Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!


  1. I was just trying to show that the Union, by the Declaration of Independence, was done on the faith of GOD, and the Constitution is done by Law. “No group of Men or a Man will rule America” “We the People of the United States”

    Comment by david | September 1, 2015 | Reply

  2. PH, I agree with Spense. You DO instill fear into the hearts of the evil-doers. I wish you lived closer to Michigan, I would LOVE to get you up here for a presentation to our Tea Party Groups, and to mine especially. We’ve got some rabid Con-Con/Article V people here who need to learn a few facts. Keep up the good work. I just wish I was as much of a “flake” as you are.

    Comment by Chris J | September 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Chris, I would love to come to Michigan also. I’ve got an event in Ft. Wayne, Indiana on Saturday, Oct. 24. Depending on where you are in Michigan, Oct. 23 would work out very well for me. I’ve known you online for several years – it would be wonderful to finally meet you.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 1, 2015 | Reply

  3. I thought because of the distress in our Nation at the present VP would be a more rapid response to get back on the Constitutional path we have indoctrinatly strayed from. However, SCOTUS was my first notation.

    Let it be known… The Honorable Publius Huldah for United States Supreme Court Justice.


    Comment by CM | August 31, 2015 | Reply

    • I’d have more influence as a SCOTUS Justice. And I would travel around the Country speaking of the enumerated powers, checks & balances, etc. And I would finally have the Pulpit. It is a sad thing, but most people just want to see and hear “famous” people. Or “important” people.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 31, 2015 | Reply

      • I came to look you in the eyes and listen to truth.
        Yes mam’ you are a gifted teacher.

        Comment by imtryingwolfy | August 31, 2015 | Reply

        • Thank you! What prompted those welcome words?

          I just got an appearance cancelled. I was supposed to speak at the Corydon Tea Party (in Corydon, Indiana) tomorrow night. One Marty Woods is to give a 15 minute slide show (oh wow! bet THAT took brains to put together) on why we should have an Article V convention; and I was to speak for 45 minutes in opposition. Tom Powers is the leader of the Corydon, Tea Party.

          Well, apparently, COS people pitched their usual fit that I would be speaking; and Tom Powers chose to appease them and cancelled my appearance. He said, We don’t want her [PH] to come. We think she [PH] is a flake.

          But don’t worry. All the Delegates at the Convention will be moral & wise people. Not bullies like COS operatives and cowards like Tom Powers.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 31, 2015 | Reply

          • PH, if you are such a flake you shouldn’t instill the fear in them that you do, they should easily handle a “flake”. Apparently they think the word flake is someone who debates with truth and original sources. Tom Powers is a fool to not allow an opposing opinion and a traitor to the Tea Party movement. That is a stunt King George III would have pulled

            Comment by Spense | September 1, 2015

          • You plant good seeds that grow to be good fruit my friend.
            Darkness is the absence of light, this we know.
            So when the light dawns darkness flees.
            You see.

            Comment by imtryingwolfy | September 1, 2015

  4. Why not speak to Trump? What better way to make America great again than you as VP asap?


    Comment by CM | August 30, 2015 | Reply

    • I have no access to Trump. Or to any of them. Once people become US Congressmen, they can’t be contacted.
      As to my being VP: That is not my calling. My calling is to teach.
      The only job I would accept is Associate Justice on SCOTUS.
      PS: I am an NBC: I descended from the English Puritans who came here in the 1630s, and the Scots Presbyterians who came here in 1718.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 31, 2015 | Reply

  5. Are you an Article 2 “natural born Citizen?”

    Comment by CM | August 30, 2015 | Reply

    • That’s an odd question. And I don’t have to answer b/c I am not running for Vice President or President. But if I were, I’d have my birth certificate out there for all to see.
      Why do you ask?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2015 | Reply

  6. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable rights, Here is the question, if a baby becomes a Citizens of the United States just by birth, then the baby rights were just taken away from our Government, YES OR NO? NOT BY BIRTH BUT BY BARE, THE RIGHT TO GIVE AWAY. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” In order to secure our rights, we must give our rights away to government. Better?

    Comment by david | August 29, 2015 | Reply

  7. I guess I am very fortunate that I was never able to sit in a jury, because in all honesty I could not agree to apply the law as it was explained to me if it were unconstitutional. (I was never selected for jury as I was always a member of the press and knew people in the judicial system.) However, it seems as though the individual passing out the pamphlets advising the jurors of their duty to judge not only the individual, but the legality (constitutionality) of the law he was charged with breaking was well within constitutional legality in his actions. Should we be encouraging others to likewise hand out such leaflets informing potential jurors of their constitutional rights and duties?

    Comment by paradigmrw | August 27, 2015 | Reply

    • Yes! We should be speaking out on such matters educating our fellows. It is horrifying that this fellow was arrested. I have spoken in favor of jury nullification, as have many others; so does the Fully Informed Jury Association; and so did Alexander Hamilton and Noah Webster, among others.
      We are in the last day of the American Republic – if there is a convention, we will get a new Constitution. But it seems as if Americans are too stupid and corrupt to be free.
      I’d want you on my Jury!
      By the Way, when the Judge is questioning you and asking you if you will apply the law as he explains it to you – and you say “Yes”; you are, of course, assuming that the law he explains and supports will be constitutional. But if you later learn, to your shock and horror, that the law is not constitutional, then you must be guided by your conscience. And if you decide that the law is not constitutional, then it is your duty to judge the law. Think of the people in NAZI Germany who were convicted under unjust laws. At the Nurenberg Trials, people who enforced those unjust laws were convicted.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2015 | Reply

      • Hi PH, thanks for the reference to the FIJA. I read their material on the 2nd Amendment which talked about nullifying gun laws. You told me some time ago that the 2nd Amendment only restricts the federal government and that states were free to write their own laws. Assuming the issue is a state law that in some way restricts gun ownership/use can the juror still nullify?

        Comment by Nelson | August 27, 2015 | Reply

        • Article I, Sec. 8, clause 16, US Constitution, is a restriction on States’ gun control laws. The “Militia” is the able-bodied armed male citizens. In 1792, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 which required all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18-45 to buy a rifle, ammo, etc. and report to their local Militia Unit for training. So any state laws which disarmed such male citizens would be unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 16. I discuss the Militia Act of 1792 here:

          In addition, you must check your State Constitution. It may well say, as many do, that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and the State.

          It’s been a while since I read the Connecticut State Constitution, but that’s about what it says. Accordingly, a recent pretended Connecticut State law which pretended to make it a felony to possess firearms which were not registered, is unconstitutional as in violation of the STATE Constitution.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2015 | Reply

  8. Dear PH
    It appears at least one (of your readers?) has taken legal nullification to heart! Any thoughts?

    Comment by paradigmrw | August 27, 2015 | Reply

    • The fellow passing out the pamphlets is right, of course. Don’t know if I have the honor of claiming him as a student. There is an excellent website, the Fully Informed Jury Association, which may have earned that honor.
      I began as a criminal defense trial atty. Judges won’t let defense counsel tell the jury about their ancient right to judge the law as well as the facts in a criminal case. To the contrary, Judges require Jurors to swear that they will apply the Law AS THE JUDGE EXPLAINS IT TO THEM.
      Being alive now in America is like watching a beloved child dying a horrible death. The stupidity, ignorance, and MALICE I see all around me from AMERICANS is overwhelming.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2015 | Reply

    • Judges who “Instruct” a Jury to “apply the Law as the Judge explains it to them” have no right to, even at that point to be on a Jury, as they have been attempted to be tampered with, and they can then, and should simply disregard the Judge and the D.A. and quite literally resign from the Jury Pool on the spot, and make an Open public declaration of why they have done so. “We the Jury are resigning from the Jury Pool as the Court has attempted to tamper with our verdict as we have been instructed unlawfully to apply the law as instructed by the Judge and this to a man and a woman we reserve the right to recuse our selves from the Jury Pool as we cannot claim we are unbiased after being so instructed by the Judge.

      And here’s the trick, IT MUST BE DONE ON THE RECORD, and then a mistrial can and should rightly be declared, and not by the JUDGE who has already tainted him self and he/she has to be recused as well, it has to be declared on the record by the Jury Forman that the Judge is now recused for attempting to tamper with the Jury. Then watch all HELL break loose, the waves of such actions by an informed Jury will be felt for a long time to come. If this were done even once, it would show the way to take back our Courts once and for all.

      Comment by Eric R. | September 1, 2015 | Reply

      • Ummmm, I’m a former criminal defense attorney. What you suggest is not only a BAD idea; it wouldn’t work.
        Defense Counsel would prefer that such jurors as you describe KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT, and go into the Jury Room and NULLIFY the unconstitutional criminal statute, or the unfair treatment of Defendant, etc., by finding Defendant “NOT GUILTY”.

        Jurors don’t have the power to declare “mistrials”! That is the province of the Judge. Jurors also don’t have to power to recuse a Judge. That power rests with the Courts.

        Our Problem is that no one has bothered to learn our Two Founding Documents. And as a People, we have collapsed morally, spiritually, culturally, intellectually, and in every other way.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | September 1, 2015 | Reply

  9. If one was to reorganize that chart a bit it would probably reveal the structure of a Ponzi Scheme for money laundering……

    Comment by Steven Lee Craig | August 20, 2015 | Reply

    • Such is outside of my areas of expertise….

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2015 | Reply

  10. I believe that Cato was founded and largely funded by the Koch brothers.

    Comment by llotter2013 | August 19, 2015 | Reply

      I looked at that a year or so ago and have a recollection of seeing the Soros name as a funder – can’t find it now and I didn’t make a screen shot. I am extremely suspicious of Cato Institute b/c of Robert A. Levy’s article disparaging the rightful remedy our Framers recommended: Nullification
      The flash drive thingy doesn’t work for me any more – perhaps that is how I found the Soros name as a CATO Funder. Someone else had pointed this out and lo, there it was.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2015 | Reply

    • My dear Blue Tail Gadfly found the link showing Soros funding of Cato Institute:
      Make a screen shot of the article and chart before it too is removed….

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2015 | Reply

  11. How is it that so many people within the Republican Party, such as Mark Levin (who should know better), the CATO Institute and other prominent “Republican” lawyers that this naturalization act or that made only one citizen parent to mean “Natural Born” where Ted Cruz is concerned. BTW I don’t believe Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.

    Comment by Tim | August 19, 2015 | Reply

    • We need to check on who is funding Cato Institute. I read somewhere that George Soros funds them. Judging from its fruits, Cato Institute is not on our side.
      I never believed Mark Levin is on our side – I always saw him as a loudmouth not too bright demogogue out to make money off conservatives as he sells them out.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 19, 2015 | Reply

      • From what I can tell the Cato Institute is very Libertarian. Some of their contributors more so then others. It depends on the issue as to whether most will agree with their position or not. For example, on immigration they favor a very open border policy. I don’t know where they get their funding.

        Comment by David | August 20, 2015 | Reply

      • Mark Levin is betraying us by going along with clearly unconstitutional support for the notion that Ted Cruz is Natural Born via his mother being an American Citizens. Which on the face is crazy, since Cruz’s father was Cuban, which makes Ted a Cuban citizen at birth as well as Canadian and American…a trifecta of citizenship in my view…how one gets to Natural Born with that is baffling. Even my friend Trevor Loudon has bought into the Ted Cruz is eligible nonsense. But as I’ve come to understand Constitutional America is long gone, elections don’t truly matter anymore…the elite have already selected our next “President” we just haven’t been told who “won” yet.

        Comment by Tim | August 20, 2015 | Reply

        • Yes, I also do not believe that Mark Levin is on our side. When you look at his “fruits”, and ignore his honeyed words, that is obvious. I posted something about the status of the Mother on my FaceBook page here:

          If you are not on Face Book, I’ll be posting it on my website soon.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2015 | Reply


      Tim, the chart at the link is what shows Soros funding of Cato Institute. I looked into Soros funding a while ago when I saw that Robert A. Levy of Cato wrote a subversive article. There is no excuse for a lawyer to write the crap Levy wrote unless he is a subversive.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2015 | Reply

  12. Recently a baker in Colorado was found to have discriminated against a gay couple because he refused to bake a cake for them on religious grounds. Just wondering, why have a thirteenth amendment if the govt can force someone into involuntary servitude?

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | August 14, 2015 | Reply

    • By its own terms, the 13th Amendment applies to restrict both the federal government and the State governments. But whichever government it was which found that the baker discriminated against the homosexuals – it wasn’t the 13th amendt they violated since – we presume that the baker would get paid for making the cake.
      If the federal gov’t found the baker guilty of discrimination, then the federal government usurped powers not delegated. Our Constitution does not delegate to the federal government power to force bakers to bake for anyone!

      But depending on how the State Constitution is written, a State gov’t might have such power. State Constitutions generally delegate unlimited powers to the State government – restricted only by the declaration of rights in the Constitution. So perhaps that permits people to exercise religious freedom, freedom of association, etc.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 14, 2015 | Reply

  13. Some thoughts while you ponder PH, wouldn’t such a Law would have to read like

    “the English language, as used in the Constitution of the United States, shall be the Official language of the United States of America, insofar as the laws promulgated by its Legislature and disseminated through its various Institutions, departments, agencies and its communications between the various States.

    The 10th Amendment shall govern each States internal determinations on this subject.”

    Comment by Steve Craig | August 10, 2015 | Reply

    • Cutting off welfare benefits to illegals, massive deportations of illegals, and protecting our borders would solve the language problem.
      The illegals are the problem – not their language. So deport the illegals! And don’t let any more in. And stop luring them in with welfare benefits.

      As a Principle, we would would not want a clause in a federal act saying the 10th amendment governs the States’ internal determinations – b/c that looks as if federal permission is being given to the States.

      The reality is the opposite: The feds may lawfully do ONLY what the States – in the Constitution – gave the feds permission to do.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 11, 2015 | Reply

      • Article 1 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.

        ” … states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited …”

        As I read and re-read this “Limited Powers Clause” and consider the “expiration date” , I have trouble reconciling the fact that the Congress would seemingly acquiring the POWER to LIMIT the “migration and importation” AFTER 1808, but still see NO POWER to REQUIRE acceptance of “migration or importation” of persons that the Congress selects for the States after 1808.

        Various Immigration & Naturalization Acts, (1940 for one), required basic English language skills as part of the naturalization process for many years.

        “Liberal policies” on immigration retrospectively seemed appropriate as the territories of the Northwest, Western and Southern Territories opened up but a point arrives where STABILITY of the “indigenous population”, (State Citizens), must be allowed for or the viability of the State is never proven.

        All if this is vastly complicated when the parts of the COTUS that were meant to remain STATIC are made Dynamic and visa versa.

        NULLIFICATION, if there is need of any Amendments, is an Amendment worth advancing, if for no other purpose than to EXPLAIN IT and HOW IT works under the COTUS.

        Comment by Steve Craig | August 11, 2015 | Reply

        • I don’t understand some of what you said.

          Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1, US Constitution, does delegates to Congress the power, after 1808, to control immigration. Congress did a reasonably good job of controlling immigration up until 1964 or so when wrong turn Teddy got his Immigration Reform Act thru Congress.

          Before 1964, we admitted people who didn’t speak English, BUT in small enough numbers that they would be forced, in order to survive, to learn English and to assimilate into OUR culture. and that worked fine.

          Some of my own ancestors came here in 1718 not speaking English, but Scots Gaelic and/or Scots Dialect – THEY LEARNED ENGLISH AND ASSIMILATED INTO THE COLONIAL AMERICAN CULTURE. And their descendants fought for the Patriots in the American Revolution.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 11, 2015 | Reply

      • Since ‘welfare’ benefits, aka redistribution, are not constitutional in any event, ending them for everybody would be a essential first step to restoring freedom for all citizens.

        Comment by llotter2013 | August 11, 2015 | Reply

  14. Would it be constitutional for the federal government to declare English to be the official language of America and that all documents, including ballots, should be in English only?

    Comment by llotter2013 | August 10, 2015 | Reply

    • Interesting! Let me mull it over.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 10, 2015 | Reply

      • possibly a constitutional amendment would be required. Would it be a good thing to do, in your opinion?

        Comment by llotter2013 | August 11, 2015 | Reply

    • Two observations:

      1. Our Framers never imagined that Americans would commit suicide as we have done. That we would become so weak-minded that we could be manipulated into believing that all other cultures are equal to our culture and that the best country is a multi-cultural country.

      TO THE CONTRARY, they believe our strength & power was that we were a people
      descended from the same ancestors;
      speaking the same language;
      professing the same religion;
      attached to the same principles of government; and
      very similar in their manners and customs.

      John Jay, first Chief Justice of the US supreme Court, said the above in Federalist No. 2, 5th para.

      It was wrong turn Teddy, in his Immigration and Reform Act of 1965 or so, who opened the floodgates to 3rd world immigration. Kennedy and his ilk convinced Americans that it was “wrong” to prefer our culture to other cultures.

      2. I think there is authority under Article I, Sec. 4, clause 1, US Constitution, for Congress to make a law requiring that ONLY ENGLISH be on the ballots for elections to federal office. I discuss that clause here:

      under the subheading: The Dishonest “Elections Clause” Argument.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 11, 2015 | Reply

  15. Hi PH, hope this finds you well. My question; is S.1598 “the First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA), a good or bad idea? “The First Amendment Defense Act reiterates the protections the Founding Fathers adopted in the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1791”

    “FADA would prevent the federal government from discriminating against individuals, organizations, and small business owners who affirm marriage as between a man and a woman. FADA would prohibit the federal government from penalizing individuals, in federal employment, tax treatment, and the provision of programs, loans, contracts, and grants, because of their personal, moral or religious beliefs regarding natural marriage”{%22search%22%3A[%22\%22s1598\%22%22]}

    I think I know what you are going to say, but the federal courts already sees our rights as privileges now

    Comment by Spense | July 28, 2015 | Reply

    • Spense, the link didn’t work. I’ll check it later so that I can read the bill.

      What the first amendment does is say, “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…” That’s what it means. The only way to defend the first amendment is to nullify ANY act of any branch of the federal government which pretends to dictate to us on any of the 5 topics listed in the amendment.

      It is true that the federal courts see our God-given rights as privileges – but the solution is NEVER to accept their perversions of the Constitution. The solution is nullification of unconstitutional acts of the federal government.

      As a People, we must man-up PDQ.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 28, 2015 | Reply

      • You gave me the answer I was expecting, as a whole we are such an immoral people and I fear it won’t work. I understand we should NEVER accept their perversions of the Constitution, but I am at a lost as to how to fix a corrupt people. The next great awakening better be right around the corner, or we are doomed. Ignorance and avarice reigns in America! I think this link will work….

        John Adams was prophetic when he said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        Comment by Spense | July 28, 2015 | Reply

        • I read the summary only. Not the Bill itself. No time.

          1. It is the pernicious poison I expect from Sen. Mike Lee (R – Utah): it eviscerates the first amendment. It institutionalizes the status quo where the federal government IGNORES the TOTAL BAN on its meddling in the areas of speech and religion, to carve out a narrowly defined exception where the feds can’t take specified actions against those who have a religious or moral objection to homosexual marriage or to sex outside of marriage.

          2. It affirms the existence of a host of unconstitutional federal acts and benefits programs. Under the Constitution, the feds have no lawful authority to be involved in dispensing “federal grants”, “loans”, “licenses”, “certifications”, etc.; or in dispensing “federal benefits programs”.

          Sen Mike Lee was one of the first of the RINOS to push for the balanced budget amendment. He either is ignorant of the existing constitutional restriction on Congress’ spending, or he rejects that existing constitutional standard.

          Mike Lee, Mark Levin’s “liberty amendments”, and their ilk want to draw the line where it now is: accept the status quo and say, “but you can’t go any further”.
          I say, let’s enforce the Constitution of 1787: dismantle unconstitutional federal programs and return the federal government back to its mere handful of enumerated powers.

          Yes, corrupt people is the cause of our problems. Lazy, envious, prone to blame-shifting, and wanting to live at other peoples’ expense. And they don’t think! Look at how many people complain about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913; yet get federal checks made possible ONLY by the credit system made possible by the federal reserve system. If the federal government couldn’t give John $100. unless it directly took $100. from the pockets of others – it would have been impossible for the federal government to grow to its current size with so many people getting handouts. It was the federal reserve system which provided the unlimited source of credit to give $100. to John w/o taking it from others. The feds simply “borrowed” the $100. into existence… $18,000 trillion debt plus a hundred or so trillion in unfunded liabilities.

          But as a People we came to believe we have a right to get paid for not working (pensions), and we wanted others to be forced to pay our living and medical expenses….

          I don’t see signs of a widespread national repentance. But still, we must do what we are called to do. We are not to hold back for the reason that we don’t see the point in doing what we have been called to do.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2015 | Reply

  16. “Litigation is something altogether different. It has little to do with the Constitution.”

    Aye there’s the rub, given that the question I have in mind that causes me grief requires a Declaratory Judgement from the SCOTUS on an issue and question that has NEVER been presented to the SCOTUS.

    And it seems that it is NOT in the interest of the Political Elites to visit the ACTUAL intent of the COTUS on the subject and according to Justice Thomas “We’re evading that question”.

    Let me ask your opinion; … if a person who occupies the Office of the POTUS is later found not to have been “eligible” in the 1st instant is the time and acts preformed while the Office having been in a State of Usurpation legal under the Constitution, i.e., does the de facto officer doctrine apply to the elective Office of the Executive…???

    Comment by slcraignbc | July 27, 2015 | Reply

    • Hummm, “declaratory judgments”. You would need to read and fully understand the federal rules of civil procedure to find out about those. Then you would need to go to the SCOTUS website and read and fully understand their rules of procedure. Odds are you wouldn’t understand the rules because you lack the background in civil litigation. I’m telling you this b/c people waste an enormous amount of time reading stuff written by people who don’t know what they are talking about and thinking that they themselves are becoming knowledgeable in litigation. Whereas in reality, their heads are being filled with misinformation; and they are not doing what they need to be doing: reading and learning our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The citizens’ DUTY is to read and know those two documents like the back of his hand.
      But they all want to be litigation experts! THAT takes a very long time. And doesn’t help the country one bit.

      The way to get rid of obama’s executive orders is to ignore them – nullify them. Every act of Congress he signed was an Act of Congress – obama was just going along with Congress. There is no mystery here.

      The supreme court acted correctly in not reviewing the cases where plaintiffs sought a finding – from the federal courts – that obama is not a “natural born citizen”. The federal courts have no power to remove a sitting power from office. None. Zero.

      Who has the power to remove a sitting president from office on the grounds that he is ineligible? Only Congress – via impeachment, trial, conviction, and removal.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 27, 2015 | Reply

  17. PH; You replied; … ” … And you have a long way to go before you get into the remedies of the “extraordinary writs” – most of those writing on quo warranto and mandamus don’t know what they are talking about. Honest to God, litigation – like heart surgery – is not for amateurs. …”

    …. and I am trying to square that STATE of AFFAIRS with this part of the 1st Amendment; (truncated and assembled to pertinent part); … * … Congress shall make no law … or abridging the … right … to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ”

    Should’nt there be an express lane foe WE common folk ….???

    Comment by slcraignbc | July 27, 2015 | Reply

    • The Constitution is one thing. Our Framers expected The People to know it and enforce it with their votes.

      Litigation is something altogether different. It has little to do with the Constitution. It is about substantive law and complex rules of procedure. It is not for amateurs. Just as amateurs can’t perform well in any skilled trade or profession.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 27, 2015 | Reply

  18. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    Can you list the sole powers given to the Federal Government by our Constitution?
    I’d like to share them with my family and friends.

    Comment by Donna Roesch | July 25, 2015 | Reply

  19. How did you find the evidence that the required number of states did not ratify? Is it contact each state that was a state at that time and thru public records request find the answer? How did you determine that it was not ratified? I am not quick to negate your knowledge. Only; prove it. In Oregon Article VII amended is published with the constitution, as voted on by the people Nov.8, 1910. However, not one county has a recorded vote and the state does not either. The government of Oregon enforces this bogus law. 105 years of criminal activity. I have given Notice of Petition for Redress on this with the A.G. July 29 at 9:00am, her office. To address several criminal actions by our Oregon government.

    Comment by ron | July 23, 2015 | Reply

    • The “missing 13th amendment” isn’t part of our Constitution. Thus, it wasn’t ratified by the requisite number of States.
      However, if YOU assert that it was ratified, but due to some wicked conspiracy it got buried; the burden of proof shifts to you to prove ratification and the conspiracy. But as someone who is an expert in litigation with a high win record, I’m sure you know all about burden of proof.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 23, 2015 | Reply

      • Now, I understand you’re “unfortunately” qualifier.

        I’m sorry I even ask – publically/

        Comment by Diamondback | July 24, 2015 | Reply

        • Correction: “Sadly” v “unfortunately.”

          Comment by Diamondback | July 24, 2015 | Reply

          • tee hee!

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 24, 2015


    Down with “leaders”; Long live the good servants … !!!

    Comment by slcraignbc | July 23, 2015 | Reply

  21. Yes, people have what they have voted for but they have merely followed their leaders which have large been lawyers holding those positions. Leave it to a lawyer to make evil seem like good.

    Comment by llotter2013 | July 23, 2015 | Reply

    • I suggest that only the unthinking can be fooled by the likes of Mark Levin, Michael Ferris, Rob Natelson, Mark Meckler, Teddy Kennedy, the Clintons, obama, etc. etc. Politicians were not supposed to be “leaders” – they were supposed to be “servants”. WE wanted “leaders” so that we wouldn’t have to think for ourselves and take responsibility for our lives. We wanted “leaders” to handle it for us. Don’t put this on the lawyers – we have the government THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR. The People are guilty. To blame the lawyers is like blaming a gun for the islamic terrorist attack on our military recruiters in Chattanooga.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 23, 2015 | Reply

      • Where’s that thumbs up thingy?

        And I’m no big fan of lawyers in general as I’ve already indicated.

        But Publius is correct in that the people are responsible for voting in or out their “government.”

        The average amerikan today has no idea regarding the fundamentals of human liberty and how the US Constitution and DoI, BoRs etc. represented a “5000 Year Leap” for mankind. And don’t try to educate them either. They’ve not the time for such unimportant things as their own liberty much less that of their posterity.

        Ok, nuff rantin’.

        Comment by Diamondback | July 23, 2015 | Reply

  22. Saddly you deflect and neglect to answer or identify a previous answer. The point is was there a 13th and it got canncelled? Another 13 and then a bogus 14. You know it too.

    Comment by ron | July 22, 2015 | Reply

    • read my answer. You must have missed these parts of my answer:

      “I answered this question somewhere a little while ago – don’t remember where –”

      Some of the States may have ratified such an amendment and published it in their STATE Codes; but the requisite number of States never ratified it.

      Don’t be so eager to find fault that you miss what is right there in black and white.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 22, 2015 | Reply

      • If you were to remember where you answered the question, I would be interested still in reading it.


        Comment by Diamondback | July 26, 2015 | Reply

        • My earlier answer was a longer version of what I said in the later answer: Some of the States may have ratified such an amendment and published it in their State Code Books. Seeing it published in a STATE’s code book could lead non-lawyers who jump to conclusions without sufficient facts to believe that the amendment was ratified by the requisite 3/4 of the States instead of only by a few individual States.

          There is a moral component to this: Americans love scapegoats – and they want to blame-shift the responsibility for our collapse. So let’s blame the lawyers. Or those who “buried” the alleged fact of ratification by 3/4 of the States.

          Others want to blame “international Jewish Bankers” for our problems. But the truth is that the Federal Reserve system was NECESSARY to provide the unlimited credit needed to finance the welfare nanny state Americans clamored for. So Americans of today who bitch about the federal reserve system – and get a check from the federal government – haven’t thought through the relationship between THEIR precious federal benefits and how their beloved benefits are going to be funded. See? It all comes down to our own moral collapse. You can’t have your cake and eat it up. If Americans hadn’t demanded a national nanny state, we could have stuck with the original fiscal system set up in the Constitution.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 26, 2015 | Reply

  23. Hello Publius:

    Have you ever heard of the “missing original 13th Amendment”?

    Supposedly there was a 13th Amendment which purported to disallow any Bar Attorney to hold any official office which was supposedly ratified but never added to the ratified Amendments by the Congress. Supposedly several states have evidence in their archives of this Amendment’s ratification at the state level.

    I’ve often believed we have too many lawyers serving in public office to the detriment of liberty

    Thanks a billion.

    Comment by Diamondback | July 21, 2015 | Reply

    • Yes, sadly, I have heard about it. I answered this question somewhere a little while ago – don’t remember where – it comes up over & over. Here’s a short version of my earlier answers:
      Rubbish! Many of our Framers were lawyers (John Jay, Alex Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc.).
      Some of the States may have ratified such an amendment and published it in their STATE Codes; but the requisite number of States never ratified it.
      You don’t think federal judges should be lawyers?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2015 | Reply

      • I generally do not care for the legal profession! I have found them mostly to lack good moral character – especially Federal Judges.

        No offense to you personally. Note I used “generally” and “mostly.”

        I don’t believe you have to be a “lawyer” or “attorney” to read and understand law nor to be fair and equitable.

        As far as judges being the “Guardians of the people’s liberty”, they’ve failed miserably.


        Thanks for the response and best wishes as always.

        Comment by Diamondback | July 22, 2015 | Reply

        • That isn’t because they are lawyers – that is how people are – most people lack good moral character.
          The People have the governments they voted for. This isn’t the fault of the lawyers or the judges. The People wanted a welfare state where they had a safety net. They wanted social security and medicare. They didn’t want to make the effort to learn our two short Founding Documents. They elected politicians to handle all this for them; and they elected politicians on the basis of their personality. The People got what they voted for.
          So we should blame the lawyers? Our tendency to refuse to accept responsibility and to blame-shift is one of the many symptoms of our moral decline.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 22, 2015 | Reply

          • You’re correct.

            I’ve just had really bad experiences with lying, cheating, stealing lawyers in the past and can’t erase those experiences from my consciousness I guess.

            I do agree the people overall are an ignorant, apathetic, cowardly bunch of whiners and brats.

            I hold them in almost as much contempt as I do our Congress/government in general.

            Frankly, on one level, I believe they deserve what they’re about to get.

            Look at how many of the morons out there are cheering on Trump.


            I normally might say “God Bless Us” but I’m convinced he’s abandoned us already.

            Take care and best wishes.

            Comment by Diamondback | July 23, 2015

          • God judges countries in time and history – we are going to pay dearly. God hasn’t abandoned us – He is letting us have what we asked for and voted for, over & over again, for over 100 years.

            Trump? A few days ago, Dr. Alan Keyes published an excellent paper showing how Trump’s current talk contradicts a long past of contributing big bucks to Clintons, Harry Reid, etc.; supporting abortion, etc. I posted it on my FB page: One person commented that he “likes” Trump and that’s enough. Another says Trump has “changed”. People who ought to know better are being deceived by Trump. They are desperate and will try anything EXCEPT the one thing which needs to be done: WE THE PEOPLE need to repent of our sins, turn to God, and learn our two Founding Documents. We need to renounce all unconstitutional spending and take responsibility for our own lives and family.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 23, 2015

  24. To go one further than DW’s question, since the USSC has decided that words don’t have meaning anymore, why doesn’t the senate take up the “international agreement” and just refer to it as a treaty in all it’s recordings and vote it down?

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | July 20, 2015 | Reply

  25. Dear Ms. Huldah,

    I have questions prompted by the Islamic Iran nuclear agreement.

    I read your page about treaties as well as Question 13 about foreign aid. I also searched “TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE”, , and I read and was completely confused by the Case Zablocki Act

    My questions are:

    What is the authorising source of any kind of the process I’ve been hearing about in the news, where congress may pass a resolution to disapprove the Islamic Iran agreement that is subject to presidential veto that would require ⅔ of congress to disapprove? I can’t find it or I missed it.

    Other than the secrecy issue and the ⅔ of those present impediment of the treaty method, what’s the difference between, say, 1) an enumerated powers Article 2 mail delivery treaty with Spain and 2) an enumerated powers agreement where congress authorises by legislation the U.S. Postmaster to interface with foreign postmasters, so the president develops an agreement with Spain about what ports will be used or whatever?

    Who is authorised to decide if an agreement is really not an agreement but actually an Article 2 treaty?

    If you want me to refer any of these questions to someone else, can you please suggest to whom?

    Thank you! I really admire you for helping us so much!

    Comment by DW | July 16, 2015 | Reply

    • Clarification: The reference I made to your writing about foreign aid was unclear. I meant Question 13 of page 7 of ask questions where you wrote, “Re FOREIGN AID: Yes, it is not an enumerated power. However, there is not always a definite line. E.g., Iran … “

      Comment by DW | July 17, 2015 | Reply

    • Answer to first question: H.R.1191 – Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (b)(4) & (b)(5)

      Comment by DW | July 18, 2015 | Reply

    • Remember how Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 11 authorizes only CONGRESS to declare war? Well, our Presidents wanted to usurp this power for themselves, so we haven’t been in a “war” since WWII. Since then, we have been involved only in United Nations’ “police actions” or a President’s decision to intervene militarily here or there in a foreign Country. In effect, we permit the United Nations and/or the President to decide where and when we take military action. Totally unconstitutional. A total usurpation of power by the UN and the executive branch – and our cowardly Congress went along with it. Korea, Viet Nam, etc., etc., all unconstitutional – all lawless usurpations of power and cowardice by Congress. So Congress passed the “War Powers Act” which pretends to legalize the President’s usurpations of the power to declare war.

      Our Constitution permits “Treaties” with foreign countries. A Treaty is negotiated by the executive branch and then confirmed or rejected by the Senate (Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 2). The Senate is to act as a “check” on the executive branch with respect to dealings with foreign countries. But Presidents wanted to usurp this treaty making power for themselves. So they called “treaties” by another name, “international agreements”, in order to circumvent the “check” of the Senate. And the cowards in Congress went along with it. A total usurpation of power – totally unconstitutional – total cowardice by Congress.

      So then, in an attempt to give legitimacy to their cowardice, Congress passed the law you referenced, which pretends to permit the President to make these “international agreements”.

      Our Constitution is so easy to understand: Who declares War is easy. All circumventions of Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 11 are unconstitutional. How treaties are made is easy. All circumventions of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 2 are unconstitutional.

      Checks and balances are built into our Constitution! Congress has the ultimate check on the President and everything he does. If the President attempts, in the judgment of Congress, to circumvent the powers of Congress with respect to declaring war or making treaties, the remedy is clear: Congress must impeach such usurpers and remove them from office.

      WE WILL NEVER FIX OUR COUNTRY unless and until we come to see that the people we elect to office MUST obey our Constitution. As long as we elect people with the idea that they will go and do what THEY think is a good idea, we will continue to decline.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2015 | Reply

  26. Dear Ms. Huldah,

    What is your view of the legality and authority of the 14th amendment?

    I have been reading it was neither legally proposed nor ratified. Is that true?

    If it was imposed contrary to Constitutional means, do we need to accept it as a war measure or terms of surrender?

    If it is illegal, and we shouldn’t accept it, what can we do about it?

    Thank you!

    Comment by DW | July 10, 2015 | Reply

    • Oh DW, If I could be granted 3 wishes, one of them would be that those who obsess about what THEY claim to be the cause of all our problems, whether it’s the “emergency powers act”, or “how the US government is a corporation”, the gold fringe on the flags, or the 14th Amendment – would lay aside their silly theories and learn what the Declaration of Independence and Constitution actually say.
      Don’t waste your time on these silly theories.
      The problem is that no one reads our two Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. If they read them, knew what they said, and enforced them with their votes – instead of spending all their time on their silly theories – perhaps we could fix our Country.

      Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was needed to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to protect them from southern black codes which denied them basic rights.

      It was the supreme Court’s perversions of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment which has caused many of our problems. Yes, perversions. I show how they did it and what they did here:

      There is a remedy for judicial usurpations and perversions: impeachment, trial, conviction, and removal from office. But We The People continue to elect spineless & ignorant people to office who won’t impeach lawless federal judges. See my primer on impeachment: You’ll find it on my home page under the Category “Impeachment”.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 10, 2015 | Reply

      • You didn’t answer DW’s question, dear PH. He didn’t claim the 14th Amendment is the cause of all our problems or say that it was or wasn’t properly ratified. He admitted to no “theory.” He simply inquired as to your opinion whether it had been properly ratified. Your answer that he should read the Declaration and the Constitution is not a response to the question, Was the Constitution properly amended by the putative adoption of the 14th Amendment?

        The issue of whether an amendment is properly adopted or not is not a minor issue.

        You clearly state that it the problem with the 14th is that the Court perverted it. Thus, it was sufficient to say that, yes, you believe it was properly adopted but is being misinterpreted for clearly a law cannot be perverted that does not exist. The rest of your answer was a straightforward statement of how to deal with judicial usurpations respecting valid law.

        Comment by Richard Ong | July 10, 2015 | Reply

        • I am all too familiar with the irrelevant arguments which have been spouted [for some time] by others which prompted DW’s questions. I trust DW understands the focus ought to be elsewhere than on whether the 14th was properly ratified. Obsessing on that is a waste of time.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 10, 2015 | Reply

  27. Hello and good evening to you. I’m in a bit of a pickle. I’m arguing against the article v convention and have been asked to quote or prove where it says that the convention has supreme powers and there is no limiting the scope. Thank You for all your work.

    Comment by Patrick Black | July 9, 2015 | Reply

    • Hi, Patrick,
      The plenary power of the delegates to a Convention is based on our fundamental assumptions, expressed in our Declaration of Independence and elsewhere that:
      * The People are the original source of all political power [as opposed to the European Model where power originates with the King or the State]; and
      * Our adoption of the Republican Model where the Sovereign People act thru representatives.

      This paper explains it:

      Although the lawyers who support a convention publicly claim that conventions can be controlled to a pre-set agenda – they know that delegates to a convention can not be controlled; and that once the Delegates are seated, they have the power to do whatever they want – including scrapping our Constitution of 1787 and imposing a new one with a new mode of ratification.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 9, 2015 | Reply

  28. BoB M. :
    Precisely! I was talking about this very same problem recently with Edward Hazel, Managing Deputy District Attorney for the county of Monterey, California. And, if we were not litigating all the special laws, rules and regulations being churned out by the unconstitutional organizations of the executive branch of the federal government, we could reduce the number of federal judges by 70 or 80%. $$$$

    Comment by paradigmrw | July 7, 2015 | Reply

  29. And then there is the matter of the bloated federal Judiciary. There are no less than 864 federal judges. You can walk down to your local corner and get yourself a sympathetic federal judge. Voila! It’s a federal case!

    Comment by bobmontgomery | July 7, 2015 | Reply

    • …. and insult to injury the Federal Immigration Appeals Court Judges(deportation court) are organizing and petitioning to be UNIONIZED …………

      Comment by slcraignbc | July 7, 2015 | Reply

      • SLC, surely you are pulling our legs! Judges unionizing??

        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

    • Bob,
      1. You are totally right about the bloated federal judiciary – if they were restricted to their enumerated powers – the list of cases they are authorized by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1 to hear – their caseload would be cut WAY DOWN:
      There is much federal litigation under unconstitutional federal statutes such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.
      The federal litigation over “discovered” “rights” within Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment is all unconstitutional.
      All of the federal litigation involving State action respecting the 1st – 8th amendments is unconstitutional.

      2. Michael Farris says the answer to SCOTUS overreaching is…… a convention so we can get an amendment adding at least 41 new judges to the supreme Court! Yes, Farris says each State should have one judge on the supreme court. Presumably, he thinks the District of Columbia should also have a supreme court judge. Puerto Rico?

      Bob you posted a good question a while ago here which I have not had time to answer. My apologies.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

      • No worries. You are busy. Did you remember to breathe? :-)

        Comment by bobmontgomery | July 7, 2015 | Reply

  30. PH:

    Not really a question, but comments, please. Thanks.

    Life in an Oligarchy
    By Robert C. Waterbury

    Americans are generally optimistic, hardworking and friendly. Yet hardly a week goes by without new reports of mobs, protests, riots, and street confrontations in America’s cities. Beneath a surface of inter-personal civility, there lurks a growing cauldron of angers, frustrations, and fears that erupt periodically to disturb domestic tranquility.
    And the causes are as varied as the circumstances. There are racial differences, economic woes, family problems, but it often comes down to a lack of freedom—a feeling of oppression and lack of options. People feel that they are being forced to obey, conform, adhere to government regulations, pay new and higher taxes, change their actions in ways newly deemed politically correct.
    Nearly every new piece of legislation sets up new rules, regulations, and procedures that must be enforced. That requires a proliferation of agencies, agents and staff to administer the new requirements. Thus, the number of new overseers that direct, control, and frustrate our lives explodes.
    The US Constitution specifically enumerates fewer than 20 powers of the federal government. It further states that ALL other powers are retained either by the states or the individuals themselves. So what happened? In a zeal to legislate and execute order and safety into all things pertaining to our lives, we end up with bloated bureaucracies that trample our freedoms, confine our activities, and make us confused, irritable and rebellious.
    The Executive Branch of the government, for example, has 16 major departments or bureaus for which it is responsible. And yet every one of these 16 departments has anywhere from 30 to 100 agencies or administrations reporting to it. Furthermore, there are an additional 300 to 400 civil agencies that work with the Executive Branch, yet are not officially part of it. All total, we are talking about several thousand organizations grinding out millions of new rules and regulations often without inter-agency coordination.
    The best part of this is the people who run and administer all of these agencies are unelected and unaccountable to the tax payers and voters of this country! And, from recent Congressional investigations and hearings, we have come to understand that their staff people are generally civil service grade employees who cannot be fired even by their top bosses! And have you ever heard of one of these agencies being dismantled? Imagine no Fannie Mae, CPSC, DEA, FEMA, BATF, EPA, or thousands of other unconstitutional creations of our federal government. Yes, that’s right. At least 80% of these alphabet-soup agencies are unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
    Thus, we end up with millions of government minions drafting new rules and regulations to control every move of our lives and We the People have absolutely no oversight or control over any of it? This is what an oligarchy is all about—a government of the rich, powerful, and influential. It gradually strangles us by suspending or rescinding our constitutional rights and freedoms. The Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution began over much less than this!
    As we head into a new silly season of presidential primaries, how about asking the candidates where they stand on restoring our constitutional freedoms? Where do they stand on reforming our government and beginning to eliminate unconstitutional government agencies? No, we don’t need to redraft a new constitution or hold a constitutional convention. We just need to abide by the original! We need to redress the wrongs that have multiplied over many decades of government overreach.
    Ask our candidates to do and spend LESS—not More. Help restore the equal rights and freedoms our United States Constitution guarantees.

    Comment by paradigmrw | July 7, 2015 | Reply

    • It’s wonderful – and every word TRUE.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

      • PH: Thank you very much for your review and vote of confidence. If I can’t find an online placement, I will simply post it to Facebook and encourage others to pass it on. I used to write and publish Op-Ed pieces in major newspapers such as Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, etc. Now that I have adopted a more conservative viewpoint, however, nobody wants to even consider publication due to my (extreme?) position. However, I refuse to compromise. Bob W.

        Comment by paradigmrw | July 7, 2015 | Reply

        • Oh, I know! Establishment “conservative” papers refuse to publish my work. They want fluff. The don’t want anything which stands on …. [prepare yourself] PRINCIPLES!
          But there are papers out there who will publish you….!

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

    • Mr. R C Waterbury;
      Summed up quite nicely. I would add regarding last sentence, “Asking our candidates to do and spend less”. Before we can request/insist they do and spend less, returning to the stated objectives in the Constitution, we as a people must be willing to do more for ourselves instead of whining to government to “fix it for us”.

      Comment by N S | July 7, 2015 | Reply

      • NS,

        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

    • […] are you on Twitter? These government regs and agencies irk me to no end. Just need to pass your message along to the minions.

      Comment by diane (@dkozmom) | July 7, 2015 | Reply

  31. Funny how it’s perfectly reasonable to look at the intent of the ACA but NOT reasonable to look at the intent of the CONSTITUTION itself.

    Comment by Catherine | July 6, 2015 | Reply

    • Very good, Catherine!! Thank you!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2015 | Reply

  32. PH,

    Not a question as such, rather an interest in your take on this letter from G.W. to J.J.:

    GENERAL WASHINGTON TO JAY.↩Mount Vernon, 18th May, 1786.

    Dear Sir:

    In due course of post I have been honoured with your favours of the 2d and 16th of March, since which I have been a good deal engaged, and pretty much from home.

    I coincide perfectly in sentiment with you, my dear sir, that there are errors in our national government which call for correction,—loudly I will add: but I shall find myself happily mistaken if the remedies are at hand. We are certainly in a delicate situation; but my fear is, that the people are not yet sufficiently misled to retract from error! To be plainer, I think there is more wickedness than ignorance mixed with our councils.

    Under this impression, I scarcely know what opinion to entertain of a general Convention.

    That it is necessary to revise and amend the articles of confederation, I entertain no doubt; but what may be the consequences of such an attempt is doubtful.

    Yet something must be done, or the fabric must fall; it certainly is tottering!

    Ignorance and design are difficult to combat. Out of these proceed illiberality, improper jealousies, and a train of evils which oftentimes in republican governments must be sorely felt before they can be removed. The former, that is ignorance, being a fit soil for the latter to work in, tools are employed which a generous mind would disdain to use, and which nothing but time and their own puerile or wicked productions can show the inefficacy and dangerous tendency of.

    I think often of our situation, and view it with concern. From the high ground on which we stood, from the plain path which invited our footsteps, to be so fallen! so lost! is really mortifying.

    But virtue, I fear, has in a great degree taken its departure from our land, and the want of disposition to do justice is the source of the national embarrassments; for under whatever guise or colourings are given to them, this I apprehend is the origin of the evils we now feel, and probably shall labour under for some time yet.

    With respectful compliments to Mrs. Jay, and sentiments of sincere friendship, I am, dear sir,
    Your most obedient and humble servant,

    Geo. Washington.

    (My paragraph structure, as original penned document not viewed)

    Two (2) thoughts leap out and grip me and draw me into the inner thoughts of G.W.:

    ” … To be plainer, I think there is more wickedness than ignorance mixed with our councils. ..”

    and; …

    ” … But virtue, I fear, has in a great degree taken its departure from our land, …”

    This being much the state of the state of affairs we endure today, and lacking a G.W. or J.J. to guide the ignorant and those with evil intentions through the processes of convention I am left to cling to the product produced by those men of virtue as being sufficient foe the millenniums to come.


    Comment by slcraignbc | July 6, 2015 | Reply

    • What a man! Wonderful letter. Thank you!
      Washington, like some others, saw that the Articles of Confederation were insufficient. e.g., Congress had no way to raise the money to pay our war debts.

      So it was the next year – by Resolution of February 21, 1787 – that the Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and expressing purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

      So the problem of Ignorance and Wickedness existed then.

      There ARE wise voices today to guide the Ignorant – but they are being 1) Smeared and 2) drowned out by the phonies who are given the platforms and pulpits in the public square. It is very difficult for the wise and virtuous to get a forum to be heard. So it is the phony “conservatives” who are permitted to get public attention. For some reason, Jenny Beth Martin’s name just now popped into my head…..

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2015 | Reply

      • Yes, BUT, unfortunately each time I find a person to admire I find them being swayed by persons who are obviously deceivers in Tri Corner Hats, wolves in sheep’s skin.

        A simple test of one’s fidelity to truth, ugly and godly in perceptions, it to offer this SCOTUS Opinion quote / citation ; …

        ” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted….”

        Then wait for a response before naming the source.

        Comment by slcraignbc | July 6, 2015 | Reply

        • Don’t be so quick to admire others. Really. Those with political ambitions say what people want to hear. The test is always whether their actions match their words. And when a candidate for office claims he will “tightly embrace the Constitution”, test him on his knowledge of it.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

  33. Re: Lil’ Bobby J, usurper-in-waiting:

    “…Update February 25, 2009

    Amar and Raj Jindal are the Punjabi-born parents of Governor Bobby Jindal. Raj Jindal’s maiden name was Raj Gupta. According to

    In fact, it was Gupta’s career move that brought the newly married couple to Louisiana.

    Gupta was accepted as a graduate assistant at Louisiana State University when she was pregnant with Bobby. Her husband, who at the time was an assistant professor at a Chandigarh engineering college, was concerned about her moving overseas in her condition. LSU offered her one month of maternity leave if she joined the program, a deal the Jindals agreed was too good to turn down.

    They moved in January 1971. Bobby was born soon after, in Baton Rouge.

    Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that at the time of Bobby Jindal’s birth, his parents were not U.S. citizens. In fact they could not have been U.S. Citizens at the time because citizenship in the United States almost always requires 5 years of residency in the United States before qualifying. It is clear that the Jindal’s were only here for a few months before Bobby Jindal was born. Therefore, if you think both parents must be US Citizens at the time of birth, Bobby Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen and does not qualify under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States. ….”

    I had previously researched and found evidence that it was not until just prior to Bobby J’s lil’ sister was born that the parents finally, and with some reluctance, naturalized as U.S. Citizens………ERGO …

    Comment by slcraignbc | July 2, 2015 | Reply

    • Well then, if those facts alleged are true, then Bobby J is not a natural born citizen.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 2, 2015 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

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

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,015 other followers

%d bloggers like this: