Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

2,881 Comments »

  1. Actually the Morrill anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 banned pokygamy in the territories. This was amended in 1882 by the Edmunds Act which was itself amended by the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887.

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | January 13, 2017 | Reply

  2. By the way, this is not an answer. It is an evasion.

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | January 13, 2017 | Reply

  3. Both of George W Romney’s parents were U.S citizens.

    Ted Cruz’s father was a Cuban citizen until 2005, I wonder why the long delay, his mother seems to have been a U.S. citizen. Under a patriarchal system he us a Cuban

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | January 13, 2017 | Reply

  4. Would be very interested in reading your opinion on the information provided in the following YouTube video entitled: Dan Smoot #386 – the Fourteenth Amendment (1963-Jan-07):

    Thanks in advance.

    Like

    Comment by Diamondback | January 11, 2017 | Reply

    • Thank YOU, Diamondback. I have enormous respect for Dan Smoot. I listened to him when he spoke so many years ago – when I was young.

      I have no independent knowledge of whether the 14th Amendment was ratified or not. But whether it was or wasn’t is in a sense irrelevant for the reason that it is treated as part of our Constitution and has been used throughout the years, as Smoot describes.

      But again, I stress that our problem is NOT the wicked federal government [and it is very wicked]; our problem is the wicked States and the wicked People who go along with it.

      God bless Dan Smoot.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 11, 2017 | Reply

      • PH ;
        I just watched the video by Dan Smoot. Trying my best to understand all he was saying. From what I gather, by not allowing the Southern States representation, or allowing them to vote on the 14th, and everything enacted since it’s supposed “ratification” (which I don’t believe ever happened legally) is a clear violation and contrary to the very Constitution. That in itself should render it null.

        My understanding of it is that if any act does not adhere or is contrary to the Constitution (or contract), it is an act that is NULL & VOID as if it never happened. If that is the case we should legally be ble to ignore anything the 14th concerns, including opinions spouted out of the mouths of the supreme court.
        And you are oh so correct in that the people simply accept what is told them without thinking for themselves. And that I believe is the essence of our downfall into the tyranical position we find ourselves in today.
        At least thats the way I am understanding it… Thanks PH for all your continued effort and hard work keeping us informed.

        Like

        Comment by N S | January 13, 2017 | Reply

  5. Hi PH,
    You lost me with this comment on pre-approval. i see that the states would have signaled their intention to approve an amendment but how does that replace the process defined in Article V?

    Like

    Comment by nrlazear | January 7, 2017 | Reply

    • The “Compact” circumvents Article V altogether. The States pre-ratify the amendment when they pass the compact legislation.

      Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 10, clause 3, Congress has to approve the Compact before it is effective. But who thinks Congress won’t approve a compact which grants Congress MASSIVE new taxing authority?

      This following is from a paper I gave out last Spring when I visited the Missouri State Capitol to speak to them about the dangers of an Art. V convention and to try to stop them from passing this evil piece of work and other pernicious legislation:

      III

      When State Legislatures pass Compact legislation such as HB 1469, they are actually pre-ratifying the new Amendment to the US Constitution which grants massive new taxing powers to Congress.

      Please note: If Missouri passes HB 1469, Missouri IS RIGHT THEN AND THERE RATIFYING THE AMENDMENT. Once 38 States have passed legislation like HB 1469 – and Congress approves the Compact, the amendment is ratified.

      I’ll show you:

      HB 1469 states on page 7 lines 207-211 [this is Article IV, Section 7 of the Compact]:

      “…(e) when any Article of this Compact prospectively ratifying the Balanced Budget Amendment is effective in any Member State, notice of the same shall be given together with a statement declaring such ratification and further requesting cooperation in ensuring that the official record confirms and reflects the effective corresponding amendment to the Constitution of the United States…” [boldface mine]

      Article IX of the Compact [page 12 lines 389-393] says:

      “Section 1. Each Member State, by and through its respective Legislature [passage of HB 1469], hereby adopts and ratifies the Balanced Budget Amendment.”

      There it is: If Missouri passes HB 1469, it is thereby ratifying an amendment to the US Constitution which delegates massive new taxing powers to Congress.

      When 38 States have passed legislation like HB 1469 – and when Congress approves it – our Constitution is thereby AMENDED and Congress now has constitutional authority to impose a new national sales tax and a national VAT tax – even while keeping and increasing the income tax.

      ALL of the provisions of the Compact which deal with a Convention – Articles V through VIII – are a sham – a pretense – a distraction – to conceal from State Legislators the FACT that when they pass legislation like HB 1469, they are pre-ratifying the amendment.
      The convention is a mere formality – a free trip at taxpayers’ expense.

      What’s the Purpose of the Compact’s Scheme to pre-ratify this Amendment by 38 States? Why is CFA pressuring State Legislatures to pass it now? Why the assurances that since “experts” have already vetted it, State Legislators really don’t need to concern themselves with the excruciating convoluted and boring writing of bills like HB 1469? Why does the Compact provide for pre-ratification of the proposed amendment?

      Because CFA wants their revenue-raising amendment ratified by State Legislatures before Legislators and the Public catch on to what bills like HB 1469 actually do.

      We all remember the public discussions which went on for years about the proposed equal rights amendment and the proposed amendment to let 18 year olds vote. That’s how it is supposed to be.

      CFA doesn’t want public discussion of their amendment: They want Congress to be given by the Constitution massive new taxing powers before The People find out.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2017 | Reply

  6. I am just reading the clause. Don’t like it, but it’s there. Berger’s book talks about the national government supplying arms to people in the 19th century and the unlikely possibility that the government would take the weapons back. I would resist a national order for a state militia.

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | January 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Get fully informed on this issue first before you make decisions!

      Read everything I’ve posted on the State Militia.

      Read the Militia Act of 1792 and THINK about it. Use their mindset – not that of modern Americans who want the government to pay for their necessities.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 6, 2017 | Reply

  7. that apllies to the militia not WE the people

    Like

    Comment by steve | January 6, 2017 | Reply

    • The text of the Militia Act of 1792 shows that the “militia” of the several States IS the able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 – 21. All able-bodied men between the ages of 18-45 (except for federal employees) were expected to be armed, trained, and enrolled in their State Militia.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 6, 2017 | Reply

      • then who are ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed ?

        Like

        Comment by steve | January 7, 2017 | Reply

        • If you read The Militia Act of 1792 and Spence’s recent comment – you will see!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2017 | Reply

          • correct me if im wrong. WE the people is meant in singular form not as a whole . and being those acts and the constitution apply only to government (state and federal)not the people how would that apply to WE the people ? according to the declaration of independence our creator gave us life liberty and property(happiness) and certain unAlienable rights naturally .

            Like

            Comment by steve | January 7, 2017

          • We The People, acting through special ratifying conventions called in each of the States, CREATED the federal government when we ratified the US Constitution. The Constitution enumerated the powers we delegated to our “creature”, the national government of the Federation of States.

            See also this: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2017

    • “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” – George Mason

      “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”- Richard Henry Lee. A framer of the second amendment in the first congress & signer of the Declaration of independence.

      Like

      Comment by Spense | January 7, 2017 | Reply

  8. I agree that the feds’ determining the scope and extent of gun rights is wickedly unconstitutional. Just want a PH-reasoned argument supporting my opinion in that regard. Also, how does the questionable judicially-imposed “incorporation doctrine” play into Congressional thinking on this? It’s gotten a little murky for me.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | January 6, 2017 | Reply

    • The incorporation doctrine is the judicially fabricated doctrine – first announced in 1925 – where the US Supreme Court said that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporated” the first 8 amendments so as to give the federal courts judicial power over how States applied those Amendments within State borders.

      That is the doctrine which was used in 1962 to apply the First Amendment to the States and say that for States to permit Christian prayers in public schools “established a religion” in violation of the First Amendment. This paper explains it all: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 6, 2017 | Reply

      • When I think about all the organizations, like the ACU and Judicial Watch, and all of the think tanks like AEI and Heritage and Heartland and Hoover and so many more, and the thousands and thousands and thousands of “constitutional scholars’ and Doctors of Law and all of it, And reflect on how apparently no one is able to make the case that “Congress shall make no law” is a stand alone, self-explanatory principle and dictum that applies to the Congress, and ONLY the Congress, it is just head-bangingly flabbergasting.
        If words don’t mean anything, you can cpnstrue anything out of nothing.
        The only possible rationale I can think of for all these people to go along with all these anti-constitutional Supreme Court, not to mention lower federal court “opinions’ for all these years is to a. Maintain their “club”, wherein if you’re not a barrister, you have no say and if word ever got out that an opinion is merely an opinion, not a law, the well would dry up; and/or b. everybody things chaos and anarchy would result if it became fashionable for the state legislatures, the Congress and, yes, even that state and federal executive branches, to put their foot down and state that if there is no statute, then there is no law and further, as some of you contract lawyers could argue, if you are not a party to the contract, you both have no standing and also are not bound by the terms of the contract.

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | January 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Right – that is what my entire life has been like. It says “Congress shall make no law”. Yet the Supreme Court says “Congress” includes the States, and everyone agrees – except for you, me, Berger, and maybe one or two others. And the States fell all over themselves in their eagerness to obey the Supreme Court.

          I don’t understand it.

          And certainly, the Supreme Court’s dictate that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights so as to make them applicable against the States so as to give the federal courts judicial authority over how the States complied with the Bill of Rights, is not warranted by the EVIDENCE as to the original intent of Sec. 1. See Raoul Berger’s book on the 14th Amendment.

          All I can conclude is that people are sheep – they don’t think for themselves – they believe whatever they are told. Perhaps they are too cowardly to stand up and say, “You got no clothes on!” That takes courage?

          That Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt “incorporates” the Bill of Rights is what we were told in law school – and my classmates didn’t question it.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 6, 2017 | Reply

          • PH:

            In conversations with friends and acquaintances on this subject, I find that most of them actually will admit that they do not know much about the Constitution, the hows and whys of its creation, and they sincerely believe that no one but a Supreme Court Justice, or a publicly recognized ‘constitutional scholar’ (whatever that is), is smart enough to say what the Constitution really says and means. That’s why so much of the general public are sheep on the issue, IMO.

            I confess that I myself never thought about it much until my senior years and now, at age 81 via the ease of research with a computer and helped immensely by you and others like Kevin Guzman and Raoul Berger, at least a glimmer of the facts and truth have begun to sink into my brain.

            Many thanks to you for the majority of that wisdom, PH. God bless you!

            Like

            Comment by nelsonaire1 | January 7, 2017

          • http://www.compactforamerica.org/meet-team

            Beware of Keven Gutzman: Kevin Gutzman is a member of Compact for America [see link above] and supports their version of a so-called “balanced budget amendment”. Their wicked scheme has nothing to do with “balancing the budget” or “reducing spending”. Instead, their proposed amendment actually delegates to Congress massive new taxing authority: the authority to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) on top of the income tax.

            Furthermore, when States pass this treacherous scheme, they are actually pre-ratifying the proposed amendment which authorizes Congress to pass these massive new taxes. But the language in CFA’s legislation is tricky; so unless one is highly disciplined (yours truly), one wouldn’t wade through the 18 pages of excruciatingly boring reading. Most State legislators wouldn’t read it. I have two papers here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/compact-for-america/

            States pre-ratify the proposed new taxes amendment when they pass CFA’s legislation in their States. That way, CFA’s new taxes Amendment can become part of the Constitution BEFORE THE PEOPLE – AND EVEN THE STATE LEGISLATURES – FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON.

            It’s nasty tricky business.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2017

  9. Every permission granted by the national government regarding the purchase or bearing of firearms is a violation of the constitution and, therefor, illegal. Getting a stinking permit to bear arms merely cooperates with a corrupt process and puts you on the list of people to be taken out.

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | January 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Every “permission”, yes!

      But Congress may lawfully REQUIRE all able bodied male Citizens to buy a gun, ammo, etc. See my favorite federal law of all time, The Militia Act of 1792: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394

      That law was authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16.

      The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was that it restricted only the federal government.

      But States can’t lawfully pass any gun control laws which would interfere with Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16, US Constitution. As a result of Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16, all States may LAWFULLY do is make State laws saying, e.g., when you visit someone in prison or in an insane asylum, you must leave your firearm in your car or check it at the desk.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 6, 2017 | Reply

      • Art 1 Sect 8 clause 16 would require the national government to supply the arms for such action, not require citizens to buy them. It says Congress shall have the power to provide for the arming of the militias within the various states.

        Like

        Comment by Manfred | January 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Oh, Manfred! Think about what you are saying!

          Do able-bodied manly men own their guns? Or do they not have a gun unless Big Daddy government buys them one?

          One of the despicable aspects of the Dick Act of 1903 [which federalized the State Militia] was that the federal government would own all the guns and they would be kept under the control of the officials of the State national guard and “issued” to the men only when “needed”.

          Private ownership of guns would no longer be necessary.

          This is how they change the mindset of a people.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 6, 2017 | Reply

  10. PH,
    I see the 115th Congress is intending to pass a conceal-carry an inter-State reciprocity law. Sounds like a lovely idea, but I can’t imagine how doing so would be constitutional. Why is it unconstitutional? Wouildn’t it be wiser were the States to convnene among themselves to develop some manner of reciprocity? What the feds can give, they can also take away.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | January 6, 2017 | Reply

    • You are absolutely right in all that you say. But I haven’t read the bill – I’ll get to it as soon as I can. And post something about it.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 6, 2017 | Reply

  11. PH,
    Have you written anything on federal grants? I realize that they are all unconstitutional since they aren’t one of the three authorized reasons listed in the taxing clause of art. 1, sec. 8 or one of the other enumerated powers. Besides, how can anything to a specific group or entity be considered in any way “general.”

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | January 1, 2017 | Reply

    • No, I haven’t written specifically on “federal grants”. I’m not sure what a “grant” is: They aren’t gifts. Aren’t they used to bribe States into going along with unconstitutional federal programs? E.g., someone in Congress proposed a scheme where people would turn in their firearms and the States would get “grants” for participating in this federal program. I think States have been bribed with federal grants to go along with unconstitutional federal education programs.

      Don’t make a simple issue complicated. Instead of focusing on whether the fed gov’t can give “grants” for this purpose or that purpose; think in terms of its enumerated powers. That’s a short list which all should know by heart!

      Is the federal government delegated power over agriculture? No, that’s not an enumerated power. So of course it can’t lawfully give grants for agricultural research, etc.

      See? It’s all so excruciatingly simple!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 1, 2017 | Reply

  12. PH, Here is one of the first things i read on Tench Cox. This sparked my interest to go and find original source material on him. I hope you enjoy it as much as i did. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/tench_coxe.pdf

    Like

    Comment by Gary A. Blake | December 25, 2016 | Reply

  13. I am interested in what you feel about sanctuary cities. Can the States defy ICE and laws regarding immigration and deportation of people who come here illegally?

    Like

    Comment by Linda Demaree | December 24, 2016 | Reply

    • Linda, scroll down to the bottom of this page. Look at the bottom left side where it says, “older comments”. Click on that. You should see a discussion from Nov 16-18 or so on this issue.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 24, 2016 | Reply

  14. I’m 350 pages in Raoul Berger’s book, Government by Judiciary. It’s very good and the only quibble I have with him is his view than is inherently good, that providing him his optimistic view that an informed person can be trusted to do right. The Bible teaches man is inherently wicked and selfish and needs government to properly function as God’s minister to punish evil doers and reward those who do well.

    This topic of law and judicial misconduct is interesting. I bought The US Supreme Court and the Modern Common Law Approach by Simona Grossi and will begin reading it next year.

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | December 23, 2016 | Reply

    • Well! I understand that Raoul Berger was actually a Liberal – which is astonishing because I never knew a Liberal who was intelligent, rational, honest, and scrupulously meticulous in his work. Raoul Berger possessed these characteristics to an astonishing degree; PLUS his writing is clear and unpretentious and highly logical.

      All of which makes it hard to understand how he could have been a liberal since we all know that liberals are irrational, emotional, can’t think, aren’t very smart; and their writing is pompous, boring, and poorly constructed.

      But the basic foundational principle of liberalism seems to be that “man is basically good”. Of course, the entire history of man shows this is an absurd thing to believe – history shows that people are horrible. Our own experiences with people show that they are horrible. Read peoples’ comments on the internet and you see how horrible people are: Malicious, spiteful, envious, and resentful.

      But in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, Liberals believe that man is basically good. They think that evil comes from the environment – and it is the job of civil government to fix the environment so that man can be perfected. That is the foundational Principle of the socialist regulatory welfare State.

      So think of Berger’s belief that man is basically good as a wart on the end of someone’s nose – you wish they would burn it off – but that someone still might have much to offer the world (in spite of that dreadful wart).

      Raoul Berger did give us a great gift with his work.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 23, 2016 | Reply

      • I’ve been saying for many years that I have no use for politicians who play fast and loose with the Constitution just as I have no use for preachers who do so with the Bible. Berger’s review of the reasons men use and abuse for defending judicial law making are exactly the issues at work with understanding the Word of God. What was the intent of the author, given the historical and cultural context in which the document was given? Post modern thinking has ravaged the government and the church, with the reader or listener determining meaning. This book by Berger ought to be read by all patriots and Christians.

        Like

        Comment by Manfred | December 25, 2016 | Reply

  15. I’ve been searching to find the conversation you mentioned previously between Jefferson and Madison concerning the federalist papers and using them for the university of virginia in order to teach about the constitution. Also I wanted to wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas.

    Like

    Comment by Gary A. Blake | December 23, 2016 | Reply

    • Here you are! https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/u-va-minutes-of-meeting-march-4-1825.pdf

      This lists the textbooks they recommended for the Law School at the University of Virginia.

      Imagine being at that meeting on March 4, 1825 with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the same room.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 23, 2016 | Reply

      • That would be amazing. I wouldn’t even speak… just listen.

        As a side note: I’ve read most of your writings and watched most video’s posted with you in them, but, I’ve never seen nor heard you reference two founding fathers that I personally think are very important. The first is John Taylor of Caroline, and the other is Tench Cox.

        I’ve read John Taylor’s books on the constitution and was wondering if you’ve read them. I find them very informative. I especially love his chapter on sovereignty and how the idea reserved for God alone crept into our vocabulary concerning our government. I think he is a great example of a “true defender of the constitution”.

        Concerning Cox, I’ve never really heared anyone talk about Tench Cox, the man who wrote more about the second amendment and its meaning than any other. In fact i believe Madison wrote about him and his writings. If i missed your writings or references i apologize and must be more careful. But none the less what are your thoughts on him as well.

        Well have a very Merry Christmas! And thanks for all you do.

        Like

        Comment by Gary A. Blake | December 23, 2016 | Reply

        • I have not read John Taylor’s or Tench Cox’s works – but I will look them up and read them.

          Yes, God alone is sovereign – human governments have only delegated authority and are to serve as God’s agents. Since our Declaration of Independence says at the 2nd para that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; then actually, governments are to be God’s servants enforcing His will as to the rights He determined we would have: the right of self -defense, the right to a fair trial, etc. https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

          We sure do have the sorriest bunch of pastors in this Country (for the most part) – you don’t hear many of them saying this. I know one who does.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 23, 2016 | Reply

  16. PH: I finally must admit to myself that I am a dunce! The correct answer to the question of whether the Bill of Rights (first 8 Amendments) applies equally to the States as well as to Congress keeps puzzling me.

    I’ve read everything I can find addressing this topic on your website and understand your explanations when addressing a ‘law’ passed by Congress or an incorrect decision of the Supreme Court on issues such as abortion or gay marriage, but I cannot seem to resolve in my mind this:

    Article 6 Clause 2 says: “THIS Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made.,..etc….shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every shall be bound thereby….” Doesn’t that mean that the provisions and amendments to the Constitution are the supreme Law of the Land, as well as valid laws and treaties?

    Since adopted amendments become as much a valid part of the Constitution as anything else therein, and thus applicable to the States as well as the federal entity in terms of being the supreme law of the land, why do not the Bill of Rights, as part of the Constitution and not simply legislation passed by Congress, have the same supreme recognition as the other parts of the Constitution? Or must an amendment directly say that the States are affected by its terms?

    I’ve read what I can find said during the debates by the Founders and can justify the belief that they did not intend the Bill of Rights to apply to the States, but what about their validity in that regard as legitimately IN the Constitution itself via amendment? All other amendments adopted later on seem to have become the supreme Law of the Land so why not the Bill of Rights?

    I’m sure you’ve addressed this somewhere so that even dolts like me can understand it properly but I’m begging for relief from this puzzler if you can find time to address it.

    In the meantime, a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and many, many thanks for all you do!

    Like

    Comment by nelsonaire1 | December 19, 2016 | Reply

    • Yes, I have made a number of comments about this. Search the Comments using the search box and type in “bill of rights” [without the quotes]]

      Americans of today insist that the first 10 Amendments restrict the States because that is what they have been told – and they believe whatever they hear (provided they hear it often enough).

      In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the US Supreme Court ruled – correctly – that the “bill of rights” limits only the powers of the national government.

      No one ever claimed that the first 10 amendments restricted the States until the Supreme Court did so in 1925.

      Search the comments – read my posts – and then let’s look at the Amendments, one by one. Starting with the First: Whose powers are restricted by the First Amendment?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 19, 2016 | Reply

      • PH,

        AHHHHH! I can breathe again! I just finished reading your commentary under “Do our rights come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Congress?”, and it suddenly became so clear to me that I am stunned not to have understood correctly before!

        The issue isn’t as I thought, that because the Bill of Rights appears in the Constitution it must be the supreme Law of the Land but that they contain no enumerated powers under which Congress may act and that they were adopted to amend the Constitution itself which controls the federal government, not the state governments. That, combined with the 9th and 10th Amendments, should have made it clear to me before, but did not, no doubt due to my own blockheadedness. I might also mention that I’ve learned not to rely on Supreme Court interpretations of what is Constitutional because of its mistaken decisions and much prefer to seek the answers elsewhere.

        It sure feels good to have a clear mind on this subject again! Thank you, PH, and a very Merry Christmas. What would we do without you?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by nelsonaire1 | December 20, 2016 | Reply

        • Yes, there is no greater joy than having the Light come on in our Minds when we are released from wrong thinking and are flooded with Truth. I cherish all such moments for me. Let the ramifications of the Truth you have seen wash all over you.

          I see you are a kindred spirit.

          All I did was give you a nudge. Because you have an open mind and wanted the Truth, you were able to do the rest.

          Merry Christmas to you too!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 20, 2016 | Reply

      • What about the Oath of Office every STATE OFFICER must take to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. from all enemies, foreign and domestic? Does that not “apply” the restrictions of the Constitution to EACH STATE OFFICER/ACTOR and, thereby, the state itself? Why not? Very curious of this one.

        Like

        Comment by Diamondback | January 2, 2017 | Reply

        • No, b/c the original intent of the first 8 amendments was that they restricted only the federal government.

          THINK about what you are advocating in light of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1:

          “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution…”

          Are the first 8 Amendments part of the Constitution? Yes.

          If the first 8 Amendments apply to restrict the States, then who has judicial power over how the States act in reference to the first 8 Amendments? The federal courts.

          At the time the first 10 amendments were ratified, the People understood a whole lot more than they understand today – they understood that the interpretation you are urging would give the federal courts enormous power over the States.

          Even the US supreme Court didn’t dare claim this power until 1925; and they really didn’t drop the axe on us with this bizarre interpretation many Americans have now embraced until 1962: see: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/

          It’s been downhill ever since: Part of the reason is that Americans don’t understand that the first 8 Amendments restricted ONLY the federal gov’t; and many blindly refuse to accept this truth. They think they are taking a stand for Liberty; but actually, they have swallowed the bait.

          Remember, the States had their own State Constitutions – some of them had “bills of rights”.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 2, 2017 | Reply

          • PH, could part of the confusion as to what Diamondback eluded to when a state official takes the oath to defend the Constitution have to do with the States/People being on the other side table from the Federal government as pertaining to the US Constitution? The Constitution was the contract agreed to by the States to form the Federal government and could it be that the oath by State officers, as far as defending the agreement has more to do with enforcing the agreement on the Feds for the sake of protecting the States from the Feds, than the States obeying the limits of the agreement?
            Just a thought that came to me while reading what you wrote.
            Happy New Year.

            Like

            Comment by Mike Foil | January 3, 2017

          • Perhaps that is what Diamondback meant. Certainly, it was the DUTY – imposed by the Oath of office at Article VI, clause 3, US Constitution, for all State officers to refuse to submit to the US Supreme Court’s unconstitutional pronouncements which pretended to ban Christian speech in the public schools, which pretended to overturn State statutes criminalizing abortion, homosexual sodomy, and state laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 3, 2017

  17. Just curious if you’ve seen the video of “hollywood elites” begging the electors to vote their conscience?

    Like

    Comment by Gary A. Blake | December 17, 2016 | Reply

    • No, I haven’t watched. It really gets under my skin when those ignorant people hold forth on political philosophy and constitutional issues.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 17, 2016 | Reply

  18. Topcat1957…You can be a NAVY enlistee, but you are not a MARINE enlistee. Being a Navy corpsman puts you in with the Marines and you go through the same basic training as the Marines do. Basically you eat, sleep, and live like the Marines. According to this article and my husband, who was in the Marine Corps during the evacuation of Saigon, the corpsman minister to the health needs of the Marines and to fight alongside the Marines. The Marines do not have their own medical people, they use the Navy. http://work.chron.com/corpsman-marines-6677.html

    The Marines have been in existance since 1775. This site gives you a short history of the U.S. Marines. http://www.montney.com/marine/history.htm

    Like

    Comment by Chris J | December 13, 2016 | Reply

  19. Yes, Snopes is a leftist site. But we must view to evaluate its bias.

    Like

    Comment by Bob | December 13, 2016 | Reply

  20. It says George was born in Mexico. Nothing more, nothing less! Nothing else intended!

    Like

    Comment by Bob | December 13, 2016 | Reply

  21. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/jefferson.asp
    more

    Like

    Comment by Bob | December 13, 2016 | Reply

    • on what is snopes an authority?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 13, 2016 | Reply

      • They might be an authority of sorts on propaganda. I checked their references on one article they posted in which they claimed it was false that Obama had released a terrorist directly involved in the Cole bombing. They stated that the DOD claimed he was not directly involved and the reference was a DOD document. I pulled up the document and it said the guy was in the cell directly involved in the Cole bombing.
        How can such a document support their statement?

        This is another example of 1- the unreliability of Snopes and 2- the need to go to original source documents.

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | December 15, 2016 | Reply

        • The scope and extent of the lying which goes on today is breathtaking.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 15, 2016 | Reply

  22. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/first-barbary-war
    TJ and the Muslims, a history.

    Like

    Comment by Bob | December 13, 2016 | Reply

  23. If you sign up as a Navy medic, you can be assigned to a Marine unit. The Marines have no medical people.

    Like

    Comment by Bob | December 13, 2016 | Reply

  24. What is the true meaning of Article IV Section 1 Recently I saw a post claiming that Article IV allows the FedGov to tell states how to manage things like marriage so things in one state are recognized across state lines. This poster finishes by saying it’s the “Full faith and Credit clause.”

    Like

    Comment by Timothy | December 11, 2016 | Reply

  25. I confess I do not know what Letters of Marque & Reprisal to privateers congress may have written. Did congress not declare war on the pirates?

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | December 10, 2016 | Reply

  26. The US Marines are the oldest of the uniformed services that were part of the Department of War. I don’t know when the Navy assimilated them. We actually declared war against the Barbary Pirates. something 21st century wags should have known when they claimed we could not declare war on Al Qaeda.

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | December 10, 2016 | Reply

    • Didn’t Congress issue Letters of Marque & Reprisal to privateers to make war on the Barbary Pirates? (Art. I, Sec.8, clause 11)

      Our Framers wanted a heavily armed citizenry.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2016 | Reply

  27. The C allows for armies (plural). Can a army be called the air force? But only a Navy (singular). So what about the Marines? The Navy is allowed its own army?

    Like

    Comment by Bob | December 10, 2016 | Reply

    • Someone here can research the history of the US Marine Corps. I think they are very old, originating in 1775 or so. Military history is not my area, but I think they are part of the Navy. Didn’t they fight in the Barbary Wars? The Marine Corps hymn goes, “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli…” – referring, I think, to the Barbary Wars.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2016 | Reply

      • Regarding the implementatiin of the Marine Corps; First organized at Tun Tavern Nov. 10 1775 as “Continental Marines”. Implemented to Serve aboard Ship, for ship to ship fighting and to assisty in landing assult,hence part of the Navy and still under the control of the Navy Dept. They actually were deployed to man the rigging to fire upon the deck of the opposing ships. Note the officers cap has an embroidered emblem on the top to to signify to men in the rigging that the cap wearer was an officer. The Marines are the oldest fighting force in history dating back to Roman and Greek times where they were first used.
        Due to the nature of the “majority” of people recruited, the the truism “Once a Marine Always a Marine” holds value. Said to have been coined by a Master Sargent Paul Woyshner, timeline unknown. Once the term Marine is earned, they are ALWAYS a Marine, Active, Reserve, Retired, Veteran, but they never give up that title or fail to come to the aid of fellow Marines or their Countyr or Corps….
        From what I can remember of bootcamp 1966 version….
        Thank you PH for all your hard work inkeeping us on track on the Constitution…
        Semper Fi, God, Country, Corps…..

        Like

        Comment by N S | December 11, 2016 | Reply

        • Thank you for the history!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 11, 2016 | Reply

      • I just know I heard that if you sign up to be a Navy Medic you are a Marine

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | December 13, 2016 | Reply

  28. First. Thank you for all you do!

    Second. Do you believe we need an amendment for the airforce? Is the airforce constitutional?

    Third and final…do you have a list of departments and agencies that are unconstitutional? I looked but didn’t see one, but i guess i could have missed.
    Again thanks.

    Like

    Comment by Gary A. Blake | December 10, 2016 | Reply

    • It may be a grey area about the Air Force. When it was originally formed, I think it was the “Army Air Corps” – perhaps for the reason that the Constitution doesn’t mention an “Air Force”. But I would not insist that the Air Force be shut down until an Amendment authorizing it is ratified; or get into any arguments over this; or challenge anyone to a duel!

      You don’t need me to give you a list of unconstitutional agencies and departments! You know what the Constitution authorizes the federal government to do! May they operate a patent and copyright office? Yes: Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 8. May they have a department of the Treasury? Yes: Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1 and Art. I, Sec. 9 clause 7.

      May they have a Department of Education? Cite Art., Section, and clause.

      Department of Agriculture? Cite Art., Section, and clause.

      You get the idea.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2016 | Reply

      • A grey area? Couldn’t a lot of departments and agencies be classified as a grey area?

        Like

        Comment by Gary A. Blake | December 11, 2016 | Reply

        • No! Name some you think might be grey areas. I thought the air force might be a grey area b/c Art.I, Sec. 8, clauses 12 & 13 specifically mention the Army and Navy.

          But by no stretch of the imagination – or the Constitution – can one justify most of the federal departments and agencies of today.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 11, 2016 | Reply

          • Most of the departments i look up site the commerce clause as its constitutional authority. We know that’s wrong. Thanks for pushing me to understand this most important topic better.

            Like

            Comment by Gary A. Blake | December 14, 2016

          • You are most welcome!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 14, 2016

  29. if we could only get the Congress to fulfill their sworn duty to preserve, protect and Defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. by doing nothing they are in breach of their duty. maybe we can set a fire under their derrières with removal from office threats

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | December 10, 2016 | Reply

    • We must replace most of our elected officials with those who know and understand our Constitution.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2016 | Reply

  30. Manfred, you need not doubt Publius Huldah’s writings, she was a God send for curing my angst and giving me confidence that I was missing prior to clicking on her Avatar and was directed to Raoul Berger, another genius!

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | December 10, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, thank you, Dear. But I want everyone to check out what EVERYONE says. Remember the Bereans at Acts Ch 17: God applauded the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul was telling them was true. Manfried is a Berean.

      At trials, I can’t insist that the Judge or Jury accept and believe everything I say. I must put on EVIDENCE to PROVE what I say.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2016 | Reply

    • I agree with Con Ma 100%. You can trust Publius to speak truth to power. She has given me a lot of facts that I didn’t know regarding our history and the Constitution. Also a TON of papers that she has written. They have helped me tremendously when “debating” liberals, or the non-believers.

      Like

      Comment by Chrisj | December 10, 2016 | Reply

      • Thank you! But still, since The Bible applauds the Bereans for checking out what Paul said, I think God wants us to check out what others tell us. Sometimes I make mistakes!

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2016 | Reply

  31. the 3/5 compromise find it here
    http://www.google.com/search?q=define+3/5+compromise&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | December 9, 2016 | Reply

    • Madison spends almost the entire Federalist No. 54 to the compromise. At the end he tells us why he was reconciled to the compromise.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Don Mellon | December 9, 2016 | Reply

  32. It can be done with a charge of malfeasance, wrong doing, especially by a public official what would stop one from charging both Obama and Koskinen ? Koskinen is a willing participant who violated his oath of office, and the President coludes to bribe the commissioners assistance in stealing the money from the Teaparty groups who were swindled out of their Time and money and Much more by blocked the ability of the people to have a fair Election opportunity at removing Obama and rid us of Obama Care.that is a crime , but it can be brought up after the Impeachment and removal for malfeasance or the plethora of usurpations. the evidence is irrefutable, it’s all recorded in the congressional record there is no question of his usurpations
    they are all of his own doing.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | December 9, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, we certainly need to dust off the constitutional remedy of impeachment and start using it to get rid of the bad people and the incompetent.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2016 | Reply

  33. I test all that I read to make sure I am not misled, either intentionally or incidentally. Thus far, I do not disagree with any substance in Raul’s book.

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | December 9, 2016 | Reply

  34. I found Raul’s book on the 14th Amendment in paper for very cheap. Am about 150 pages into it. Very interesting reading!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Manfred | December 9, 2016 | Reply

    • And you may rely on him – he tells the Truth. He was a truly great man.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2016 | Reply

  35. Mr. Foil, find Raoul Berger in ibooks and you will find whatever you are looking for in the 14th. amendment.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | December 9, 2016 | Reply

  36. Some Republicans wanted to impeach the IRS commissioner for perjury but I wonder if simple indictment shouldn’t be the used. Is impeachment the only alternative?

    Like

    Comment by llotter2013 | December 9, 2016 | Reply

    • Both may be used. A civil officer or federal judge may be impeached for perjury and removed from office and barred from ever holding federal office again; AND criminally prosecuted for the same crime.

      See Federalist Paper No. 69, 4th para, where Hamilton discusses impeaching and removing a President – and THEN criminally prosecuting him. The reason the President has to be removed from office BEFORE he is criminally prosecuted [in the federal system] is because all the Prosecutors in the federal system work for the President and serve at his pleasure! Imagine being charged with a crime, and having the power to say to the Prosecutor, “you’re fired”!

      Of course, other civil officers and judges in the federal system could be criminally prosecuted first, then impeached and removed as a consequence of the conviction.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2016 | Reply

  37. Thanks. I remembered part of that but had not put it all together. Makes perfect sense.

    Like

    Comment by Mike Foil | December 8, 2016 | Reply

  38. PH, I cannot find your article that deals with blacks being granted a 3/5th vote and the explanation for why that happened. Can you send me in the right direction? Thanks.

    Like

    Comment by Mike Foil | December 8, 2016 | Reply

    • Oh dear, I don’t know where it is or where I wrote about it. So I’ll do it over.

      Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3 provides for the apportionment of Representatives to Congress according to population.

      Well then, are Slaves to be counted?

      “Yes, of course!”, said the slave-holding states. “Every slave should be counted.” This, of course, would increase the number of Representatives to Congress the slave states got.

      “No!” said the Free States. “You treat Slaves as property! And now you want to count them to increase the number of Representatives you get.”

      So they compromised – 3/5 of the slaves would be counted for purposes of apportionment of direct taxes and for determining the number of Representatives the slave states got.

      It had nothing to do with insulting slaves by saying each slave was only 3/5 of a person.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2016 | Reply

  39. Hi Publius. Thank you for all you’ve done! I have quite a few questions so I hope you don’t mind.

    1. In one of your papers, you said that “When acts of the national government are authorized by the Constitution, States can not lawfully contradict such acts.” So if leftist states like California pass hate speech or gun control laws which contradict the first and second amendments, could they be struck down as unconstitutional or do the constitutional amendments only apply to federal laws?

    2. You define a natural born citizen as someone who is born of citizens, specifically the father, regardless of the location at birth. But Vattel’s says in §§ 215, 216 & 217 of his book Law of Nations that children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are just “citizens” and therefore not “natural born citizens.” Could you please explain this apparent discrepancy?

    3. Do you think the constitution is flawed in any way? I know you’ve already adressed the flaws in some of the amendments like the 17th amendment but do you have any problems with the rest of the constitution?

    4. I still don’t fully understand the relationship between natural born citizenship and citizenship from the 14th amendment. Citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment, to the best of my understanding, requires birth on the soil of the country to citizen parents while natural born citizenship only requires birth to citizen parents. Is 14th amendment citizenship more stringent than natural born citizenship? I always thought that the president was required to be a natural born citizen because it was the strictest type of citizenship and would most effectively ensure allegience to the country. If you could further clarify that for me, I would greatly appreciate it.

    Forgive me if you’ve already addressed any of these issues or if I asked any stupid questions. My knowledge of the constitution is fairly limited. Thank you and Merry Christmas!

    Like

    Comment by Santiago | December 4, 2016 | Reply

    • 1. The federal Constitution doesn’t authorize Congress to pass hate speech laws or gun control laws for the country at large. “Restrictions on Speech” is a power reserved to the States or the People. States have traditionally passed laws restricting “speech”: fraud, incitement to violence, perjury, slander, etc.

      The first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution were not intended to restrict the States. Only the acts of the federal government are supposed to be restricted by those Amendments. States may properly enact certain gun control laws: eg, you can’t take guns into hospitals, prisons, mental institutions, courthouses, persons under the age of 17 may not bear arms outside their home unless in the company of an adult, etc. But States may not ban guns or disarm its Citizens – because that would conflict with Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16 of the US Constitution which provide for the organization, training, and “calling forth” of the Militia. The “Militia”, of course, is the armed and trained citizens of each State organized into fighting units. See Dr. Edwin Vieira’s articles on The Militia at News With Views.

      2. There is no discrepancy. The gist of what Vattel says in those 3 sections is this: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are citizens. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular. USE YOUR HEAD! What is Vattel saying?

      3. As I have written elsewhere, most of the Amendments to the US Constitution since the 12th Amendment increased the powers of the federal government. 4 of them were “housekeeping amendments”; the 21st Amendment repealed the ill-conceived 18th amendment; but the rest of the amendments increased the powers of the federal government. It was NECESSARY to correct the defect of slavery – this was done by means of the 13th Amendment and Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment – but the rest of the amendments since then (except for the housekeeping amendments) were generally BAD ideas. And that includes the voting amendments.

      With Art. I, Sec. 2, clause 1, US Constitution, the States retained their pre-existing power to qualify voters for their State. With the 4 voting Amendments, the States began to surrender power over voter qualification to the federal government. That allowed the camel to stick its smelly nose under the Tent and since then the federal government has usurped control over voter qualifications and registration in the States. And the States acquiesced in this.

      4. You don’t see the distinction between “natural born citizen” and 14th Amendment citizenship because you are reading things into the 14th Amdt. Where does Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt require birth to citizen parents? It doesn’t.

      Besides, ONE OF THE TWO PURPOSES of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt was to extend citizenship to freed slaves. They were born here, but they weren’t Citizens – they were slaves. After they were freed, they still weren’t Citizens. It was Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt which made them Citizens.

      If at the time you were born, your parents were US citizens, then you were “born” a Citizen. So you are a natural born citizen no matter where you were born.

      But if you were born here and your parents were NOT US citizens, but were resident aliens lawfully here, then you are a US Citizen, but not a natural born citizen.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 5, 2016 | Reply

      • Thank you very much Publius. That really helped a lot. One last question: What do you make of the following website which seems to show numerous quotes from prominent founders and supreme court cases which indicate that natural born citizenship is attained simply by being bon in country? Have they been taken out of context, were they just wrong, or what? Thanks again.

        nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes-2/)

        Like

        Comment by Santiago | December 31, 2016 | Reply

        • I looked at the first part only of the website you linked to.

          What are they talking about? “Natural born SUBJECTS“. Under the common law of England, anyone born within the dominions of the King was “born” a subject of the King.

          We fought a Revolution to throw off that feudal doctrine.

          We substituted the radically NEW concept of “citizenship” for the feudal concept of “subjectship”; and we rejected the feudal concept that anyone born here would be born a subject of the King of England.

          I touched on that in my first paper on this topic: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

          See my comments in my paper about Jake Walker at Red State.

          Some Americans were so desperate to show that Marco Rubio & Ted Cruz were “natural born citizens” that they were willing to resurrect the feudal concept of “natural born subjectship” to replace the republican [as opposed to monarchical] concept of “natural born citizen”.

          If there is something else an the website you want me to comment on, just say what it is.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 31, 2016 | Reply

    • I think one flaw in the Constitution has been revealed quite starkly by the November election and its aftermath where some few electors are attempting to gather enough votes in the elector’s college to overturn the advantage for Trump. I say that because in researching Article 2, I believe the Framers wanted the legislative assemblies in each state to appoint their state’s electors themselves and not devolve the process down to the control of entities other than themselves as we have now.

      My conclusion comes from the stated desire of the Framers to keep political parties out of the process as well as not allow a president or even the states’ electors to be chosen by direct popular vote. But what we have now, as here in Arizona, is a situation where state political parties name a slate of ‘electors’ and they are committed fully by state law mandate to the candidate who wins the popular vote at election time. I therefore believe that the electors as chosen today are not of the same ‘quality’ as the Framers intended them to be, although I think each of them has an absolute right to vote as he chooses on December 19th. To believe this convoluted system was the deliberate intent of the Framers is to believe they were crazy men.

      However, since they wrote into the provision, “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”, states have assumed authority to create systems as exists in Arizona, something completely opposite of the intent, and one can reasonably support it, I believe, because of that insertion. But I also believe we should adhere to the sage advice of Thomas Jefferson to go back to the meaning intended at the time the provision was created rather than read into it something quite different.

      Perhaps PH will shoot me down on this issue, but that’s the way I read it.

      Like

      Comment by nelsonaire1 | December 8, 2016 | Reply

      • I have several posts on the electoral college here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/electoral-college/

        But we abandoned that system set forth in the Constitution.

        Today, state laws provide for how electors are to vote. They must vote according to State law.

        Since we have been under a different – unconstitutional system – for many decades; to now say they can vote however they want, is to give Hillary two bites at the apple.

        So in the States the Trump delegates must vote for Trump. The Hilliary delegates must vote for Hillary.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2016 | Reply

  40. Hi PH, I hope all is well with you and have a Merry Christmas. Concerning the 14th amendment; Is it correct to say the “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” are the due process laws that keep govt from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property.?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | December 3, 2016 | Reply

    • The original intent of the “equal protection clause” has a precise meaning: it means that States can’t deprive freed slaves – black people – of the specific rights guaranteed to them in the federal civil rights Act of 1866.

      I have a category for “equal protection clause” which explains all about it and links to the evidence: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/equal-protection-clause/

      Whites didn’t need the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Even after emancipation, southern States were still refusing to extend to black people their God-given Rights.

      And Merry Christmas to you too!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 3, 2016 | Reply

  41. You got me, Huldah. My reply was simplistic. There is no “state ratifying debate” archive I’m aware of either. We have to rely upon the Federalist papers even if their sales impact upon the States wasn’t appreciably felt beyond NYS. That said, I am always running across quotes attributed to State reps during the state ratifying debates. These quotes, when found, have been helpful in better understanding what the States understood the Framers to have meant. Thanks again for your scholarship and patience.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | December 3, 2016 | Reply

    • No, I didn’t “get you”! I would like to find a website which has facsimile Records of the State ratifying records and debates. In this paper at paragraph 11, https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/separation-of-church-and-state/

      I quoted “We the Delegates of the People of Virginia” when they ratified the US Constitution. That is extremely important as showing the understanding of The State of Virginia as to the relation between them and the federal government. But as you see, since the website doesn’t present a facsimile, I have to hope that the website quoted accurately & honestly. Also, it doesn’t have the debates.

      So it would be valuable to have a website which contains original source documents from all of the 13 States.

      But as far as the nuts & bolts of, e.g., “what is the original intent of the interstate commerce clause”, The Federalist Papers and Madison’s Journal of the Convention of 1787 are the most authoritative source of info – as illustrated here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/82/

      According to this website, Americans were very interested in The Papers [Americans of that time, being home schooled, were highly literate.]: http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0151-0001 This website says:

      “….On January 1, 1788, McLean, having observed “the avidity” with which the “Publius” essays had been “sought after by politicians and persons of every description,” announced plans for the publication of “The FEDERALIST, A Collection of Essays, written in favour of the New Constitution, By a Citizen of New-York, Corrected by the Author, with Additions and Alterations.”10 The promised volume, including the first thirty-six essays, was published on March 22, 1788. Hamilton was not altogether pleased with the volume, for he stated in the preface11 that it contained “violations of method and repetitions of ideas which cannot but displease a critical reader.” Despite such imperfections, he hoped that the essays would “promote the cause of truth, and lead to a right judgment of the true interests of the community.” Interested readers were promised a second volume of essays as soon as the editor could prepare them for publication.

      “This Day is published,” The Independent Journal advertised on May 28, 1788, “The FEDERALIST, VOLUME SECOND.” This volume contained the remaining essays, including the final eight which had not yet appeared in the newspapers. ….”

      Here is a book I would like to have: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 3, 2016 | Reply

  42. I think the parent/child analogy is more realistic:

    Parent makes a general list of rules for children (Constitution), then provides a handbook to explain rules (Federalist).

    Of course children prefer not to learn or follow rules, but that’s no excuse for not learning and breaking them.

    Like

    Comment by Dwain | December 2, 2016 | Reply

  43. Agreed, but I still believe the States’ understanding as may be demonstrated in their ratifying documents are central to their and our understanding of the framers’ meaning and intent. Afterall, it was the States’ understanding as explained by the Federalists which determined whether or not they acceded to membership in the federal constitutional republic.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | December 1, 2016 | Reply

  44. Agreed, but when trying to clearly understand the framers’ meaning, how the individual States interpreted the meaning was based more upon the marketing of the Constitution by the Federalists. I like to think of the car salesman-customer analogy: it is up to the car salesman (the Federalist) to explain the features of the car and how those features would satisfy the needs of the customer. And based upon how well the salesman (the Federalist) does his job determines whether or not the States buy into the pitch. So, the State’s understanding of the Federalist explanation sales is critically central to understanding the Federalists’ meaning and intent. Relying solely on the Federalist Papers, which most States never read before they ratified the Constitution, doesn’t seem a reasonable method of understanding meaning and intent.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | November 30, 2016 | Reply

    • “Federalism”, of course, refers to the FORM of government created by the US Constitution: A Federation of Sovereign States, united together FOR THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PURPOSES ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

      So! In the Constitution, the States delegated to their “creature” power to make laws on the following 3 subjects:
      1. International commerce & relations and military matters;
      2. Domestically, create a uniform commercial system with uniform weights & measures, a money system based on gold & silver, patents & copyrights, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery & some road building; and
      3. Laws of naturalization of new Citizens; and after 1808, power to control immigration.

      THAT IS THE “FEDERAL SYSTEM” CREATED BY OUR CONSTITUTION AND DESCRIBED IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.

      But in the popular mind, “federalism” has been identified with the Frankensteinian monster we have today. So people “hate” federalism. And they “hate” federalists. And they “hate” The Federalist Papers. And they insist we should go by the “Antifederalist Papers”. And some of them even sneer at our Constitution, our Framers, and the concept of “federalism” – even though they have no idea what the term actually means!

      All I can do is present the Truth and hope that People will lay aside what they think they know and give Truth the opportunity to enter their minds and correct their thinking. If one reads through the Constitution a few times, one will see that what I describe above is True.

      You asserted that most States never read The Federalist Papers before they “bought into the pitch”. I don’t know that! But I do know that Americans were much more literate during the late 1800s than they are today. Today, The Federalist Papers are over the heads of most Americans. For which we can thank public education.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 1, 2016 | Reply

      • PH, I agree wholeheartedly with all you have said. That is my exact take on our Constitution and federalist papers as well. I have a copy of “The American State Papers and Federalist” laying about somewhere and read a page in the pocket edition of “The Declaration of Independance & Constitution” daily to try and pick up what I miss and make it more clear in my own mind. It is such a simple document in it’s wording I don’t understand how anyone cannot see the beauty of it or refuse to follow it.
        Much effort went into the wording, and although imperfect, was as close as they could get, Hence the provision for ammending it on occasion and in rare instances. My belief is that it is a blueprint for the employment of a continuing liberty minded govrnment, remembering that they were creating a government that they could passed down to their posterity and future generations. It is the blueprint, but in order for the blueprint to work you must also have the “moral” knowledge in which to read and interpret it. Which comes from the Bible, which the founders also believed in. Each document will work without the other, but to truely understand each you would best be served by knowing both.
        And to be politically in-correct, Merry Christmas to all, with special thanks to PH for another year of guidance in the ways of our Constitution….

        Like

        Comment by N S | December 2, 2016 | Reply

    • Have you found an authentic source for the records of the ratifying convention in your State? I have found sites with reprints of the Records of the State ratifying conventions – but I don’t trust reprints. It’s best to use facsimiles – there is less chance of tinkering with the text. [And yes, I have seen texts tinkered with].

      Here’s what I mean: I cite this online edition from the Library of Congress for Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1789. As you see, they scanned an old book: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=001/llfr001.db&recNum=47&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28fr0012%29%29%230010003&linkText=1

      If you find a source where they have facsimile Records of the ratifying conventions of the 13 States, I would like to get the link.

      Article VII of our Constitution is what required that the Constitution of 1787 could be ratified only by conventions called in each of the States.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 2, 2016 | Reply

  45. Why shouldn’t the state debates on the constitution be used when determining the original intent of the constitution? Why just the federalist papers?

    Like

    Comment by Gary | November 30, 2016 | Reply

    • Well of course, one can look at the debates in the State ratifying conventions. E.g., Virginia’s is particularly interesting because James Madison was there – and I always hang on to every word he says.

      But The Federalist Papers are the most authoritative commentary on the original intent. See what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the others said about the Federalist [Papers] when they were deciding on what books to use as texts for the Law School at the University of Virginia:

      https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/u-va-minutes-of-meeting-march-4-1825.pdf

      I have also used Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 where our Constitution was drafted. Madison’s Journal (Farrand’s edition) is on line – you can get the links in this Post: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/

      And I have used other writings from the Framing era to learn how they understood words. E.g., I used David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship to learn how people of that time understood the term, “natural born citizen”.

      And of course, I often refer to my old Friend, Noah Webster and his 1828 American Dictionary. It’s online: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 30, 2016 | Reply

      • I wanted to refresh my understanding of Ramsey so I searched the title and came across this blog spot http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html The author, Apuzzo, agrees with your analysis on natural born citizen and offers some interesting comments as well. The last I looked at the Heritage Foundations definition they take an opposing view. I think yours and Apuzzo’s are the most logical. Thank for all you do.

        Like

        Comment by nrlazear | December 1, 2016 | Reply

        • Ramsay’s dissertation is important because it reflects the understanding of our Founders at the time of our Framing of the term, “natural born citizen”.

          Apuzzo is a good man. Though the lawsuits to declare obama ineligible were fruitless because only CONGRESS [via impeachment] and the Presidents’ Cabinet or such other body as Congress shall determine, have the power to remove the President [Section 4 of the 25th Amendment].

          The Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to remove the President! Furthermore, historically, the Supreme Court has refrained from telling one of the “political branches” [the Legislative and Executive Branches] how to exercise a power delegated by the Constitution to one of them. It was the responsibility of CONGRESS to remove obama for ineligibility.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 1, 2016 | Reply

      • Thank you as always. I’m curious of two things however. One have you read “James Madison – and the making of America. By Kevin Gutzman? If so what did you think is it worth the read?

        Like

        Comment by Gary | December 1, 2016 | Reply

        • I haven’t read it. I NEVER read biographies or any other opinion books. I view Madison solely through his own writings and speeches. I would never look at Madison (or anybody else) through someone else’s filters.

          Kevin Gutzman is a member of Compact for America and supports their version of a so-called “balanced budget amendment”. Their wicked scheme has nothing to do with “balancing the budget” or “reducing spending”. Instead, their proposed amendment actually delegates to Congress massive new taxing authority: the authority to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) on top of the income tax.

          Furthermore, when States pass this treacherous scheme, they are actually pre-ratifying the proposed amendment which authorizes Congress to pass these massive new taxes. But the language in CFA’s legislation is tricky; so unless one is highly disciplined (yours truly), one wouldn’t wade through the 18 pages of excruciatingly boring reading. Most State legislators wouldn’t read it. I have two papers here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/compact-for-america/

          States pre-ratify the proposed new taxes amendment when they pass CFA’s legislation in their States. That way, CFA’s new taxes Amendment can become part of the Constitution BEFORE THE PEOPLE – AND EVEN THE STATE LEGISLATURES – FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON.

          It’s nasty business.

          I would as soon kiss a black mamba snake as read one of Kevin Gutzman’s books.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 1, 2016 | Reply

  46. I’m old enough to remember the “natural born citizen” bruhaha in the ’68 primary against George Romney by Nixon, or whomever. OK, I’m convinced its not WHERE one is born but who one is BORN to! I am not old enough to remember the 1920 bruhaha against the VP candidate born in Kansas territory. George Romney was born in Mexico to American parents. John McCain was born in Panama to American parents.

    Like

    Comment by Bob | November 23, 2016 | Reply

    • Yep! Location of birth is not relevant. The citizenship status of the parents at time of birth is what’s relevant in determining whether the baby is a natural born citizen.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 23, 2016 | Reply

      • PH. I’m confused now. In Vattel’s Law of Nations, Book 1, Ch 19, S 212 he says: “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born IN the country, of parents who are citizens.”

        Doesn’t that mean a child born outside of the US, even though born of parents who are citizens, does NOT qualify for the presidency if Vattel’s definition is what the Framers put into the Constitution as a qualifier for the office? Congressional legislation cannot change the Constitution so how am I going wrong on this?

        I’ve watched your video several times but this apparent discrepancy isn’t addressed. If you’ve explained all this elsewhere and I’ve missed it, could you direct me properly?

        And, a very Happy Thanksgiving to you.

        Like

        Comment by nelsonaire1 | November 24, 2016 | Reply

        • Yes – you must read all of Vattel’s paragraphs on this subject. I believe I provided all the paragraphs – all 7 or so of them. You see, learned writers can’t say everything in our first paragraph! Vattel follows the standard format for legal treatises: state the General Principle first, and then in subsequent paragraphs, state particular applications to specific situations.

          The problems modern day Americans have is that they don’t want to read more than one (1) short paragraph. So they read one paragraph and then think they know all about it. Some of them even lecture those who have read and studied all of the paragraphs.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 24, 2016 | Reply

  47. Agree. Why are we allowing polygamists to immagrate today?

    Like

    Comment by Bob | November 19, 2016 | Reply

    • We shouldn’t allow them to immigrate. Our Framers thought we should be very particular about who we allowed to immigrate. They thought only the best people should be allowed in. I certainly agree!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 19, 2016 | Reply

      • If they don’t go into the church or don’t stay in the church then ICE can arrest.and deport them. Problem solved. Except for the murder and mayhem that occurs because the liberals let them in the.country in the first place.

        Like

        Comment by Randy Claywell | November 23, 2016 | Reply

      • Since the Founding Fathers didn’t specify that only “the best people” should be alliwed to immigrate, the Constitution has no description of who was to be allowed to immigrate, where do you get the idea that this was their belief?
        Polygamy was made illegal in 1887 by the Edmonds-Tucker Act. This unconstitutional law.was.upheld by the Supreme Court. Since this is the law if the land those who violate this law, polygamists, should not be allowed into the US except as diplomats

        Like

        Comment by Randy Claywell | November 23, 2016 | Reply

        • Actually, our Framers did say so. I have links here and there in my mind and papers – not organized. Start with Federalist Paper No. 2 around para 5.

          See Madison’s speech in the First Congress – Second Session – Feb 3, 1790 – pages 452-453 of the pdf online version here:
          http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1937/1356.05_Bk.pdf

          There is more along these lines. I should write it up.

          One needs to have a vast knowledge of our Framers’ writings before one can reasonably say, “they never said that”!!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 23, 2016 | Reply

        • Yes, Our immigration laws could and should prohibit polygamists from immigrating here.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 23, 2016 | Reply

  48. Polygamy was a big issue in early 20th century. Mormans were forced to make polygamy illegal for Utah’s admission to the USA. Mitt Romney’s grandfather took to a Mexican commune to excape the decision of Utah officials. Indeed George Romney, Mitt’s dad, was born in Mexico. He ran for pres in 1968 against Nixon and was challenged as not being “natural born” Also Teddy Roosevelt had a bill passed in 1907 to deny immigration rights to polygamists. I have found no superseading law to override that law.

    Like

    Comment by Bob | November 19, 2016 | Reply

    • But of course, the definition of “natural born citizen” which applies is the one our Framers had in mind. Location of birth was always irrelevant. Only the citizenship status of the parents is relevant.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 19, 2016 | Reply

    • Since the Mormons ceased Polygamy in 1890 the 1907 law.was.aimed aliens who supported and practiced polygamy.
      What proof do you have that Mitt Romney’s grandfather “took to a Mormon Commune to escape the decision of Utah officials”? What evidence, not hearsay, do you have that it was a commune?
      George W Romney had the same tyoe of citizenship challenge that Ted Cruz had.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Randy Claywell | November 23, 2016 | Reply

      • What was the citizenship status of George W. Romney’s parents when he was born?

        Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen b/c at the time he was born, his Father was either a Cuban national or a Canadian citizen or subject. We don’t know what his mother’s citizenship status was at the time Ted was born. She was born in the United States, but she may have taken Canadian citizenship by the time Ted was born. We don’t seem to have the records so can’t know for sure about her.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | November 23, 2016 | Reply


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: