Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

3,739 Comments »

  1. Could the States apply the same type of refusal to follow federal education mandates as you propose in your recent talk on the new Alabama abortion law and how Roe V. Wade can be overturned?

    Like

    Comment by Rose Tinsley | May 23, 2019 | Reply

    • YES! YES! YES!

      Whenever the federal courts issue a Judgment which violates our Constitution, it is the DUTY of the States (see the oath of office at Article VI, clause 3) to refuse to submit to it. And if the President doesn’t send in federal troops to enforce the federal judgment, then the federal judges can use their Decision to line their bird cages. Alexander Hamilton pointed this out in Federalist Paper No. 78 (6th para). And remember President Andrew Jackson? The US Supreme Court issued an Opinion to which Jackson objected. Jackson said (I’m paraphrasing), “They’ve made their decision – now let them enforce it”.

      To refuse to enforce Decisions of the federal courts the President objected to was intended to be the President’s “check” on the Judicial Branch. Remember “checks and balances?” But Americans got brainwashed into forgetting about this check.

      And Remember: The People of the States CREATED the federal government when they ratified our federal Constitution. So the federal gov’t is merely the “creature” of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. The STATES, as the CREATORS of the federal government, are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the constitutional compact the STATES made with each other. THOSE are the words of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. See my various papers and posts under the Category “Nullification”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 23, 2019 | Reply

      • Thank you very much for your response. How then, if the Federal government can only make laws pertaining to the areas they have jurisdiction over, can they continue to sit in Washington and make law after law on any topic they choose, and State’s Attorneys General all over the country are not up-in-arms and challenging the enforcement of the law under Article VI and nullification – is it all about the hush money of federal funding? We have been made to believe federal law always trumps state law – is that only true if the federal law falls under the purview of their jurisdiction according to the Constitution? Lastly, and not to take up a lot of your time, our State’s Department of Education is comprised by many at the top who are appointed by the Governor, and others whom I would call unelected bureaucrats – how does an army of one begin to pierce such a beast when they continually tout they are merely following federal guidelines?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Rose Tinsley | May 23, 2019 | Reply

        • 1. Some friends of mine instituted a candidate forum where they test candidates on their knowledge of our US Constitution. They asked their sitting US Congressman if he knew our US Constitution. HE said (I’m paraphrasing),”I’ve been a US Congressman for 15 terms, I think I know it pretty well.” So they asked him, “how many Articles in the US Constitution? He answered, “Five”. They asked, “how many amendments are there to the US Constitution?” He answered, “at least 20”.

          A survey showed that only 26% of Americans can name the 3 Branches of the federal gov’t.

          THAT’S HOW THEY CAN SIT IN WASHINGTON, D.C., and make laws on matters outside the scope of powers delegated to them. The IGNORANCE of the American People and of the people they elect to office is mind-boggling.

          2. There may be 5 people in our entire Country who can list from memory the handful of powers delegated to Congress over the Country at large. I prepared this Chart which provides a solid basis for learning our Declaration of independence and Constitution – yet NO ONE will look at it. I know this because my website shows me when people click on it – and NO ONE CLICKS ON IT. They don’t care what our Constitution says. They want a federal gov’t which does what they want it to do.

          So here’s the chart https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/chart-showing-federal-structure-with-meme-april-2019.pdf

          Will you look at it? Print it out – check it with the text of the two Documents – and learn it?

          3. Why aren’t State Attorneys General screaming bloody murder at federal usurpations and nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t? Because the State Attorneys General are as ignorant as everyone else – they don’t know about enumerated powers – and they don’t care. And they don’t know about nullification. They don’t know what Jefferson, Madison, & Hamilton said about it. They believe the lying propaganda put out by supporters of an Article V convention that nullification is unlawful, or doesn’t work, or is unconstitutional, etc.

          4. Oh yes, the States sold their sovereignty and our God given rights to the federal government – they did it for federal funds. This has been going on for 100 years in America: State governments accepting federal funds to carry out unconstitutional federal programs.

          5. You said, “We have been made to believe federal law always trumps state law – is that only true if the federal law falls under the purview of their jurisdiction according to the Constitution?” The answer is YES! [And I’m thinking you already know a lot about this – your question and answer reveal a profound understanding of this issue.]

          6. Re your State education officials: They are totally ignorant of the concept of enumerated powers, etc. They don’t know that the federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to meddle in education for the Country at large. Their motive is to get the big bucks which go along with “following federal guidelines” on education. Ask your State Comptroller how much money your State gets in education funding from the federal gov’t.

          7. How do you – an Army of One – fight this? I have been shouting these Principles for 10 years and am now seeing others say the same things. So you have to educate everyone you can about enumerated powers, etc. and after saying the same thing for years and years, some people will start saying what you have been teaching!

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 23, 2019 | Reply

          • I clicked on it and plan to share it on my facebook. Many thanks. You are a national treasure, PH.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | May 23, 2019

          • You made my day, Jim. Thanks! If People would just learn that Chart – there would be a good start to turning things around here.
            And of course, Americans should be Bereans (Acts 17) and read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to see whether what I wrote on the Chart is True.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 23, 2019

          • Publius,

            Thank you so much for all that you do to educate others. Surely, you will be richly warded! I am OLD too, and have followed you for some time now and always get a boost from your information. I still think, like I told you several years ago, you should have a Constitutional Affairs Office next door to the Oval Office!! Or Supreme Court, like you mentioned. Keep up the good works! You are truly a National Treasure!

            Jim Baines Copperas Cove, Texas

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by J. O. Baines | May 24, 2019

          • Thank you for everything, and yes, I went to your link and will print it off and study it.

            I believe our state is in violation of their own constitution when they set up a Department of Elementary and Secondary Education under the Board of Education. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, made up of unelected bureaucrats, then has the authority to set up the teacher licensure requirements which include passing all types of content tests after one has been conferred a teaching degree from an accredited university.

            Of course this is the recommended guidelines from the feds, and to get the funding, our state complies with the Federal Department of Education’s requirements. And this is going on in all states across America because the citizens of the individual states are being told this is what is required of the States to stay in compliance with the Federal Department of Education.

            These tests are prohibiting many from getting licensed in our state, thus prohibiting them from practicing their vocation. Plus, in my mind, as a citizen of the State, they are imposing judgments outside the scope of authority given them in the State Constitution. I believe these tests are unconstitutional.

            For example, Article IX of our Constitution is titled Education. But no where within the Article does it state the Board of Education has the authority to set up a separate Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and then the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, under the guise of only wanting to hire teachers according to the the federal guidelines that are ‘highly qualified,’ has the right to require graduates to pass another battery of tests before being granted a teaching license:

            http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=161.097&bid=7852
            http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=IX++++2(a)&bid=31883&constit=y http://revisor.mo.gov/main/Home.aspx?constit=y.

            Applying what you said previously, then working backward, it seems to me, the citizens who created this creature called the State government, should have some type of recourse when our state is not in compliance with its own Constitution. Am I way off in thinking this, and if not, how could I begin to rectify it.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Rose Tinsley | May 23, 2019

          • I will see if I can find some allies in Missouri on the education issue.

            The Citizens do have recourse when their State government violates the State Constitution. But our problem is – and has always been (since our troubles began) – the ignorant & apathetic & morally compromised American People.

            Public education is the worst idea since Sin – God always told parents to educate their own children – God never gave that power to the civil government. The Progressives controlled public education in this Country from the very beginning – and it has been a huge success (from their viewpoint): it has demoralized the American People and dumbed them down. As a People, Americans can no longer think – all they can do is repeat what they have been told. And they are terribly conceited – they are poster children for the Dunning-Kruger effect: Dunning-Kruger

            I asked a State legislator about shutting down the public schools and returning to our original system of home schooling, tutors, and free schools for the children of the poor. The legislator said it was impossible to shut down public education – the Education Lobby in each State is HUGE – any Legislators who tried to shut down public education would be voted out and replaced by pro education lobby legislators.

            So parents & churches must make the public schools irrelevant by pulling children out of the public school system. Parents who can should home-school or join home-school co-ops. I would like to see private schools all over the Country for the children of the poor: the teachers would be retired Citizens with something to offer (e.g., I’d teach civics); and the staff would be the parents of the children who attended the school. It really wouldn’t take that much money: The retired Citizens could donate their time and so could the parents – since their children would be getting a first class classical education. Perhaps someone would donate the use of buildings for the schools, and the schools could take donations – but NEVER tax money – for books, supplies, etc.

            Ayn Rand warned in Atlas Shrugged (1957) that the public schools in America were destroying the minds of the children sent there. And she was right – only a few of us escaped the pernicious influence of the government schools in America. And the schools have gotten worse every year – they are now hotbeds of perversion in addition to continuing to destroy children’s capacity for rational analysis.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 24, 2019

  2. It’s always interesting to me that people such as yourself (PH) (knowledgeable beyond belief) never run for office where they could directly effect the outcome.
    Why is it that you don’t run for office? What would it take to get you to run?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Gary | May 12, 2019 | Reply

    • Well, I’m pretty OLD!

      Also, while Americans of the time of our Framing and the early days of our Republic sometimes valued candidates who were knowledgeable and virtuous (Americans once elected people like Thomas Jefferson & James Madison & Daniel Webster), they don’t now. Look at the FAKES & IDIOTS Americans now elect to office. “Conservative” Americans of today can’t tell the difference between empty suits who mindlessly chant conservative slogans, & the moral and intelligent and articulate people who actually understand our Founding Principles and documents and can clearly explain them. Americans of today elect people like AOC to office! Maxine Waters is another classic example of a blithering idiot whom Americans elect.

      It has always been my hope that I would inspire and inform OTHERS who would run for office and become the Bold, Wise, Principled, Virtuous, and Knowledgeable Leaders Americans so desperately need.

      One of the saddest things I have learned in Life is that Americans can’t steer themselves – they need Leaders. I should have learned this from reading the Book of Judges in the Bible. It took me many years to finally understand that the Book of Judges describes how people actually are: They are totally dependent on God’s sending them good leaders. Otherwise, people elect idiots, empty suits, and scum. So, since Americans are too wicked and blind to elect good leaders; they need to repent and ask God to send them good leaders.

      I suppose I sound like a wet blanket….

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 12, 2019 | Reply

      • I would love to see you on the Supreme Court. But the globalists and collectivists and liberals in the Senate would chew you up. We would probably see you up there facing ridiculous charges just as Kavanaugh did. It would be so fun to watch you straightening out all those idiots in the Senate however.

        But a run for office would help inform the general public in a way nothing else can or does.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 13, 2019 | Reply

        • Top Hat! Lovely to hear from you! It’s been ages since you wrote. I hope all is well with you.

          Oh, the pro-convention lobby has been smearing me for years! The people at the “Convention of States Project” are particularly vicious in their smears. E.g., see this article “Convention of States Project vies for four Pinocchios” at http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/caler/190104
          under subheading 6. Smear Tactics

          The worst possible use of MY time is to “run for office”.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 13, 2019 | Reply

          • I’m sure you’re right. Your gift is indeed teaching, and your no nonsense style is greatly appreciated.

            I’ve been busy the past year helping tend my 97 year old aunt, my mother’s sister. She passed recently. She was ready. It was good spending time with her, watching movies, talking, and having meals together. She was the last of that generation in our family, so she is rejoined with them in paradise now.

            I hope you and yours are well.

            If you’re going to be speaking in North Carolina again I hope you can let me know. I would love to get to hear you in person again.

            Like

            Comment by topcat1957 | May 13, 2019

    • But I would accept a seat on the US Supreme Court! Oh, I would make good use of that position!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 12, 2019 | Reply

      • If the nation can’t except the old and wise, the young and wise have no use in trying. I’m 39 and I love our founding, you’ve definitely inspired me, but like you i wait for someone else to come a long… When everyone waits for someone else to do something nothing gets done. Mean while all the idiots take over and well here we are.

        I think you should start a “constitutional” leadership course that builds tomorrows new constitutional leaders. I would pay for that.

        I would definitely put you on the court.

        Like

        Comment by Gary | May 12, 2019 | Reply

        • I’m not waiting for someone else to do what I should be doing.

          I’m using my gifts where they will do the most good: TEACHING. THAT is what I have been called to do. I can’t spend my time running around doing what legislators do – most of it has nothing to do with what I have been called to do. And I can’t be a Governor or Mayor – I have ZERO administrative & executive skills. I can’t even run my own home properly.

          My papers and speeches are a constitutional leadership course. Problem is getting people to read them. They won’t even look at & learn this one page chart: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/chart-showing-federal-structure-with-meme-april-2019.pdf

          Americans don’t want to make the modest effort required to learn – they just want to go with what they think they already know. Besides, they are so conceited, they think they already know everything.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 13, 2019 | Reply

          • And you are one of the most gifted teachers I have ever run across PH. And once you get a home set up on a proper course, it doesn’t take much to keep it running right, same with government. Problem is people can’t leave well enough alone and keep asking simplicity to do the impossible. In all my years, I have learned only 4 truths – God is Great – beer is good – people are crazy – The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know…..
            Thanks PH for all you do for the people that do take the time to learn.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by N S | May 13, 2019

  3. PH,
    When did tariffs change from being a method of financing the constitutionally authorized functions of the general government to being used as a trading weapon? A weapon used to protect certain segments of our economy?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P Lindner | May 6, 2019 | Reply

    • The first example I know of of the abuse of the power to lay & collect tariffs granted by Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1, was the Tariff Act of 1828.
      See this paper, https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense/
      under the subheading: The “we lost the civil war” objection to Nullification.

      Our Declaration of Independence says the purpose of government is to secure the rights GOD gave us. God never gave us the right to be free of competition in business. So the Tariff Act violated our Founding Principle that the Purpose of Government is to Secure the rights GOD gave us.

      The vile new purpose of government inherent in the Tariff Act of 1828 was to benefit some at the expense of others – to benefit one Section of our Country at the expense of another Section of our Country.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 6, 2019 | Reply

  4. Question: what part of the proposed “infrastructure spending” is constitutional. Perhaps, I can stretch Art I Sec 8 Cl 7 to incorporate spending for interstate hwys and render all manner of expenditures as lawful were I to similarly stretch Cl 18,but for me the infrastructure spending bill is a massive violation. SO, what part of the proposed spending WOULD be constitutional? Upgrading Airports because planes carry mail? Have to be really creative to justify the proposed spending. Yes? Thanks.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | April 30, 2019 | Reply

    • I haven’t read the proposed “infrastructure spending” bill, but yes, you are right, the feds have no constitutional authority to spend on “infrastructure”. It is a stretch to use Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 7 to justify spending on the interstate highway system. “Post roads” seems to have had a much lesser scope than our interstate highway system. It would have been better to get an amendment to the US Constitution authorizing the feds to construct and maintain the interstate highway system.

      The feds have no constitutional authority to upgrade airports! In his Farewell Address, Washington warned us that if we want the fed gov’t to have a power the Constitution doesn’t delegate to it, then we should amend the Constitution to delegate that new power – we must NOT allow the feds to exercise the power by usurpation.

      Well done, Jim!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 1, 2019 | Reply

  5. I was trying to find some supporting documentation to prove that the American Revolution was not a rebellion against an established rule of law, thus is unlike the coup that Lincoln masterminded against the South, since slavery, although not promoted, was constitutionally protected. As I understand it, the colonies were not “subjects” of Great Britain. We had no representatives in their parliament, and each colony had in their charters with England that they were self-governing entities.

    NOTE: When trying to do look-ups on your website, that clicking on the links to (a) the various categories, and (b) to topics typed into the search box, in neither case does it pull up the desired topic. Instead, it selects something totally unrelated. You might want to have your webmaster fix the problem.

    Thanks

    Like

    Comment by John Noble | April 22, 2019 | Reply

    • You need look no further than our Declaration of Independence. Read the 2nd para. It lists our 4 Founding Principles. There you will see the Justification for our Revolution of 1776. Tell me the answer – I want to be sure you get it.

      The American Colonists were subjects of the King of England! On July 4, 1776, free Americans were transformed into [naturalized] Citizens of a Republic.

      ///

      About the look ups: Sadly, I have no Webmaster. Next time you look something up under a Category or in the search box, Use the find function for the page which comes up – i think you’ll find that the articles which come up do discuss the topic – somewhere.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 22, 2019 | Reply

      • Thanks for your reply. I believe that you are referring to the British violation of our “inalienable rights” as the rationale and justification our War for Independence from them, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. That and Lincoln’s military coup have both been used as an excuse for violating the rule of law throughout history. My problem with rebellion against the authority of governments and leaders who abuse inalienable rights is that I find no biblical support for it. Yes, I know it sounds outrageous because it would appear to legitimize abuse of power, until one realizes that evil leaders like King Saul, and Barack Obama were ELECTED by the people.

        My original question to you was to ESTABLISH the LEGITIMACY of that war, which I posit was justifiable because we were NOT subjects, but that each colony was established by a contractual agreement which, at least for most of them, specified that the colonies would be self-governing, and that Mother England’s role would be one of nurturing. IF that were not the case, it would be interesting to hear your answer to the following biblical passages which are designed to shape our attitude regarding obedience to delegated authority. The following passages confirm that God vested both evil kings/tyrants as well as godly ones authority to enforce the rule of law.

        ● Philemon 1:10ff is the story about why obedience to unjust laws is God’s mandate for believers in Jesus Christ. Paul sent Onesimus, his dear friend, a Christian who was a runaway slave, back to his Roman master, who happened to also be a Christian, with a petition to release him. He didn’t argue that his inalienable rights had been violated and demand his release. Paul respected Roman law, even though slavery was a protected institution and slaves were regarded as “property.”
        ● 1 Timothy 6:1ff goes further still by saying, “Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.”
        ● Romans 13:1ff emphasizes the ultimate source of authority. “All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God.”

        Scriptures do not teach us to obey commands to worship false gods, per Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego’s legitimate refusal to obey Nebuchadnezzar’s command to worship an idol. Whenever there is a conflict between what the Word of God teaches, we are to obey God, otherwise, we are to pay tribute to whom tribute is due.
        Thanks Again

        Like

        Comment by John Noble | April 22, 2019 | Reply

        • Re-read the 2nd para of the DOI – you missed the point.

          I can’t help you unless you open your mind and look at evidence which contradicts the opinions you already hold. Our Framers would say you have the mindset of a slave. Read “Lex, Rex” by the Reverend Samuel Rutherford (1644). That’s from a time when churchmen were men and not wusses & wimps.

          Furthermore, you are misinterpreting Scripture & ignoring Scripture. Read this and check out the Scripture cited: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/the-biblical-foundation-of-our-constitution/ There’s more – I wanted to keep the paper short – what I did write should get the point across.

          The cowardice and ignorance of the modern day American church is appalling … horrifying…

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 22, 2019 | Reply

  6. PH, another quick question. The 9th circuit upheld lower court ruling regarding sanctuary cities’ right not to in any way assist federal immigration enforcement. Basis: anti-commandeering. To what extent is invoking anti-commandeering justified?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | April 22, 2019 | Reply

    • there is none..the judges should be impeached

      Like

      Comment by hippie49 | April 22, 2019 | Reply

  7. Why did you choose the cheatah avatar as your symbol? Why not the lion?

    Like

    Comment by Robert | April 20, 2019 | Reply

    • I have always loved cats – big ones, medium sized ones, and small ones. But the Cheetah has always been my favorite big cat. To watch them run is amazing. And they are very affectionate. And their beautiful face – have you ever seen anything as handsome as the face of MY cheetah?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2019 | Reply

      • Yes they are very cute. In the wild the lions eat their lunch, literally. Happy Easter.

        Like

        Comment by Robert | April 21, 2019 | Reply

        • In my next Life, I hope to work on a Cheetah preserve in Africa – I’ll take care of the sick, injured, and orphaned Cheetahs and will protect them from the lions.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2019 | Reply

  8. On April 17, 2017, you gave a talk about Article V at the TN Supreme Court Building. I am watching your youtube video of it and you are blowing my mind. i’ve done some reading on Article V as it’s quite the rage at the moment and i’d like to take you up on your offer at the beginning of your (is this testimony?) speech, where you offered folks “copies of your research,” if we were interested in your sources. I am passingly familliar with the subject and even though I don’t know anything about the BBA amendment efforts, i don’t understand how you justify your claim that the convention delegates would be sovreign.

    Thank you for indulging a recently-mined political nerd.

    Like

    Comment by Jeff E | April 20, 2019 | Reply

  9. Are naturalized citizens and citizens of the United States two different things?

    I believe they are, correct me if I’m wrong.

    In order to run for the house of reps you must be a “citizen” for 7 years…..

    Can naturalized citizens run for the house of representatives?

    I don’t think they can, correct me if I’m wrong.

    Just thinking historically the naturalized citizens would be still tied to closely to the nation they came from.

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Thx

    Like

    Comment by Gary Blake | March 18, 2019 | Reply

    • Really, Gary? Please share with us a citation to the section of the Constitution that supports your view.

      Like

      Comment by Donald Crane | March 18, 2019 | Reply

      • Perhaps he meant to distinguish between “naturalized citizens” and “natural born citizens”.

        Obviously, those are different categories of citizens. But the only place that makes a difference is in eligibility to be President and Vice President. Only “natural born citizens” are eligible to hold those offices.

        As I have shown, a “natural born citizen” is one who was born of parents who were US Citizens.

        A “naturalized citizen” is made a citizen by operation of a man-made law. E.g., section 1 of the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

    • Gary, while I can’t consider myself an expert on this issue, I would say that once a person has qualified and gone through the process of Naturalization, such a person is then considered a citizen. And after 7 years a citizen, if such a person meets the age requirement, and the inhabitant requirement, they may run for the House of Representatives. If such a person meets the requirements for the Senate they could also run for the Senate. The only position that requirers a higher citizenship requirement it that of the President. Such a person must be a “Natural Born Citizen,” which requires they have both parents as U.S. citizens at the time of his or her’s birth, which is something that a naturalized citizen would not have.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Barbara Jennings | March 24, 2019 | Reply

      • Four Star answer, Barbara! Just add Vice President – see 12th Amendment, last sentence – and you get five stars!

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

    • When learning a new subject, such as the Constitution, one must start with a clean slate. Otherwise, one imports what he thinks he already knows; and when that’s wrong (as it usually is), it becomes impossible to see what’s right before him.

      A “naturalized” citizen is a Citizen.

      A person who has been a Citizen for at least 7 years, and who meets the other requirements set forth at Art. I, Sec. 2, cl.2, US Constitution, is eligible to be a US Representative.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

      • Thank you ALL very much for your helpful answers. You have brought clarity and understanding with your responses.

        Like

        Comment by Gary | March 24, 2019 | Reply

        • I had to unlearn all the rubbish I was told in law school before I could understand what our Constitution and Framers really said.

          So I know all about how one must start with a clean slate !

          You are most welcome. any time.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

      • I was under the following impression that this was a correct hierarchy.
        Non-citizen, Immigrant, Naturalized Citizen, Citizen, and Natural Born Citizen.

        I believed that immigrants became naturalized citizens.
        The children of (naturalized citizens) became citizens at birth.
        The children of (Citizens) become Natural born citizens.

        I believed this because the idea of having a citizen as far away from the immigrant / naturalized citizens beliefs about their original “country of origin” was preferable.
        For example the influence of the origin country on a naturalized citizen would bear more influence on them then say three generations away whom has not known that life or influence.

        Perhaps that is a debate to be had at another time and place. But for the intent and purpose here i have been corrected that there is no difference between those whom are naturalized (conferred) the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States and those whom are born citizens.

        Like

        Comment by Gary | March 24, 2019 | Reply

        • Don’t make the simple intricate and murky. We don’t have hierarchies here.

          Naturalized citizens are Citizens. After they have been citizens for the requisite number of years, they are eligible to be US or State Representatives or Senators.

          But a naturalized citizen may not be President or Vice President. Only a “natural born citizen” may hold those offices.

          Other than this, there is no difference in their standing.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

  10. Re the hullabaloo on the Left over the Administration’s reinsertion of US Citizenship question. Relying upon your analysis of the constitutional scope of census queries, and since the enumeration entails the number of “inhabitants” (inclusive of both US Citizens and non-Citizens), and since the purpose of the census is, in Madison’s words “(1) to determine the number of Representatives for each State, and (2) to determine each State’s share of the direct taxes”, and as you state “we gave the federal government authority to ask us only the number of persons living in our homes (and whether any of us are Indians),” how can non-Citizens, either logically or constitutionally, be factored into the number of representatives allowed? ALso, according to Madison’s words, the number of persons in a household, “and whether any are Indians” seems to suggest that he is distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens. True? To me, asking who is a US Citizen and who is not (or, for whatever reason, who don’t answer the citizenship question at all) permits a proper assignment of representatives based on citizenship. Murky.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | March 16, 2019 | Reply

    • Everything in our Country is skewed & off-kilter because of the vast numbers of illegals here.

      1. So let’s cast our minds back to the time of our framing and see what we find.

      Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3: The Census was to count free persons & indentured servants. In addition, 3/5 of the total number of slaves in a State was to be added to the population total for that State.

      Slaves weren’t “Citizens” – they were “Inhabitants”.

      So the Census did count non-citizens – well, 3/5 of the total number of the non-citizen slaves. The Southern States wanted every slave to count as one person (so they could get more Representatives in Congress). But the Northern States said, slaves shouldn’t be counted at all in the census because the southern States treated them as “Property” instead of “persons”. So they compromised and counted 3/5 of the total number of slaves in a State.

      It’s important to note that slaves were “inhabitants” – they were LAWFULLY here. So it was proper to count them in the Census.

      2. The illegal aliens are NOT lawfully here.

      But whether they should be counted in the census or not is not the real issue – it’s a distraction.

      Because the only way we can fix our Country is to seal the borders and start massive deportations of the illegals already here. They are welfare parasites, have nothing of value to offer, and are overwhelming our once great culture with third world mentality.

      Congress must exercise its power to control immigration. Only persons who have something of value to offer should be allowed in this Country. and the numbers of immigrants should be small enough so they they are forced to assimilate into our Culture. When only small numbers of persons from different cultures are allowed in, they are forced to assimilate into our larger culture. But when massive numbers of persons from different cultures are allowed in, they overwhelm and destroy our Culture.

      I’ll illustrate: Some aspects of Scottish culture were good – others aspects were horrible: the highlanders fought the lowlanders, the highland clans fought each other, raiding was a way of life, grudge keeping and brutal revenge an honored tradition, and the Highlanders spoke Scots Gaelic and lowlanders spoke Scots dialect. Scotland was such a horrible place to live that many Scots fled Scotland in the early 1600s and went to Ireland. In 1718, a boatload of Scots came here from Ulster Ireland. For the most part, they abandoned Scottish culture. They learned English and became AMERICANS. But if Scotland had been emptied and all the Scots transported here, they would have brought their horrible culture here!

      So that’s why immigrants from particular cultures must be admitted in only small numbers – so that they are forced to assimilate. And we should accept only people who have something good to offer our Country. No welfare parasites!

      That malignant Emma Lazarus poem should be removed from the Statue of Liberty. Yet millions of Americans have been manipulated by that poison.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

  11. Re the Nat’l Emergencies Act, the fundamental conundrum for me is how can Congress constitutionally justify this Act? Prof. Turley doesn’t even allude to the possibility that the Act is itself unconstitutional while other constitutional “experts” have a different interpretation.The best justification for passage of the Act I can come up with is Art I Sec 8, Clause 1 (“common defense”) and Clause 18 (“necessary & proper”). Am I completely bonkers by relying Art I Sec 8 Clauses 1 and 18 to justify the constitutionality of the Act?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | March 16, 2019 | Reply

    • In reviewing the list of enumerated powers delegated to Congress, I can not lay my finger on that clause which authorizes Congress to make a Law which authorizes Congress, anyone in the Executive Branch, or in the Judicial Branch to declare that such & such or this & that is a “national emergency”, and then harness the powers of the federal government to deal with what the federal gov’t has declared to a “national emergency”.

      The Constitution specifically lists the items on which the federal gov’t has constitutional authority to act.

      Some of the items the federal government has constitutional authority to deal with can become “national emergencies”. I discuss one of them here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/yes-trump-has-constitutional-authority-to-secure-our-southern-border/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

  12. The US Constitution and it’s 2nd amendment gives” the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. The 10th amendment gives powers to the states not given to the United States. Now states are enacting gun laws restricting 18-20 year olds from owning a gun and may be confiscated. Some elected sheriffs are declaring their counties sanctuary counties and saying they will not enforce these state laws. My question is: Do state legislatures have rights to intrude in local law enforcement matters.
    I personally view these state laws unconstitutional and the sheriffs, especially the elected ones, can interpose and consider the state law nullified. But I’m a realist and know our writers of our constitution were intelligent people and have a hard time believing they would agree with the states especially given the wording of the 2nd amendment. Thank you.

    Like

    Comment by Jack Adams | March 5, 2019 | Reply

    • Questions for you:

      1. Do rights come from the Constitution? Think before you answer. and review the Declaration of Independence before you answer.

      2. What is the Sworn Duty of all elected & appointed government officials?

      3. Is whether an Act is unconstitutional a matter of personal opinion – or is it an issue of Fact? How does one know whether an Act is unconstitutional or not?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2019 | Reply

      • Our rights come from God such a life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights government is instituted among men getting their power from the consent of the governed.
        The sworn duty of all elected and appointed government officials is to uphold the constitution.
        If an act doesn’t line up with the constitution I would deem it unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is very clear when it states “shall not be infringed”.

        Jack Adams

        Like

        Comment by Jack Adams | March 5, 2019 | Reply

        • Precisely!
          That para of our Declaration of Independence is firmly printed on the forefront of my mind. Never forget it.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2019 | Reply

          • Publius Huldah, given my former question concerning a states anti 2nd amendment law to restrict gun sales to 18-20 year olds would be unconstitutional and elected sheriffs could interpose and consider the law nullified as several sheriffs have said they would not enforce the law. The sheriffs are calling their counties sanctuary cities in protecting our 2nd amendment.
            Jack Adams

            Like

            Comment by Jack Adams | March 6, 2019

          • The Sheriff’s Prime Duty is to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of their own State.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019

          • PH; regarding the same questioning of Mr. Adams, do the states not have an obligation of abiding by and supporting the US Constitution by virtue of being one of the United States. After all, they must ratify any amendment. Hence my reasoning is that in order to become a State of the United States they must support and defend the Constitution, including all it’s amendments, and cannot pick and chose which ones they enforce or abide by, including the 2nd. As you once told me, they can only enforce where arms are allowed, such as certain buildings for public security.
            Recently read a book on the 2nd Amendment (That Every Man Be Armed – Stephen P. Halbrook) in which the ratification of the 14th amendment was discussed. Numerous court cases found that the states could not infringe on individuals rights to keep and bear arms. These court cases were driven by certain states militias confiscating arms owned by recently freed slaves. As always, your views and clarification are tremendously appreciated.
            Thank you

            Like

            Comment by N S | March 6, 2019

          • Yes, people in state governments take an Oath to support the US Constitution.

            But the problem is that people don’t bother to read and understand the Constitution they took an Oath to support. They go by what “everybody says” as to what the US Constitution requires.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019

          • nobody who takes an oath holds to that oath we know and it is proven. now that the mueller report is done and the distraction still goes on, the democratic party is still trying to create a crime to over throw the president and the constitution , for example…. the electoral college elimination , compacts and agreements of states entering back into the paris climate treaty , changing the voting age , continual attacks on the 2nd amendment and them investigating themselves ( obama – hillary – fast and furious etc… and i can add a long list. when and what can the people do to stop the corruption and put the democrats and republicans in prison where they belong..theres more than enough evidence there for seditious conspiracy

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | March 24, 2019

  13. With so many people putting forth “NEW DEAL” ideas perhaps “Publius Huldah” you should put forth a constitutional new deal that some of us could run on… just food for thought. – Gary

    Like

    Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019 | Reply

    • I propose that everyone READ & OUTLINE the Declaration of Independence and our US Constitution.
      When I was learning new stuff – I always outlined it. That’s how I learned it. And as I studied my outline, it got printed on my brain. Then I could remember it and recite it from memory.
      This amazes people – if they only understood how easy it is!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2019 | Reply

      • Thank you as always for your candid response. I love it. However i believe that is the problem. You’ll never get everyone to read it, let alone outline it. I propose the first person to speak it out load in sound bites will come across as a person with new and revolutionary idea’s. Hence a constitutional new deal. But thanks as always for everything you do.

        Like

        Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019 | Reply

        • Americans no longer believe that they should conform to external, transcendent standards. They want governments to do what THEY want them to do. Their highest value is to “feel good”. Read my earliest paper under the category “Pragmatism”. Americans have no idea what was done to them….. They are empty husks.

          show me what you mean by “a constitutional New Deal”. I remember FDR’s “New Deal”.

          I need to link up with a psychologist to show me how to deal with the empty husks.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2019 | Reply

          • I will get back with you on that… let me lay something out. See what you think.

            Like

            Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019

          • PH, The Constitutional New Deal would be launched in three phases.

            Constitutional New Deal Programs

            First phase
            To eliminate ALL agencies that are not constitutional.
            • Public Schools Act – the department of education shall be abolished. Returning all funds to the states and returning all educational powers to the states and localities.
            This would follow with all other agencies that are not constitutional. What is needed is a way for whom ever is running on this plan to be able to explain the agency, why it’s not needed, why it’s unconstitutional, and what comes next.
            The follow up to that would be the phasing out of agencies that could not be immediately…
            FDR had a total of 19 acts passed in the first wave of his new deal.

            Second phase
            To put forth an economy based on the enumerated powers budget and constitutional tax structure.
            • The enumerated powers act: a budget based on the powers
            • Gold standards act: to return the U.S to the gold standard…
            • Personal income tax act: to eliminate all personal income…and return to
            FDR had a total of 12 acts passed in this wave of the program.

            Third phase
            • Here I would put what ever needs to be shored up…
            • Repeal certain amendments.
            • Pass an act defining very important constitutional terms such a natural born citizen, citizen, and immigrant and on and on…
            FDR has the fewest number of acts in this wave…

            I just thought if there was a platform a “constitutional new deal” so to speak put forth it would come across as revolutionary, if done right.
            Thoughts???

            Like

            Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019

          • Well, certainly we need to find a way to reach the masses. My approach works only with those who can think. But most can’t think – so we need to find something really EASY for them.

            I think I see what you mean. About 35 years ago, I heard that someone in one of the Houses of Congress read Article I, Section 8, aloud in that Chamber, and someone [it may have been the Clerk for that Chamber] asked, “What are you reading from?”

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2019

          • PH; As usual, you are 100% spot on. It’s quite simple, as you have stated countless times, what does The Constitution Say!
            An understanding, and very least, written summary of the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution, should be mandatory for graduation from High School and entry into college, even from Home Schoolers, which I’ve found have a greater understanding of those documents than public school rejects. And should be a requirement to hold any government job of any kind, especially and elected position.
            You’re right that America is populated by empty husks, a great many of which don’t want the government to do what they want, they want government to do everything for them, hence the empty headed husks. Just ask a millennial, a great many of whom cannot find the United States on a map……. of the United States…..
            We have made it hard to understand the Founding Documents simply because we have made it to hard to be simple…… It ain’t rocket science!
            Thanks PH

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by N S | March 5, 2019

  14. Hi, PH. Another query. Doesn’t Art III Sec 2 provide SCOTUS the legal latitude to usurp the people’s 2nd Amendment–but also unalienable–right to bear arms? If not, why not? Thanks!

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 17, 2019 | Reply

    • No, it doesn’t. why do you think it would?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2019 | Reply

  15. PH,

    A comment I read here prompted me to read the Report of 1800 and I’m confused about a few things:

    When I read the report, Madison comes off as lenient and permissive towards aliens. But what kind of alien qualifies for that kind of attitude? Who are the “alien friends”? What kind of aliens would be considered “friendly”? What kind of alien can the government not remove?

    Is an alien who enters the country illegally not considered “friendly” even if this person may be peaceful and non-threatening?

    Does the fact that Congress has the authority to create rules of naturalization and can thus make residing in this country without going through the proper procedure of being a citizen illegal, making you an illegal citizen, make an alien who violates those rules to be considered an alien that is subject to the punishment that Madison says is constitutional?

    Can you sum up what Madison is essentially saying about aliens and what the US can do regarding them? Because I’ve seen someone use that as evidence that the US can’t deny entry to immigrants.

    Also, the passage: “Congress have power to suppress insurrections, yet it would not be allowed to follow, that they might employ all the means tending to prevent them; of which a system of moral instruction for the ignorant, and of provident support for the poor, might be regarded as among the most efficacious.” What does he mean here?

    Sorry for all the questions. Sometimes I find the language in these documents confusing. A lot of commas too. It’s just that a lot of left-wingers actually use the writings of the founders to justify progressive, leftist positions and ideas and I just want to make sure I know how to respond to them.

    Also, have you written any books? Have you ever considered putting all your writings and papers on this blog into a book for posterity’s sake?

    Thanks so much for your time.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Bob | February 16, 2019 | Reply

    • sorry for the delay. In order to understand Madison’s Report of 1799-1800 on the Virginia Resolutions, it is imperative that one first read and understand the Alien & Sedition Acts. https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/alien.html Find the Acts passed by Congress and read them carefully. That is square one.

      Only then can one understand the comments on the Alien Acts such as the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and Madison’s Report of 1799-1800.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2019 | Reply

  16. Another question for you: Was Obama ever legally challenged for his DACA edict? (Even he admitted that it was unconstitutional, but did it anyway.) If not challenged, why not? If challenged, by whom and what was the outcome? My guess is that it was only verbally and not legally challenged.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 15, 2019 | Reply

    • By “legally challenged”, I assume you mean, “did someone file a lawsuit in federal court and ask the federal court to issue THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER which would bind everyone?

      One of the most pernicious of the beliefs with which American have been indoctrinated is that federal courts are the final answer on all constitutional questions.

      Not so. Congress should have impeached & removed obama for his DACA edict – but we elect to Congress people who don’t know that they can and should impeach & remove a President for such political offenses.

      The States should have impeded and thwarted DACA at every possible opportunity. But they don’t do that because the people we elect to our State governments don’t know that they can and should refuse to comply with unconstitutional edicts of the President.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 16, 2019 | Reply

      • I don’t see how Article 1 Section 2 applies to any Trump authority on his border policies????

        Like

        Comment by nelsonaire9 | February 17, 2019 | Reply

        • neither do I.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2019 | Reply

  17. Hi, PH. This a follow-up question regarding same subject I posed earlier (1/27). Listened to TAC’s Mike Maharrey’s podcast regarding the unconstitutionality of Trump’s declaration of national emergency. Without alluding to executive duties cited in Art IV Sec 4, Art I Sec 2, Art II Sec 1 Cl 8, but also Art I Sec 9 Cl 1, he focused entirely upon the unconstitutionality of the National Emergency Act of 1976, arguing that Congress, like the President, is nowhere authorized in the Constitution to declare a national emergency. I strive to be a genuine originalist when examining the Constitution and acts of our federal and State governments.But on this matter I am in a quandary. HELP!!!!!

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 15, 2019 | Reply

    • I should have gone into more detail about the “declaring national emergency” issue in this post: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/yes-trump-has-constitutional-authority-to-secure-our-southern-border/

      The President has no independent constitutional authority to declare whatever he wants “a national emergency”; and THEN, based on his declaration, invoke all sorts of “emergency powers” to address whatever he has declared to be a “national emergency”.

      Instead, the President’s powers are defined by the Constitution. If a power or duty is listed or imposed by the Constitution or in an Act of Congress authorized by the Constitution, the President may exercise it. And sometimes, it will be an emergency. E.g., the mass invasions of our Southern Border. That is addressed by our Constitution [see the linked blog post] and is a real “national emergency”.

      The President has no constitutional authority to declare mass floodings, mass power outages, drug addiction, morbid obesity, illiteracy, etc., as “national emergencies” for which he may exercise “emergency powers”. Those issues are not the business of the federal government and are not delegated powers.

      HOWEVER, If mass floodings, mass power outages, etc., bring about “insurrections”; then the “Militia” may be called into national service to suppress the Insurrection (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 15).

      [Remember, the Bolsheviks exploited World War I to bring about the Communist Revolution in Tsarist Russia – that’s an example of how Communists can exploit things such as horrible wars, floods, power outages, etc., to bring about an insurrection leading to overthrow of the existing governments.] Under our Constitution, the Militia may be called forth to address the insurrection!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 16, 2019 | Reply

      • So, Maharrey was right in saying that the Nat’l Emergencies Act 1976 was unlawful and can’t be lawfully relied upon to justify Trump’s declaring an emergency? HOWEVER, the cites I presented in my question DO justify Trump’s declaration? Thanks for so quickly responding with your usual erudition.

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | February 16, 2019 | Reply

  18. https://www.infowars.com/constitutio…toral-college/ Reportedly, CO has eliminated proportional electoral voting and has passed a bill requiring all electors to cast their ballots for the presidential candidate who garners the most national votes. The State is doing this in compact with 11 other blue States, and the no. of those States is expected to grow. IF TRUE as reported, is this not a brazen violation of Art II and Art VI. Only an amendment can eliminate in-state proportional votes, no? Or is that solely at the discretion of the State. If so, I’m flummoxed big time. What’s your take. If true, State not throwing all their electoral votes to the national winner should be outraged. If CO and other states not following the rules, then why should they be permitted to vote in presidential elections. And if they shouldn’t be allowed to cast their votes in such a manner, then what political forces can be brought to bear to render null and void any presidential votes cast in that manner. Maybe I’m missing something, but if this is true why no publicity, why not a torrent of outrage? What’s your take?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 3, 2019 | Reply

    • I have addressed this in a video and two papers! Go to my home page and click on – under Categories – National Popular Vote.

      Why is there no outrage? Because Republicans are more interested in the recent political scandals – you know, the “latest news” – they aren’t interested in constitutional issues.

      The Democrats think it is a wonderful idea and they are ALL for it!

      Here’s info for Colorado

      Hearing!

      SB19-042: Stage 3S NPV Not Article V Convention

      Concerning adoption of an agreement among the states to elect the president of the United States by national popular vote

      https://legiscan.com/CO/bill/SB042/2019

      https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-042

      Status: Engrossed on January 30 2019 – 50% progression
      Action: 2019-01-30 – Introduced In House – Assigned to State, Veterans, & Military Affairs
      Pending: House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee
      Hearing: Feb 12 @ 1:30 pm in Room LSB-A

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2019 | Reply

      • the electoral college is a constitutional process… democrats can think whatever they want. what my question is to publius is , where can we learn more about why we have immigration laws , the concern over foreigners coming here etc… the democrats want more ports of entry added to the 300 holes now…. there has to be warnings the forefathers gave to people about foreigners coming here to destroy this country and not having allegiance here… stealing and disrespecting this country

        Like

        Comment by hippie49 | February 3, 2019 | Reply

        • I will do my best to get my research on this together and write it up. for now, look at Federalist Paper No. 2, 5th para, where John Jay writes of how we are one people, one religion, one language, etc.

          and that’s why Art. I, Sec. 9, cl.1, U.S. Constitution, delegates to Congress the power to control Migration to this Country – as of Jan 1, 1808. But Americans got conditioned into believing that letting anybody in is the moral thing to do. Look at the Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty. That crap she wrote is poison – yet Americans got indoctrinated into thinking that THAT was the Principle which should guide our Immigration Laws.

          And then the Libertarians live in a totally kum ba yah world…. they support open borders.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2019 | Reply

  19. SOMEONE POSTED THIS TO A COMMENT I MADE AND I WOULD LIKE YOUR EDUCATED OPINION. THANK YOU:Interesting you bring up the Constitution, can you point to the section that allows the federal government to deny entry to immigrants? To kidnap peaceful people and hold them in camps?
    The federal government has no constitutional authority to deport foreign nationals or prohibit their entry unless the United States is at war with that country. Immigrants are entitled to trial by jury and all other aspects of due process of law before being deported. Foreign nationals are entitled to all of the rights in the Constitution not explicitly reserved to citizens. State and local governments have not only the right, but the duty, to resist and refuse cooperation with federal enforcement of unconstitutional immigration laws.
    What kind of far-left anti-American extremist would assert such positions? James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in his ‘Report of 1800.'” – Andy Craig

    Like

    Comment by madelyn thide | January 29, 2019 | Reply

    • Article I, Section 9, clause 1, US Constitution, delegated to Congress the power, commencing January 1, 1808, to control immigration to this Country.
      Of course, Congress has the power to make laws providing for the detention and deportation of those who violate our immigration laws!

      Globalists want to destroy national identities in order to impose world government. Unrestricted immigration destroys national identity and sovereignty. That facilitates the imposition of world government.

      The Libertarians want unrestricted immigration because they are fools living in a kum ba yah dream world – and are unable to think things through.

      Madison never said what “Andy Craig” claims he said. I am familiar with Madison’s Report of 1800 to the Virginia legislature.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2019 | Reply

  20. PH, a few items for your generous response: 1) Re Bill of Rights, is the doctrine of incorporation foisted upon us by SCOTUS in any way constitutional; 2) Is Art IV Sec 4 (and I believe there’s a statute as well) sufficient constitutional grounds for the President to declare a national emergency, thus permitting his tapping needed funds and personnel from the Pentagon to construct the wall; and if yet another Leftist district judge enjoins this action, and if Trump’s action is entirely lawful, then what action can and should Trump take in response to such judicial edict(s), and upon what grounds would his defying such orders be constitutionally justified? Thanks very much!!

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | January 26, 2019 | Reply

  21. You just knew someone would eventually ask this. So, here goes. While I believe the President does have the Constitutional authority to spend defense and/or emergency funds to protect the border, what exactly do I cite in Constitution to support that belief? Thanks!!

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | January 7, 2019 | Reply

    • Our Framers understood that control over who enters our Country is an essential element of sovereignty.

      So three provisions in our Constitution give him authority:

      Art. I, §9, cl.1 grants to Congress power over Migration;
      Art. IV, §4 REQUIRES the United States to protect each of the States against Invasion;
      and Art. I, §8, cl. 15 authorizes the use of the Militia to repel invasions

      It is his duty to protect us from invasion.

      Ideally, Congress should fund the wall. But if Congress refuses to do so – the President absolutely must step in – or we will have a civil war on our hands.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2019 | Reply

      • I have a question too. Why are people like Rahm Emmanuel, Jerry Brown and others allowed to state in public that their city/state is a sanctuary, in direct violation of the immigration statutes’ prohibitions against, paraphrasing, “aiding, abetting, enticing” (All right! Rahm said I’d be safe in Chicago!) illegal aliens to come into or remain in this country?
        Are Jerry and Gavin and Rahm just using their free speech rights? Wait…they are public officials. What’s more, city councils and state legislatures, I believe have passed ordinances and resolutions documenting and CODIFYING their intention to violate federal law.
        Are we going to call this nullification or something else? Like a violation of national security? And why is it that in a country with zillions of lawyers and well-funded political action think tanks and foundations, nobody can fund an application to the Supreme Court to get this stuff stopped? Or is it simply the JOB of the Attorney General of the US, as directed by the President when necessary, to enforce the laws? IOW, is it simply malfeasance or misfeasance or dereliction of duty, all THEMSELVES punishable acts, on a massive, bi-partisan scale?
        In short, why did the situation get so bad that we even have to be talking about using the military to repel an invasion?

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | January 8, 2019 | Reply

        • 1. It got this bad because the globalists have been plotting for many decades to impose world government.
          In order to impose world government, they must first destroy all of the national identities.
          THAT is the purpose of the mass migration of third world people into the civilized countries of Europe and the United States.
          THAT was the purpose behind Wrong Turn Teddy’s (Kennedy) immigration and reform act of 1965 which opened the flood gates of this Country to third world immigrants.
          THAT was the mindset behind that poisonous Emma Lazarus poem which is on the Statue of Liberty – “give me your poor, your huddled masses, etc.”
          It’s about homogenizing the world population, destroying national identities, and taking down the civilized Western Countries – i.e., Western Civilization.

          2. Our Enemy was able to silence opposing voices by calling them “racists”, Zenophobes, etc. I have a German friend who told me that the Germans who oppose the massive importation of muslims to Germany are afraid to say anything because they will be called “NAZIS”. In this Country, people who opposed opening our Country up to massive influxes of third world people were also called names. So people went along with it or shut up.

          3. “Nullification” is the remedy our Framers advised States to use when the acts of the federal government were unconstitutional.
          But Congress has delegated authority at Art. I, Section 9, clause 1, US Constitution, to control Migration to this Country.
          States and Counties and Cities who act in violation of Congressional acts respecting Migration (“immigration”) are in violation of federal law.
          The Department of Justice should file lawsuits against the violating States and Counties and Cities.
          But the lawyers in the DOJ got brainwashed in Law school.
          Our federal judges got so brainwashed in law school that they refuse to enforce the Constitution and constitutional federal law.

          4. We have the additional horrific problem of the marriage of Money & Politics. On the FAKE “right”, the globalist Koch Brothers are literally buying up Republican politicians and judges and governors in every State. Yes, those Republicans Americans are so proud of electing are shills for the globalist Koch Brothers. Ted Cruz is one of the Worst. But he tells people what they want to hear….

          5. All you and I and others like us can do is Tell the Truth wherever we can; take the slings and arrows which depraved people hurl at Truth Tellers; and pray that God will intervene. And PREPARE FOR THE WORST.

          6. As a People, Americans have sunk very low. This article is about a man who really is (sadly) a Metaphor of what the people of America have become: https://freedomoutpost.com/a-metaphor-for-america-700-pound-man-plans-to-eat-and-play-video-games-while-naked-until-he-dies/

          And I know of Americans who plan to eat and play golf until they die.

          We have become a depraved, self-centered, self-indulgent, and cowardly people. And there is going to be Hell to pay.

          Countries really do destroy themselves from within.

          Liked by 3 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2019 | Reply

          • PH; Very well said and spot on as usual. Wasn’t it Ben Franklin that said words to the effect, that people get the government they deserve? Simply look at the clowns running our government at all levels, local, county, state, and federal. We are our own worst enemy. I believe that God has given us the tools to right the wrongs and lead fruitful and socially productive lives. But to many have turned away from Gods laws for the immediate gratification offered by Satan.
            I have this fear, as you do PH, that this country will teeter towards the abyss of globalism. Those encouraging this have been at it far to many years. The powers that be will continue to push until one day we will wake up and the confiscation & re-education will have begun. No one can tell, but someone will fire the second shot heard round the world as on Lexington Green that fateful day. It will be the start of the Second American Revolution and will be “game on”. As I was born much to late to be of use during the First, I fear I will be much to old to be of use during the Second. So I wake up and do what I can to encourage the understanding of, and return to, the principles outlined in our founding documents. Gods experiment 5000 years in the making.

            Like

            Comment by N S | January 8, 2019

          • Hi PH, 2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

            2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

            3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

            4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

            5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

            6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

            7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

            It certainly seems we are in the end times…..

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Spense | January 18, 2019

          • But since we might not be, we must FIGHT the EVIL which is encroaching on us!!

            And defeat it.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 18, 2019


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: