Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

2,450 Comments »

  1. My analysis of the Bill of rights incorporates the fullest amount of gluttonous-excess on steroids by stretching the limits of the preamble to the bill of rights. our customs and language may have changed but human nature is to go for the gusto and hoard the excess. that being said my appetite embarrasses me. Here goes:

    Text of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights

    THE Conventions of a number of States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:
    And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    Unalienable rights of Conscience as I envisioned getting as much Liberty as possible,

    The first ten amendments are “declarative and restrictive clauses”.

    They all have elements of God given rights of conscience which means they supersede all previous parts of the Constitution and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights.

    The original 10 are not amendable and declare in plain text the extent of the powers of government over the people. I regret that when the Chief Justice had the opportunity to do the right thing by relegating the SSM quandry to the 10th. amendment, and establish a new right which would have stopped the anamosity and everyone could move on…with their lives. it’s not too late sinsemText of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights
    THE Conventions of a number of States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    Unalienable rights of Conscience as
    The first ten amendments are “declarative and restrictive clauses”. They all have elements of God given rights of conscience which means they supersede all previous parts of the Constitution and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights. The original 10 are not amendable and declare in plain text the extent of the powers of government over the people.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | July 24, 2016 | Reply

    • To those of you who are pontificating on the scope of first 10 amendments to the US Constitution: Imagine you wake up in a pitch black area – you can’t see a thing. You don’t know where you are – inside, outside, you don’t know. All you have is one candle and some matches. You light the candle and look around. All you can see is what you see by the light of that one candle.

      Do you really believe that what you can see by the light of that one candle is all there is to be seen? That YOU know the complete truth about your surroundings?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 25, 2016 | Reply

  2. Hi PH, RKBA is Right to Keep & Bear Ams

    Like

    Comment by Spense | July 22, 2016 | Reply

    • thanks Spense. I used to use abbreviations in my speeches until someone told me that people didn’t know what they meant! So I stopped.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 22, 2016 | Reply

  3. Sorry PH, I see your point and my error. I will read those pieces you suggested.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | July 22, 2016 | Reply

  4. Right, the Bill of Rights was written to restrict the power of government to infringe upon the rights of the people. It protects the rights of the people. And since the COTUS is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well, i.e. the States cannot restrict the rights of the people either.
    Naturally those parts of the Constitution which limit the power of the federal government don’t limit the power of the States, in fact it specifically says that aside from those limited areas of responsibility delegated to the federal government, the rest of the powers and authority are reserved to the States and the people.
    But those parts of the Constitution which limit the power of the government to infringe upon the God given, natural rights of the people are supreme throughout the land, regardless of which government is at issue.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | July 20, 2016 | Reply

    • No, absolutely not. The original intent of the bill of rights is that it restricts ONLY the federal government.

      It wasn’t until 1925 that SCOTUS came up with the bizarre idea that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporated” the 1st amendment so as to restrict the power of the States respecting the items listed in the 1st Amdt.

      Please read the posts below and be sure to read the paper I link to about religious freedom. It was that damned “incorporation” theory which SCOTUS used to ban Christian prayer and the 10 Commandments from the public schools, courthouse lawns, etc. It was a grotesque usurpation of power over the States. And you are fine with that?

      Don’t be so quick to insist that provisions in the federal Constitution restrict the States. Why? THINK! Look at Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1: The judicial power of the United States extends to all matters “arising under this Constitution”. So when a provision in the federal Constitution applies to the States, the federal courts have judicial power over it.

      So THAT’s WHY SCOTUS claimed that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt “incorporated” the bill of rights – BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THEY USURPED POWER OVER THE STATES TO POLICE THE STATES’ ACTIVITIES LISTED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

      Sometimes I wonder I bother. This is one of those occasions.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 20, 2016 | Reply

      • Please, continue too bother! You are a wealth of knowledge.

        So how does the 2nd Amendment to the COTUS work too limit States from infringing on my God given Right to maintain and bear arms?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Douglas G Cowan | July 20, 2016 | Reply

        • The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution does NOT restrict the States.

          Don’t forget! STATES HAVE THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONS!!!!! What does YOUR State Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms? The People of each State have the say so about what is in their state Constitution.

          The only provision in the US Constitution which restricts the States from restricting arms is the militia clauses of the Constitution: Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16. Read this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/why-congress-may-lawfully-require-citizens-to-buy-guns-ammunition-but-not-to-submit-to-obamacare-2/

          So any State laws which pretended to disarm its Citizens would violate the Militia clauses of the federal Constitution and would fail under the supremacy clause.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2016 | Reply

          • PH; This is a question I have wondered about for a time, the states ability to restrict our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. After reading your paper, if I understand this correctly it means :
            1 – federal government cannot restrict our rghts to keep and bear arms under the 2nd ammendment.
            2 – the states having their own Constitution can.
            However
            1 – the individual states cannot restrict our right to keep and bear arms because of the militia requirement under the Constitution. Do I interpret this correctly?
            If this is true, can the individual states restrict where and when we may keep and bear arms, (IE: gun free zones) or would that also fall under the militia clause?
            Please don’t give up on us now, we need your expertise and most excellant teaching now more than ever. I may be slow but I try. Thanks again for your wisdom and all you do.
            NS

            Like

            Comment by N S | July 21, 2016

          • Over the country at large, The federal government may NOT restrict our rights to keep and bear WHATEVER ARMS we want because:
            1. Arms control is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government; and
            2. Such arms control would violate the 2nd Amendment.

            HOWEVER: Look at Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause – about the District of Columbia and the “federal enclaves” where Congress has the power to exercise “exclusive legislation”. This means that the federal government does have the power to make reasonable restrictions re our carrying arms in the federal enclaves: So Congress may properly make laws requiring you to check your guns or leave them in your car when you are visiting inmates of federal prisons, entering federal courthouses, the psych ward of military hospitals, and such like. Such restrictions are obviously necessary & reasonable, and do not interfere with the right of a free people to keep and bear arms.

            Please read my papers on the Militia https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/militia/

            As Dr. Edwin Vieira has pointed out, since the early 1600s, the tradition in our country is that all free males are expected to be armed, trained, and ready at a moment’s notice to defend their family and community. Laws in the Colonies gave effect to this requirement, and the tradition continued after we declared our Independence. This was The Militia – the armed citizens. Our framers never dreamed that States would try to limit the use of arms. The Federalist Papers are clear that the primary function of The Militia – the armed Citizens – is to defend the States FROM the federal government.

            Each State has its own Constitution. Look up your State Constitution and see what it says about The Militia and the right of the Citizens to keep and Bear Arms.

            A State Constitution and State Laws can’t lawfully disarm its Citizens because of the militia clauses in the federal Constitution.

            The State Constitutions I have seen would permit the State legislature to make reasonable restrictions on where you can carry: Eg., state laws prohibiting you from carrying when you visit insane asylums, State prisons, state courthouses, and such are reasonable and most likely wouldn’t violate the state Constitution. They wouldn’t violate the militia clauses of the federal Constitution. State laws prohibiting minors from possessing arms in public places when not in the present of an adult parent or guardian would be reasonable.

            You would have to check your State Constitution to find out about “gun free” zones – no guns in schools, movie theaters, sports stadiums, etc. Such laws are the absolute height of STUPIDITY and any legislator who supports such should be recalled or hounded out of office. Any citizen who supports such is too stupid to be allowed to vote. Those laws may violate the State Constitution. After all, it is increasingly the public places where we are needing armed and trained citizens to defend us.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2016

      • As a lawyer, you give full faith and credit to things like ‘precedent’, ‘case law’, and other lawyerly terminology and rightly profess the profession. But you equally salute that the Constitution of the US was not written for the furtherance of the profession, it was written for us dolts out here. So that, you entrust us with the power to read and understand the /English language. It is nowhere found in the Constitution in any article or amendment that the “Congress may from time-to-time” or the “Executive may from time-to-time” or the “Judiciary may from time-to-time” ……. “.incorporate” things in the constitution into other things in the Constitution.
        The Due process clause of the 14th Amendment states that a person cannot be deprived of his ability to breathe, walk the earth and aquire material possessions without a legal process (that’s where you come in!)
        But that process is not transferable back and forth between a national government and a state government.
        When it says “Due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws” it is talking about the laws within that state’s jurisdiction, or within the national jurisdiction, whichever is applicable A state is not required to enforce a federal law, and a state judiciary is not required to sit in pronouncement of the US Constitutionality of any act, any more than the federal government is entitled to enforce state laws or the federal judiciary is allowed to pass on wither civil and criminal proceedings in the individual states adhere to those states’ constitutions.
        A state law is not in violation of the US Constitution unless that law conflicts with a federal law which itself is Constitutional. There is no federal law against jaywalking or allowing jaywalking. And as long as a state, or a county, or a city, acts according to the laws of it’s own jurisdiction, and applies it’s laws equally according to the applicable federal laws of equality of treatment of people with dual citizenship (state and national), then it can throw you in the hoosegow for such an insignificant indiscretion as jaywalking, if it’s laws so provide.
        Ergo, if, for example, the applicable Civil Rights Acts of the United States do not mention “sexual orientation”, then the federal government is not allowed to use it’s executive and judicial powers to take the liberty of a Kentucky county clerk because there has been NO DUE PROCESS OF L.A.W. i.e., there is no federal law.
        On the other hand, the State of Kentucky is perfectly within it’s rights to deny a homosexual couple to profess under the laws of the State of Kentucky that they are legally married and entitled to the privileges accruing to married people in Kentucky. Nor is Kentucky obligated to accept a marriage license, or real estate license, or medical license, or lawyer’s license, from any other state and there is no mandate for the State of Kentucky to disallow any form of public prayer for the simple reason that there is no federal law prohibiting public prayer, or viceversa mandating public prayer.
        What “the law” is all depends on the meaning of what “the law” is.

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | July 20, 2016 | Reply

        • I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.

          Due Process” is a term with a distinct meaning going back to the Magna Carta. It means that States can’t take peoples’ lives, liberty and property away from them except after they have been convicted in a fair trial by the Judgment of their peers.

          The “equal protection” clause also has a distinct meaning. It meant that with respect to the basic God-given rights listed in the federal civil rights act of 1864 (or is it 1866?), the States were now REQUIRED to treat black people the same as white people.

          Professor Raoul Berger, who is The Authority on the original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, proves these true meanings of these terms. I have set this forth in my papers on the “equal protection” clause and the “due process” clause. The purpose of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from Southern Black Codes which denied black people basic GOD-given rights.

          What we need Americans to do is learn what the Constitution itself actually says. Americans ARE supposed to read it and know what it says. But they may not properly read their own interpretations into it. There was a time when People understood that the task of the Reader is to determine the author’s intent. Our Framers were such educated and rational men that they knew how to say what they meant.

          But today, as a People, we were indoctrinated in the schools with “literary deconstruction” where we feel perfectly free to read our own interpretations into a text. And this atrocious habit is so deeply ingrained in us that we don’t even know we are doing it.

          The way to avoid literary deconstruction is to use only original definitions – use the definitions the Framers used. Often Webster’s 1828 Dictionary helps us. Sometimes we have to consult other writings of the time period of our Framing. (See, e.g., the discussion of “Word Definitions” here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

          To ascertain the original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, Professor Raoul Berger went to the records of the Congressional Debates.

          We can NEVER NEVER NEVER properly look into our own understandings for word meanings.

          And hell will freeze over before I EVER indulge in my own musings and interpretations and philosophizings about these issues. Our Framers and Thomas Jefferson were the geniuses. Today, we don’t have people on their level. So I merely report what THEY said and explain it so that people can understand. As a People, we have become enamored with our own precious “thoughts” and “opinions”. I say a pox on our “opinions”. None of us today is any match for Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, John Adams, etc. And Daniel Webster! Wow!

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2016 | Reply

          • What I was trying to say was that people take Supreme Court decisions and conflate them with law, as in US Code. Then when, for example, Kim Davis properly follows Kentucky law, the meme goes out that because federal law trumps state law, some federal judge out in some district can throw her in jail. Kim Davis violated no one’s 14th Amendment rights to due process because the only law applicable is Kentucky law. There is no governing federal statute. The Constitution does not say “Due process of Supreme Court decisions”.
            And even such a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment as Justice Scalia agreed with you that while the US government cannot infringe on RKBA, states have every right to do so under the Due process of their own state laws, i.e. in most states convicted felons cannot carry anymore than they can vote, up until the point where Congress passes a new Civil Rights Act saying they can. And it all goes back to delegated and reserved powers and whose laws apply. Oh, and states can age-discriminate, too. Kids can’t vote or consent to medical procedures or sign contracts in most states.

            Like

            Comment by bobmontgomery | July 21, 2016

          • Right. People are dead wrong to take SCOTUS opinions as “law”. Judicial opinions are NOT part of “the supreme Law of this Land”. Art. VI, clause 2, US Constitution.

            People are dead wrong when they say federal law trumps state law. Only Constitutional laws have supremacy over State laws to the contrary. Unconstitutional acts of Congress have supremacy over nothing – they are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33, next to last para or so).

            Right, Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage, killing babies, or sodomy.

            I don’t follow your second para! What is RKBA? I have not said that States have the right to restrict arms under the “due process” clauses of the State Constitutions. That isn’t what “due process” means. I haven’t said that State Laws which prohibit convicted felons from carrying are permissible under the State Constitutions. I haven’t read every State Constitution, of course, but the Tennessee Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution prohibit their State Legislature from making such a law disarming convicted felons. Congress has no constitutional authority to pass a civil rights act saying convicted felons may carry! The only laws respecting arms Congress may lawfully make for the Country at Large are laws requiring male Citizens to buy arms, buy ammo, and report to their local Militia for training.

            Minors and what they may and may not do is a power reserved by the States or The People.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 22, 2016

      • Publius, is it correct that Congress could write legislation today that would “overturn” “supersede” (or whatever the correct word) that SCOTUS Opinion from 1925. Same thing for the more recent Opinions regarding “marriage” and “abortion” (which aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution), if they wanted?

        Like

        Comment by Diamondback | July 22, 2016 | Reply

        • Congress doesn’t need to overturn it by making any laws. What’s needed in this Country is more manly men and womanly women who know that the proper thing to do with such supreme Court opinions is to spit on them. Our Framers NEVER said Congress had to or should make laws repealing such supreme Court opinions. Our Framers said Congress should impeach and remove federal judges who violate the Constitution; and States and manly citizens should refuse to comply. I write about this all the time in my papers on nullification. see also my Primer on impeachment.
          Americans need to man up.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 22, 2016 | Reply

          • But, COULD Congress write legislation overturning wrong/unconstitutional Supreme Court Opinions/Rulings?

            And, HOW can “manly men and women” spit on such opinions/rulings. Say I’m a manly man in court being charged under color of law and one of their wrong/unconstitutional/unlawful opinions is being used against me and my rights, how do I overcome their usurpation of my rights?

            Congress seldom impeaches anyone because they’re afraid they’d set precedent and have to impeach almost EVERYONE of themselves.

            Like

            Comment by Diamondback | July 25, 2016

          • 1. Does the Constitution authorize Congress to make laws overturning unconstitutional SCOTUS opinions? No. That is not the Remedy our Framers advised. The Constitutional remedy is for Congress to impeach and remove from the Bench federal judges who usurp power. THAT is how federal judges were to be kept in line.

            And our Framers expected the States to have enough real men in them such that the States would nullify unconstitutional federal court opinions. E.g., respecting the banning of prayers in the public schools: State legislatures should have passed laws directing their schools to IGNORE the supreme Court opinions. If Congress had done their duty and impeached and removed all federal judges who signed on to the 1962 opinion first banning prayers in the public schools, it would have been an easy matter for State Legislature to then pass laws directing their Schools to ignore the supreme Court opinion. Do you see?

            “Can” Congress make such a law as you suggest? Well, Congress makes thousands of laws they have no constitutional authority to make – so they could make the unconstitutional law you suggest as well as all the other unconstitutional laws they make. But you must understand: All you are proposing is a band-aid which is not only unconstitutional, but doesn’t remedy the problem. The Problem is federal judges who ignore the Constitution. The constitutional remedy is to impeach & remove the judges. It is NOT to keep them on the bench and make unconstitutional laws repealing their unconstitutional opinions.

            We should ALWAYS look to what our Framers told us to do instead of trying to come up with gimmicks.

            2. Your 2nd question is an excellent question: Here are two approaches:

            a) Our Framers contemplated that when the federal government made unconstitutional laws, executive orders, court opinions, and treaties, the State governments would interpose between the federal government and the Citizens of their State. The State government is to literally stand between the federal government and the State Citizens. Thus, with respect to the 1962 supreme Court opinion which pretended to ban prayers in the public schools, instead of expecting each individual teacher to act on her own; the State Legislatures should have passed laws directing schools to ignore the supreme Court opinion.

            State Legislatures should likewise interpose between the federal gov’t and its own State Citizens respecting ALL pretended federal firearms legislation, rules, etc., etc. They should pass State laws directing all the firearms and ammo dealers in their State to ignore all pretended federal dictates; and the State Law should provide that the State Attorney General will defend the Citizens of the State who are unlawfully harassed or persecuted by federal agents – including federal judges within the State – who are attempting to enforce unconstitutional federal laws, rules, etc.

            I know a County Sheriff in Indiana who has interposed between Citizens of his County and the federal government who was attempting to persecute Citizens of his County who are selling raw milk. [I’ll pay $1,000. to anyone who can cite Article, Section, and Clause of the US Constitution which authorizes the federal government, over the Country at Large, to ban the sales of raw milk. Obviously, the fed gov’t has no authority to act in this area.] Anyway, that County Sheriff is a manly man.

            b) Rosa Parks and MLK organized citizens in non-violent protests of the unconstitutional Jim Crow laws. Yes! Some of them went to jail – both Rosa Parks and MLK went to jail. But they won and eliminated Jim Crow. Citizens in at least two States (Connecticut and Washington State) have organized massive non-compliance with unconstitutional State laws respecting guns.

            3. Errant members of Congress are never impeached. They are expelled by their respective Houses. See Art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 26, 2016

    • Topcat, the DOI gives you the answer…… God grants us rights, what God grants us neither the federal or state govt can’t lawfully deny us.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Spense | July 20, 2016 | Reply

  5. I read this article several weeks ago about a CBO report which stated that the latest budget bill included $310 billion of unauthorized spending on expired programs, some that have been expired for a decade. I realize that 80 to 90% of federal spending in unauthorized by the constitution, but wouldn’t it be a simple case of a new president impounding these funds. This would seem to be a simple way of cutting the deficit in half.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | July 19, 2016 | Reply

    • Budget & fiscal matters are not my area of expertise – but I think there is no money to impound. That $310 billion is nothing more than authorization for new debt.
      If I were President, obviously I’d get people who understood budget & fiscal matters perfectly. And as President, I would honor my sacred Oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” – even against the rampant violations of our Constitution by Congress – and I would start shutting down unconstitutional federal departments and agencies. By the end of my first week in office, the federal Department of Education would be gone. Then EPA, Department of Agriculture, HUD, etc., etc., etc.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 20, 2016 | Reply

      • Publius for President!

        Like

        Comment by Diamondback | July 21, 2016 | Reply

        • Thanks, I know the Constitution; but am not a good manager.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2016 | Reply

  6. Never heard of Berger before; just ordered a copy of the book mentioned. Thanks!

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | July 18, 2016 | Reply

  7. Response to Poplicola incorporation

    PH See: “Government by Judiciary”, Raoul Berger
    available at iBooks/ start at 80– thru—95 will give you the answer in detail.
    but The iBook will cost a dollar but there is knowledge worth gold.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | July 18, 2016 | Reply

    • I’ve been quoting Raoul Berger for years! see my postings under the Category “14th amendment”.

      Berger was a great man and his book is THE definitive work on the original intent of the 14th Amendment. He doesn’t discuss the incorporation theory so much – he focuses on the other way the supreme Court perverted the 14th amendment: By redefining the “equal protection” and “due process” clauses in Section 1.

      Berger was the best person to ever come out of Harvard.

      the online edition I cite is free to access.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2016 | Reply

  8. Thanks for posting, Spense. He packed a lot of info in his presentation and with a sense of humor. For some reason, stating the obvious never seems to convince anyone. Once you leave Truth behind, common sense no longer makes sense at all.

    Like

    Comment by llotter2013 | July 18, 2016 | Reply

    • lotter2013, those with a closed mind don’t value truth, only their opinion. I hoped someone would get value from the video.

      Like

      Comment by Spense | July 18, 2016 | Reply

  9. I have been hearing a lot lately from people that I know that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the States before Lincoln or before 1925. I don’t know why they would think the Founders would set up a government based on individual liberty only to form a system where the states could restrict individual rights. Is there any truth to their claims? Any sources that I could use?

    Thanks

    Like

    Comment by Poplicola | July 17, 2016 | Reply

    • The bill of rights was to restrict ONLY the federal government.

      It was in 1925 that the US Supreme Court first asserted that Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment “incorporated” the 1st amendment so as to give the US supreme court POWER OVER THE STATES WITH RESPECT TO the items listed in the first amendment. It was a gigantic usurpation of power over the States by the US supreme court.

      B/c of this “incorporation doctrine”, the bill of rights – which was intended to protect the States FROM the federal government – was turned into a weapon the supreme court used AGAINST the States. The incorporation doctrine is what the supreme court used to ban Christian prayers in, and remove the Ten Commandments from, the public schools throughout the country, banned creches on courthouse lawns, banned crosses in public places, etc.

      Read this and see how they used the 1st amendment AGAINST the States and The People: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/

      Americans of today are highly opinionated about matters of which they know absolutely nothing. Do you see? You spoke out positively on this issue and you had no idea of how the supreme Court’s incorporation doctrine turned the bill of rights [which was intended to restrict only the federal government] into a weapon the supreme court has used to CONTROL THE STATES.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 17, 2016 | Reply

      • The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that the Constitution is the supreme law. The federal government must abide by those guidelines, but so must the states. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution, therefore, the federal government AND the states must abide by the Bill of Rights.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Poplicola | July 17, 2016 | Reply

        • You don’t know what you are talking about. And it is immoral for you to pontificate on matters which you do not understand.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2016 | Reply

        • If that is true, then why do all 50 states have a Bill or Declaration of Rights in their state constitutions?

          Like

          Comment by Spense | July 18, 2016 | Reply

        • From the preamble to the Bill of Rights…. “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the [federal added] Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

          http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Spense | July 18, 2016 | Reply

      • I get that there was intent for it to only apply to the federal government, which is why states have their own constitutions, but the Supremacy Clause makes it clear that it is supreme, that governments at all levels have to abide by its guidelines.

        Like

        Comment by Poplicola | July 17, 2016 | Reply

        • You haven’t thought this through. And you haven’t analyzed the first 10 amendments. You still don’t know what you are talking about.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2016 | Reply

          • Either the Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution or it is not. If the states don’t have to follow the guidelines in the Constitution, which includes the Supremacy Clause and the Bill of Rights, then what was the point? Intent or not, the States MUST follow the Constitution via the Supremacy Clause, which includes the Bill of Rights.

            Like

            Comment by victostyrannidem | July 23, 2016

          • You don’t know what you are talking about!

            Read my comments below.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 24, 2016

      • I would love to have a majority member of that tyrannical1925 SCOTUS show us where in the congressional 14th amendment debate records there was evidence of intent for the 14th amendment to provide SCOTUS with incorporation power over the 1st amendment. When the states did not nullify that tyrannical opinion from SCOTUS… the power abusing tyrants were given carte blanche.

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by Spense | July 18, 2016 | Reply

    • If that were true, that the states are not restricted by the US Constitution/BoRs, they what is the purpose and intent of the requirement that all state officers also swear a sacred Oath of Office to “support, protect and defend the US Constitution …”? IMO that binds every state officer and, thereby, the state itself. Why would that train of thought be wrong?

      Like

      Comment by Diamondback | July 21, 2016 | Reply

      • Think! If state officers obeyed the Constitution instead of the federal government:

        States would refuse to go along with all unconstitutional acts of the federal government. They would NULLIFY unconstitutional acts of Congress, executive orders, and federal court opinions which violated the Constitution.

        States would refuse to accept federal funds to implement unconstitutional federal programs.

        The only reason the federal government has been able to usurp power over the States and take away the rights of the People is because the State governments go along with it. The people we elect to State office are cowards AND the people we elect to State government will do ANYTHING to get federal funds.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2016 | Reply

  10. What should we think of Mike Pence given Donald is a nationalist am I to assume pence is as well?
    Don’t know much about the man any thoughts?

    Like

    Comment by Gary | July 16, 2016 | Reply

  11. Hi PH, here is a guy (Bob McEwen) that really gets it! http://nsic.org/video-mcewen.html

    Like

    Comment by Spense | July 15, 2016 | Reply

    • Hi, Spense! I don’t have time to watch it – so my posting the link isn’t an endorsement! In a nutshell, what does McEwen say?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 17, 2016 | Reply

      • In a nutshell he is a constitutionalist’s constitutionalist…. among other things, he does a wonderful job of explaining where our rights come from and why our founders declared our rights come from God.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Spense | July 17, 2016 | Reply

  12. Hello Publius: What is the status of the “common law” in our statutory jurisdiction courts? From myunderstanding the Constitution only authorizes either Common Law or Admiralty/Maritime Law” Is that correct? How does “statuatory” courts and “common law” comport with each other? Hope that makes sense. I’m so confused.

    Like

    Comment by Diamondback | July 12, 2016 | Reply

    • OK. Sounds like you have been to some “patriot sites” where people are spouting off about things they don’t understand. It is very wicked of them to pontificate on matters of which they are totally ignorant. These self-styled “patriots” cause great harm. I have suspected they are black ops the things they say are so wrong and stupid.

      There is no such thing as a “statutory jurisdiction” court. There is no such thing as a “common law” court either.

      My question to you is: Are you willing to wipe your mind clean of the rubbish you have read on federal court jurisdiction? If you aren’t, I’d be wasting my time if I set forth the truth.

      Nothing in the Constitution restricts federal courts to “common Law” or “admiralty/maritime law”!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2016 | Reply

      • first off, Publius, if I didn’t respect your opinion/knowlege, I wouldn’t keep returning to your site. And, yes, my mind is open as I am a seeker of TRUTH. As you know, there’s a lot of BS to sift through for the common man. Secondly, Amendment VII mentions Common Law in respect to “suits at Common Law”. I’m not even sure we have Common Law in America anymore. I read somewhere that the Common Law has been incorporated to some extent into the UCC. ??

        While we’re on the subject, how do traffic “laws” and “strict liability laws” relate to what once were known as Bills of Pains and Penalties? How did we get to the point where it’s a “crime” even if nobody is injured or any property damaged. Seems to me like they avoid the Bill of Attainder/Pains and Penalties charge by allowing jury trials to the 3-5% of real Americans who insist. But, I’m just curious. Seems the governments have just about subverted every protection the founders tried to provide to keep the people safe from the “revenuers” and “standing army.” ( I consider LE/DOJ overall to represent the Standing Army the founders feared for the people. I recognize the need for LE to some extent but just think it’s gone way beyond what the founders intended and is in serious need of reform.

        Thanks in advance for any information you’re willing to provide.

        Best wishes as always.

        Like

        Comment by Diamondback | July 14, 2016 | Reply

        • The “common law” is God’s Law as set forth in the Bible. I first read the Old Testament after I had been a litigation attorney for many years and was stunned to see how much of American Law was based on Biblical Law. For example: in the Old Testament, one is told that he must build a wall around his roof so that people don’t fall off [People used to meet and socialize on the roofs of peoples’ homes]. Our modern day concept of making your premises safe for visitors comes directly from the Bible. Our modern day concept of suing people for slander comes from the Bible. Fraud, etc.

          If you want to know more about the Common Law, read John Whitehead’s book, “The Second American Revolution”. It is written for non-lawyers as well as for lawyers. And here is a novel idea: Read the Old Testament! It’s the best Law Book ever written.

          After I stopped being a criminal defense lawyer, I switched to civil litigation. Much of my litigation was using common law theories: negligence, torts, etc. The only people who don’t know that the common law is alive and well are the “patriots” who publish ignorant rubbish on their websites.

          One of the favorite targets of the ignorant “patriot” community is the UCC. The UCC is nothing more than a uniform commercial code. Say you have a factory in your State and you manufacture widgets. You sell your widgets in all the States in the Union. Before the UCC, you really had to have a lawyer in every State to advise you on the law of each State. Under the UCC, commercial law was standardized – it makes business much easier and cheaper and cuts legal bills. Of course, now, with the regulatory welfare state, the simplicity of doing business is GONE. But that has nothing to do with the UCC. That has to do with the People WE elect to Congress and to our State governments who imposed the regulatory welfare state on us – with our approval.

          As to the rest of your post: Your mind has been screwed up by the rubbish you have read! Forget it all.

          We have terrible problems in our legal system. But that has to do with our moral collapse, the collapse of our educational system, and the almost universal belief that Judges are not subject to the Law but MAKE the Law. Everyone who ignorantly babbles about how it is the job of judges to “interpret” the law is part of the problem.

          The “patriot community” in America is the only body of people who have ever made me question whether “free speech” is really such a good idea. They cause much harm.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 14, 2016 | Reply

          • I’ve always been particular to The Ten Commandments. They were from the Old Testament, weren’t they? Some of my earliest childhood memories involve being on a blanket under/between the pews in an Assembly of God country church which my stepdad and his best friend basically rebuilt by themselves with me watching a few years later. I spent so much time in my youth at church that, I’m ashamed to say, I’ve hardly ever darkened the doorway of one since. But, I look back to my childhood with much, much fondness.

            As far as ignorantly babbling about judges interpreting the law, I’ve always demanded anyone show me the enumerated power to the courts to “make law” or “interpret” the Constitution (that came from Marbury v Madison I think); so, how can a court Opinion become “the law of the land.” I think we’re close on that point.

            Best wishes, as always.

            Like

            Comment by Diamondback | July 22, 2016

          • Yes, I too have a particular fondness for The Ten Commandments. I came across them for the first time when I was in elementary school. [I came from a secular home.] They were posted at the top of the walls around the room. I thought they were …fascinating.

            Marbury v. Madison was a brilliant decision, correctly decided. I think it was black ops which turned patriots against it.

            What really happened was that Darwin’s theory of evolution was applied to Law. The enemy said that just as the species evolve, so does law. And the Judges are the ones in charge of how law evolves to fit changing social and economic conditions. This occurred some 100 years ago. Law students have been taught this in law schools ever since. And most law students are so unthinking and gullible that they believed it.

            Whereas the Ten Commandments teaches us the EXACT OPPOSITE. They teach that moral standards are fixed, unchangeable and come from above.

            Ask anyone who tells you that supreme Court opinions are the law of the land to explain to you why supreme Court opinions are NOT INCLUDED in the definition of “the supreme Law of the Land” at the supremacy clause at Art. VI, clause 2, US Constitution.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 22, 2016

  13. Here is an oddball question. What if some smart person developed some type of directed energy weapon on his own? Would this be considered as legal from a constitutional standpoint? I have no doubt the government would find some reason to object to him building and owning it, but shouldn’t it be legal?

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | July 6, 2016 | Reply

    • Cite the Article, section and clause which delegates to Congress or the executive Branch or the judicial branch the power to address this!

      The question is NOT, “is it legal?”. The question is ALWAYS “what Article, Section, and clause authorizes the federal government to act?

      Liked by 3 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2016 | Reply

  14. I too am confused about the laws concerning our right to not only object to follow unlawful laws as a civilian, but to refuse to comply with them. Furthermore, if in the military, where does it say we forfeit our rights as citizens and to practice those rights, especially when given an unconstitutional order from someone of higher rank? I ask this last part as I have been told by Veterans that active duty military have NO rights at all, which seems incredible.

    Like

    Comment by Ghost Prime | July 4, 2016 | Reply

    • I was a JAG lawyer and did criminal defense. A charge and specification which alleged that so & so “failed to obey an Order” would be fatally defective, because it didn’t allege that the order was lawful. So to be correct, the charge would have to say, so & so “failed to obey a lawful order”.

      We placed on the shoulders of 18 year old soldiers the duty of distinguishing between a lawful order and an unlawful order. If the order was unlawful, the soldiers had the duty to refuse to comply.

      This was a hot topic when I was on active duty b/c the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam was fresh in our minds. A commissioned officer had ordered subordinates to kill unarmed civilians. The subordinates had the duty to refuse to obey that order b/c the Law of War prohibits killing unarmed civilians or prisoners.

      See this article and look at footnote 8 and read the article by the military lawyer who discusses this duty to disobey:
      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/nullification-smacking-down-those-who-smack-down-the-constitution/

      Where soldiers run into trouble is where they employ their own screwball notions of what is “constitutional” and what is not when determining to disobey an order. For example, when I was there, some soldiers decided that they would not obey orders to cut their hair – they decided they had a “right” to have long hair. They got convicted – it was due to their own foolishness.

      For those in the ranks, I strongly advise limiting refusals to obey orders to moral questions: I would never obey an order to kill someone, or to lie, or to falsify documents, or to cover something up which should be exposed; and such like.

      But if I were a high ranking commander and was ordered by CINC to stand down when I knew I should not, I expect I would disregard the CINC’s order.

      I tried to check the link to the Rivkin article, but my computer is so slow….. Hope it works. If not, I expect you can find the article by searching the title and the author’s name.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 5, 2016 | Reply

  15. Why would amendment 7 not forbid the retryin of a comon law conviction and verdict changed by elevating the punishment by either the State courts or The U.S. Supremes? I’m trying to overcome my ignorance thanks in advance Ph

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | July 2, 2016 | Reply

    • The 7th Amendment addresses only civil – non-criminal – cases! has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2016 | Reply

  16. What are your thoughts on the “strong city initiative” which was just announced?

    Like

    Comment by Gary | June 30, 2016 | Reply

  17. Isn’t it interesting, we are told constantly that enumerated god given rights are said to have limits while non-enumerated privileges can’t be touched.
    First amendment says “Congress shall make no law *** abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press***” and the second says “**the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
    Yet, the USSC says the non-enumerated privilege of abortion can’t be touched.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | June 27, 2016 | Reply

  18. Is the Constitution clear when it comes to the rights of illegals?

    Like

    Comment by llotter2013 | June 25, 2016 | Reply

    • Illegals have no constitutional rights!
      There is no such thing as a “constitutional right”.
      Rights come from God [or the natural law].
      The Constitution delegates specific powers – it does not grant rights.
      Congress has total power over immigration (Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1) and naturalization (Art. I, sec. 8, clause 4)

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 25, 2016 | Reply

  19. What is the constitutional authority for the feds to deal with gun control? Thanks, Larr

    Like

    Comment by llotter2013 | June 25, 2016 | Reply

  20. After reading this article, “There Are Now More Bureaucrats With Guns Than U.S. Marines”
    http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2016/06/there-are-now-more-bureaucrats-with-guns-than-us-marines.html

    I feel like America is becoming a fascist police state, how can the federal govt possibly square creating a private military with their constitutional limits? The stench of tyranny seems to be everywhere….

    Like

    Comment by Spense | June 25, 2016 | Reply

    • it is turning into a police state.
      The feds have no constitutional authority to do this.
      but the STUPID Americans keep voting for the people who do this to them.
      They are stupid and we will all have to pay for it….
      Prepare as well as you can.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 25, 2016 | Reply

  21. PH, on June 10th I received an e-mail from Conservative Daily, a source I subscribe to headlining that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that 18 States didn’t have the constitutional right to carry a firearm open or concealed. Following SCOTUS decisions over the past few years confirming our 2nd amendment rights to do so, my question is how can these unelected judges make this decision. Thank you, Jack

    Like

    Comment by Jack Adams | June 16, 2016 | Reply

    • If you read through the US Constitution, you will see that We The People, when we ratified the Constitution, did not delegate to the federal government any power to restrict our arms.

      Accordingly, any and all pretended restrictions on arms by any branch of the federal government are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated.

      Furthermore, any restrictions on arms violate the 2nd amendment.

      No federal court – and that includes the supreme court – has constitutional authority to pontificate on what arms we may and may not have, etc., etc.,

      So the proper response for all States is to IGNORE ALL SUCH pretended federal laws, BATF regulations, executive orders, federal court opinions, and treaties which pretend to restrict our arms.

      The reason the federal government has gotten away with their unconstitutional acts is b/c the American People haven’t troubled their precious selves to read and learn our two Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

      Here’s a video I made several years ago – it’s not long: https://vimeo.com/60944105

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 16, 2016 | Reply

      • PH, thank you so much for answering my question as I realize this isn’t an issue for the Feds to intervene into and upon reading the courts decision my first thought was nullification by the states. On June 14, 2016 I sent an e-mail to our Attorneys General of WV, Patrick Morrisey on the subject. As of 1:00pm today 6-17-16 I have no reply as to our states position. Hopefully he will make a stand similar to Greg Abbott, governor of Texas. Now in the meantime, if I carry and get caught and Mr. Morrisey hasn’t taken a stand, could I be held liable for CCW infringement? For privacy sake, feel free to e-mail me if you so wish. Thank You again. Jack

        Like

        Comment by Jack Adams | June 17, 2016 | Reply

        • I sent you an email. You are in West Virginia? Those Republicans in the West Virginia Legislature sold us out when they passed this last session an application for an Article V convention. It’s Republican Legislators who are carrying the water for those who are determined to get rid of our Constitution, and I expect most of them have no idea what they are doing. They are ignorant and so are easily deceived by the con-con lobby who lies!

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 17, 2016 | Reply

      • PH;
        Just watched your video again. I have no words to express my gratitude for your hard work and clarity on all things Constitutional. You are quite simply an inspiration to us all. I read my copy of the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution daily, one page per day and when finished I start again. I gain something new at each reading, trying my best to understand exactly what they are saying and refering to.
        The more I learn the more I realize how little I know! I gather as much knowledge as possible about our Constitution from a wide variety of sources, the conclusion remains the same. I simply cannot understand how something so simple can be so extremely hard to follow.
        Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me at this late stage in the game, as the general populace insists on remaining asleep, not demanding accountability and continually voting in scumbags, more and more we should be engaging in the act of nullification.The more people engaged in that act the less inclined they will be to do anything about it but simply recind the illegal laws and regulations put forth and enforced by illegal agencies, ATF, BLM, DHS etc.
        Thank you once again PH for all you do. You remain… Teacher Numbah 1…
        NS

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by N S | June 21, 2016 | Reply

  22. PH:

    Yes, I realize that a constitutionally informed and properly motivated electorate is the ultimate answer to the problem. At this point, however, most likely we have run out of time to redress the issue via public education and the ballot box.

    By all informed accounts we can expect an economic collapse beginning later this year that will probably trigger widespread public protests and riots. This is not my prediction, but the opinions of such people as Alan Greenspan, George Soros, Jamie Dimon, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, and many others including Barack Obama. Sovereign governments, states, municipalities, and even individuals have been guilty of helping to conjure trillions of dollars of debt out of thin air that must be either repaid or defaulted upon. If that happens, not only police may be called in to quell the disturbances, but also the military. One could even envision large scale national disruptions such as are now occurring in Venezuela.
    In the event of economic, social and political disruptions, it is not inconceivable to imagine that Barack Obama may declare martial law throughout the country. And not coincidentally, in the last two years he has used executive orders to update takeover procedures for all commercial, agricultural, transportation, utility, banking, and related services throughout the nation under martial law. The next logical step would be to minimize violence and destruction by rounding up dissident groups and transporting them to camps where they could not destroy property, enrage and physically harm opposing groups, and threaten overthrow of the (unlawful and unconstitutional) government.

    If that scenario sounds too extreme, consider the fact that under Obama’s watch, the U.S. Army has prepared and published (in 2010) an exhaustive manual entitled Internment and Resettlement Operations, FM 3-39.40. The link is given below:

    http://www.constitution.org/abus/terror/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

    It describers in detail how camps will be constructed, organized, staffed, and administered to include U.S. and foreign civilians and others as inmates. Military recruitment, staffing, and training are ongoing as you read this. Also engaged along with U.S. Army personnel are UN troops, Red Cross, FEMA, and Department of Homeland Security staffing personnel. Psychological and moral/ethical/social “retraining” are included as designated for detainees.

    The manual states that operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations. It also states that authority to approve resettlement operations within U.S. territories would require a “special exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained by the President of the United States invoking his executive authority. Furthermore, detainees are identified by using their social security number

    If you think that all of this is preposterous and hair-raising, just take some time to carefully read pertinent sections of the manual that interest you the most. Then tell me that the U.S. is not in serious trouble. One more thing: trainloads of clearly designated UN military vehicles have been spotted being delivered to designated points throughout the country. And clear photos show their delivery in the hundreds and thousands. What’s next, trainloads of foreign troops as well?

    Like

    Comment by paradigmrw | June 6, 2016 | Reply

    • There is little doubt Feds know the US is hopelessly bankrupt. At this point, oath breakers placing constitutional restrictions on themselves is a pipe dream. On the other hand, they are preparing masses for a master through propaganda. This is cleverly done with scare tactics using terror threats engineered by false flag provocations. I predict a manufactured economic or terror event feds use to justify and impose a police state. The sheeple will understand.

      The sad irony is that we shake the fist with one hand with the other in governments pocket. I wonder how many viewing this blog work in government, health care, pharmacy, social services, education, building, law, insurance finance and all their spinoffs? Where do you think funding primarily comes from to support these sectors that make up well over half the entire US workforce? Its called the Fed Visa infinity card with a balance of over 200 trillion dollars according to recent testimony before the US senate.

      Like

      Comment by Dwain Decell | June 6, 2016 | Reply

  23. About paradigmrw: Does the creature dictate to the Creater? You have your answer. Now, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

    Si Vis pacem, para bellum.
    When you seek peace, prepare for war.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | June 5, 2016 | Reply

  24. Can the imposition of martial law and concurrent suspension of the U.S. Constitution and the protected rights of its citizens ever be considered constitutional? If so, under what conditions and under what sections of the U. S. Constitution? If not, under what grounds can they be ignored or nullified without penalty of (federal) law? I’m afraid that the time is rapidly approaching for an answer.

    Like

    Comment by paradigmrw | June 5, 2016 | Reply

    • No, never. never. never. When or if that happens, we have no recourse to the courts. We don’t have recourse to the courts now – they are on the side of the usurpers.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 5, 2016 | Reply

      • Thanks for the words of encouragement. I guess we are lost, unless we can convince the usurpers that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution rather than elected/unelected officials.

        Like

        Comment by paradigmrw | June 5, 2016 | Reply

        • I doubt that we can convince the usurpers. And they aren’t the problem. The dumb and lazy American People are the problem. They won’t learn the Constitution and enforce it with their votes and actions (nullification).

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2016 | Reply

  25. PH, have you ever thought of putting up a link or page specifically so that people can print out your flyers.
    I noticed in your YouTube video’s that you always have them for the group your speaking to.
    Just thought it would be good info to hand out.

    Thanks for all you do.

    Like

    Comment by Gary | May 24, 2016 | Reply

    • Excellent idea. Thank you. If you have a specific documents in mind, let me know and I’ll send you the link.
      Meanwhile, I’ll email to you my exhibit list (with hyperlinks) for my recent presentation in Jefferson City, Missouri on the dangers of an Article V convention.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 24, 2016 | Reply

      • I received your email. Thank you!
        The document i was looking for was included.

        Like

        Comment by Gary | May 26, 2016 | Reply

  26. Can Hillary be impeached right now, even though she does not currently hold any federal office/position, by virtue of holding one previously?

    Like

    Comment by Poplicola | May 22, 2016 | Reply

    • Since she does not hold office in the federal executive or judiciary branches, she can’t be impeached. The purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from office.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 22, 2016 | Reply

      • Can we hang her for treason though?

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 22, 2016 | Reply

        • We MUST wait till after her trial!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 22, 2016 | Reply

  27. I was speaking with some friends about your work here on this site, they recommended I read “America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited” by Sheldon Richman. They brought this book up as a counter to your originalist view, stating this book shows that there is no ONE original intent behind the constitution and that there was A LOT of wiggle room written into the Constitution. I was wondering if you’ve read this book, and if you have what your thoughts are about the main arguments. Thanks for all you do!

    Like

    Comment by Gary A. Blake | May 21, 2016 | Reply

  28. This will clear up any argument to the contrary…until 5 liberal justices say otherwise.
    I suspect it will remain as is when the Grand Poobahs get the message that they have life time tenure only during time of good behavior.

    TD Ihttps://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/09/21/the-sheriff-has-more-power-in-his-county-than-the-president-of-the-united-states-u-s-constitution-u-s-supreme-court-quashes-obamas-claim-to-supremacy-clause/

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | May 21, 2016 | Reply

  29. It was my impression that the county sheriffs are the only people who can put the federal gov’t in it’s place. The county sheriff is the highest law. That’s why the feds hate Sheriff Joe, Sheriff Mack of the Constitutional Law Enforcement Association, and many others. It has something to do with the Mack/Printz v USA. The SCOTUS ruled that the states or their political subdivisions are not subject to federal direction. PH, perhaps you would know more about the case?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Chris J | May 20, 2016 | Reply

  30. PH, when I read about Democrats trying to criminalize criticism of Islam and other such infringements on our freedoms, after getting angry I wonder about what our range of responses might include.

    I have heard of States passing laws calling for the arrest of any federal agents who attempt to violate our constitutional rights. And I wondered if there is a problem with that. Can we pass State laws putting the feds on notice that if they attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws they will be arrested?
    For example, if they try to arrest someone for “hate speech” they will be in violation of State law and subject to arrest. Would that be a problem?

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | May 17, 2016 | Reply

    • It was invariably argued to be a fundamental and characteristic principle of the Constitution that all powers not given by it, were reserved; that no powers were given beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and such as were fairly incident to them; that the power over the rights in question, and particularly over the press, was neither among the enumerated powers, nor incident to any of them; and consequently that an exercise of any such power, would be a manifest usurpation whether it is applied to “Title 9 toilet gender selection, birth control participation forced upon the Celibate LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR or expressing denigration toward people, places, or things. That’s why none of the 3 branches of government have the power granted to them in their list of specific powers by the Constitution. The only criminal use that I know of is Slander, threats against property or bodily harm, and lying to federal officers. Outside of that they can pack sand!

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Con Ma | May 19, 2016 | Reply

      • Right, the feds have no authority to pass hate speech laws. My question for PH is whether States ought to pass anti-usurpation laws which specifically criminalize such usurpations and assign punishments for agents of the federal government who attempt to enforce any such illegal usurpations. For example, say that North Carolina passed a law stating that any federal agent or any law enforcement officer who attempts to enforce federal “hate speech” laws is in violation of NC State law XXX09 and subject to arrest and imprisonment.

        Or should anti usurpation laws be more general, e.g. any federal agent attempting to enforce any federal law which is not authorized by enumerated powers listed in the Constitution is in violation of State sovereignty and subject to (list of punishment ranges based upon type of usurpation or something).

        In other words, I know the feds have no authority to pass or enforce hate speech laws (or most of the laws they pass for that matter). I am just wondering if it is a good idea for States to pass laws which criminalize the actions of federal agents who try to enforce those unlawful usurpations, or am I going off half cocked and forgetting something?
        Obviously States need to nullify unconstitutional laws and refuse to enforce them, and also refuse to allow federal agents to enforce them.
        I would love to see more teeth in our rejection of those unconstitutional laws; I want to see federal agents facing prison time for trying to enforce them.

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 20, 2016 | Reply

  31. This blog is filled with excellent information. Thank you for all you do in helping educate us all, and your passion for the Constitution. I have a couple of questions for you.

    – How are the Electors for the Electoral College in each State chosen? By the State’s legislator?
    – Is there a place where I can read up in detail about how the process actually should take place?
    – Would third and fourth (smaller) political parties have better chances and receive more Electoral College votes if each state did the Electoral College process the correct way?

    – Rights can only be taken away through a conviction in a court of law by a jury of peers, correct? Can those rights be permanently taken away, even after the individual has payed the price in fines and jail/prison time? If so, why and how?

    Thanks again!

    Like

    Comment by Poplicola | May 17, 2016 | Reply

    • These posts explain how our federal Constitution says presidential elections are to be conducted:

      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/trashing-the-12th-amendment-with-the-national-popular-vote/

      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/national-popular-vote-goodbye-sweet-america/

      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/who-decides-whether-someone-is-qualified-for-the-office-of-president-of-the-united-states/

      Pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 2, the State Legislatures decide how Presidential Electors will be appointed.

      the way Presidents are elected today is totally unconstitutional. The two major political parties now control the election of President. As long as they have this control, third parties don’t have a chance to get a candidate nominated.

      But what we should do is get rid of the political parties. They are horrible and up to no good. Didn’t George Washington advise us to stay clear of political parties?

      Our criminal “justice” system is in a total shambles. God-given rights (life, liberty, property, etc., etc., etc.) can be lawfully taken away when a person forfeits his Right to hold them. e.g., if you murder someone in cold blood, then you forfeit your God-given right to Life after you are convicted after a fair trial by a jury of your peers. If you acquire property by fraud, then that property can be lawfully taken from you after you are convicted of fraud after a trial by a jury of your peers.

      All federal and state laws which pretend to strip a person of his God-given right to self-defense by pretended laws which say that convicted felons [who have served their sentences] can’t have guns, are unconstitutional and an abomination. The governments have the raw power to make such laws, but only because The Ignorant People let them get away with it.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 17, 2016 | Reply

      • Article II, Section I, clause 2 and part of 3

        “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

        The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed…”

        From “Trashing the 12th Amendment with the National Popular Vote”:

        “James Madison explains in Federalist No. 45 (7th para), why this ensured that The States would maintain control over the federal government:

        “The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments …” ”

        So PH, the people only vote for their representatives in the House of Representatives. And of course they vote for the officers of their State governments, the governor, the senators and representatives, judges, and sheriffs.
        Since most of the power and authority resides with the States, the people are voting in the most important elections. If they make good choices for their State governments, the States will make good choices for the US Senate and for the President.

        I think that the idea of giving the people the right to vote for the President and the Senators was probably favored by those intent upon usurping power. It is easier to fool the masses of the people by using propaganda.

        Of course it all comes back to the people. Didn’t George Washington say the main purpose of education should be teaching the people about their form of government? When the people are ignorant, and lacking in morals as well, we get what we have today.

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 17, 2016 | Reply

        • Yes, the Federalist Papers basically come out and say that The People are too easily deceived by demagogues to be able to make wise choices for President.
          And yes, they are very easily manipulated.
          I don’t know if Washington said it, but it is TRUE! Civics and the moral code. And Logic, of course!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 17, 2016 | Reply

          • “A primary object should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”

            That quote is attributed to GW but the quote was not referenced to the speech it is supposedly taken from.

            Like

            Comment by topcat1957 | May 17, 2016

          • I found it! It’s from the Eighth Annual Message of George Washington to a Joint meeting of Congress on December 7, 1796
            http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washs08.asp

            It is a GREAT Quote – thank you!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 17, 2016

      • I have a question also about Federalist 68 where it says:

        “…the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government,…”

        how did the founders think the States should go about choosing the electors? I believe they kind of left that up to the States, but did they ever give any indication of how they expected the States to do this?
        How did the States usually arrive at choosing electors in the first elections?

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 17, 2016 | Reply

        • Art II, Sec. 1, clause 2 leaves it up to the State Legislatures to decide HOW Presidential Electors will be appointed.

          But in Federalist No. 68 (2nd & 3rd paras) and No. 77 (last para), Hamilton suggests that The People of the States will elect the Presidential Electors for their State.

          Since the Constitution leaves it up to the State Legislatures to decide; Hamilton’s suggestion is merely a “suggestion” of how States may elect to do it.

          The way it works today, when we vote in presidential elections, we’re really voting for Presidential Electors. However, they rubberstamp the popular vote instead of then meeting and making their own decision from among all the qualified persons in the Country.

          http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed68.htm

          http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed77.htm

          And I regret that I don’t know the history of how and when our presidential election system got so messed up. I don’t trust historians to get it right – one would need to examine original records in each of the States….

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 17, 2016 | Reply

  32. Top cat 157, I think the reference was the people and the States are the highest arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. The states were party to the creation of the grand compact and the people ratified what we created. The states provide the second line of defense of our unalienable rights. The creature doesn’t dictate to the Creator. The Federalist is the bible on the interpretation of what the Framers intent was.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | May 14, 2016 | Reply

  33. Hey PH,
    I am putting some thoughts together on paper and I have a couple of questions. I cannot recall right now where I read (it was one of your papers, referencing one of the federalist papers) that the States and the people are the ultimate judges of what is constitutional, i.e. when the SCOTUS makes bad decisions.
    Could you clue me to a couple of links?

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | May 14, 2016 | Reply

    • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/nullification/

      See the two most recent documents at the link above. Madison specifically says in his Report of 1799 to the Virginia Legislature that the States have as much right to judge the acts of the judicial branch as they do the legislative and executive branches.

      The lying on this by the elite phony “libertarians” and “conservatives” is breath taking.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 14, 2016 | Reply

      • Thanks. I am writing a short piece on censorship via “hate speech” laws and how the left is censoring conservative speech, ideas, and thought. I want to show how we the people have the authority to smack down that nonsense, and do so legally (though the lawless progressives will certainly fight back).
        We have allowed some of our freedoms to be robbed, and we will have to fight to get them all back. Freedom is not free.

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 14, 2016 | Reply

        • remember that

          (1) restricting speech is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government over the country at large; and

          (2) the 1st Amdt. prohibits congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

          Accordingly ALL federal hate crimes laws are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated and as in violation of the 1st Amdt.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 14, 2016 | Reply

  34. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422894/birthright-citizenship-fourteenth-amendment-
    constitution-supreme-court
    This is why people don’t know how to stand up to power. It’s people like Howard Foster, writing for National Rebuke…September, 2015…PH, I see what frustrates you so much,
    the damage done by spreading such “rubbish” emphasis my copy of your emphasis.
    This is pathetic!

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | May 13, 2016 | Reply

  35. The ignorant leftist liberals you refer to who always cry out that the trannies are entitled to equal protection under the law without referring to any law sound like any of the army of dumbed down leftist-bots ruled by passion sans intellect at the beck and call of the Leftist in Chief.
    Obama and company know they can appeal to these ignoramuses and call them to action anywhere and anytime.
    For these dummies it matters not whether there is a law to refer to. For them it is sufficient that they feel there ought to be one supporting their ill thought out positions.

    That is the problem we face. the leftists have cultivated an ignorant, angry, class of “offended victims” who are conditioned to scoff at logic or intellectual discussions of the issues they care about. They have been trained in the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton school of activism. They know how to shake down institutions with angry demonstrations coordinated by the leftist political class. And the institutions in question, businesses, schools, etc. often simply capitulate to make the angry mob leave and stop the bad publicity. Obama and company have been funding and training radical agitators who lead these ignoramuses.

    And in the court system we face a legion of leftist activist federal judges. The law is on our side of course. But we have to find honest judges.

    We really need Trump in office. He won’t put up with this nonsense.

    He will stand up and tell these idiots: Offense if taken, not given. And there is no right not to be offended.
    And you cannot change a law by applying new definitions to the words in it.

    We really need common sense and rational thought to become common again.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | May 13, 2016 | Reply

    • That should read: Offense is taken, not given.

      Like

      Comment by topcat1957 | May 13, 2016 | Reply

      • Its called radical egalitarian liberalism. Its major objective is reducing standards to the lowest common denominator in order to rule absolutely over a dumbed down corrupt dependent majority.  The enlightened few left, who justifiably retaliate, are simply and successfully labeled extremist hateful homophobes.  Censorship by media of needed discourse that might reverse the foul tide is priority number one.  Whats worse is U.S. powers trying to export this debauched rainbow model globally at the point of a bayonet. Not only this, but a failed economic one to boot. Millions of innocents are murdered, maimed and displaced by attempts to fly rainbows over sovereigns, install dollar friendly puppets and plunder resources.  The dollar as reserve currency, a printing press and world class military to protect the exceptional and indispensable cradle wrecking machine makes it possible. 

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Dwain Decell | May 15, 2016 | Reply

  36. Not only that, but the part that the tryers of fact conveniently skip over is – when you talk about equal protection under the law, what law is it you’re talking about? I refuse to adhere to the conventional opinion that a judge’s opinion is the law, or that a bureaucratic agency’s edict is the law. Everybody doesn’t have to be treated equally, they just have to be treated equally under the law. Under North Carolina law, all men are treated equally, all women are treated equally and all transgenders are treated equally.
    When someone says the 14th Amendment of equal treatment under the law was violated, and they fail to cite the specific statute, or law, that was violated, that is not justice and it most certainly isn’t equal protection under any law.
    There is no federal statute regarding sexual orientation or gender “identity”. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 65 , 1866 or any other year do not apply. If there is no federal law, state law is the only other consideration. A child cannot vote, but all children are treated equally under the laws of the State of Ohio – they cannot vote.
    The 14th Amendment is the plaything of the Left, just like the Interstate Commerce clause is. And it isn’t a surprise that Obama would use the 14th Amendment, because he is the same idiot who claimed the 14th Amendment gave him the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. And the reason he uses the 14th is because that’s all he knows, that’s all the supremely talented legal scholar ever taught as an adjunct lecturer was the 14th Amendment.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by bobmontgomery | May 13, 2016 | Reply

  37. Regarding Obama’s edict notification to accommodate nonspecific genders.Given the preamble to the original Bill of rights I think to rely on the 14th amendment to supersede the First amendment is a fallacy because the Declaratory Clause therein declares the first ten amendments ratified are paramount to all previous laws of the Constitution and the Restrictive Clause restricts all subsequent Amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights.
    That being the case according to the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights” there can be no law that is constitutionally valid in this regard. Obama’s DOJ. Is trying to use the sweeping 14th. Amendment to supersede the protection provided to equal rights of conscience in the First Amendment which is paramount to any law.
    That’s why none of the 3 branches of government have the power granted to them in their list of specific powers. If you forcibly take from one person against their will then give it to another, its’s called “THEFT! Not Justice”. When everything is in proper equalibrium “Equal rights-Demand-equal Justice”!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | May 13, 2016 | Reply

  38. This is a new topic, but I would like your opinion on the Bureau of Land Management and governmental land grabs along with the BLM’s acting in violation of the Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act.

    Like

    Comment by Linda Demaree | May 7, 2016 | Reply

    • well, of course, the Question is “what does the Constitution say?”. My opinions one way or the other don’t matter.

      Let’s look at the enumerated powers of the federal government. Does the Constitution authorize the fed gov’t to own land for national parks, national forests, wildlife preserves, grazing lands, etc.? Cite Article, Section and Clause which authorizes this. Can’t find it? What does that tell you?

      Can you cite the Article, Section and Clause which authorizes Congress to make laws which protect wild horses and burros? No? What does that tell you?

      Bottom line is that all this federal land is unconstitutionally held. I haven’t written a stand alone paper on this – just touched on it here and there. Most recently here https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/

      under the subheading: Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” (p 137) and read footnote 9.

      The feds may own land only to carry out the enumerated powers!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2016 | Reply

  39. Raoul Berger
    “If there was a concealed intention to go beyond the Civil Rights Act, it was not ratified because, first, ratification requires disclosure of material facts,93 whereas there was no disclosure that the Amendment was meant to uproot, for example, traditional State judicial procedures and practices; and, second, a surrender of recognized rights may not be presumed but must be proved. In truth, the Fourteenth Amendment “was presented to the people as leaving control of suffrage in state hands, as representing no change in previous constitutional conditions so far as protection of rights was concerned [beyond banning discrimination], as stripped of radical character.” 94
    Let Justice Black himself, the unremitting champion of “incorporation,” sum up, substituting for his word “corporations” the words “judicial processes”:
    The states did not adopt the Amendment with knowledge of its sweeping meaning under its present construction. No section of the Amendment gave notice to the people that, if adopted, it would subject every state law . . . affecting [judicial processes] . . . to censorship of the United States courts. No word in all this Amendment gave any hint that its adoption would deprive the states of their long recognized power to regulate [judicial processes].95”
    Good morning PH. @3:51 AM./ I’ve been up all night with a wonderful mind,
    Mr. Raoul Berger/ Does this have any bearing on Obama’s DOJ Unilaterally banning Sex-Specific Bathrooms in U.S. Work places? Is this not ripe for nullification; it’s only an Executive order and has no power on citizens unless he declares Marshal Law & suspends Habeas Corpus. It’s not just N. Carolina, it’s all work places. An Idiot!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | May 7, 2016 | Reply

    • Yes, Professor Raoul Berger’s book proves the original intent of the 14th amendment. Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment [1977]
      He was an honest, meticulous, and brilliant man; and I have the highest respect for him. He was a Hero of our Republic.

      His book proves that the sole purposes of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment were to extend citizenship to freed slaves AND to protect these freed slaves from southern black codes which denied them BASIC GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS.

      But the supreme Court PERVERTED Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and used it to seize usurped powers over all the States so that the supreme Court could strike down ANY State laws which at least 5 of the Justices on the supreme Court didn’t agree with. They did this in two ways:

      1. They redefined words in Sec. 1 to make them mean whatever they wanted them to mean. E.g., in Roe v. Wade, they said “liberty” means “privacy” and “privacy” means “you can kill your baby”. So they struck down State Laws criminalizing baby-killing. And they also made-up “constitutional rights” which they said were in Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment. Eg., in Lawrence v. Texas, they “found” a “constitutional right” to have homosexual sex and so struck down State statutes criminalizing sodomy. They also “found” in Sec. 1 the “constitutional right” to homosexual marriage.

      Well, obviously, the States which ratified the 14th Amendment had no idea they were approving baby-killing, sodomy, and homosexual marriage! And who knows what “rights” the pervs on the supreme Court will find next? A “right” to have sex with children, perhaps? Since you can kill them, why can’t you have sex with them?

      2. The original intent of the 1st 10 Amendments was that they restricted ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But the supreme Court started saying (in 1925) that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporated” various of the first ten amendments so as to make them applicable to the States. THIS GAVE THE SUPREME COURT POWER OVER THE STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECTS OF THOSE AMENDMENTS. Thus, in 1962, the supreme Court said the first amendment restricted the STATES and so gave the supreme Court power to ban prayers in the public schools.

      Again, obviously, the States which ratified the 14th Amendment had no idea they were giving the supreme Court power over ALL the subjects of the first 8 amendments! Yet, the supreme Court has seized – usurped – power over all the subjects of those amendments – in the States!

      AMAZINGLY, the lawyers docilely went along with this rubbish. This is what is taught in the law schools, law students get indoctrinated with these lies, and then they repeat the lies and indoctrinate others.

      It is mankind’s greatest failing that they do not think. God gave each of us a BRAIN – we all have the ability (to a greater or lesser extent) to evaluate what we are told and compare it with FACTS. But for some reason which I do not understand, most people REFUSE to do this. They just accept whatever they are told. I do not know what the underlying sin is. Laziness? Cowardice? Something else?

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 7, 2016 | Reply

    • Con Ma, the dept of education has said it is title IX that mandates allowing boys into girls restroom in our public screwels. In Illinois some parents have sued. I think you might find this article interesting. http://illinoisfamily.org/education/federal-lawsuit-filed-district-211-doe-student-privacy/

      Like

      Comment by Spense | May 8, 2016 | Reply

      • ” The DOE through its Office for Civil Rights claims that the word “sex” in Title IX actually includes “gender identity” and “gender expression,” thereby prohibiting schools from maintaining separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls.”
        That one sentence right there pretty much sums it up. We would not have the insane Orwellian/Newspeak redefinition of words by the Office for Civil Rights in a selective interpretation of Title IX for the Department of Education if we did not have a Title IX and an Office for Civil Rights in a Department of Education and the reason we have them is a, we have a Department of Education and b. the people who think it is Constitutional to have a Department of Education in the first place have no recourse but to accept that a Department of Education has to be “fair” and that in order to do that, the Department of Education must have latitude to interpret legislation which allowed there to be a Title IX and an Office of Civil Rights within said DOEd in the first place. Title IX is unconstitutional because it has to do with Education, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. Public education is not a constitutional right. Education of any kind is not a constitutional right. Constitutional rights are defined in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, as further amended.
        As to the remedy – a.You won’t find too many Republicans who would agree to abolishing the Department of Education, although that should be done; b. Since the Supreme Court of the United States, in re Sebelius, Obergfell, et al, has appointed itself the ultimate decider of the meaning of words and things, like “health” and “insurance” and “marriage”, and further what is to be assumed is in the Bill of Rights, or in the Articles delegating power to the national government, even though those of us who can read can’t find them there that’s a non-starter as well. So the answer to our dilemma, as PH often points out, is………….wait for it………..can you guess?……………Education!

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | May 8, 2016 | Reply

        • SCOTUS and the federal courts have declared themselves the official re-definers of words, its judicial tyranny!

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Spense | May 8, 2016 | Reply

        • Yes! 100 years ago, Americans knew that the federal gov’t didn’t have authority to ban alcoholic beverages – they all knew they needed the 18th amendment to give that power to the feds. Today, Americans don’t know anything.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2016 | Reply

        • Bob, first let me say I agree with virtually everything you said. There is one small section in which the language gets a little confusing though. It is here where you said:

          “Title IX is unconstitutional because it has to do with Education, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. Public education is not a constitutional right. Education of any kind is not a constitutional right. Constitutional rights are defined in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, as further amended.”

          When you said “Public education is not a constitutional right. Education of any kind is not a constitutional right” you mean there is no obligation of government to provide education and the federal government has no authority to regulate education, am I right?

          And by the term “constitutional rights” you mean those rights (not entitlements) which the government was created to protect, am I right?

          The first ten amendments, aka the Bill of Rights, is a partial listing of our natural God given rights which government cannot take away or interfere with; and which the government is supposed to in fact prevent others from infringing upon. As PH has explained in various posts, the Supreme Court invented new meanings for the 14th amendment through which they turned the Bill of Rights upside down; instead of restricting the actions of the government, the government now uses the Bill of Rights to restrict the actions of the people. With mendacity, duplicity, and underhanded con man trickery any criminal would be proud of, the power hungry centrists and their lackeys sold the American people a cascade of usurpations dressed up as high minded decisions, which non legal minds were deemed too ignorant to comprehend. And we bought it all.

          The Leftists constantly add new and different, even opposite meanings to words and thereby confuse the public. Our “rights” as originally meant in the Constitution are just claims; privileges; authority; legal powers.

          But Leftists have succeeded in perverting the meaning of the word “right” to also mean “entitlement guaranteed by the government.” This additional meaning, which is found in modern dictionaries, allows them to confuse the public. When they speak of “constitutional rights” as entitlements, the largely ignorant public is persuaded to think the government has authority to act in areas in which they have no power to act.
          Even attorneys, in fact especially attorneys, who ought to know better, speak of “rights” as government guarantees. So most of the people have learned to speak the same language; most of us don’t check the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary to see how such words were defined around the time of the writing of the Constitution.

          The word “right” did not mean “entitlement” or government guarantee according to any dictionary of that time nor according to the writings of the founding fathers. And the meaning of the Constitution does not change because people make up new definitions for words used in it.

          Sorry to ramble on a bit there.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by topcat1957 | May 9, 2016 | Reply

          • It’s well said, my Friend! And astute.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 9, 2016

          • Thanks PH. I learned it from you. And I thank you.

            Like

            Comment by topcat1957 | May 9, 2016

          • Agreed. Just because you have a right to liberty, happpiness, whatever, doesn’t mean the government has to provide it for you. The most obvious example is you have the right to the free exercise of your religion, but the government doesn’t have to build you a synagogue. And as you, I think it was you, point out, those who insist on pressing the point that the federal government may insinuate itself in these situations, not only ignore the Constitution but the specific language and the specific directives of the legislation they cite in support of their argument! Reductio ad absurdum.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by bobmontgomery | May 9, 2016

        • You are so right.

          When will people learn about Leftists? They continually warp laws by applying new definitions to words and terms used in them: which is legally invalid. It is absurd. **

          Title IX specifically calls for separate bathroom and shower facilities for the two different sexes. Leftists are now saying that Title IX guarantees the right of boys (who wish they were girls) to use the girls bathroom and shower facilities. Leftists claim that the meaning of “sex” includes “gender identity” and “gender expression”. This is the same old leftist trick of redefining terms and words to get the result they want.

          The definition of sex when this law was written: “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.”

          “ON THE BASIS OF THEIR REPRODUCTIVE FUNCTIONS”, not ‘gender expression or identity’ (sorry about “shouting”).

          **(If a contract says I must give you 100 horses, I cannot claim that the word horses now also means mice, and give you 100 mice instead, even if the definition had since changed to include that meaning. The words of the contract still mean what they meant when written.)

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by topcat1957 | May 9, 2016 | Reply

          • Tell the States not to make a law to arrest federal officers for denigrating Islam, you will miss out on collecting a bundle of money when you sue the federal Govt. for false arrest and or false imprisonment. There is no law and there will never be a law in this regard coming out of our Constitution. So, there is only one shot at the golden ring 💰💰💸💵.

            Like

            Comment by Con Ma | May 19, 2016


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,908 other followers

%d bloggers like this: