Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!


  1. Dear PH, Thanks for your efforts and have a great Constitution Day!!. One question if I may, with so many supposed pundits out there on the “conservative” side do you regard the work of the CATO Institute and the scholars at George Mason University to be generally trustworthy on most issues? Regards


    Comment by Carlos | September 16, 2022 | Reply

    • i wouldn’t trust the Cato Institute to give me the correct time of day if I were to ask them.
      Always check the funding.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 21, 2022 | Reply

    • Thanks for insight, believe it or not, I was directed to Cato by a general query “Art V COS” and search engine returned – “An Article V Constitutional Convention? Wrong Idea, Wrong Time” JANUARY 12, 2016.- by Walter Olsen. I guess Cato benefits in this instance by virtue of being a stopped watch. Along with PH, then I will stick with Thomas More and JBS, or any trusted recommendation !?.


      Comment by Carlos | September 30, 2022 | Reply

      • Walter Olson is a good man! Has The Thomas More Society spoken on the issue of an Article V convention?


        Comment by Publius Huldah | September 30, 2022 | Reply

        • The Thomas More society was very active in challenging the vote fraud issue in Wiconsin, of course M Gableman did a super job exposing ERIC, WEC, CTCL, Obama Foundation fellow T Epps Johnson, David Becker CEIR, who with Soros money founded ERIC, and CTCL lawyer M Spitzer Rubinstein’s ursupation of the clerks office in Green Bay, a suit was filed by Eric Kaardal of the same organization, they (TMS) now employ Gableman. I do not know that they have an institutioal opinion re. COS, however while I belive Gableman is a patriot I am suspicious of Kaardal who has advocated for a new constitution “The Rebirth Constitution”.
          I guess with any of these groups there is found some good and some bad, when it comes to COS I believe any good must be unwrought with advocacy for a Constitutinal Convention. I was so disappointed for instance to find that one JE, Trumps Council during the election debacle and a self proclaimed Christian is very much stumping for Meckler, and worse her complaint of media bias while also stunningly ignoring the obvious “cons”. For Pete’s sake Meckler’s association with L Lessing that lefty Harvard puke should be enough to give pause, Meckler apparently courted Joan Blades from Soros to his cause, there is a nice photo of them arm in arm floating around, but mums the word! Thanks again and sorry for legnth of this. If I may make one suggestion, these landscape is indeed complex, I have for instance run and rerun your presentation outling the dangers os COS with a notebook handy to more properly review and digest the matter, I am not a lawyer or historian. Is it possible that a text may be created which oulines the material with bullet points for the purpose of concise communication (the dummy’s version) and redistribution? Of course this is no substitute for doing your homework but may help get the message out in the climate of click and paste so prevalent and generate interest for more in depth public debate and research. Thanks!


          Comment by Carlos | September 30, 2022 | Reply

          • We have shattered all of the pro-conventions arguments. I will do as you suggest and write an out line with bullet points and links to the proof. Good suggestion, Carlos!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 30, 2022

  2. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    I hope you have a wonderful holiday weekend. Also, thank you for all you do for us. Can you give us your opinion on our President’s speech that he gave in Philadelphia at Independence Hall? I grew up in Philadelphia in a very patriotic middle class family, and we are all insulted and upset. But it seems there is nothing we can do but to just accept it. Please help and I’ll let my family know your wise truthful words. Thank you so much.
    Donna Roesch


    Comment by donna0804 | September 3, 2022 | Reply

    • I was horrified. Substitute the word, “Jews” for “MAGA Republicans” and it would be a speech Hitler would make. Here’s what the excellent blog, Legal Insurrection, said about that evil speech:

      Are you still in Pennsylvania?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 3, 2022 | Reply

      • Hello Ms. Huldah,
        Thank you for your opinion and the link. It’s sad that there a lot of people who agreed with the President because you could hear cheering and clapping in the audience. I no longer live in Pennsylvania. I relocated to Ohio due to a job transfer. My parents live there and I have a brother, sister and many nieces and nephews who live in Bucks County. I will read your opinion and the link to my parents. Thank you.


        Comment by donna0804 | September 3, 2022 | Reply

        • Actually, Donna, there really weren’t that many people at Biden’s nasty rant.

          I’ve been to Ohio several times to speak to groups; and to Ohio Legislative Committees.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 5, 2022 | Reply

          • Hello Ms. Huldah,
            I did see you in West Chester for the Article V debate. I think it was in April 2015. Can’t believe it was that long ago. Gosh, I’m so glad I went. After hearing you, I couldn’t believe how much I had been fooled by the proponents of the COS leaders. Thank you so much.


            Comment by donna0804 | September 7, 2022

          • Should I put you on my Ohio List – in case I go there again? I testified before an Ohio Senate Committee on May 24 of this year.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 7, 2022

  3. Hi PH, re: Biden forgiving student loan debt. Something just occurred to me, All the student loans are contractual agreements;

    Since no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed by either federal and state governments.

    Would Biden’s executive order be considered ex post facto?? As you know, Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

    In Federalist 44, Madison wrote: 1. “No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex-post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.”

    1828 Webster’s says ex post facto is : after the fact : RETROACTIVELY

    Oh what a tangled web the federal govt weaves when at first they deceive by thinking they were granted the authority to finance student loans. I dug around on the net and found differing definitions for ex post facto, one stated it was just for criminal law and another included relationships. I assume that means contract, etc…. what say you?


    Comment by Spense | August 25, 2022 | Reply

    • Spence,

      The following is a direct quote from one of PH’s papers dealing with ex post facto laws.

      “An ‘ex post facto’ law RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when it was done.

      Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to retroactively criminalize barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.”
      Please see the complete paper here:

      Do you see why forgiveness of debt is not an ex-post-facto law prohibited by our constitution?

      Forgiving debt does not make something criminal which, when committed was not a crime. What it is however, is an election year ploy to garner voter support by bribing immoral and unscrupulous voters who foolishly spent money they don’t have, on an indoctrination they don’t need. That debt doesn’t simply vanish. It must be absorbed somewhere- typically to taxpayers and other borrowers. It’s entirely immoral and equally unconstitutional as lending is not an enumerated power granted to Congress nor the President.



      Comment by Mark | August 27, 2022 | Reply

      • Thanks Mark….


        Comment by Spense | August 28, 2022 | Reply

    • For background information, here’s a short article on student loans written by my friend, Attorney Hal Rounds:

      The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to make student loans! And the Pretended President has no authority to “forgive” loans. So we have an unconstitutional act piled on top of other unconstitutional acts.

      In criminal law, we always used the term, “ex post facto law” as Hamilton used it in Federalist No. 84

      “…the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.

      So the Pretended President’s forgiving of students loans issued by the fed gov’t is not an ex post facto law.

      The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to forgive debts owed to Banks and private lenders.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 28, 2022 | Reply

      • PH, disregard my last comment. My coffee just kicked in. Since it is not an enumerated power the federal govt can’t lawfully enact Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.


        Comment by Spense | August 28, 2022 | Reply

        • ha ha! I don’t write or speak BEFORE my coffee kicks in. Yes, you got it right in your comment just above!


          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 28, 2022 | Reply

  4. Ma’am,

    I was curious what you thought of Lysander Spooner and others who posit that the US Constitution was and is an an enabler of tyranny. They say that, because it gave more power to the Federal gov’t than the Articles of Confederation, that it enabled the long term acquisition of power by the Feds. Others say that, thanks to the 16th and 17th Amendments; thanks to Lincoln’s imperial conduct; that there no longer remained adequate checks on Federal power. Prior to the Civil War, it was possible for a state to secede from the union; afterwards, thanks to Lincoln, that became a pipe dream. You can see a condensed version of the arguments against the COTUS here:

    I can see both sides of this issue. One one hand, the Articles of Confederation left the Federal gov’t sufficiently weak to prevent it from acquiring power; the AoC restrained the Federal gov’t. On the other hand, I can see how the COTUS, in its original form, provided the states sufficient power to restrain the Feds; thanks to the Civil War and the passage of the 16 and 17A, much more power was given to the Federal gov’t. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you!


    Comment by MarkyMark | August 13, 2022 | Reply

    • Lysander Spooner is not one of the Great Minds of our Country. Always compare what people write WITH the actual text of the Constitution. When readers fail to do this, and rely instead on their own understanding, they can be deceived by writers who are fools or charlatans or demagogues.

      1. Here are the powers delegated to the federal gov’t over the Country at Large:

      That’s all the federal gov’t has constitutional authority over.

      2. Beware of adopting the terminology of the subversives. With our Constitution, the States & The People delegated certain enumerated powers to the federal gov’t. The States & The People retained all other powers. The Constitution doesn’t “give” rights to States or to the People. Rights come from God alone; and all powers not delegated by the States & The People to the fed gov’t were retained by the States and The People.

      The War for Southern Secession didn’t give any powers to the fed gov’t. The federal gov’t usurped powers over the States and the People. Which is not surprising, since some of the Union Generals were Communists:

      3. Three of the Greatest Minds of our Framing Era advised nullification of unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t:

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 13, 2022 | Reply

  5. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    I wanted to ask about the drone strike that killed Ayman al-Zawahri. A lot of us are programmed to cheer when a terrorist is killed. But I just heard a different angle on the situation from from Judge Andrew Napolitano. He said that al-Zawahri could have been arrested. As a side note, I’m not sure of your professional opinion of Judge Napolitano and that would be appreciated to let me know. But back to the drone strike. Judge Napolitano said in a nutshell, that it’s like a President has a loaded gun in his desk drawer and can use it to kill at any time and that Congress won’t interfere with the Presidents decision. He also went on to say that other countries can also use drone strikes to kill us. As an example, Judge Napolitano said that he could be sitting at a cafe and be killed by a drone strike if someone from another country didn’t like something he said. We’ve been killing terrorist for a long time. Is this not following the constitution?


    Comment by Donna Roesch | August 3, 2022 | Reply

    • My professional opinion of him is that he is stupid (or evil) and a jerk. If the allegations of his hitting on younger males is true [as alleged in the lawsuit ], then he is a jerk and is contemptible. Young women litigation attorneys have been often “hit on” by older male (and married) trial court judges – and that is very awkward for a young woman litigator who has to try cases before that judge. I don’t know what I would have done if I had been hit on by an older woman judge.

      As to his being stupid: He has been pushing for an Article V Convention from the beginning of this current push [some 10 or more years ago] for an Article V Convention. Anyone who believes that the solution when the federal gov’t, state and local governments, businesses, educational institutions, hospitals, the arts, and all the other institutions in our Country – PLUS THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES – all ignore the Constitution – is to have a Convention to amend the Constitution, is stupid. [I use the term, “stupid” in the same sense as Dietrich Bonhoeffer

      When lawyers push for an Article V Convention on these grounds, then I can only conclude that they are mindless non-thinkers who repeat what they have heard, OR they have an evil intent: A desire for an Article V Convention so that a new Constitution (which ushers in the New World Order) can be imposed on us.

      Re your question as to the President of the US – or anyone else – ordering hits on “terrorists”: I admit that I think it would have been a good thing for “someone” to have assassinated Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc., earlier on in their hellish careers. But I don’t see where anyone in the United States has constitutional – or moral – authority to order such hits on foreigners or on Citizens (and non-citizens) who are in the United States.

      As to “arresting” the person you named: What gives the United States criminal jurisdiction over foreigners who aren’t in the United States and don’t commit their crimes on territories under the lawful jurisdiction of the United States? If a terrorist enters an overseas US Military Base or US Embassy and commits a crime, arguably the US Gov’t would have criminal jurisdiction over them [just as if you go to France and commit a violation of their criminal laws while you are in France, France would have criminal jurisdiction over you.] But if you aren’t in France (or in a French embassy in some other Country), then France has NO criminal jurisdiction over you.

      It’s a problem! We firmly believe the World would be a better place if people like Hitler & Stalin had been killed earlier on – but who has lawful and moral authority to kill them? The people of their own Country would have authority to try them (in a fair trial) and convict them and impose the death penalty; but they would have Jurisdiction over them. The United States has no lawful criminal jurisdiction over such persons as the one whom you named unless he entered a US embassy or an overseas US military base and committed a crime there.

      ALSO, don’t forget: Didn’t the US Department of Justice identify Moms who speak out at School Board meetings against mask mandates, the teaching of critical race theory, and porn in the public schools, as “domestic terrorists”?

      So we must oppose assassinations of “terrorists” – particularly since the federal gov’t is redefining the term to include Patriots, concerned Moms, those who read the US Constitution, Christians, etc. as “terrorists”.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 5, 2022 | Reply

      • PH, our federal govt has become a law breaking organization. Just yesterday, US Senator Tammy Duckworth, told me congress has the authority to define marriage and enact a marriage law just because they feel its needed. Not her exact words, but that’s what she said. She doesn’t believe constitutionally granted authority is needed. Congress, is in my opinion, nothing but organized crime. They violate the law (constitution) at will, without question we are under tyrannical rule. Speaker Pelosi’ trip to Taiwan, bringing proposed abortion and marriage bills to the house floor for votes, all contrary to the US Constitution. Like I said, tyranny….. I weep for the country we are leaving our children. Our children have been so dumbed down most actually believe the federal can lawfully do what “they” think is best for the country.


        Comment by Spense | August 5, 2022 | Reply

        • Americans no longer reason [think and analyze] from First Principles. Instead, they repeat what they have heard. Duckworth was merely repeating what she has heard. I see this all the time. It’s almost universal among Americans of today. They are not willing to study to find out The Truth – they are unaware that such a thing as Objective Truth exists. One can get a law degree, a Ph.D. degree, a Medical Degree, and be totally incapable of independent analysis. That isn’t required. All one has to do is repeat what the Professors tell him. Yes, Americans were conditioned while in the public schools to do this.

          Congress is lawless – in that they all ignore the Constitution. Many of them are traitors. But I wouldn’t equate them with organized crime – there are material differences between the two. And bad analogies can confuse thinking.

          Yes, I think we are witnessing God’s Judgment on America.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 6, 2022 | Reply

          • PH, your point about organized crime is taken, but they are certainly law breakers and function outside constitutional law; I believe willfully so. Considering the large number of lawyers in congress, someone has be able to figure out many of their acts are of a constitution violating tyrannical nature. I think they are centralizing more and more power within the federal govt on purpose; I remember when it was reported that then president Obama told Putin (Russia) the US constitution is about dead, I think they know exactly what they are doing. Their reason has to do with a one world govt. It’s unfortunate members of congress can’t be removed for violating their oath of office to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. I think if a few were “kicked out”, there would be a sudden learning of the US Constitution by congress. Most in congress lust for power and wouldn’t risk being removed. I know what you are going to say; if only the voters would learn the Constitution and vote them out. The problem is exactly what John Adams stated: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He is so right!


            Comment by Spense | August 6, 2022

  6. Art I, Sec 6, cl 2 in essence states that members of Congress shall not hold OTHER civil offices, and no civil officer shall serve in Congress.

    An Ambassador is a “civil officer” appointed by the President, by and with consent of the Senate. (Art II, Sec 2, cl 2)

    The above not withstanding we have the Speaker of the House motorcading through Taiwan as though she were the US President. (Or at least an appointed Ambassador).

    “Our Congressional Delegation’s visit to Taiwan honors America’s unwavering commitment to supporting Taiwan’s vibrant democracy,” Pelosi said upon arriving.

    “America’s solidarity with the 23 million people of Taiwan is more important today than ever, as the world faces a choice between autocracy and democracy.”
    (Epoch Times)

    Correct me if I’m wrong but international diplomacy is, in our constitution, an EXECUTIVE Power. Not a legislative power and CERTAINLY NOT the SPEAKER’s power.

    If I were a member of Congress I would be calling for a vote to expel the Speaker under Art I, Sec 5, cl 2. for flagrant violation of the Constitution in usurping power granted to the Executive branch.

    Did I miss something? Did Biden and Harris pass and Pelosi is now the defacto President?

    Secondly, I find no reference to “congressional delegations” (especially of a diplomatic character) in founding documents and accordingly presume them unconstitutional. Am I in left field here or is this a blatant and absurd usurpation?


    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Mark | August 2, 2022 | Reply

    • Read Article I, Sec. 6, clause 2 carefully without inserting any words into the text.

      Members of Congress are not “civil officers of the United States“. They are the elected representative of their geographical district “back home”. They represent their district, not the United States.

      If my recollection is correct, Congressional trips abroad used to be called “fact-finding” missions. Members of Congress have been getting free trips abroad at public expense for many years. And while such trips are probably usually (if not always) unconstitutional; considering all that is going on in the federal gov’t today, these trips are not our biggest problem.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 3, 2022 | Reply

      • Hi PH, this topic is of interest to me, I’m currently working on a piece which shows congress is little more than organized crime, so I dug a little deeper. At this .gov website I found this, “The Speaker is the political and parliamentary leader of the House. The Constitution mandates the office, but the House and Speakers have defined its contours over time. Some Speakers have aggressively pursued a policy agenda for the House while others have, in the words of Speaker Schuyler Colfax of Indiana, “come to this chair to administer [the] rules, but not as a partisan.” Regardless, the Speaker, who has always been (but is not required to be) a House Member and has the same duties to his or her local constituents like the other 434 Members is at the levers of power. The Speaker is simultaneously the House’s presiding officer, party leader, and the institution’s administrative head, among other duties.


        Comment by Spense | August 3, 2022 | Reply

        • Well, modern constitutionally illiterate & indifferent man has certainly expanded the role of the Speaker of the House! “Party leader”? Yikes. We should have listened to George Washington – I agree with him – a pox on political parties.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 5, 2022 | Reply

      • PH, Art One, Section 6 the last clause states “and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.’ the reference to ” any Office under the United States” means holding a presidentially appointed office, is that correct?


        Comment by Spense | August 3, 2022 | Reply

        • It’s broader that only presidentially appointed offices. It’s any office in the federal gov’t described in Article II, Section 2, clause 2 [and includes those officers appointed by federal judges, or heads of federal departments].


          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 3, 2022 | Reply

      • Yes. I understood that congressional members are not civil officers. I could have worded it better.
        As to it being a low priority; I agree. However I hold that if more of us examined government actions through the lens of constitutionality rather than policy, our country would be in a much better position. The chatter regarding such articles is to argue the policy (regarding Taiwan/China/US relations for example) yet they all miss the fact that the Speaker is for the most part merely an elected representative of her district. Therefore, since she was not elected by the people at large, she has no moral (or legal) authority to speak to dignitaries on our behalf. THAT’S AN EXECUTIVE PREROGATIVE.
        Arguably, this is why the framers stated that the President shall “receive Ambassadors…” and “shall appoint Ambassadors…”. An executive elected by citizens of all 50 states – Not some overindulged narcissist from one lone district.



        Comment by Mark | August 5, 2022 | Reply

        • Also, the judiciary cannot tell the legislature to pass laws. And no branch issues marriage licenses,medical licenses, law licenses or real estate licenses.


          Comment by Bob Montgomery | August 6, 2022 | Reply

          • True! Marriage, Medicine, practicing Law, and selling real estate are all matters reserved to the States or the People. the federal gov’t has NO authority over those issues for the Country at Large.

            Oops! I just now realized (thanks to you) that this is a tricky issue: Today, lawyers must get a licence in order to be allowed to practice law. So if I want to practice in the State Courts of a particular State, I must get a licence for that State and I must be admitted to the State Bar. Traditionally, Bar Associations in States have been private organizations. However, when I was practicing, it was the State Supreme Court alone (a government agency) which had the power to disbar an attorney for misconduct.

            Likewise, if I want to practice in the federal Courts, I must be admitted to the federal Bar for that particular federal court; and it is that federal court which has the power to disbar (from their court) a lawyer.

            So, because of the existence of federal courts [and we have them on 3 different levels: 94 federal district courts; 13 geographical Circuit Courts of Appeal; and 1 Supreme Court]; the Judicial Branch of the federal gov’t has power to prevent specific lawyers from practicing in “their” courts – since they can disbar them for “misconduct”. Not surprisingly, “misconduct” is now being re-defined to include bringing cases the federal judge objects to: e.g., asserting that Obama wasn’t eligible to be president because he isn’t a natural born citizen; lawyers making certain arguments on behalf of tax protesters; asserting that the federal election of 2020 was stolen; etc.

            I DON’T KNOW when governments started requiring licenses for attorneys. The excuse given for requiring them was doubtless that it would protect the public from unqualified lawyers [yeah, right – if so, it failed – there are many incompetent lawyers out there]. But what it actually did was to give state and federal gov’t control over who is permitted to practice in “their” courts and who isn’t.

            I expect that when our Constitution was drafted and ratified, Lawyers were not required to be licensed and didn’t have to be members of a Bar Association in order to be permitted to practice law.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 6, 2022

          • Every time I think about that US District Court Judge who jailed that KYcounty clerk for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, it aggravates me. She violated no KY law and no federal official has jurisdiction over marriage licenses. It doesn’t matterwhat Obergfell said. As far as a civil rights issue, homosexual couples were not a “protected class” at the time. I don’t knowwhether they are now or not, but here again,SCOTUS cannot force
            either the KY legislature or the US Congress to pass a law just because they think it’s a good idea.
            I think… 🙂


            Comment by Bob Montgomery | August 6, 2022

          • Amen!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 7, 2022

          • And further, PH, tell me if it was a fault or a feature that the Constitution endowed the Congress with the power to configure the federal judiciary, outside of the Supreme Court? Why are there 864 federal judges, almost exactly double the membership of the House of Representatives? Is two against one fair? And why there are almost as many federal judges – district, circuit and Supreme – with jurisdiction in the state of Indiana as there are state senators in the legislature (50)? And why the most inferior judge in the whole system, even the most recent, can and often does, it seems like to me, issue an injunction that affects not only the district in which he/she reigns, but across the entire country, or even invades federal executive authority?


            Comment by Bob Montgomery | August 7, 2022

          • 1. Re the question: Why do Article I, Sec. 8, clause 9, and Article III, Sec. 1, US Constitution, grant to Congress the power to create courts subordinate to SCOTUS?

            And here’s the answer: It’s a brilliant illustration of The Principles of “Separation of Powers” and “Checks and Balances”. Congress has the power to create Federal District Courts and US Circuit Courts of Appeal – and Congress has the power to dissolve those “inferior” courts.

            2. Congress has made so many unconstitutional laws – i.e., laws outside the scope of powers granted to Congress in our Constitution – that more & more federal judges are needed to handle the Litigation! and the more unconstitutional laws Congress passes, the more federal judges are needed to handle the litigation. The way to reduce the number of federal judges is for Congress to repeal the unconstitutional laws they have passed. e.g, here’s just one example: Bob Dole was so proud of his totally unconstitutional federal “Americans with Disabilities Act” – but how much litigation has that unconstitutional Act generated in the federal Courts?

            3. I don’t think there is any particular mystical or symbolic, etc., significance if there are about twice as many federal judges as members of Congress; etc. And remember, Congress created all those judicial positions.

            4. Temporary rulings by Federal District Court Judges affect the entire Country because Americans do not understand the constitutional limits of federal judicial power. Trump was one of the worst Presidents ever respecting his total failure to understand that the federal courts have no power to control his office.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2022

  7. Donna,
    Not sure of Senate rules or who called the hearings but they were scheduled to “ consider the impact” of the Dobbs case. Most likely the Dems instituted the hearings.
    What’s going on is politics. The left is trying to turn the Dobbs opinion into political capital in hopes of motivating voter turn out in November midterms.

    “Biden and top Democrats have been urging people to turn out to vote in November to elect pro-abortion rights candidates and have been warning that Republicans intend to enact a federal abortion ban.” (NBC News)

    Since the House passed two bills on 7/15 in an attempt to defy SCOTUS and codify the right to murder unborn humans, they needed to create the illusion of public support (because they forgot we were a Constitutional Republic) by holding hearings and listening to idiots like UC Berkeley’s K. Bridges.

    It’s all politics.

    Constitutionally speaking, Abortion (or any other murder), marriage, etc. are the legislative province of the State legislatures and the US Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to legislate either way on the matter. There is but ONE Constitution and ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS are bound to obey it IRRESPECTIVE of their party affiliations. Thus for Dems to claim the Republicans in Congress want to enact a nationwide ban is nonsense as it would be JUST AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL as Roe v Wade was. Unless and until the citizens amend the constitution granting power over murder to the federal government, ANY federal law regarding abortion is unconstitutional.
    So yes. The Senate is wasting time and money hearing and debating issues which they have absolutely no constitutional power to affect. But that’s nothing new. They also hold hearings on anabolic steroid use in pro sports, the environmental affects of fracking fossil fuels, etc. none of which are found in the enumerated powers of Art 1,Sec 8.


    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Mark | July 20, 2022 | Reply

    • Exception for federal enclaves. Oops.


      Comment by Mark | July 20, 2022 | Reply

      • Mark- By your comment, were you mocking or semi-serious? IMHO, the operators of, or directors of, or even overseers of, federal enclaves, have no more right to dedicate time, money or effort or statement of purpose to those issues not delegated to them by the Constitution than does SCOTUS. And I read that in what Scalito wrote.
        Therefore, Biden or Secdef, or anybody else stating in an official capacity that they are considering setting up abortion clinics on federal property is a non-starter. Congress is the overseer of not only executive actions (keyword: executive) but also those of Department and Agency heads and their underlings. Nothing authorizes the executive branch to act on issues that the Congress itself cannot act on and the judiciary cannot rule on, with the exeption of acts of war, either by us or against us, and even then,those powers are limited and finite.
        I think that during the Obama years, Congress could have gone into the DOL and ripped down those posters the Secretary put up about unions, communists and whatever. I think Cruz was right to cast aside the barricade so veterans could get into national sites during the budget impasse. I think they could fire the mayor of Washington,DC and order the National Park service to go in there and wipe off the graffiti on the streets of our nations capital.
        Except of course, if tens and tens of millions of citizens burn down courthouses and retail establishments, threaten Supreme Court justices,etc, demanding abortion clinics be set up on military bases. then it would obviously be a case of democracyi n actionor,in the words of that one guy “A democracy, madam, if you can keep it.” (did I get that right?)


        Comment by Bob Montgomery | July 21, 2022 | Reply

        • Oops! I meant Alito.


          Comment by Bob Montgomery | July 21, 2022 | Reply

        • No.

          Congress has “exclusive Legislation” over the federal enclaves (Article I, Sec. 8, next to last clause). In those federal enclaves, Congress is not restricted by the enumerated powers. Though it is restricted in its governance of those geographical areas, by certain of the amendments. E.g., Congress may exercise general “police powers” in the federal enclaves; but the First Amendment shows that Congress may not, e.g., prohibit the free exercise of religion in those areas.

          This article shows what “police powers” are:

          Congress clearly has constitutional authority to ban abortion in the federal enclaves, military bases, etc. – and it is Article I, Sec. 8, next to last clause (and for military bases also Article I, Sec. 8, clause 14) which grants this power to Congress:

          and I can’t say that Congress doesn’t also have constitutional authority to permit abortion in the federal enclaves and in the military hospitals. Do study this:

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2022 | Reply

  8. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    OK, so the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. Why then, is there hearings in the Senate about it now? Are our Senators wasting time and money questioning the Law Professor, Khiara Bridges? I think a lot of us have our heads spinning as the Law Professor kept referring to pregnancy as “people with the capacity for pregnancies.” What is going on in the Senate?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Donna Roesch | July 20, 2022 | Reply

    • The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) was right to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s about time! This flyer explains why:

      As the flyer shows, no one in the federal gov’t has constitutional authority (over the Country at Large) over abortion. Congress doesn’t have authority – just as SCOTUS has no authority.

      So for Congress to act on this issue is just as unconstitutional as for SCOTUS to act on this issue.

      Likewise, “Marriage” is not an enumerated power delegated to the fed gov’t. That’s why Obergefell is unconstitutional:

      “Homosexual sodomy” is also not an enumerated power. So SCOTUS’ decidion in Lawrence v. Texas is also unconstitutional for the same reason.

      There is no right to marriage, homosexual sodomy, or abortion in the US Constitution. And they aren’t enumerated powers. Thus, the federal gov’t has no constitutional authority (over the Country at Large) over these issues.

      So why is Congress pretending to act on this issue by legalizing abortion? Because Congress is filled with evil people who are also idiots.

      And that Law Professor you are referring to is a mindless group-thinking moron. As she proves, one can get a Ph.D. or a law degree and be totally incapable of rational independent thinking.

      We are in a state of free-fall collapse.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 20, 2022 | Reply

  9. PH, to your knowledge, has Congress ever granted the Chief Executive “emergency authority” to deny States the right to drill on either State or federal properties? And in the off-chance they did grant such authority, would that be in any way constitutional in either instance? My sense is that States must carefully review the history of federal lands in their respective State territories to determine 1) if the State legislature approved those real estate transfers to the feds, and 2) if they did, and those lands have not been used for the specific purposes cited in Art I Sec 8, that the legislature vote to immediately reassert its sovereignty over any ill-begotten or inappropriately held fed lands. (Yes, I know States have become vassals and are virtually spineless but, in theory anyway, where would my proposal fail the Constitutional test?)


    Comment by jim delaney | July 5, 2022 | Reply

    • I don’t know whether Congress has ever purported to grant such “emergency authority” to the President.

      Neither Congress nor the President have constitutional authority to tell States when drilling may or may not be conducted on lands subject to the jurisdiction of the State.

      I haven’t researched this; but if you do, you may find that when the federal gov’t carved out parcels of land within the Territories to the various western States; the federal gov’t reserved for themselves, certain parts within the lands ceded to the States. I expect that most of the lands are being used for unconstitutional purposes. The fed gov’t has no constitutional authority to own national forests, national parks, grazing lands, etc.

      The Constitution grants specific enumerated powers to Congress; and specific enumerated powers to the President. None of those powers include a power to declare “emergencies” and to act according to however Congress or the President deem best in response to the “emergency”. Congress & the President have no lawful authority to act outside of the enumerated powers.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2022 | Reply

  10. PH,
    Am I looking a gift horse in the mouth?
    I finally finished reading the Dobbs decision. While I could comment immensely on various points raised in both the decision and the dissent I will instead focus on one point; that is, it seems the opinion hinges on whether or not there exists a constitutional protection of the “right”(so called) to abort another life. (We’ve known of this absurdity for some time)
    Yes, the decision of the court correctly placed the issue back where it belongs; with the States and their respective citizens. The basis for deciding to do the right thing however seems to be on the wrong ( or at least weaker) premise.
    Unless I missed something, the abandonment of Roe pivots on..
    (1) whether such right actually present in the Constitution (specifically the 14th Am);


    (2) whether the court usurped legislative authority in making policy rather than merely adjudicating the facts and interpreting the law.

    To state in clear and unequivocal language the two simple facts that DO ACTUALLY nullify Roe would have been preferable; namely, (1) that neither healthcare, medical treatment, nor reproductive choices are an enumerated power of ANY BRANCH of the federal government, And is accordingly reserved to the States or the People; and (2) that Roe does not meet the Article 3 “particularly specified” cases which federal courts may here.

    Instead, the basis of an alleged right, and whether the Roe court exercised “policy making” authority reserved to legislatures perpetuates confusion regarding the principal of federalism, and permits debate by dissenters which further divide the electorate. It also shines a laser rather than a floodlight on court decisions generally.

    Is my preference too bold? Is there any logical reason why stating the simple truth (as you do in every paper) would lead to some detrimental national calamity?

    Federal Court opinions annoy me as they tend to be based on fluid “precedent” rather than the firm fixed Constitutional text and the original source documents of our founding. Every finding seems to be tied to some arbitrary “test” that the court is somehow bound to indulge.

    Here’s the only “test” that matters…what does the Constitution actually say and what did the Federalists/founders say on the matter?

    Anyway, I’m glad the atrocity of Roe is part of the ash heap. I only wish it rested upon a sturdier foundation. But perhaps I’m just being too critical or expecting too much.



    Comment by Mark | June 29, 2022 | Reply

    • I haven’t had time to read the Opinion – just the syllabus. And I am overjoyed. The ramifications are huge. The same principles apply to the SCOTUS decisions which held that homosexual sodomy is a “liberty right” under Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt (and thus state statutes criminalizing such practices are unconstitutional); and that the “equal protection” clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt prohibits States from restricting marriage to one male & one female. Homosexuality & marriage are also issues reserved to the States and the People to decide!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2022 | Reply

      • Well. I didn’t read the briefs submitted so based on the opinion I assume the issues of Art 3 jurisdiction or section 8 enumerated powers were not raised. Perhaps SCOTUS isn’t prepared for such arguments.

        I too am joyous at the decision to overturn Roe and all that it implicates.

        To hear the murderous progressives whine in the sound bites one would conclude that SCOTUS banned abortion nationwide. It would be humorous we’re it not so pitiful and disgusting.



        Comment by Mark | June 29, 2022 | Reply

  11. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    Thank you so much for all you do for us. I read your paper on abortion and Roe v. Wade. So to sum up what you wrote, is it true then, that the SCOTUS did not even have the authority to take the case Roe v. Wade in 1973? If that is true, was it ever challenged before now as being unconstitutional? Now that Roe v. Wade was overturned and is now up to the citizens of each state as it should have been all along, why is there so much uproar that the ruling is an assault on women. Also, what will happen if Biden declares a public health emergency? Do you think the situation will get a lot worse?


    Comment by Donna Roesch | June 26, 2022 | Reply

    • Right! SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear the Roe v. Wade case during 1973. But now, with the SCOTUS decision released THIS LAST FRIDAY, SCOTUS agreed it had no jurisdiction over abortion! And SCOTUS said this issue is for the States and The People to decide! I don’t know of any challenges before mine that SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear Roe v. Wade. Americans don’t think out of the box. They believe what they are told – no matter how absurd what they are told is.

      Why are the pro-abortion forces so furious about Roe v. Wade being overturned and abortion being returned to the States and the People for decision? I BELIEVE [this is not here a legal analysis, but a statement of belief] that the pro-abortion people are demonically possessed. Women can use birth control or take their babies to Safe Havens. So there is a clear alternative to abortion. That they are demanding that their babies BE KILLED is demonic.

      I don’t know what the pretended president’s handlers will have him do. What will happen if the pretended president calls a “public health” emergency depends on the American People. Let us hope that they will laugh and jeer at whatever that senile diaper pooping usurper does. Oh yes, I think things will get much worse here. I expect the grid will go down and people will die of thirst and starvation – by the Millions. THIS IS WHAT THE GLOBALIST ELITE WANT. TO CLEAN THE EARTH OF THE EXTRA PEOPLE.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2022 | Reply

  12. Hello PH :

    In your previous works, you’ve repeatedly referred to God’s laws and the Christian values that the Western world used to derive from the Bible. Those were traditional Western values upon which the Western civilization, including America, was built.

    Obviously, we agree that many of America’s woes today are consequences of the abandonment of those traditional Western values.

    And to a large degree, there’s one highly-ranking foreign official who also agrees with that analysis. And strangely enough, that man is… a Chinese Communist !

    His name is Wang Huning, and he spent six months as a foreign student in the US in the late 1980s.

    His analysis? The US today is not based on any fundamental values at all. None! Individual liberties protected by the US Constitution have been taken to the extreme, to mean the liberty to do as any individual wants to.

    Under this view, society has no power to restrain immoral or asocial behavior, because the individual’s egoistic desires trump everything else.

    And so, Americans, free from any moral constraints, engage in immoral behaviors that are now leading to societal breakdown.

    Most notorious, according to Wang, is the breakdown of the family. In the West, as in China, for millennia, the traditional “cell” of society has been the family. Now, in the US, it’s the individual. It’s “ME! ME! ME! I want! I want! I want!”


    Comment by Zbigniew Mazurak | June 26, 2022 | Reply

    • 1. Yes. Here is an illustration of the radical change in mindset of the American People:

      Justice has been personified as a beautiful woman wearing a blindfold and carrying a pair of scales in one hand and a sword in the other. The blindfold signified that she doesn’t know or care whether you are highborn or lowborn, male or female, rich or poor [this is a Biblical requirement for Judges to follow]. The scales signify that she weighs the Facts. The sword illustrates her power to issue Judgment.

      But in 1970, one of my law professors said that Judges decide on the result they want and then write an opinion to justify it.

      And that IS what they have been doing (for the most part).

      But this wicked behavior isn’t restricted to Judges. Americans as a People decide on the result they want; and then say whatever they need to say to get their way. The old belief that one must do whatever Right and Duty dictate is long gone. Now, Americans consult their feelings – or whims – or personal agenda and do and say whatever advances their personal agenda.

      I have been writing on this moral problem for years – starting with

      But “doing what you feel like doing” and “not doing what you don’t feel like doing” is an alluring poison; and it seems impossible to get people who are immersed in this principle of living and acting to repent. “Principles” and “standards” get in their way! They want what they want and they like what they like and “right” and “wrong” aren’t even considered. And they don’t want to hear about it.

      2. But the Chinese Communist you named doesn’t understand the US Constitution: Our Constitution was designed to create a federal gov’t which, by means of exercising the enumerated powers delegated to it, would be enabled to secure (in the ways appropriate to the national government of a federation), the RIGHTS God gave us. See:

      It was the corrupt US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) which re-defined the word, “Liberty”, which appears in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, to mean that you can do whatever you feel like doing – and you have a “constitutional right” to do it if 5 Justices on SCOTUS agree:

      All that’s required, under this view, is for SCOTUS to agree that you have a “liberty right” to do what you are doing. E.g., if 5 of them agree you have a “liberty right” to have sex with little children, then pedophilia becomes a “constitutional right”!

      For the true meaning of of the phrase within Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”, see this

      Even after the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery, southern States were still denying to the newly freed slaves the Rights GOD gave them. So (Section 1) of the 14th Amendment was ratified to provide constitutional authority for the federal civil rights act of 1866 which required the States to respect in the newly freed slaves the same rights to “life, liberty & property” which white people enjoyed.

      3. Oh yes, the domestic enemies of the American People deliberately destroyed the Family: This is a long story, and I haven’t yet written on it. I’ll just give 3 illustrations:

      I remember when Black people in America had actual traditional families, with the Husband and Father present in the home and caring for his Family. But along came the federal program of “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” and gave money to mothers who had no husband living in the home. That seems to have been responsible for the breakup of Black families. This has had devastating consequences for children raised in homes with NO FATHER; and it has had devastating consequences for our Country as a whole.

      In the early 1930s, the US federal gov’t, with its “social security” program, relieved adult children of the biblical responsibility of caring for their aging parents. Money was transferred from workers (in the form of “social security taxes”) to the federal gov’t in exchange for the fed gov’t becoming the provider for old people.

      Abortion was another family-destroying weapon. Americans have been killing their own children – their own family members – because they don’t want to be bothered by them!

      The World desperately needs young people like you to learn these Principles. Perhaps you can turn on the lights for Poland!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2022 | Reply

  13. HI, PH. Hope you’re able to look into this. As you know, Build Back Better toady, AG Garland, and woke Gen. Austin are intending to circumvent the R v W decision, meaning, I gather, that they will permit abortions in federal facilities throughout the country. They also note that such is not unlawful and that such does not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act. I read the Act and it’s a tad murky for the likes of me. What’ s your analysis. Would this action be unlawful? Many thanks!


    Comment by jim delaney | June 25, 2022 | Reply

    • As I show in this paper, the federal gov’t has jurisdiction over abortion ONLY in the federal enclaves, military bases and military hospitals. So yes, the federal gov’t has constitutional authority to permit abortions in those specific geographical areas.

      But outside of the federal enclaves, the power over abortion is reserved to the States and The People.

      I laid all this out in this paper:

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 25, 2022 | Reply

  14. PH, Art 1 Sec 6… it says “..They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”…

    What does “breach of the peace” mean? can’t seem to find anything on this.
    Thanks for your knowledge and understanding.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Blake | June 18, 2022 | Reply

    • I don’t really know what the meaning of “breach of the peace” was when the Constitution was drafted & ratified. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary doesn’t define it. Neither do the Federalist Papers. So I then consulted Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. [All American lawyers of our Founding Era knew Blackstone’s.]

      Blackstone’s addresses breach of the peace in Book 4, ch. 11 But much of what Blackstone writes there doesn’t seem applicable to Article I, Sec. 6, cl. 1, US Constitution.

      IF I had time and access to legal research (either computer research or an actual physical law library) I’d search the US Code and see whether, during the early years of our Republic under our Constitution of 1787, Congress drafted any implementing legislation specifically defining “breach of the peace”.

      There is much on line setting forth modern conceptions of what “breach of the peace is”, but I don’t trust any of that to reflect the understanding of the term when our Constitution was drafted & ratified.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 22, 2022 | Reply

      • Law of Nations refers to “breach of the peace treaty”. Seems to make some sense in the context of the use?


        Comment by Robert Sioa | June 22, 2022 | Reply

  15. How would you respond to the position that unconstitutional laws should not be knowingly and willfully obeyed by a citizen. (My words, by the way.) I believe Hamilton in #78 asserted that judicial opinions and, I believe, legislative acts which do not clearly comport with the original meaning of the Constitution are “not law”, the implication being that it should not be obeyed by a citizen,, the “final arbiter” and, I gather, ignored by the States as “no law at all”. What am I missing? It seems to me that to successfully disobey or non-comply with an unconstitutional law or judicial opinion–or local ordinance– would require extraordinary courage and steadfastness. So to the risk-averse (LOL), which I hope is never me, to successfully disobey–or not comply–would require I be part of an organized resistance, since individual resistance would be futile. So, one would need to obey the unjust law until one could successfully bring suit against the perpetrators, something which could be costly in money and time to a lonely patriotic citizen. Myself, I would rather go to jail than to comply. And I don’t think a young law school student grad as my public defender, un sympathetic to my cause and not grounded in First Principles, would provide an effective defense of my position. So, I accept jail or comply? (Aside from Hamilton, how do other founders/framers address this?) Thanks!!!!


    Comment by jim delaney | June 18, 2022 | Reply

    • any laws therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid…. one problem… we are unarmed and they arent


      Comment by hippie49 | June 20, 2022 | Reply

      • I expect some people are unarmed. Perhaps they are relying on the kindness of strangers.


        Comment by Publius Huldah | June 22, 2022 | Reply

        • I truly believe this country has lost it’s courage, character and honor. There is hardly any manly-men anymore. I’m 75 year and will do what I have to if needed. There are some men here in easrern Tennessee where I live. Surprisely isn’t it.


          Comment by james brecht | June 22, 2022 | Reply

          • Hey! we are almost neighbors! Eastern TN is BEAUTIFUL! I’m in Middle TN.

            About the scarcity of manly men: I’ve been wondering about this for a long time. Did BIG FOOD put something in their manufactured “foods” to unman the men? Don’t eat their “food”! Grow your own or buy organic or local. Don’t take their drugs! Encourage your children to get their children out of the public schools.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 23, 2022

    • Jim,

      You are not alone in your sentiment and concern. Lone patriots are easily bullied by tyrants. Look at the January 6th prisoners for example. I am however reminded of two instances regarding such a stand against tyranny and injustice; first the pledge of “…lives, fortunes and sacred honor.” By our founders to lay the foundation for this once “shining city on a hill” and secondly, Rosa Parks who, as you know refused to comply with unjust segregation laws (though that was a state law she was protesting)

      In federalist #46 (7th para) Madison describes the remedies our founders envisioned and fully expected …

      “On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” (Federalist 46, 7th para)

      It was understood that within the principle of “Federalism” , the STATES would intercede on behalf of their particular constituents and thwart federal attempts of usurpation. Thus lone patriots would be afforded protection from overzealous federal agents.(most of which should not even exist under our constitution) This is not the only passage in the Federalist Papers to state this fact and such sentiment is clearly manifested in the 10th Am.

      Unfortunately, the states have willingly permitted bribery and acquiescence to undermine their sovereignty and roll of interceding on our behalf.
      You are correct that We the People are the ultimate arbiters of Constitutional governance. Political power flows FROM God- to the people- to the states- and finally the Feds. They were INTENTIONALLY placed at the bottom by our founders for good reason and sound experience. The dilemma of course is that if the People are the ultimate arbiters, then it is incumbent upon us/them to UNDERSTAND our system of government as our founders understood it. But morality and sound doctrine are no longer tolerable to those tasked with this responsibility.

      What we suffer is a moral/spiritual deficit. The political consequences of this are merely symptoms. Until we cure this cancer we are merely treating (or suffering) symptoms.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Mark | June 21, 2022 | Reply

    • There are thousands of thousands of unconstitutional federal statutes, executive agency “rules”, presidential executive orders, and SCOTUS opinions in existence.

      1. BUT only a relatively few affect any one particular American. So that is one’s field of operations. So I’ll raise some hypothetical questions to consider in one’s own mind: What should one do if any branch of the federal gov’t orders one to take the JAB? Orders one to turn in any arms one may have? Orders one to answer surveys where the federal gov’t asks questions they have no constitutional authority to ask and even orders one to provide personal information about other people?

      What if an agent of the federal gov’t orders one to shoot an innocent person in the head and says “If you don’t do it, I’ll shoot you”?

      In such situations one must decide whether to obey God or obey man.

      2. Consider non-violent non-participation in unconstitutional and illegal acts [if it’s unconstitutional, it’s illegal): The Truth of the matter is that Americans sold their retained powers when they signed up for federal programs: Federal farm programs. Federal school loans. Americans LOVE social security & Medicare. The money was taken out of our paychecks without our consent – but we didn’t have to depend on these unconstitutional programs for our survival, and we don’t have to sign up for the “benefits”. In fact, one of the reasons for the rabid depopulation agenda being pushed by western governments all over the World is to get rid of the old people because there is no money to pay their pensions, medical bills, and social security. So the obvious “solution” is to kill them off. Which is what the JAB and planned forced incarcerations of those who don’t take the JAB is partially about.

      3. “With federal funds come federal strings”. Yep! That’s how the fed gov’t was able to take over education, hospitals, farms, etc., etc., etc.

      4. Filing a lawsuit and asking a federal judge if one must comply with an unconstitutional federal dictate is not something our Framers ever dreamed that an AMERICAN would do.

      5. My very first paper on nullification is my favorite: James Madison told us in no uncertain terms what to do when the fed gov’t usurps powers. Don’t cooperate! Obstruct! Impede! A great many unconstitutional federal dictates require the cooperation of the States, or local gov’ts, or The People, to be be effective. So don’t cooperate!

      If the fed gov’t decides they are going to round up and imprison Jews, or Christians, or “vaccine deniers”, etc.; and knocks on your door wanting your help to locate their targets, why would one cooperate with the gov’t agents?

      Think to yourself about which of the federal dictates affect you personally. Focus on those and one won’t feel so overwhelmed.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 22, 2022 | Reply

      • Joshua 24:16-“But as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord”

        Matthew 10:28- “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

        Recently a family member suggested that I file for Social Security benefits. After my vehemently adamant rebuke, I am confident the topic is summarily quashed.

        “Unconstitutional, illegal”, and I would add “immoral”.

        No jab!! EVER!!
        And any parent who willingly allows their child/infant to be jabbed ought to be brought up on abuse charges.

        From my cold dead hands!!! (Guess I’m one of those ‘kindness of strangers’ folks upon which others will be relying.)


        P.S. I “like” many posts on this thread but my browser doesn’t support the “like” function. Just wanted y’all to know I’m not heartless. 😊


        Comment by Mark | June 22, 2022 | Reply

        • So now I know two people who didn’t sign up for their unconstitutional & immoral ss & medicare programs. The Bible is clear that children are to care for their aging parents. But the federal gov’t relieved adult children of this Biblicaly imposed duty; thus furthering the decline of The Family. Now, old people die in nursing homes. The Family is so fractured that old people must now sell their homes when they are no longer able to care for their property, and move into “assisted living” etc.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 23, 2022 | Reply

  16. PH, perhaps it’s time for one of your fine papers tp explain the difference between a republic and a democracy. What say you? My thought is most of these people blowing wind on the media have no clue that there is a difference… or they do, and they are purposefully trying to deceive those less educated. Thanks for all you do.


    Comment by Blake | June 11, 2022 | Reply

  17. Article 1. Section. 5. “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,…”

    What does it mean “shall be the judge of…”???? Excuse my ignorance. Just trying to understand the wording here and what it truly means. Thanks for your insight.


    Comment by Blake | June 6, 2022 | Reply

    • It’s an excellent question! There’s not much on it in the Federalist Papers – see next to last para in Federalist No. 53

      Each House of Congress has the sole authority to make the ruling on whether its Members are qualified to hold office and whether their election was honest. Federal and State courts have no jurisdiction! Only the Houses of Congress can make the ruling. And that includes qualifications to hold office. It appears, e.g., that fake conservative Ted Cruz doesn’t meet the qualifications, set forth at Article I, Sec. 3, clause 3, US Constitution, to be a US Senator. Apparently, he didn’t even renounce his Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014 yet no one in the US Senate cared. Same goes for some of those moronic women in the House! Are they even US Citizens?

      I have to say this: Ted Cruz supporters sent me more hate mail and hate comments over my 12 minute video showing why neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are qualified to be US President (they are not “natural born citizens”), than I have ever received on any other issue. Is Ted Cruz a US Citizen now? I haven’t seen any citizenship papers for him.

      “Dr. Oz” (Pennsylvania) isn’t qualified to be a US Senator, yet neither Trump (who endorsed Oz) or Trump’s adoring followers, give a hoot. Article I, Sec. 3, clause 3, US Constitution, sets forth the qualifications to be a United States Senator: among other things, one must have been for 9 years a Citizen of the US. A Citizen of the United States doesn’t vote in Turkish elections. There appears to be no dispute that Oz voted in the 2018 Turkish election.

      So your question goes right to the heart of the rot in our Country. Most Americans don’t care what the Constitution says. They want what they want and the Constitution be *amned.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2022 | Reply

      • As you may have guessed, but there are tons of authoritative-sounding sources online which opine that dual citizens can legally serve in Congress. I has always believed that dual loyalties at any level of the federal government was of great concern to our founders–esp. at the Pres and VP levels. If Oz officially foreswears his Turkish citizenship before he is sworn in, would that resolve the issue? Or does nine Years a US Citizen mean ONLY US citizenship?


        Comment by jim delaney | June 6, 2022 | Reply

        • Our Constitution, the Federalist Papers, etc., etc., etc., don’t recognize the bastard concept of “dual citizenship”. They weren’t globalists.

          “Dual citizenship” is a modern invention and is connected with the destruction of the sovereignty of nations. It’s subversive and is designed to admit foreigners into the governments within the United States.

          Of course the 9 years at Article I, Sec. 3, clause 3 means only US Citizenship! Our Framers didn’t recognize the absurdity of “dual citizenship”!

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2022 | Reply

          • As always PH you are 100% correct. That is how I understand it as well. It has something to do with citizenship following the fathers citizenship, (I think it was Vittel-{can’t remember} writing that). And you are correct in that Americans are spoiled, and want what they want, except accountability for their actions.
            Thank you for your crystal clear explanations.


            Comment by NS | June 7, 2022

        • On which document will Oz swear fealty to US Constitution?
          Koran should be disallowed.


          Comment by Robert Sioa | June 7, 2022 | Reply

          • It is sickening that Trump endorsed OZ. Oh, who knows what the Senate will permit Oz to take the Oath on? I’m telling you, it’s better for the Democrat to win than Oz. Oz isn’t even eligible!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2022

  18. Would you please clarify this for me. Somewhere I read that the Supreme Court, at some point during the 1920’s or 30’s, opined that Art I Sec 8 Cl 1 which was orginally intended by the framers to be prefatory, constitutes one of the enumerated powers in that section. To me, however, there are 17 enumerated powers–not 18, the latter number which would erroneously include CL 1. What’s your take on this? Not earth-shattering, but just hoping you can clarify this for me. When you have a moment. Thanks!


    Comment by jim delaney | May 27, 2022 | Reply

    • Article I, Sec. 8, clause 1 is both!:

      1) It contains grants of specific powers: to lay & collect taxes and to pay the debts of the United States.

      2) But it also sets forth “general terms” (provide for the common Defense and general Welfare) which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars” the “general phrase”.

      Madison said this in the last 4 paras of Federalist No. 41:

      Thank you, Jim!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2022 | Reply

  19. Publius, “Dormant Commerce Clause” doctrine. Robert Owens of John Birch Society “Constitution Corner” was expounding on this issue in reference to States attempting to influence the action of other States with reference to abortion and issues of commerce. Then the feds could step in to negate this influence with the “Dormant Commerce Clause” doctrine. It was all very technical. Perhaps I did not understand the concept. Never heard of this legal interpretation of DCC. Your thoughts?


    Comment by Christopher Magiera, MD | May 25, 2022 | Reply

    • What? I never heard of the “dormant commerce clause” doctrine. The Federalist Papers don’t mention it. They say that the genuine meaning of the interstate commerce clause is to prevent States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of commerce as they are transported thru the States for purposes of buying and selling:

      There is nothing immoral or illegal or unconstitutional for one State to attempt to influence another State with respect to the position the State should take on an issue.

      I will ask Robert Owen about this!

      I can’t keep track of all that I am doing, so remind me if you don’t hear back.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 25, 2022 | Reply

  20. Hello Publius. I get so irritated about the current affairs of our nation brought on by the one in the White House. No need for individual statements but with citizens going hungry, cost of living going out of sight, lives being ruined by an elected President operating as a tyrannous dictator, being aided and abetted by at least half of congress and totally unworthy to be Head of a civilized nation. Honestly it reflects back when the original forefathers had the gumption to form this country and why.

    I have searched and can’t see or find a remedy in our constitution to validate our elite legal scholars to stand up and take action. Other than by impeachment and then stop and consider the options. Our constitution experts, lawyers and even the supreme judicial body don’t appear to have the authority to curtail all the negative things happening in our nation.

    I guarantee if a CEO of a company was destroying the company the board would fire him or her. It’s like watching one’s home burn and unable to do anything. The oath our leaders took doesn’t mean a thing to them. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness of a nation whose government derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Means nothing to our leaders.

    I’m 80 years old and really worry about the kind of country my grandchildren will inherit. It’s sad to see just how little our leaders care for our nation. Psalm 34:16 seems to apply as it appears our leaders are unrighteous.

    What’s the answer? Is there really one. No one seems to want to stand up for what’s right for the people. Thank you,


    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Jack Adams | May 23, 2022 | Reply

    • There is no remedy in our Constitution for what ails us. There is no political solution to our problems.

      The pretended President isn’t the cause of our problems.

      Our problems are due to the moral, spiritual, and intellectual collapse of the American People. This degeneration has been going on for a very long time.

      When Bezmenov (former KGB) speaks of the “demoralization” of the American People, he doesn’t mean that they are “depressed” and “unhappy”; he means that they have been stripped of their morals. And that is true.

      The Poison began to be introduced into our land during the late 1700s when the Unitarians rejected the Biblical Teaching that man is fallen and needs a saviour. They claimed that sin is in the environment; and that we must fix the environment. So that’s how the sin of blame-shifting was introduced into this Country. As long as a People blame something in the “environment” for their own sins, there is no possibility that they can Repent. That cuts us off from the Remedy described at 2 Chronicles 7:14.

      And the gov’t is in the best position to “fix the environment” – so that’s how the desire for big gov’t began.

      The only solution is the moral, spiritual, and intellectual REGENERATION of the American People. But I don’t see that they are willing to give up their evasions of Truth, and their constant lying and blame-shifting. If they were willing to repent and turn back to God, He would heal our land.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 25, 2022 | Reply

      • Bingo! You are correct as always. Our issues presently have evolved because we have lost our moral compass. Whats worse, is we continually refuse to look for it. Following the easier, more “convenient” path. Considering all the problems, including the increase in antagonism between everyone, mass shootings, and on down the line, what happened between now and 20-40-100 years ago? Morals were put on the shelf. You do not do wrong or evil things, because they are simply wrong. You do things that are right and honorable because they are simply the right things to do, everyone knows this instinctively, but refuse to follow what they instinctively know.
        We have no leaders presently in the entire country to get behind and support to change our direction, abolish and institute new govt. Our present is far too corrupt to salvage. We’ve already got a viable Constitution, all we need is the gumption to follow it. Who is John Gault? John Gault is each and every one of us. Long Live Our Republic.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by N S | May 25, 2022 | Reply

        • I WISH John Gault were each and every one of us. But most of us just want what we want and don’t want to hear about transcendent moral standards and Principles. I have been fighting People for years on this issue. But they don’t care about Right and Wrong. They just want to feel good and do what they want.

          the Only Reason I fight is because of Ezekiel chapters 2 & 3. I don’t want the blood of those idiots on my hands.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 25, 2022 | Reply

      • I surely thank you Publius for your reply. It only confirms to me that unless enough patriotic people get elected in November and overturn lots of the communistic decisions by the current regime our country is lost. As far as our country being at its level of depravity, we can only blame ourselves. Abortion, homosexualism rampant, God haters in our congress (elected by the people), congress officials acting as good Catholics pounding for abortion rights, homosexuals officiating as faith leaders and on it goes. Truly as a commenter said, “who is John Galt”. Apparently with no one and nothing in our constitution to enable the carnage happening in our government be stopped we’re left to ponder how much more should our people endure in hoping the midterm elections give us some ” John Galt’s “.

        I thank you again, Jack Adams


        Comment by Jack Adams | May 26, 2022 | Reply

  21. Where in your numerous essays is the subject of “secession” specifically addressed and analyzed. My understanding is that the founders understood that secession was an inherent right and that without that understanding and acknowledgement the Constitutional Convention would have most likely failed. I also understand that how the individual States viewed the meaning of the Constitution presented to them by the Federalists was pretty much the way the Constitution should be construed. Otherwise, the States would not have ratified the Constitution. I also understand that Rhode Island’s, New York’s and Virginia’s inclusion of secession in their respective State Constitutions plus the fact that none of the founders voiced an objection to secession would indicate agreement on the issue among the founders. Can you help me with this? Thanks, PH. (P. S. As the republic continues to unravel, I suspect secession will attract many more adherents. It may prove to be liberty-loivng patriots most efficacious and least painful recourse.)


    Comment by Jim Delaney | May 22, 2022 | Reply

    • Jim,
      Regarding your PostScript; nullification is a superior activity to secession. State Officials who resist nullification but allegedly support secession are likely fools or charlatans. The same principals of sovereignty, pre-existing rights, and the natural right of self defense apply to both causes.
      Therefore, State politician support for secession is window dressing and theatrics designed to lull support for candidate/party and nothing more. Nullification is simple, appropriate, readily available and much SAFER than secession.

      See this paper by PH;

      “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers”


      Comment by Mark | May 23, 2022 | Reply

    • I haven’t written a paper on secession; but have addressed it in the comments. If you type “secession” in the search box, you’ll find what has been said before in the comments.

      Yes, our Framers and the State ratifying conventions understood that the States have the right to withdraw from the Union.

      The Federalist Papers were seen as the most authoritative writings on the genuine meaning of the US Constitution. See:

      Until States and local governments, the institutions, the businesses, and The People STOP taking federal funds for unconstitutional federal programs, there is no hope for this Country. They are not innocent victims of the federal gov’t.

      Sorry for the delay in responding. Had to go to Ohio to fight!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 25, 2022 | Reply

      • And I’m betting you put them thru the wringer! Am always buoyed by your tough-mindedness, Christian compass and your dearly held belief in our founding principles. I am indebted for your clear-headed and always reliable guidance. Bod bless, PH!


        Comment by jim delaney | May 27, 2022 | Reply

  22. Dear P.H. if is of any service this is a quote from a book “Between Two Ages”, by Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter’s sixth appointment to Nation Security Advisor and Executive Director of the Trilateral Commision, This is taken from Anthony Sutton’s “Trilaterals over Washington” circa 1979) and confirms most of the points you make from this man who was clearly not abashed to state his purpose –
    Quote “The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation’s formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 – the two hundredth anniversary of the Constitution -could serve as a suitable target date culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements…Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the necessary political innovation will not come from direct constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The needed change is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly…in keeping with the American tradition of blurring distinctions between public and private institutions.”
    I am wondering if there is a transcript available of this speech you gave outlining the defects in the claims of COS regarding the proceeding of a proposed “Convention” This is a very expert and persuasive presentation (I saw this on in an age of pedantry and short attention spans! If so I would be happy to redistribute it as I am able!
    Thanks Carlos!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Carlos | April 30, 2022 | Reply

  23. Hi PH, recently U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), re-introduced the Pre-Registration of Voters Everywhere (PROVE) Act to expand voter registration efforts nationwide and increase American citizens’ participation in the democratic process. The PROVE Act would allow for U.S. citizens aged 16 and 17 to pre-register to be added to voter rolls when they turn 18. Does the federal govt have the authority to amend the states registration qualifications? In Illinois, there is this question “You must be 17 years old on or before the date of the Primary Election and turn 18 on or before the date of the General or Consolidated Election.” before you can register to vote.


    Comment by Spense | April 27, 2022 | Reply

    • The federal gov’t has no authority whatsoever with respect to the qualifications of voters – except that the States agreed, with the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments, that they would not deny the suffrage to Citizens on account of their being black, or a female, or not paying that poll tax, or being 18 years of age of older. The federal gov’t has the constitutional authority to enforce those 4 Amendments.

      Other than that, the fed gov’t has no authority over qualifications for voters; and no power to dictate re the registration of voters. These are powers reserved by the States. It is up to each State to determine how and when people are registered to vote – as long as the States don’t deny registration on account of a person’s being in one of those 4 categories.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 27, 2022 | Reply

      • Thanks PH, Senator Duckworth seems to believe the feds can because they are amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. I do know you have written often on how badly the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 usurps power and is unconstitutional. I hope you are doing well.


        Comment by Spense | April 27, 2022 | Reply

        • It’s so sad. “Conservative” Americans aren’t willing to do what needs to be done. Learn our two Founding Documents and enforce them with their votes. They just repeat what “everybody says”.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2022 | Reply

  24. Thank you


    Comment by Georgina | April 18, 2022 | Reply

  25. PH, we know that the bulk of Executive Orders have been unconstitutional. We also know that Art I Sec 8 Cl 16 limits federal land holdings to these specific purposes: “erecting Forts/Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings.” We also know that Art IV Sec 3 CL 2 stipulates that Congress has authority over the disposition and regulation of these federally controlled territories. (Note: Art I Sec 8 cite above also requires State legislative approval of the feds controlling any State lands for reasons outside these purposes. My understanding is that most of the millions of acres currently held by the feds do not meet these requirements, and I am, rightly or wrongly, blaming the States for this.) So, my question is this: is it constitutional for Brandon to shut down the Keystone Pipeline and to limit gas and oil exploration on federal lands which fall outside the scope of Art I Sec 8 CL 16? My understanding is the Northwest Ordinance also set the bounds on federal control over State lands as well. Thus, are Brandon’s EOs in this regard in any way lawful? Finally, is Brandon relying on the Commerce Clause, Art I Sec 8 CL 2, to justify what appears to me to have been his overreach in this regard? And, if so, does the Commerce Clause lawfully enable such an Executive action? What should the People’s proper response to all this be? Since the DOI enshrined our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and since Brandon’s actions have imperiled those rights, should not We the People, the final arbiters, compel our States to nullify these Executive Orders? I cannot see at all how his EOs are constitutional or in keeping with the promises of the DOI. What should be our position?


    Comment by jim delaney | April 17, 2022 | Reply

    • I haven’t had time to look into this issue – I can only repeat what I said before in my comment posted February 17, 2022 here:

      and add the following brief comments:

      1. Art I Sec 8, next to last clause, does NOT authorize the States to permit the fed gov’t to buy lands for other than the enumerated powers! It means that when the federal gov’t buys land within a State for one of the enumerated purposes (e.g., to build a federal courthouse), the feds may purchase the specified land only with the consent of the State Legislature.

      2. I don’t know how the fed gov’t came to retain so much land in the Western States. One would have to look at each State individually to see the documents re the transfer of the lands to that States. Don’t be too quick to blame the States.

      3. Don’t the oils which were transported via the Keystone Pipeline originate in Canada? I asked because you spoke of Brandon’s banning oil exploration on federal “lands” – which is a different issue.

      4. Re can Congress – or the President, by Executive Order – ban oil exportation & drilling on “federal lands”? We’ve reached the point where unconstitutional acts are piled on top of other, and underlying, unconstitutional acts – and so we are collapsing. The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to own & operate national parks, national forests, etc. Those lands should have been transferred to the States when the States were formed and became members of the Union. So when one speaks of whether the fed gov’t can ban oil exploration & drilling on unconstitutionally held lands, it’s a conundrum. Congress perhaps; the President, by Executive Order, never.

      5. You asked, is Brandon relying on the commerce clause? I expect Brandon is too busy feeling up naked underage girls to worry about banning oil exploration & drilling on “federal” lands. Filthy pervert.

      6. Too many people in our State governments are too weak, ignorant and cowardly to resist anything the federal gov’t does. And they don’t want to do anything which will jeopardize their federal funding.

      7. We should prepare for hard times ahead. Our Country has become extremely wicked and we are ripe for destruction.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 18, 2022 | Reply

      • Further, the keystone XL pipeline is a bit of a misnomer. That is to say pipelines are not the ONLY way to transport crude oil to refineries. Which is the purpose of the XL- transporting Canadian crude to refineries in the U.S. Rail cars, tank trucks, and ships are ALTERNATIVES that are used to accomplish the same purpose.
        It is argued that pipelines are a more economical and statistically a safer method of transport which begs another constitutional question; who pays for the pipeline? Are federal funds (infrastructure) committed? Tax incentives? Etc. Is this the basis for the “economical” arguement? Researching these questions may shed a different light on the matter.
        The point is; the so-called “conservatives” often employ the same tactics to whip up a frenzy within their “base”. The Keystone XL is but ONE mode of transport, and not necessarily the economic tragedy alleged.
        Having spent most of my career in the petro-chemical industry I can confidently say it is one of the most regulated industries. Between OSHA, the Dept of Energy, Dept of Labor, etc. nary a drop of petroleum avoids regulation of some sort. Of course only a few of us understand that these agencies are entirely unconstitutional.
        And I concur that hard times are ahead. State Legislators ARE too weak and uninformed to turn the tide of encroachment. The same may be said of the American population. Therein lies the real tragedy.


        Comment by Mark | April 20, 2022 | Reply

        • Well, Jim’s question didn’t focus on the constitutionality of transporting oil by pipeline, but rather on the constitutionality on the federal gov’t banning oil exploration & drilling on “federal lands”.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 20, 2022 | Reply

  26. Back in 2020 you wrote a piece about what could have been done with the stolen election , I can’t find it anywhere , can you repost that


    Comment by Georgia | April 16, 2022 | Reply

  27. Hi, PH. I know you’ve addressed this before, but I can’t find it. In short, Art I Sec 8 does not delegate authority to the federal government in the area of regulating marijuana. Thus, to me, and like abortion, such regulation resides with the individual States. Is it really that simple? Thanks!


    Comment by jim delaney | April 5, 2022 | Reply

    • Yes, it really IS that simple.

      Except that over the federal enclaves (Article I, Section 8, next to last clause) and the Territories belonging to the United States (Article IV, Section 3, clause 2), the Congress has the power to make laws addressing such matters as speed limits, use of drugs, etc.; and can even make laws providing that Persons visiting federal prisons, federal courthouses, military hospitals, etc., must leave their arms in their vehicles or check them at the door.

      Years ago, there was an excellent series on radio, then TV, “Gunsmoke”. The setting was the Territory of Kansas – it was still a “territory” and had not yet become a State. While it was a Territory, the federal gov’t had law enforcement jurisdiction over the territory – the Hero was Matt Dillon, a US Marshall .


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2022 | Reply

  28. Do you have a recommended version to the “Pledge of Allegiance” for America?

    Please share.



    Comment by dons2017 | April 3, 2022 | Reply

    • Hi, Don!
      No, I don’t have a re-worded version.

      I strongly oppose the current version, for several reasons:

      1. “one Nation” “indivisible”: Our Constitution created a “federation” of independent and sovereign States which were united ONLY for the purposes enumerated in the Constitution at Article I, Sec. 8, US Constitution. Furthermore, the States have the lawful right to withdraw from the Union.

      2. The Flag? why would we pledge our allegiance to a flag – a piece of cloth? What’s in a flag? Every country has their own flag – and the design of ours changes from time to time. There is nothing immutable in the design of a flag.

      We ought to be pledging our allegiance to the fixed transcendent Principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence – and the Constitution which implements those fixed and transcendent Principles.

      The wording of the pledge of allegiance is subversive of our Founding Principles! Americans have substituted chanting the Pledge of allegiance for doing what a REAL PATRIOT does – which is to learn our two founding Documents and enforce those.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2022 | Reply

      • Amen !!


        Comment by Mark | April 4, 2022 | Reply


          A socialist had his hand in drafting it. The Pledge really IS a nasty piece of work. It breaks my heart that conservative Americans think that chanting that Pledge is THE Patriotic thing to do.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2022 | Reply

          • Yes. I remember learning this from you years ago. (Back during TPN days). Most of what I understand of the Constitution originated with YOUR teaching. Other influences include Dr. Edwin Vierra and Larry Becraft.

            And yes. Most Americans have NO IDEA what our beloved Constitution means. Today’s population are apathetic fools who refuse to accept that what they “know” simply is not true. The Federalists are not difficult to understand. But alas, Americans want sound bites, cliff notes, and pontificating talk show hosts. “They will no longer endure sound doctrine…” Everything is upside down simply because We the People have set aside the very FIXED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS which were the foundation of our liberties and our prosperity. The average American has been duped and their pride will not allow them to admit it. Mark Twain (I believe) once stated that “It is easier to fool someone, than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled.”

            They follow PARTY rather than principle. They repeat nonsense because a so-called “Conservative” said it. They follow fools and charlatans rather than seeking wisdom and truth. The COS gang is capitalizing on this weakness to the detriment of all. The Tytler Cycle is nearing completion. If Hamilton and Madison returned today they would be livid, dumbfounded, and disgusted that we have been miserable stewards of the greatest gift to mankind since Christ’s redemption.


            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Mark | April 4, 2022

        • It is more correct to describe the U.S. Constitution as a “confederation” rather than a “federation”. Both are plural words and both have a federal structure, but federations use a system of “top-down/autocratic” authority whereas confederations use a “bottom-up” system of sovereign, independent state & local self-government in which the states have oversight and corrective authority over federal violations of the Constitution. This is an important distinction because when Lincoln violated the constitutional protection of slavery by invading the Southern states, he changed our form of government from a confederation to a federation. Before the North’s War on the South, we were a constitutional republic. After the war the states became vassals of a federal overseer. The people were “citizens” but are now “subjects”. Formation of the Southern Confederacy was not a “rebellion” but it re-established a constitutional republic in the secessionist states. The South followed the advice of Thomas Jefferson in his Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions of 1798 &’99, which Madison echoed in his “Madison’s Report of 1800.” The proper way to have eliminated slavery would have been to amend the Constitution. England eliminated slavery lawfully and without a war. Furthermore, the Union was never intended to be “indivisible” under a federal master. Both Slave and Free states entered the Union under a confederation/compact, the violation of which released the offended party from membership and obligations thereto. Secession was always available as a last resort, and the 9th & 10th amendments plus Article 1, Section 8 make it crystal clear that the states do not have to tolerate a bully.


          Comment by John Noble | April 4, 2022 | Reply

          • check the definitions of “federation” and “confederation” in Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

            Where did you get your definitions? I haven’t seen any of our Framers make the distinctions you made in your comment. They sound like somebody’s theory!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2022

  29. PH I am amazed that this attack on the Constitution is coming from the perceived “right” this strategy looks like it had it’s origins with the William F Buckley school and it’s progeny. Thank You so much for compiling this for this, can the posts on this blog be shared or is permission required to repost, Thanks


    Comment by Carlos | March 23, 2022 | Reply

    • Ever since, some 50 years ago, the Ford Foundation produced the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America ,
      it has been the hard left which has been pushing for an Article V convention [which they need to get their new Constitution imposed.]

      It is still the hard left which is pushing for an Article V Convention. Only this time, the convention pushers are posturing as “conservatives” and are marketing the convention to “conservatives”.

      And Americans are so ignorant of Civics; and so unthinking and gullible, that they have been falling for the marketing.

      and I don’t think that William Buckley was any friend of ours.

      Feel free to link to or repost anything on this site – just give a link back to the source!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2022 | 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: