 24, 2015 | Reply

  19. Is Ted Cruz eligible to be president?

    Comment by Diane Kozlowski | March 23, 2015 | Reply

  20. Spence & Publius;

    The Congress is LIMITED in its involvement of ‘immigration” by A1 Section 9 Clause 1;

    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.

    The “original concern was, of course, the continued importation of African slaves, along with Indentured and Bond Servants from the European countries.

    But in construing the Clause I perceive that the Fed is LIMITED to PROHIBITING ‘migration & importation” rather than DEMANDING States to accept ‘migration & importation” of persons known and or unknown.

    Comment by slcraignbc | March 22, 2015 | Reply

    • Well, after 1808, Congress got the power to ban the importation of new slaves and to control immigration.

      But we never delegated to Congress the power to supply businesses here with cheap foreign workers….

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2015 | Reply

    • ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution states;

      “the Congress shall have Power to establish an UNIFORM Rule of Naturalization throughout the United States.”

      I don’t know how you could make naturalization law without making immigration law too

      Comment by Spense | March 22, 2015 | Reply

      • Actually, they are different: “Naturalization” refers to how an immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen.

        Immigration refers to who comes here to live.

        Before 1808, people flooded in here unchecked – mostly Christians from Western Europe. During 1808, Congress got the power to restrict immigration.

        But Congress always had the power to make uniform laws on naturalization (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4).

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2015 | Reply

  21. Hi PH, I have been looking for the constitutional authority for congress to create a H-1B temporary worker visa program. I thought maybe it would fall under their power over immigration. But after looking up the word [immigration} I see it doesn’t qualify because the 1828 Webster’s say immigration is for the taking up of “Permanent” residence. Plus, the U.S. Immigration website states “…a H-1B visa which is a non-immigrant work visa.” I feel confident when I say; I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of corruption, against their American worker constituents. When one considers that congress’ granted enumerated powers were given to provide for the “general welfare of America”; causing thousands of Americans to be unemployed is certainly not good for the general welfare of America! What say you?

    What put this rock in my boot is an extended family member lost her job to a H-1B foreign worker. She was VERY qualified for and good at her job, but she had almost 15 years experience and was at the upper end of the pay scale so she became expendable because of this unconstitutional program. She is currently working to get a Master’s after being unable to find another employer. And she lives in the Chicago area. I did some research and found that a large utility company in Southern California is replacing their entire, 1200 member IT staff with H-1B foreign workers from India. The H-1B program rules state when employers submit applications for H-1B visas that they have to prove a need for a position that they are unable to fill with American workers. No one can tell me the entire 1200 member IT staff at that utility company isn’t qualified to do IT work, I don’t believe it. The unconstitutionally granted program is being abused by greedy companies and congress does nothing. It would be interesting to see how many of these H-1B using companies donated to congressional re-election campaign funds; but that is another issue…..

    Comment by Spense | March 22, 2015 | Reply

    • I also can not undertake to lay my finger on that provision of the federal Constitution which authorizes Congress to get involved in employment matters and workers’ visas.
      Your analysis is correct. I am so sorry for your family member.
      We pay a heavy price when we elect to Congress people who don’t know the Constitution and who don’t care enough to learn it.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2015 | Reply

      • Its true, what you don’t know will hurt you. And you have to be exceptionally foolish to trust the federal government!

        Comment by Spense | March 22, 2015 | 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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 979 other followers

%d bloggers like this: