Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

4,278 Comments »

  1. Have you ever thought about writing a “text book” on the constitution to cement your legacy.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Blake | September 22, 2020 | Reply

    • yes, but i always have so much to do “right now” that I don’t see how I can get to it until I retire…..Hey! I’m already retired!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2020 | Reply

      • Already retired, so why not a textbook of sorts. I’d like to see a book which zeros in on basic tenets and principles which are so notoriously misinterpreted and misapplied. Lke, what does “welfare”, “regulating interstate commerce”, etc really mean. Not so much a textbook, but a primer to clarify actual meaning of key components of the Constitution. Very helpful.

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | September 22, 2020 | Reply

        • what format would be most helpful?

          When I was learning difficult material, I made charts and put the key info on the charts so I could see at a glance the entire issue and solution. It works like a charm! I still do it when I’m learning something difficult, such as the Russian language.

          But people won’t look at the charts I have prepared. E.g., this one says it all on one sheet of paper. https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/chart-showing-federal-structure-with-meme-april-2019.pdf

          But people won’t look at it.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2020 | Reply

          • You’ll be happy to know I–and I’m sure others who value your work–have looked at the charts. But mine is more an issue oriented approach. Both Left (assuming they care to read) and Right would benefit. A working man’s primer to dispel the myths and confusion. Anyway, a go-to guide type of book would be the cat’s meow. You’ve already done much of the work with your blogs, so you’ve a headstart on the project. Thanks for all you do.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | September 22, 2020

          • I was thinking more a long the lines of a bible commentary.

            Bold print (constitution) small print (commentary) – that contains the explanation of the text and sources to back the explanation. (federalist papers, founders words..etc..)

            Like

            Comment by Blake | September 23, 2020

      • Well if you ever do write one let me be the first to put in my pre-order “right now”.

        Like

        Comment by Blake | September 22, 2020 | Reply

  2. Can the president send in troops to stop rioting if governors refuse the assistance? In other words can he override their protests to send in military to put down the violence?

    Like

    Comment by Pam | August 28, 2020 | Reply

  3. The variety of “learned” analyses experts have been putting forth of late regarding the possibility of Speaker’s assuming the Presidency at Noon on Jan 20th if an official electoral count isn’t forthcoming by that time/date is dizzying. And they are expert, I but a lowly neophyte. Based on our previous back and forth (3 USC, XXth, etc) on this topic, my understanding is that this would be uncharted territory and that it has all the makings of a constitutional crisis which, I believe, is the Democratic Socialist Party’s intention from the get-go. We both seemed to be saying that such a result could only lead to duking it out in the streets. Though you didn’t seem to see any credibility in the scenario of the Speaker’s taking over in this instance, how is this “hypothetical” scenario different than the R.B.Hayes and T. Jefferson elections? So far, I can see no constitutional grounds permitting the Speaker to take over under the specific condition I describe. But, frankly, my confidence on this subject has been shattered. Please tell me what happens–short of rioting and civil war which we already know is possible–in this scenario. Sorry to keep at it. Not looking for an opinion, which I know you loathe–as do I as well–but just a straight-up legal analysis I can take to the bank. Thanks so much, PH.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | August 27, 2020 | Reply

    • I don’t know what is going to happen. I can’t say that Pelosi won’t be president! [And I do not evaluate those who insist she will as “experts”.]

      The reason I can’t tell you what will happen is because when The Law disappears – as it is rapidly doing today in our Land – then Force & Violence determine what happens not The Law.

      You keep demanding the “constitutional outcome” to a scenario where everyone ignores and tramples over the Constitution. How absurd of me to give a “legal analysis” of what will happen when everyone ignores the Constitution!

      I saw a movie a while ago – the setting was East Berlin just after WWII. One of the Characters was an American women – another character was a young German lawyer – he had gotten his law degree just before the war started, but he never practiced law. she asked him why he never practiced. He answered: THE LAW DISAPPEARED.

      Let that sink in. In this Country, the Law is disappearing. The Marxist Revolution has started in the cities. Local and state officials won’t stop it because they side with the revolutionaries. Everyone ignores our Constitution. Trump has no idea what it says! And contrary to the hype, I see Trump as weak [he’s weak because he has no Standards & Principles to guide him].

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2020 | Reply

  4. What are the Constitutional forms of law enforcement ? That You in advance

    Like

    Comment by Mark Nichols | August 25, 2020 | Reply

  5. PH, first sorry for the length. Did further research to determine what happens WHEN (no longer IF) presidential election results are not determined by January 20th. This is what I found. A statute, not a Constitutional provision. Earnestly hope for your learned analysis. I guess my question is what does “qualify” mean in this analysis. Trump already qualified, but accuracy of vote count is the problem. Seems to me we’ve got a HUGE crisis looming–which is just what the Demonrat apparatchiks have been so carefully planning all along. Would Speaker Pelosi or another Speaker elected by a new crop, hopefully Republican, of Representatives sworn in before Jan 20th take over interim presidential authority? So murky. What SHOULD happen legally, constitutionally AND what will PROBABLY happen. This is WAY over my meager head. THANKS!

    3 U.S. Code § 19.Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
    U.S. Code
    Notes
    prev | next
    (a)
    (1)If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
    (2)The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.
    (b)If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President.
    (c)An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that—
    (1)if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and
    (2)if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals.
    (d)
    (1)If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
    (2)An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.
    (3)The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President.
    (e)Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro tempore, and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them.
    (f)During the period that any individual acts as President under this section, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by law in the case of the President.
    (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 677; Pub. L. 89–174, § 6(a), Sept. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 669; Pub. L. 89–670, § 10(a), Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 948; Pub. L. 91–375, § 6(b), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 775; Pub. L. 95–91, title VII, § 709(g), Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 609; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, § 508(a), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 692; Pub. L. 100–527, § 13(a), Oct. 25, 1988, 102 Stat. 2643; Pub. L. 109–177, title V, § 503, Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 247.)

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | August 24, 2020 | Reply

    • The XX Amendment sets forth the line of succession. The US Code section you cited implements the Constitutional provision – as authorized by Sec. 3 of the XX Amendment.

      Someone sent me a tiny para which was not attributed to any author which PREDICTS that Nancy Pelosi will be the new President because no winner will be declared by Jan 20, 2021; and she’s 3rd in line of succession. This tiny para seems to have much of the Country in a dither. And of course, I wonder how does the author of the para know that no winner will be declared by Jan 20? How do you know it? Nobody knows it! It’s sensational speculation.

      The qualifications for President & VP are set forth in Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5. A President elect or VP elect who meet those criteria is “qualified”.

      What if Trump is declared the winner and there is a revolution? Well, everyone needs to be armed and loaded b/c the Marxist Revolution which has been going on for over 100 years will now have become HOT. It’s already started in the cities.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 24, 2020 | Reply

      • THANK YOU. Didn’t realize that statute merely implemented the XXth. SO, to prevent ascendancy of the wicked witch, Queen Conspirator, to the Office of the President, we’d best hope a new crop of Representatives is sworn in before Jan 20th,this to ensure at least a mentally stable Speaker acting as interim Prez. But if the presidential election is messed up as badly as I suspect it will be, and if that chaos denies the current Prez authority to act as Prez from Jan 20th, then I suspect the same mail-in chaos that created the mess for the presidential election will extend to House representatives as well. No?

        Like

        Comment by Jim Delaney | August 24, 2020 | Reply

        • “interim president”? Where do you get that?
          How do you KNOW that no winner will be declared by Jan 20?

          and please remember: If things turn out badly as you say, the Constitution is out the Window. Force and Violence will determine all questions – not our Constitution. So there is no need to do esoteric research about what the Constitution says about what you predict. If what you predict comes to pass, the Constitution is totally over.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 24, 2020 | Reply

          • Yes, in my scenario the Speaker, whoever that might actually be, “shall act” as President, but according to the XXth’s text “until a President of Vice President shall have qualified”, meaning until they are elected. (Thus my casual and errant use of “interim”.) And, yes, you are so right. If election results are delayed beyond Jan 20th owing to what is certain to be hundreds of law suits and re-counts around the country, then it really is all over. My patriot group is already expecting the worse and hoping for the best.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaneyji | August 24, 2020

          • No! The “Qualifications” for President are set forth at Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.

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

            You are misconstruing the term, “qualify”. It has nothing to do with being elected – it has to do with meeting the requirements of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5. The post describes what is to be done when the person who got the most votes isn’t “qualified”.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 24, 2020

          • So, since 3USC, an implementing statute, doesn’t speak about no winner and/or a contested tally, then the only applicability the XXnd would have is if Trump was unqualified, which is not the case. SO, one more time: IF IF IF on Jan 20th an official winner cannot be called, what then does the Constitution counsel, if anything at all. Or,as you initially indicated way back when in an earlier analysis, we would, in effect, have to duke it out in the streets. Am I now correct?

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | August 24, 2020

          • You asking me to give the “constitutional answer” to a hypothetical situation which, if it occurred, would show that the Constitution has been for all practical purposes, overthrown by the revolutionaries. When that happens, there is no “constitutional answer”. There is anarchy and violence.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 25, 2020

          • Ok, so such a situation is not covered in the Constitution, this as I had initially gathered. So, it is a case of duking it out. What a mess. And we think we have problems with lawlessness and chaos now. Wait…

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | August 25, 2020

          • Well, Trump is a tool of the globalists, so he’ll probably do their bidding.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 29, 2020

  6. I just looked at the Texas Sheriffs oath of office and it dates that he/she will protect and defend the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of Texas.

    If any other law officer comes to collect my guns I will rely on my county Sheriff to prevent that from happening. I can only hope he/she knows what those responsibilities are.

    What bothers me is I know that many county sheriffs are voted into office simply because they are “a good ol’ boy” well known to the locals, but not necessarily qualified to wear the badge.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Baines | August 21, 2020 | Reply

    • You can’t assume your Sheriff knows! Some do – others don’t. Check out Sheriff Richard Mack’s organization and see what they have to help you educate your Sheriff. I hope you have a decent one – some are really corrupt. I’m in Tennessee – where in some of the rural counties, almost everybody is related – so they vote for “Cousin Buba” as Sheriff. Yikes!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 24, 2020 | Reply

  7. Hi, PH. Where in your blog is there a discussion of the authority and limits thereof of County Sheriffs? Also, in short, since George Mason iterated that the militia is the whole body of the people.Thus, is it entirely true that the only elected law enforcement office in the country is the Sheriff, and that is not obliged to abide by orders, edicts of governors, federal government overseers? Seems to me that patriots would do well to engage to some extent with their local Sheriff, esp. if that Sheriff is known to be member of the CSPOA, Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers of America (Sheriff Mack). BTW, I brought up with you our plan here to start up a militia and asked if consulting. linking with the local Sheriff, CSPOA member or not, while proceeding in that direction. Our first “Patriot Assembly” of folks in our region had their first meeting yesterday, and there appears to be serious interest–which kinda’ surprised me–forming such a militia or an otherwise mutual defense network. So, if you need to contact me on outside this blog, jdelaney3@rochester.rr.com. Thanks very much.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | August 16, 2020 | Reply

    • Sorry for the delay. I haven’t written on County Sheriffs because it isn’t a “federal” issue. Sheriffs are provided for in a State’s Constitution – and the State Constitution would set forth any limits the State imposes on County Sheriffs. So do check your State Constitution and see what The People of your State determined about the powers & duties of the County Sheriff.

      All County Sheriffs would be required to take an Oath to support the US Constitution [Article VI, cl. 3, US Constitution]. And this would, of course, require Sheriffs, e.g., to REFUSE to enforce any and all federal firearms laws and regulations for the simple reason that all such federal firearms laws & regulations are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers and as in violation of Article I, Sec.8, clauses 15 & 16 AND the 2nd Amendment. All of the federal firearms regulations are also unconstitutional as in violation of Article I, Sec. 1, US Constitution. The Legislative powers granted by the Constitution are vested IN CONGRESS, not in the executive agencies such as BATF!

      Elected County Sheriffs must not violate the US Constitution; but other than that, they are not subject to ANY control by the federal government. State power over the Sheriffs is limited to what is spelled out in the State Constitution. In the performance of his duties, the Sheriff may not properly arrest people for acts which the State Legislature has not already made a crime. And since the oath of office Sheriffs take probably also requires them to obey the State Constitution, Sheriffs must REFUSE to enforce any State Laws, edicts from the governor, etc., which violate the State Constitution.

      Some counties might have elected Prosecutors and elected criminal court Judges who are involved in “law enforcement”.

      In Tennessee, the word is that we have some really corrupt County Sheriffs. They are, of course, subject to prosecution for their violations of the State criminal code. A corrupt People elect corrupt sheriffs and politicians.
      Yes, I respect Sheriff Mack.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2020 | Reply

      • PH, that was vry helpful, indeed. I will research NYS Constitution to see what limitation there may be on Sheriffs. Talked to one Sheriff in area who said he was fearful of doing his job because the State Legislature has granted Cuomo the right terminate any Sheriff in the State. Will study that further. Thanks a million!!!

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | August 20, 2020 | Reply

      • A followup a query for you, PH. Since the Sheriff swears an Oath to uphold both the US and State Constitution, and if the Sheriff’s State Constitution and existing State laws do not specifically protect a person’s right to keep and bear arms, and if the governor or legislature decides to seize weapons from private law-abiding citizens, which Constitution is the Sheriff duty-bound to honor? Am guessing that when the court incorporated the 2nd Amendment, whether that doctrine be constitutional or not, that the Sheriff upholds the US Constitution in this case. Does that make any sense at all?

        Like

        Comment by Jim Delaney | August 24, 2020 | Reply

        • 1. Yikes! Read the supremacy clause of the US Constitution at Article VI, clause 3. Is there any doubt as to what the correct answer is?

          2. Now read my various gun control articles – where I have discussed the precise issue you raise several times….Isn’t it clear why States can’t ban possession of arms? https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/gun-control/

          and no, the “incorporation doctrine” has nothing to do with the right answer.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 24, 2020 | Reply

          • Am familiar with Art VI Clause 3. My understanding has always been that the feds are duty-bound to protect a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms and cannot impede or regulate same in any way, except in the case of the militia. Good so far? Wait. You’ll surely be disappointed again. So, if a State Constitution does not specifically protect that right as well, that State’s citizens right in this regard must still be protected by the feds.. Right? And what of lrestrictive laws like NY’s Safe Act which permits the State to regulate and impede ownership? Does that require fed intervention?

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | August 24, 2020

        • OUR NATURAL RIGHTS ARE GOD GIVEN AND CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED; PROTECTED FROM GOVT. What rights God joined together with man, let no man put asunder. God is not subservient to any government.

          Like

          Comment by Spense | August 24, 2020 | Reply

          • I had understood, apparently erroneously, that the States’ purpose in demanding the addition of the BIll of Rights, as a pre-condition of ratification, was as a check on the federal government–not on the States which created the fed government; that, as such, the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to guarantee that the federal government wouldn’t meddle with the Right and that, therefore, the fed government must also protect that right from federal encroachment–not State encroachment. In any event, since the right to keep and bear arms is a natural God-given right, it is irrelevant what level of gov’t infringes on that inalienable right. Such infringements must be resisted by the People. Thanks.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | August 25, 2020

          • As a child, I had two “toys” which helped train my mind:

            1) Picture puzzles: The first thing you do is pick out all the pieces with flat edges – since they are obviously the perimeter. Then put the perimeter together. So now you know a tiny little bit, but there is that huge empty space inside the perimeter of which you know nothing. So it would be a dreadful mistake at this point to “fill in” the center with your own speculations and theories. Then [outside the perimeter] you sort the inside pieces according to colors. Then [still outside the perimeter] you start putting little sections of the puzzle together. You don’t know where they will fit inside the perimeter, so you have to keep the mini-assemblies outside the perimeter because you don’t know where they go. And all along, you are reminded (by that big empty center) that you know only a little bit, you DON’T HAVE THE ENTIRE PICTURE. So a wise man refrains from formulating conclusions as to what the BIG PICTURE will be.

            Learning a new subject is like that. But People of today learn a little bit and then think they know all about it. They are unaware of that big empty center of which they are ignorant. It takes a long time to master a new subject. But one of the many FALSE BELIEFS of Americans of today is that “truth” comes from within themselves – so they don’t bother to find out what brilliant minds (Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc.) said on the subject.

            A brilliant mind of our time, Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, writes of this problem in his short essay, “Ideas that are Destroying America” here: https://mind-at-work.com/ideas-that-are-destroying-america/

            I wrote of that problem here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/how-progressive-education-and-bad-philosophy-corrupted-the-people-undermined-the-constitution-of-the-united-states/

            2. Kalidioscope: From this, I learned the concept of evolving knowledge. You turn the tube, and the image changes. A scholar gets new information – new insights, and his thinking turns – IT IS REFINED.

            Even after one has learned a subject, a scholar’s thinking on it is continually refined and developed – if he keeps his mind open and doesn’t shut out new information. But Americans of today learn a little bit – formulate their opinions – and RESIST any new information which challenges their opinions.

            This is one of the greatest problems of our time. Americans tend to be highly opinionated – and ill-informed. When they are presented with new information which contradicts what they already believe, they reject the new information instead of re-examining their beliefs. THIS MINDSET IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY.

            We MUST allow ourselves to be instructed. I learn from Edwin Vieira, Ph.D., J.D., and continue to learn from Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, C.S. Lewis, George MacDonald, J.R.R. Tolkein, and others.

            As to the Militia and the 2nd Amendment, see my most recent paper on it here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/200817

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2020

          • Couldn’t agree more, PH. Am never satisfied with what I or others think they know which is why I always ask questions. Even the experts don’t always agree on original meaning, so it’s not surprising there is some level of confusion and misunderstanding. I KNOW I’m eternally fallible, so that’s always a good start when seeking that often elusive truth. I’d rather dispassionate and objective facts than pleasant and worthless opinions. For that reason I strive to always be in a learning mode. Good article re militia and Prez’s constitutional authority to deploy troops to quell insurrections, none of which I’ve ever doubted. No problem with any of it at all. BUT, you didn’t address my specific question. Since that question was sent to you, I re-read original source material and cannot shake the understanding–not my opinion– that the 12, actually 10 in the end, amendments were intended by the founders/States to check the authority of the Federal government, not the States. If you could please answer my query as submitted I would be grateful. Thanks. For me, and obviously for you and others on this site, the subject of the Constitution is sooooo intensely interesting and, especially in these chaotic days, our understanding is extremely critical. Thanks very much. P.S> Watched your videoed testimony before some S.C. committee some time ago re COS. My third view. Excellent. I shared it again on my FB. Good info, indeed.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | August 27, 2020

          • We have had several discussions in the comments on this issue: Yes, the original intent of the first 10 Amendments was that they were to be restraints on the FEDERAL gov’t. alone. It wasn’t until 1962 or so that SCOTUS flipped the first amendment so as to use it AGAINST the States when they banned Christian prayers in the public schools – they claimed the STATES were “establishing a religion” in violation of the First Amdt! This is their damned “incorporation theory” which they used to usurp power over the STATES, Counties, and individual Persons. See: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/

            As to the Militia of the several States: My latest paper shows that the Militia of the several States was to be the body which ENFORCED FEDERAL LAW. Congress has constitutional authority pursuant to Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, to REQUIRE all able-bodied male Citizens of the appropriate age to get armed and trained – THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAWS, REPEL INVASIONS, AND SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS. So the States are prohibited by that clause from disarming the able-bodied male Citizens within their State.

            The 2nd Amendment declares the sacred & self-evident Principle that YOU CAN’T HAVE A FREE STATE UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ARMED AND TRAINED CITIZENRY. The accursed “incorporation theory” doesn’t need to be applied to the States so as to say that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the States from disarming Citizens – Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16 serve that function.

            The fed gov’t went after Randy Weaver (Ruby Ridge, Idaho) for federal firearms charges.

            First: The fed gov’t has no constitutional authority to make ANY laws respecting firearms over the Country at large.

            Second: The feds sent FBI armed thugs in to get Randy Weaver, and the FBI thugs shot 13 (14?) year old Sammy Weaver in the back and killed him; and they shot his Mother, Vicki Weaver, in the head and killed her.

            Listen to this: Armed FBI agents and snipers, etc., shouldn’t even exist. Enforcement of federal laws is the province of the Militia of the several States. Somewhere in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton writes of how we never need fear the Militia because they are comprised of our neighbors, sons, brothers, etc. That’s why the Militia is to do the enforcing for the feds. I doubt very much if the local Militia would have shot young Sammy in the back or his Mother in the head. Oh no! Only FEDERAL armed thugs would be willing to do that.

            Do study this paper and see what the CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE of the Militia is – and how our Country would have been so much better if we had let the Militia do the enforcing instead of armed thugs in the employ of the Executive Branch of the federal gov’t. They are like Hitler’s brown shirts. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/200817

            It’s impossible to understand this issue unless one understands the constitutional role of the Militia.

            Edwin Vieira has been trying for many years to get States to revitalize their Militia – but no one pays any attention.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 29, 2020

          • You keep saying it is the Federal goverment right to enforce faderal law. Then who is to enforce Article one section 2? So only federal people who can vote in the election of congress or we the people of the United States, which refers to our Federalist principle as Thomas Jefferson would say. So only the federal government can defend the Constitution or the laws in this constitution? In case you and me who are the Federalists

            Like

            Comment by georgetherock | August 29, 2020

          • it is the duty of the States to enforce Article I, section 2, clause 1, US Constitution. I laid it all out here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/02/27/why-the-states-must-nullify-the-national-voter-registration-act-now/

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2020

  8. PH,

    I recently watched a lecture entitled “Why the Constitution Had to Be Destroyed” given by Thomas DiLorenzo. He talked about how Alexander Hamilton took on an interpretation of the Constitution and vision for a powerful, centralized government that is far different than what they had fought for in the Revolution. Can you shed some light on this? Why did Hamilton take such a different position than, say, Jefferson?

    Like

    Comment by Chuck | August 15, 2020 | Reply

    • Thomas DiLorenzo reminds me of why I decided that I should get a law degree and go out and fight in the trenches; instead of getting a Ph.D in philosophy and being a philosophy professor. I’m an academic by nature – my favorite place is a Library with lots of old books. There are a few professors whom I really do love; but the rest of them (like DiLorenzo) remind of the old saying, “those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.”

      I see DeLorenso as an inferior mind whose claim to fame is that he smears his betters. And he hurts our Country. Hamilton wrote most of The Federalist Papers. They are the most authoritative source we have for determining the genuine meaning of our Constitution. DiLorenzo’s pathetic little life seems to be devoted to tearing down one of our Foundations.

      Was Hamilton perfect? No! But nether were Jefferson & Madison.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 16, 2020 | Reply

  9. Kamala Harris seems to be another one who doesn’t meet the “natural born citizen” clause. Will you be speaking to this one as well.
    Your explanations and approach always brings light to these subjects… so i hope you do. Thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Blake | August 13, 2020 | Reply

    • Yes, I will – since the “conservative” law professors are screwing it up with their wrong-headed focus on Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment – which has nothing to do with “natural born citizen”.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 16, 2020 | Reply

      • Hi PH

        For those who think Kamala Harris, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindahl, and Nikki Haley (sorry if I left out any rotters) are citizens by just being born on US soil, I simply ask: What would have happen if these children’s non-citizen parents were deported from the US?

        Normally the parents would take their child back to the country they are all citizens or subjects of, just as any other foreigner would, but considering the child’s inheritance to his or her father’s nationality has been severed and a US Citizen cannot be lawfully deported…

        Will the US Gov break the family up by keeping the child here or will his non-citizen parents be allowed stay despite the reason(s) for their deportation? Even if the child in question is allowed to enter and stay in his parent’s country, this U.S. Citizen child will at least be educated, if not indoctrinated, in foreign government principles before returning. And if they do return, they will not have to go through the naturalization interview and test. Although this has been happening in country with our current education system, we certainly don’t need the extra help.

        I don’t recall if you already have, but the subversive theory of “Dual” Citizenship needs to be addressed. I have yet to find the US Code authorizing this chicanery and the US Oath of Naturalization still requires new citizens to renounce all other allegiances. A stable republic is dependent on the fidelity of its citizenry because no man can serve two masters.The countries which allow duality are not only violating their own sovereignty but the natural laws of all nations, which our Constitution authorizes the Congress to define and punish.

        Of course that will never happen, at least not while Congress remains complicit. But on the off chance Congress did decide to do something constructive for a change; can they legally force those with dual citizenship to choose one, or must these existing pseudo citizens be grandfathered in?

        “When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself.” ~Samuel West, Natural Law: The True Principles of Government (1776)

        “This amendment [Amendment XIV] which I have offered, is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” ~Senator Jacob Howard (1866)

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | August 17, 2020 | Reply

        • Nice quote.

          Like

          Comment by georgetherock | August 20, 2020 | Reply

  10. Allow me to sneak in another query. Re NBC and the doctrine of Coverture, if a child is born to a man who is a US Citizen and his wife who is a legal permanent resident, is the child a NBC? AND if in this example the situation is reversed, the father is an LPR and the mother a US Citizen, is child a NBC? Or can only the father confer NBC? You’ve probably answered this a million times, but I missed it. Sorry.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | August 13, 2020 | Reply

  11. PH, a left field question for you. Given the likely mail-in ballot chaos brewing, there is a good chance the election results will not be known until well after Nov 3rd. Hypothetically, if by inauguration day the winner cannot be determined with certainty, does Trump remain at the helm until a winner is decided, even if his term has officially ended? What other lawful recourse would there be?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | August 13, 2020 | Reply

    • The Law has disappeared in this Country. If the scenario you posit materializes, then whoever has the most power and is willing to ruthlessly use it will decide.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 16, 2020 | Reply

      • So, there is no provision in law which would define how this scenario should be lawfully resolved? Just fight it out in the streets? (Not intending to be flippant by that question; increasingly I believe it would be miraculous if the country would be able to dodge the destructiveness of such a showdown.)

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | August 16, 2020 | Reply

        • the scenario you posit would never arise if the Law hadn’t already disappeared from our Land. Our Country is overrun with illegals! They shouldn’t be here – yet they are because the deep state entices them – with welfare benefits – to come here. If the Cowards ever stop backing down, violence will determine all such issues.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 17, 2020 | Reply

          • And, believe me, I do understand that. So too the Patriot Assembly we formed yesterday, a local mutual assistance, mutual defense organization to counteract the insurrectionists and, obviously, to defend and assist one anoteher. We are also reaching out to other patriotic organization to step up. Typing is no longer enuf. Our words must translate into an activist defensive mission. That said, PH, I gather there is no specific Constitutional remedy to that scenario I alluded to. Right?

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | August 17, 2020

        • The problem of “mail in ballots” is easily solved! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/mail-in-voting/
          The problem is that our worthless Congress hasn’t passed a law prohibiting mail in voting in federal elections.

          Meanwhile, everyone should check their own State Constitution and State Statutes to see if they require personal presence at the polls. If they do, then state mail in voting is unconstitutional under the State Constitution.

          but Republicans are so ignorant, they don’t know this – so the Left takes advantage (as always) of the ignorance, passivity, and stupidity of the Republicans.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 18, 2020 | Reply

  12. I must admit at present I’m completely ignorant on the topic of treaties and tribes. I’m trying to find the constitutional authority to establish “reservations” for tribes. Can you help me understand this better? I’ve read your article on treaties, but see no where other than war that it may fall under or be authorized. Thank you.

    Like

    Comment by Blake | August 11, 2020 | Reply

    • That’s an interesting question. Look at Article IV, Sec. 3, clause 2, US Constitution: That clause would provide constitutional authority for Congress to establish Indian Reservations on “Territory” belonging to the United States.

      Remember that in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the United States acquired the “Northwest Territory” – a vast area of land – from the British. Article IV, Sec. 3, clause 2, was put into the Constitution to address the governance and disposal [e.g., forming new States] of that area of land.

      At some point [I don’t remember when or how], the United States acquired what is now the western part of our Country. It was a Territory before it was divided up into States. Also, it seems that before the Western Territory was carved up into States [thou I’d have to check the dates, to be sure], the US government set aside certain areas to be Indian Reservations. So Congress had constitutional authority to do this under Article IV, Sec.3, clause 2.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 13, 2020 | Reply

      • Hi PH

        The western part of the US was acquired through the Louisiana Purchase by President Jefferson.

        It should be noted that Jefferson never perverted the words of the Constitution to justify his usurpation, instead he cited prerogative powers (e.g. the law of necessity) and submitted to Congress’ judgment, who found his actions to be in accordance with the general welfare of the country.

        Today we have people claiming a president can simply declare a “emergency” and do whatever he wants in spite of the will of Congress. In a reply to John B. Colvin concerning the Burr Conspiracy, Jefferson carefully explains a executive emergency is only when the Congress cannot be consulted or have time to deliberate on the crucial matter in question.

        https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-john-b-colvin/

        Like

        Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | August 13, 2020 | Reply

        • Correction, don’t know why but I accidentally lumped the Oregon Territory with the Louisiana Purchase.

          Like

          Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | August 13, 2020 | Reply

          • That’s all right. I forgot about the Louisiana Purchase and made a mental note that I must find out what lands were encompassed in that Purchase. I minored in History, and took every American History class offered; but my gosh – that was some 60 years ago! Yikes! And after I started trying cases, I didn’t think about anything but my cases.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 16, 2020

  13. Hi PH, Senators Durbin & Warren introduced a proposed amendment to the US Constitution. It is called the “JOINT RESOLUTION TO ENSHRINE RIGHT TO VOTE IN U.S. CONSTITUTION” https://www.durbin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BOM20380%20-%20Affirmative%20Right%20to%20Vote%20Amendment,%20final.pdf One of the reasons for it is so convicted felons can vote

    Like

    Comment by Spense | August 6, 2020 | Reply

    • I oppose any any amendment which increases the powers of the federal government to enforce voting “rights”. I suggest that the 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th Amendments were a BIG Mistake.

      Pursuant to Article I, Sec. 2, clause 1, US Constitution, the States have the retained power to set qualifications for voting.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 10, 2020 | Reply

      • HI PH, people like Durbin are trying to obliterate the 10th amendment and centralize all power within the federal govt for the one world govt New World Order. They don’t want a govt of the people, by the people, for the people . I stumbled across this quote the other day: Daniel Webster, who in a speech to the Senate in 1830 said: “…It is, Sir, the people’s Constitution, the people’s Government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either admit the proposition or dispute their authority.” I wish people would stop looking to the federal govt for every solution.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | August 10, 2020 | Reply

        • so do I!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 10, 2020 | Reply

  14. Need your legal/constitutional insight on this issue. Big social media corps have become ministries of propaganda, are ineffectively regulated to ensure compliance with existing laws, are essentially unaccountable and extremely biased. A great disservice to the public. Dealing wth BOTH govenrment lies and corporate propaganda and lies is, to me, unacceptable. What can be done and should be done to ensure corporate accountability in such matters. I don;’t think our illustrious framers foresaw such a toxic development.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by jim delaney | August 5, 2020 | Reply

    • THAT is a difficult question.
      The federal government has no constitutional authority to force private entities to allow free speech.

      However, my good friend, Edwin Vieira, J.D., Ph.D, [etc., etc.], takes a more expansive view than I as to federal power. He is of the opinion that the federal gov’t does have the authority to put an end to on-line censorship by Big Tech [see his discussion in the linked article of anti-trust laws & litigation and the litigation involving the “company towns”].

      And if, as he suggests, Big Tech is functioning as the agent of dark forces within the federal gov’t so as to censor speech those dark forces don’t like, THEN I would agree that it is the federal gov’t which is violating the First Amendment, etc.

      Do read his article here: “Censorship By Internet Corporations Is Still Censorship” https://newswithviews.com/censorship-by-internet-corporations-is-still-censorship/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 6, 2020 | Reply

      • I am surely no lawyer or that versed in law. But by my reasoning, all Companies/Corporations/Businesses are private. LLC, limited partnerships, single owners, all inclusive.
        Corporations/Companies offer stocks in their entity to accumulate funds for present and future expansion and operating expenses.
        The largest majority of them go “public” when they offer shares in their company traded in stocks. That would make them “Public”.
        True they are almost always (the larger ones) ruled by a board of directors, but unless the owners/directors own 51% of the shares, and even though they do, if they still offer their shares to be publicly traded, are they not then “Public”, subject to the whims and purchasing habits desires of the “Public” ? After all, portions of the company are in effect owned by the public.
        The only way I can think of they can remain “Private “enterprises is if they are wholly owned by a single/select individuals, and even if they are large enough to be ruled by a board of directors, they remain private. But once they offer shares of their company to the public they then become “Public” and would come under Federal as well as State free speech as well as other laws as applicable.
        So please PH, feel free to blow holes in my argument and set me on the right track. Thank you for all you do.

        Like

        Comment by N S | August 6, 2020 | Reply

        • The relevant distinction here is between the federal government or one of it’s agencies or officers censoring free speech over the Country at Large [which would be totally unlawful as outside the scope of the enumerated powers AND as in violation of the First Amendment] and non-governmental organizations [whether the stock is owned by one person or whether shares are offered to the public] censoring free speech. The US Constitution doesn’t prohibit “private” [i.e., “non-governmental”] organizations from censorship.

          I should have said “governmental” and “non-governmental” organizations! Henceforth, I will.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 6, 2020 | Reply

      • You’re a Godsend. Thank you. Will carefully read Mr. Viera’s article.

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | August 6, 2020 | Reply

      • Hello PH,

        Dr. Vieira is very good on monetary issues, but his expansive view of federal power is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. In his article, he seems to misapply a section of the 14th Amendment.

        Like

        Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | August 10, 2020 | Reply

        • Yes, I think his view is overly expansive. But I respect him very much; and I am not always right. So I won’t judge him using what I think as the Standard of Right & Wrong thinking. So I linked to his article – it is possible that his position is correct and mine is not. The censorship of google [with its algorithms or whatever you call them] is killing visits to the honest & valuable websites. You-tube & FB are banning videos which tell the Truth about the FAKE covid-19 scare. As a result, The People are being prevented from honest and full discussions of the pressing issues of our Time.

          And yes: I believe that all [for example] federal anti-trust laws and litigation are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. However, the laws were passed and “trust-busting” ensued; and under that same theory, internet censorship by ostensibly “private” [non-governmental] entities certainly could be attacked.

          And then too, if Google, FB, etc., are doing the bidding of the Deep State, then it IS “governmental censorship of speech” which is expressly prohibited as outside the scope of powers delegated AND as in violation of the First Amendment.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 10, 2020 | Reply

          • Hello PH:

            I realize that this has nothing to do with the original question/comment, but I am having trouble contacting you.
            MY Question: What do you think of all the mandates from our Medical Dictators regarding shutdowns/lock-downs? EVERYTHING mandated since February 2020 seems to be entirely unconstitutional and disastrous to the survival of our country, regardless if it is federal or local. How do we stop this short of civil war (which we are already experiencing)?

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by paradigmrw | August 10, 2020

          • Somewhere, I wrote on this. I’ll see if I can remember where it is. But clearly, what the States are doing with the masks and lock-downs is totally unconstitutional. And the worst of all this is the great numbers of Americans who are cowering in fear over this fake virus threat and their willingness to rat out their fellows and attack them physically. We are no longer the “home of the Brave and the Land of the Free”.
            We have become a cowardly people. And we have discovered that some Americans will make sadistic concentration camp guards.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 10, 2020

          • Thanks, PH. I agree totally.

            Like

            Comment by paradigmrw | August 11, 2020

          • Hi PH,

            That reminds me of some of my pro-life friends who take the view that the Fourteenth Amendment delegate to Congress the power to outlaw abortion throughout the country at Large because that Amendment states that no state can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. My view is that abortion is an issue that is reserved to the states or to the people. I respect people who hold the view that contrary to mine’s.

            Like

            Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | August 10, 2020

          • Yes, I am familiar with that view; and people whom I respect support it. But I point out to them that it was the Supreme Court which “forced” the States to permit abortion! Most of the States had outlawed it, until the Supreme Court told them they had to permit it. To their eternal shame, the cowardly States went along with the Supreme Court. The best solution is for the States to refuse to submit to the Supreme Court’s crazy & unconstitutional opinions.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 10, 2020

          • Excellent analysis as usual. Thanks, PH.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | August 11, 2020

  15. I know you’re a busy women but have you ever thought about doing a zoom class on the constitution?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Blake | August 5, 2020 | Reply

    • I’m technologically challenged; but my on-line Russian teacher has on-line classes where people can post comments [“live chat”, I think its called] during her lessons.

      Anyway, it did occur to me to contemplate whether I could do that for classes on the Constitution. I’ll give it some thought.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 6, 2020 | Reply

  16. PH,

    Is welfare (government assistance to pay for food, rent, utilities, etc.) a state issue?

    Like

    Comment by Chuck | August 3, 2020 | Reply

    • Welfare certainly is NOT a federal issue – it’s not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government over the Country at large.

      So is it a State issue? State Constitutions typically delegate unlimited powers to State government – and those powers are restricted by contradictory provisions in the US Constitution, and by the Declarations of Rights in the State Constitutions. And since our Declaration of Independence is part of the “Organic Law” of our Land, State governments are also restricted by the Principle that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us. God never gave us the Right to live at other peoples’ expense. State governments are NOT to “secure” our Right to Life by giving us what we need to live. That could not be for it would require the government to take other peoples’ God given Property Rights away from them. Do see this paper: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/how-our-federal-constitution-secures-our-god-given-rights/

      Charity was to be a personal obligation – also the Church had a role to play is providing charity to the virtuous. God NEVER required us to subsidize vice.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 6, 2020 | Reply

  17. Thank you PH for that great answer. You made it so clear.
    I have a question now: Given all the commotion in our nation due to Black Lives Matter and Altifa movement and their platforms in wishing to destroy our country: Is in all our nations laws and codes can all the people involved in these so called movements have their citizenship revoked for going against our nation?
    Allow the guilty to lose all their rights and ability to work. Treat them as illegals and punish the perpetrators according to treason?

    Like

    Comment by Jack Adams | July 26, 2020 | Reply

  18. Hi PH, President Trump says illegal aliens in the US should not be counted in the apportionment for the redrawing of house districts. I can’t find a provision in the US Constitution which allows him to do that. The 14th amendment states in part: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS in each State,”. It doesn’t say citizens, though I wish it did. What say you?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | July 26, 2020 | Reply

    • It’s not a problem. I’ll show you:

      One of the purposes of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt was to extend citizenship to the freed slaves.

      One of the purposes of Sec. 2 of the 14th Amdt was to correct that part of Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3 which provided that only 3/5 of the “other Persons” [i.e., the Slaves] would be counted in the Census. With Sec. 2 of the 14th Andt, all of the former slaves [now US citizens] must be counted in the Census.

      Does this mean that every illegal who barges in here must be counted in the Census? Perish the thought! The phrase, “counting the whole number of persons”, which appears within Sec. 2 of the 14th Amdt, refers back to and corrects the phrase, “three fifths of all other Persons”, which appears within Article I, Sec.2, clause 3.

      And note that Sec. 2 of the 14th Amdt continues the exclusion of Indians [who weren’t then Citizens] not taxed from being counted in the Census.

      See also my Reply to July 23, 2020 to Jim Delaney

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 26, 2020 | Reply

      • That’s good to know! Illegal aliens shouldn’t have any influence. And certainly shouldn’t have any influence on the number of representatives that end up in the congressional house. I remember Obama made a big deal out of making sure all illegal aliens were counted in the 2010 census, now I know why.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | July 26, 2020 | Reply

  19. Would this pass your legal scrutiny: President Trump signed an executive action on Tuesday to prevent illegal immigrants from being counted in the 2020 census, saying the move is needed for “respect for the law and protection of the integrity of the democratic process.”

    The president said for the purposes of congressional reapportionment, it will be U.S. policy “to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.”

    In the memorandum to the Commerce Department, Mr. Trump said the Constitution does not specifically define which people should be counted every 10 years to determine the number of each state’s representatives in the House.

    “Determining which persons should be considered ‘inhabitants’ for the purpose of apportionment requires the exercise of judgment,” the president said. “The discretion delegated to the executive branch to determine who qualifies as an ‘inhabitant’ includes authority to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.”

    read more:

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/21/donald-trump-signs-order-barring-illegal-immigrant/

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | July 22, 2020 | Reply

    • The fed govt is so screwed up – and Trump’s actions are contradictory. He flails around, with no apparent understanding of what he is doing. For the most part, he does the bidding of the deep state [his advisors & appointments are CFR, etc.]; and then, from time to time, throws an imaginary bone to his base. This executive order is [like “building the wall”] such an imaginary bone.

      So we have to short this out and must start with Basic principles:

      1. As of January 1808, Congress obtained constitutional authority to control migration (immigration) to this Country. That worked very well until Wrong Turn Teddy’s immigration and reform act of 1965 – which opened the floodgates to third world peoples’ coming legally into this Country. In addition to that, at some point in time, the federal government stopped controlling our borders. So more 3rd world people flooded into our Country from Mexico – this is how most of the illegal aliens got here

      ….and the fed gov’t has done nothing about it. Except to lure more & more of them here with welfare benefits.

      2. So the existence of all these illegal aliens creates a problem with the Census. Should the illegals be counted in the Census? Well, Congress has authority to make the laws to carry out the Census (Article I, Sec.2, clause 3 & Article I, Sec. 8, last clause, US Constitution). So Congress could have addressed the issue of the counting of illegals or not in its law setting up the 2020 Census. I haven’t read the Act of Congress setting up the 2020 Census, so don’t know whether Congress addressed the counting of the illegals or not.

      It is the President’s job to carry out – to put into effect – the Law made by Congress organizing the 2020 Census. When a President carries out laws made by Congress, he may properly issue Executive Orders addressing how persons in the Executive Branch [which the President heads] are to carry out the Act of Congress. And sometimes it’s a judgement call as to whether a President’s Executive Order is consistent with the Law passed by Congress. [But even if the Executive Order is not consistent, it stands unless people in the Executive Branch decline to submit to it.]

      In this regard: when Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3 was drafted, our Framers did not contemplate that our Country would one day be overrun with illegal aliens. The text provides that those to be counted are the “free persons”, the indentured servants, and 3/5 of the total number of slaves within a State. Indians were generally not counted. The slaves also weren’t citizens – but they were “inhabitants” who were “lawfully” here – being brought here by force, or having descended from those who were brought here by force. The indentured servants were lawfully here.

      So Congress would be well within its constitutional powers to provide in its law setting up the 2020 Census that illegals would not be counted. Again, I don’t know whether Congress addressed this issue in its Law.

      3. So why do I say that with his Executive Order on the Census, Trump tossed an imaginary bone to his base? Because the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he is so proud of [and which is totally supported by the CFR] turns control of our immigration policies over to the United Nations. I wrote about that here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-usmca-trade-agreement-violates-our-constitution-and-sets-up-global-government/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 23, 2020 | Reply

  20. On THursday, SCOTUS ruled that that up to 1 million Florida felons who have completed their sentences but have yet to pay outstanding fines, restitution and other fees are ineligible to vote. Would this apply to those other States who have permitted this category to register and vote? (Of course, Demonrat-dominated States.)

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | July 22, 2020 | Reply

  21. Re the Flynn case, since the Appeals Court has ordered Sullivan to dismiss the case, and since Sullivan is defying that order, what, legally, can the Appeals Court do, this whether the Appeals Court right now possess the spine to do it or not. Of course, he should be impeached and removed, like so many other judges these days, but with a Congress completely untethered to the Constitution we all know that won’t happen. Can Appeals Court hold him in contempt and bring him up on charges. I have no idea.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | July 14, 2020 | Reply

    • Yes, The Law is rapidly disappearing from our land. See the Book of Judges in the Bible: We are in that time period between the good Judges where “and everyone did that which in his own eyes seemed right”. And of course the results of that are always horrific.

      And yes, Congress should impeach & remove Sullivan from the Bench. But they won’t because they are too cowardly & indifferent to Justice and righteousness.

      The Appeals Court [the Judicial Branch] has no power to bring criminal charges against anyone – since that is a prerogative of the Executive Branch alone. However, the federal Bar of which Sullivan is a Member has disciplinary power over Judges and Lawyers who are Members of that Bar. So that Bar association could discipline Sullivan with Remedies ranging from a slap-your-hand Reprimand letter to actual disbarment. Sullivan should be disbarred for his disgraceful conduct.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2020 | Reply

      • But, I suspect most members of the Bar are Left-leaning and, thus, more disinclined than conservative attorneys, however few there may be, to do anything to Sullivan. Wrong?

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | July 22, 2020 | Reply

        • You are probably right. American lawyers (like everybody else) are generally NOT independent thinkers. They are parrots who regurgitate what they have been told.

          So now we see an illustration of the relationship between Virtue and Liberty: A culture whose lawyers lack the virtue to discipline a Judge who clearly needs to be disbarred, will suffer the consequences: corrupt, incompetent judges.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 22, 2020 | Reply

          • So, are you saying in above reply that another way to remedy Sullivan’s faithlessness is for Pres. Trump to order the DOJ to bring charges against Sullivan?

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | July 22, 2020

          • Absolutely not – No, not at all!

            For one thing, I don’t know that Sullivan has committed a federal crime for which he can be properly prosecuted.

            Second, unlike most Americans, I do not believe that more criminal prosecutions by the fed gov’t is the answer to our problems.

            As We The People rush towards totalitarian government where only the feds have governmental power, we abandon the other governments. The Trades & Professions once regulated themselves – and disciplined their own members! Bar Associations can discipline their members in a variety of ways – the most drastic being disbarment.

            In this paper, I compare decentralized government with the totalitarianism towards which we are rushing at breakneck speed: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/basic-concepts-of-government/ See especially para 5 with the hot pink highlighting. Americans have forgotten this…

            People should be telling the feds to go hug a tree and they should be reclaiming their local and state governments.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 23, 2020

  22. PH, As I understand our constitution the President is elected by state appointed electors as has been mentioned above and the electors vote, tally then send the results to Washington, etc. No where in our constitution does it dictate the electors vote according to the popular vote. This past week the SCOTUS, unanimous by the way including Thomas, voted to make the electors adhere to the popular vote. This is unconstitutional and just because the court voted that way doesn’t make it a law much less change our constitution. They just made a ruling. The electors do not have to do what the COURT ruled on. Correct. Can’t the state interpose or something?

    Like

    Comment by Jack Adams | July 13, 2020 | Reply

    • I am sick about that SCOTUS Opinion. The 10th Circuit Opinion, which SCOTUS reversed, was BRILLIANT https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1173.pdf

      The Supreme Court was wrong. I can’t imagine why Justice Thomas would go along with it.

      What you say in your comment is all true.

      Right! The States don’t have to submit to the SCOTUS Opinion – in fact, it is their DUTY to refuse to submit to an unconstitutional opinion of a federal court.

      If I had sufficient influence in MY State, I’d get them to return to the procedures set forth in the 12th amendment. The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.

      The Electors in each State are to meet and cast their votes for President; and then vote separately for Vice President. Say a State has 13 Electors, and the voting goes like this:

      For President:

      Mr. Falconer – 6 votes

      Mr. Lossie – 5 votes

      Mr. Bell – 2 votes

      For Vice President:

      Mr. Cross – 5 votes

      Mr. Duncan – 5 votes

      Mr. Nichols – 3 votes.

      The Electors sign and certify this list and send it to the President of the Senate. On the appointed day, and in front of a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate counts the Electors’ votes from The Member States. The person with the greatest number of votes for President becomes the President (if he has a majority). The person with the greatest number of votes for Vice President becomes the Vice President (if he has a majority). If one or both don’t have a majority – well, here’s a novel idea: read the Amendment to find out what happens.

      THIS is how Our Constitution – which all those in the political process took SWORN OATHS to obey – requires the elections of President and Vice President to be conducted.

      but Americans are so unprincipled and ignorant and cowardly that they will submit to SCOTUS. And the Presidential electors will follow the popular vote in his State OR they’ll be removed as electors and replaced by someone who will follow the popular vote in his State.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2020 | Reply

      • The spirit of the Electoral College has long been circumvented by the States via both political parties.

        Instead of citizens of each state/district choosing electors to represent them, as we do with our Representatives in the Legislature, the presidential candidates are trusted with choosing their own electors in most States. The parties reason that when a citizen casts a vote for POTUS, we are are also choosing our electors. This chicanery is in effect a rubber stamp for a popular vote on a state by state basis. Where only knaves and the dupes of designing men will continue being selected to participate in faithfully electing bad candidates over better ones to the highest office in the land.

        This bastardization of the Electoral College is what the Republican Party has had us fighting for while the Democrats push on with the National Popular Vote.

        “There never was a convention, there never can be a convention, of which I am one delegate, equal in rights to every other delegate, that shall bind my vote against my will on any question whatever.” ~James Garfield, 1880 Republican Convention Rules

        Like

        Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | July 13, 2020 | Reply

        • PH, just to be sure I’ve got this right. With this “faithless elector” SCOTUS ruling, and understanding full well that original intent is no longer of interest to SCOTUS or to the States, can the NPV States lawfully justify or otherwise pull off their legislatures’ directing their respective State Electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote? Or will this latest SCOTUS ruling compel these NPV States to direct their Electors to cast their votes for the winner of their respective State’s popular vote? Does this ruling in any way effectively nullify the NPV intent in this regard? IF NPV States actually DO direct their Electors to cast their votes for the winner of the nat’l popular vote, what will likely happen? Will it be challenged and referred to SCOTUS for a “ruling”? And would such a ruling nix NPVs evil little plan? I fear a real Constitutional Crisis in November. Am I paranoid? Every time I think I understand a Constitutional subject, I just end up being as confused and tentative as I was before I thought I understood that particular subject.

          Like

          Comment by jim delaney | July 13, 2020 | Reply

          • Oh, Friend Jim.

            Your comment reminds me of a movie I saw on TV several years ago. The setting was my old haunting grounds, Berlin, Germany. The time was after WW II, shortly before the Soviets sealed off (just with barb wire) the border between East and West Berlin. One of the main characters was a young German man who had graduated from a German law school. One of the other main characters, an American woman, asked him why he had never practiced Law. He answered, “The Law disappeared.”

            That is what has happened here. The Law has disappeared. Thugs are in charge. Your questions pre-suppose a society based on Law. That is gone. People, governments, etc., do whatever they want to do.

            Get ready. Hard times are ahead.

            And Trump knows no more about our Constitution than do my chickens. What could possibly go wrong?

            And meanwhile, many Americans are cowering under their beds with fear from the Fake corona-19 virus.

            We ARE too stupid to survive as a Country.

            Perhaps the new civilization which is eventually built here will not institute public education.

            God protect us from the Stupid.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2020

        • Yes, when the political parties took over presidential elections, it all went to Hell.

          And even today, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, people think that all they have to do is vote for their party; and all will be well.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2020 | Reply

          • “The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means to declare that the government may commit crimes would bring terrible retribution.” ~ Justice Louis D. Brandeis, (1856-1941) US Supreme Court Justice, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438, 1928. Brandeis was a prophet….

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Spense | July 14, 2020

          • Well, if the facts as set forth in the SCOTUS Opinion in the Oklahoma Indian Reservation case are true, Congress has had a long pattern of breaking Treaties with the Indian Tribes. And apparently, Americans were just fine with that. So why should Congress limit their wrongdoing to the Indians? Why not do it to all of us? And they did! e.g., when they passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, they promised the FRN’s would be redeemable in gold. Then, the fed gov’t changed their mind and for some 90 years, Americans haven’t been able to redeem FRN’s with gold. See more about their shenanigans re the fed reserve act here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/so-you-think-trump-wants-to-get-rid-of-the-fed/

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 14, 2020

  23. Hi PH, On Saturday(7/11/20), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would support a bill that would limit a president’s pardoning abilities. Stating “Congress will take action to prevent this type of brazen wrongdoing. Legislation is needed to ensure that no president can pardon or commute the sentence of an individual who is engaged in a cover-up campaign to shield that President from criminal prosecution,” Pelosi said, as reported by The Times-Union. Am I correct in saying the Constitutional Authority for Presidential Pardons is constitutionally protected from congress. The power to grant pardons is given to the President of the United States by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part: “The President … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”. SO, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, should understand congress doesn’t have the lawful authority to limit pardons. That must be done with an amendment to the US Constitution, and the vehicle used to amend must be one listed in article V of the US Constitution. A federal statute CANNOT lawfully amend the president’s constitutionally granted Authority. Pelosi is proposing NOT obeying constitutional law, the very law she swore an oath to uphold! Talk about brazen wrongdoing!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Spense | July 12, 2020 | Reply

    • BRAVO, Son! Perfect answer.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2020 | Reply

      • Thanks PH, I will be sending a version of this to my congressman. Insist he ask Pelosi why she is wasting time and tax dollars on an unlawful act.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | July 12, 2020 | Reply

        • Spread it everywhere. Use this as an illustration of how people can check out what politicians are saying by looking it up in the Constitution. I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t do what you did. But they don’t check things out for themselves. How do we get Americans to become like the Bereans?

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2020 | Reply

          • PH, I think people bought into the lie that you have to be a lawyer to understand the US Constitution, they have been fed that baloney sandwich for so long they now believe it. How do we get Americans to become like the Bereans? First, the American people need to realize the federal govt shouldn’t be trusted, people with power often abuse that power. The framers warned us of that. As you know 50% of what the federal govt does is contrary to the Supreme law of the land, our US Constitution. The people need to stop acting like sheep and act like citizens who value their God Given rights……

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Spense | July 13, 2020

          • I posted Pelosi’s quote on my FB page – and asked people what the Bereans would do?

            let’s see if any Bereans see my post. I’m hoping others will do as you did: See what the Constitution says.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2020

  24. Any thoughts on the supreme court honoring the 1866 treaty and basically turning half of Oklahoma into a native american reservation?

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 12, 2020 | Reply

    • Blake, I haven’t read it yet.

      I expect what we are seeing is judicial participation in the dismantling of America. Trump is ignorant, he promised to let The Federalist Society choose his nominees for the federal bench. The Federalist Society pretends to be “conservative”; but they are in the pocket of the Globalist Kochs. The Kochs apparently want to see the US dismantled and moved into the North American Union. It is a shame – but Trump illustrates what Jefferson warned about some 200 years ago: “You can’t be ignorant and free.”

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2020 | Reply

      • Our Friend, Jim Delaney, is right. I just now finished skimming the Majority Opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf

        The issue on appeal is whether the State of Oklahoma has criminal jurisdiction over the Creek Indians for crimes committed by them on Creek lands. The Supreme Court said, “NO!”

        The majority Opinion lays out a shameful tale of Congress’ practice of breaking treaties with Indians nations; but points out that it [the Supreme Court] has previously held that Congress has the RIGHT to break Treaties with Indians!

        The Majority Opinion says that to get the Creek Nation to give up their lands East of the Mississippi, the federal gov’t promised them that they would have a permanent land in Oklahoma which would be theirs for as long as the Creek nation existed and over which they would have self gov’t.

        But then, later on, Congress decided that THEY would exercise criminal jurisdiction over the Creeks for Major Crimes committed on Creek Land. And since Congress isn’t bound by the treaties it makes, we are all just fine with Congress’ change of mind on this point.

        so the bottom line is that while the federal Gov’t has criminal jurisdiction over the Creeks for “major crimes” committed on Creek land; the State gov’t has no criminal jurisdiction over them.

        Our fed gov’t has been corrupt for a long time.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2020 | Reply

    • I read the article whose headline suggested just that. I immediately thought SCOTUS had gone stark raving mad. Anyway, what actually happened, this according to the article iteself, is this: The article’s headline is totally misleading. So, don’t panic. Oklahoma isn’t required to surrender half its territory to native American Indians. What the majority opinion asserts is that “for purposes of federal criminal law”, and in accordance with the so-called Major Crimes Act, State courts have no jurisdiction in criminal cases involving native American Indians. Whew! Like I said, for a moment I thought SCOTUS judges had gone completely out of their collective minds.

      Like

      Comment by jim delaney | July 12, 2020 | Reply

      • well, well, Son.
        I’ll look for the Opinion tonight and read it!

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2020 | Reply

        • I was under the impression that “Natives” were given “citizenship”. With that citizenship i thought they were then bound by local, state, and federal law just as the slave became a citizen and became bound by the laws. I’m not that versed on natives and their treaties but that just seems logical to me. I could be wrong. Your thoughts?

          Like

          Comment by Blake | July 18, 2020 | Reply

          • Blake, https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html “The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

            Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
            (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
            (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

            Like

            Comment by Spense | July 18, 2020

          • See “Law of Nations” Emeril de Vattel (1758) Book I Chapter XIX. Types of citizenship discussed.
            https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/vattel-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed

            Like

            Comment by Robert | July 18, 2020

          • right, the American Indians did NOT acquire US citizenship via Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2020

          • I just now posted a full answer to your excellent question in the comment section of this new post: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/07/20/what-did-the-us-supreme-court-actually-say-in-its-majority-opinion-in-mcgirt-v-oklahoma/#comments

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2020

  25. Hi PH, our constitutional republic just took a dagger to the heart. SCOTUS gave legitimacy to a democracy for the purpose of electing the president when it unanimously agreed that a state can force the all electors to back the popular vote winner. “Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution We the People rule.” The Framers of the US Constitution never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote. If they had they could have easily written it into the US Constitution, they did not because the framers deplored a democracy. The very reason for the electoral college. If a state gives all electoral votes to the popular vote winner, then they disenfranchise all the voters who voted for the candidate who received the 2nd most votes. Sad, sad, sad !

    Like

    Comment by Spense | July 6, 2020 | Reply

    • well, you sure are on top of things. That came out today.
      I just now went to the US Supreme Court’s web site and read their one page “opinion” reversing the brilliant Tenth Circuit Opinion.
      Yes, it is very very sad. So disappointed in Justice Thomas.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020 | Reply

      • My city’s local newspaper reported on it this morning and I am an earlier riser. As you know if every state adopts the winner takes all approach, then the 15 largest states in the nation will elect the president every four years. The voters in the small states may as well not even vote for the president, their votes will never matter. I’m glad I am closer to 70 than 7 years old; it’s going to get very ugly.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | July 6, 2020 | Reply

        • Well, the brilliant 10th Circuit opinion in Baca wasn’t about the national popular vote BUT about whether the Presidential Electors for a State could be could be required to vote in accordance with the popular vote in THEIR state; or whether they could exercise their own independent judgment in deciding for whom to cast their electoral votes.

          Many (if not most) States have “faithful elector” laws which purport to require the Presidental Electors for their State to cast their votes in accordance with the popular vote IN THEIR OWN STATE. Most of those States have “winner take all statutes” so that all the electors must cast their votes for the candidates who won the popular vote in their State. Only two States, Maine and Nebraska, allow split electoral votes.

          so the Supreme Court’s ruling isn’t nearly as bad as the National Popular Vote; and, as a practical matter, it won’t change much. I just had hope that that wise Jurist in Colorado who wrote the 10th Circuit’s Opinion in Baca v. Colorado, would be able to bring about a transformation in how the Supreme Court views —lots of things. For sure, I thought Justice Thomas would see the opportunities and the rich ground laid in the 10th Circuit’s Opinion.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020 | Reply

      • Doesn’t the Constitution let the states decide on election rules? I realize they are supposed to delegate electors proportionally but if a state is stupid enough to allow popular vote determine the elector vote then the Supreme court had no choice. The NPV movement itself is the problem.

        Like

        Comment by David | July 6, 2020 | Reply

        • “Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President

          Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 provides that each State is to appoint, in such Manner as the State Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives for that State. These Electors were supposed to be the ones who actually voted for President and Vice President!

          Our Framers never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote. While they recognize in Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) that The People are the source of political authority, they knew that all history demonstrates that The People lack the knowledge, wisdom and judgment to make wise choices when voting for politicians.

          In Federalist No. 64 (3rd & 4th paras), John Jay recognizes that People are ignorant and easily manipulated by small groups who take advantage of their “hopes and fears”, to steer them towards candidates favored by the small groups.

          Accordingly, the Electors would be “select assemblies” “composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens” who would vote for those men who were “the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue”. Furthermore, Electors would not likely “be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism” which “sometimes mislead as well as dazzle”.

          In all of Federalist No. 68, Hamilton explains the wisdom of having specially selected Electors who were “most likely to possess…information and discernment” elect the President. He also warns of

          “… the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? …” (5th para)

          and shows why specially selected Electors in each State could best protect us from such scheming foreign powers.

          Now that we see why Our Framers provided that Electors from the Member States were to choose the President of The Federation, let us see how the voting was – and is – to be conducted.

          The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.

          The long ignored 12th Amendment (ratified 1804) sets forth binding procedures for taking and counting Electors’ votes. This is what it requires:

          The Electors in each State are to meet and cast their votes for President; and then vote separately for Vice President. Say a State has 13 Electors, and the voting goes like this:

          For President:

          Mr. Falconer – 6 votes

          Mr. Lossie – 5 votes

          Mr. Bell – 2 votes

          For Vice President:

          Mr. Cross – 5 votes

          Mr. Duncan – 5 votes

          Mr. Nichols – 3 votes.

          The Electors sign and certify this list and send it to the President of the Senate. On the appointed day, and in front of a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate counts the Electors’ votes from The Member States. The person with the greatest number of votes for President becomes the President (if he has a majority). The person with the greatest number of votes for Vice President becomes the Vice President (if he has a majority). If one or both don’t have a majority – well, here’s a novel idea: read the Amendment to find out what happens.

          THIS is how Our Constitution – which all those in the political process took SWORN OATHS to obey – requires the elections of President and Vice President to be conducted.

          So! The way we conduct presidential elections today bears no relation to what the Constitution requires.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020 | Reply

        • David, I agree this feels like political activism

          Like

          Comment by Spense | July 6, 2020 | Reply

          • Since unanimous decisions are so rare for the supreme court I have to presume that the constraints of this case were such that even Thomas couldn’t put up a dissent.

            Like

            Comment by David | July 6, 2020

          • Ah, but we don’t know that it was unanimous. I saw where a newspaper article said it was unanimous; but the article writer merely assumed that.
            It’s a “per curiam” decision. It says Sotomayor didn’t participate. So that leaves 8 Justices. So all we know is that a majority of the remaining 8 judges (at least 5) on that court voted to overturn the 10th Circuit. And that Thomas sided with the majority.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020

  26. Happy 4th of July!

    Who are “WE THE PEOPLE…” in the preamble of the constitution?

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 4, 2020 | Reply

    • Americans no longer believe that a People have the right to set up – and take down – governments.
      They believe that government is god and you must obey government.
      It is so sad.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 4, 2020 | Reply

      • Hi PH, once people were conned into believing that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter, the people became sheep and the federal govt used that to their advantage.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | July 5, 2020 | Reply

        • Yes, now almost everybody thinks the courts get to decide every issue.

          The Michigan House just overwhelmingly passed “The Microchip Protection Act” which says that employers can’t force people to be micro-chipped as a condition of employment UNLESS a court orders it. Hello?

          The People and state legislators have no understanding of the concept of “separation of powers”. In Michigan, the House wants the Judicial Branch to take over the function of the legislative Branch. The Courts will be the branch which decides whether Michiganders must be micro-chipped.

          God protect us from our unthinking fellows.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020 | Reply

  27. Publius, I Live in Texas and I just received a Public Safety Alert on my phone and it says,

    “The state of Texas now mandates all residents wear masks while inside buildings that are open to the public and outdoors, when it is not possible to maintain six feet of distance from people outside your household. Punishable by a $250 fine. This Independence Day, we are depending on you to help slow the spread of this deadly virus.”

    This infuriates me. How can the state government force people to wear masks and fine them for not doing so. Is this constitutional? How can they get away with this? Can the state be sued?

    Like

    Comment by Mac | July 3, 2020 | Reply

    • Your Governor and Lt. Gov. are A***S. They are in the pocket of the Kochs [there are internet articles on the big bucks the Kochs have paid to those two.]

      what you describe is outrageous. Civil rights litigation under 42 USC Sec. 1983 may be an option. Several such actions have been filed in other states respecting the enforced lockdowns. From what I’ve heard, wearing those masks is a severe health hazard. I expect it violates your State Constitution. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/+supreme+court+justice/KtbxLvHSxQmlWGHJsTCFRpxXplrSKKqrqq?projector=1

      Where does your state Constitution authorize what’s in the Public Safety alert.

      Here’s the civil rights complaint filed in Michigan against their governor, etc. https://www.scribd.com/document/458892197/2020-04-28-Filed-Complaint-for-Declatory-Relief-and-Injunctive-Relief#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=88890X1542029Xdc099eac8e3fc81ff5d3864a5b74f391&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

      I’d say, organize, contact your patriot lawyer friends, and ask them to find the best civil rights litigation law firm in the State.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2020 | Reply

      • Thanks for your response. I was looking through the Texas constitution and I don’t see anywhere that authorizes governor Abbott to force people to wear masks because of “alerts” or “emergencies.” I was reading a little of the complaint that you posted that was filed in Michigan and I completely agree. This is illegal.

        I’m not going to let the mask regime ruin the holiday. In defiance of the order I won’t wear a mask. If I get fined, so be it. Sadly, I won’t be able to afford a lawyer if I was to be fined to retaliate. But I will resist this order, the mask police won’t force me to wear a mask. I will not comply.

        Like

        Comment by Mac | July 3, 2020 | Reply

        • so is Abbott the one who issued the order?

          I haven’t seen the order – would like to.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 4, 2020 | Reply

    • Texas Patriots must either organize MASSIVE RESISTANCE to that stupid mask wearing order – or file a civil rights action under 42 USC Sec. 1983 against the government culprits – or better still, do both.

      Attorney Gerry Spence in Wyoming is one of the best – his law firm works all over the Country. They associate with laws firms in the State where the case is. Here is his firm – and they do civil rights litigation https://www.spencelawyers.com/

      https://www.spencelawyers.com/civil-rights/

      Get a copy of the Texas Order which pretends to require all of you to wear those stupid [and harmful] masks and be prepared to email it to the Spense law Firm. If they can’t do it, ask if they can recommend civil rights firms in Texas.

      Under that federal civil rights statute, I think the courts make the losing government entity pay the attorneys’ fees to the prevailing Plaintiffs’ attorneys. But of course, this is one of the things you’d want to check out with the Gerry Spense lawyers.

      My email is publiushuldah@gmail.com please send me a copy of the Texas Order.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2020 | Reply

  28. Is it possible that all of this manufactured discord in the U.S. is a ploy to get the citizenry to ask for gov’t intervention ostensibly to keep us safe from looters and George Soros but ultimately to introduce Army troops inside our borders to control dissent from authoritarian control.

    Like

    Comment by weathertiteconstruction | June 28, 2020 | Reply

    • Yes, what you describe is one variant of a rage of possibilities. but I expect it will be UN troops instead of American troops. see this:https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/usmca-trade-agreement-the-north-american-union-an-article-v-convention-and-red-flag-laws-connecting-the-dots/

      What’s going on right now bears the markings of a Communist revolution.

      In addition, the Muslims have long been planning a takeover of our Country.

      So it appears to me that we have rival gangs determined to destroy our Country: The Globalists, the Communists, and the Muslims.

      And American Republicans are sitting on their hands.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2020 | Reply

      • Thank you Publis for the truth. I would probably have said the Republicans have their hands somewhere else other than under their “glutes”. JLA.

        Sent from my iPhone

        >

        Like

        Comment by Jack Adams | June 29, 2020 | Reply

      • When you add it all together, in my mind, it continually points its dirty little finger directly at the UN, New World Order, Council on Foreign Relations, and the rest of the world gov. freaks. For more years than I care to count I have advocated for removing ourselves from the UN and kicking them off our shores as well as removing ourselves from useless treaties and agreements with other useless international organizations, NGO’s, WHO, NATO, and others to numerous to mention. Although no huge fan of Pres. Trump, he’s possibly the only one not wholly owned by a political party and the deep state to get it done. All he needs is more pressure from Patriots. That he loves this country I have no doubt. If he’s got the moxie to call for NATO countries to pony up their fair share, he’s the one who can do it. Once he leaves office, it’s fairly certain to never happen. The longer this continues the more likely this will not end well.
        Thank you PH for all your efforts and diligence in keeping us informed, you have my eternal gratitude.

        Like

        Comment by N S | July 4, 2020 | Reply

        • But sadly, Trump is doing the globalists’ bidding. He says things we love to hear [like his speech before the UN saying we would never submit to globalism], but he signs and pushes the USMCA “Trade Agreement”. I waded thru it and wrote 3 papers on it: it’s a massive transfer of sovereignty FROM Congress and the American People TO global gov’t (UN). See my 3 papers & video on it here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/usmca-trade-agreement/

          He promised to control immigration and “build a wall”. but under the USMCA “Trade Agreement”, we surrender control over immigration to the UN.

          He appointed a gun control nut – Barr – as Attorney General. Trump is fine with taking the guns first – due process later.

          He lets the Federalist Society choose his nominees for the federal bench – but the federalist society carries out the agenda of the Kochs who have been funding them to the tune of $100K a year. Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court have been a disaster.

          He is sitting on his hands and doing nothing to stop the Communist revolution which is going on right now in our Country. Yet Trump has authority to call up the national guard and go into the cities and stop the insurrections. See Edwin Vieira’s recent article on this at News With Views.

          He is doing nothing while state governors are stripping us our Freedom using this fake corona virus scam as an excuse.

          So, I regret to say, Trump is all talk [stuff we love to hear] – but he does the opposite.

          and his ignorance of our Constitution is astonishing. He seems to know less about it than my chickens.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 4, 2020 | Reply

    • The communist wannabes are destabilizing the country with the unrest, setting the stage for a communist takeover. This is a very interesting authoritative video on the stages of a takeover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvXwuZ-bok

      Like

      Comment by Spense | June 29, 2020 | Reply

      • Hi PH, that was a good video. I can’t say anything in it surprised me but it is something good to share. Sadly he is right that no amount of data seems to persuade a “true believer” whether you talk about socialism, global warming, etc.

        Nelson

        Like

        Comment by Nelson Lazear | June 29, 2020 | Reply

        • drats! my filter sent your comment to “Trash”. If in the future, you post a comment that doesn’t show up, email me at publiushuldah@gmail.com I don’t normally check my spam & trash folders because they are too big and some of it is so filthy, I don’t want it polluting my mind. Just now, I checked my trash file because it had only one entry – yours!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 30, 2020 | Reply

  29. PH, can Trump lawfully and unilaterally designate BLM or any other domestic group as a terrorist organization, thus providing him legal justification to order the leaders’ arrest, indictment and trial for terrorism. Both Antifa and BLM are Marxist with the stated aim of overthrowing the US government. Seems to me that if he were able to do this, and if his advisors felt that it would be politically prudent, he would have done so already. I keep hearing folks say Trump must do more, but without understanding that the President’s power is limited. What say you?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 28, 2020 | Reply

    • What is accomplished when an organization is labeled “a terrorist organization”? https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
      Nothing.

      The US government continues to import them into this Country in droves – calling it “resettlement” of “refugees” – or permitting their entry with our totally open borders.

      Since 1965 with Wrong-turn Teddy’s Immigration Reform Act, it has been deliberate US policy to overrun this Country with third world immigrants. And these third world immigrants don’t wish us well.

      Like Trump’s Wall, the national governments’ “lists” of “terrorist organizations” is a sham.

      The US federal government has existing constitutional authority to suppress the insurrectionists. I’ve been writing about it for years. e.g., https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/293/

      Edwin Vieira recently wrote of using the militia clauses to suppress the on-going insurrections in the cities https://newswithviews.com/the-presidents-authority-to-suppress-insurrections/

      So the Constitutional authority already exists to suppress the Muslims and other insurrectionists. But the US gov’t won’t use the authority because the fed gov’t is controlled by globalists (Council on Foreign Relations, etc.) And President Trump is their tool. See my three papers on the USMCA “Trade Agreement”.

      I’m emailing a flyer to you on the 4 provisions in the US Constitution which authorize the fed gov’t to round up and deport the terrorists here. Look for an email from publiushuldah@gmail.com

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2020 | Reply

  30. PH, again need our counsel. Teh nut jobs in the House are planning to vote for DC to become the 51st State. My opinion is that Congress does not have the unilateral authority to do so. Seems to me that in order for them to do, they would need to invoke Art V to amend the Constitution. When I read Art I Sec 8 Cl17 and Art IV Sec 3 Cl2, I cannot determine with certitude that Congress may or may not do this.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 26, 2020 | Reply

    • Under Article IV, Sec. 3, US Constitution, Congress has the power to admit new States into the Union.

      For a list of States and when admitted, see: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_admission_to_the_Union

      Note that the new States were all “colonies” or “territories” before they were admitted into the Union as “States”. That is highly significant.

      The District of Columbia already has an existing constitutional status as “the Seat of the Government of the United States” – see Article I, Section 8, next to last clause!

      In order to change the constitutional status of the District of Columbia from the “seat of government of the United States” to a State, Article I, Section 8, next to last clause must be amended pursuant to Article V, U.S. Constitution.

      Any pretended Act of Congress which purported to confer statehood on the District of Columbia would be totally and blatantly unconstitutional.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2020 | Reply

      • Hi PH::

        Is a correction needed? For ten years (1836-1846) Texas operated as a sovereign republic or nation. It applied or otherwise became a state in 1846. Until that time it operated as a sovereign nation with its own government laws, rules, regulations, etc. As I understand it, should that state ship ever be surrendered or revoked, Texas would once again become a sovereign republic or nation. For years, only Mexico still considered Texas to be a breakaway province or territory of Mexico. Your thoughts?

        Like

        Comment by paradigmrw | June 26, 2020 | Reply

        • Yes, thank you for the correction! I corrected it on my website: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/congress-has-no-authority-to-confer-statehood-on-the-district-of-columbia/

          But I’m leaving my comment to Jim uncorrected so as to encourage others to correct me when I make a mistake!

          Who knows what will happen when our Country falls apart? If the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is imposed on us [and that is easily done], all of the State governments would be abolished.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2020 | Reply

          • Would that not also include Vermont which, I believe, was an independent country when admitted as the 14th State in 1791?

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 26, 2020

          • You people are wonderful – I am so proud of you for being Bereans. God loves Bereans who check out what they are told to see whether it is true!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2020

  31. Hi Ph, just wanted to provide feedback on Jim Delaney’s concern. I sent this to the president, both us senators and my congressman. Heard nothing back but crickets, Sen Durbin (Lawyer) even had the audacity to send an email stating he is a sponsor of the senate’s version of the “Justice in Policing Act 2020”. Our federal govt has become more organized crime than lawful govt.

    “Why are the democrats trying to enact a Justice in Policing Act? Such an act is wholly unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government. The Justice in Policing Act proposed by Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate is a violation of the US Constitution; specifically, the 10th amendment. The federal government has NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY over the local (and State) Police. That authority stays with the states. Any action the federal government takes is a violation of the US Constitution. The federal government possesses only those enumerated powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution; all remaining powers are reserved to the states or the people. THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY OVER LOCAL AND STATE POLICE. The unconstitutional proposed Justice in Policing Act is a usurpation, a power grab by the democrats to centralize more power within the federal government. The Justice in Policing Act must not go to the floor for a vote. Congress can only pass laws that are authorized by the Constitution and the power for congress to enact a Justice in Policing Act is NOT authorized by the US Constitution. If there is “one overriding principle” in the Constitution, it is to avoid the concentration of power, and it does so in many ways. The 10th Amendment is an instrument written to help ensure that the federal government would not be able to impose the kind of absolute authority over the states that the framers feared. The Justice in Policing Act must be opposed with vigor. If you disagree, I demand to be shown where in the US Constitution the federal government was granted that authority. What the 10th Amendment states:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The States possess the lawful authority of state sovereignty which includes authority over the police in their state. Congress’ unlawful Justice in Policing Act is both oppressive and dictatorial. ”

    We can only hope the senate leader will not call that proposed bill for a vote, Pelosi most assuredly will.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Spense | June 13, 2020 | Reply

    • a Five star Essay, Spense! Well done!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 14, 2020 | Reply

      • Thanks PH! I learned from you and I most humbly thank you for it.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Spense | June 14, 2020 | Reply

    • Spense… i read your 5 Star Essay and would love to post it on FB to share informing Americans … are you agreeable? … i think i would have to modify the beginning of it… leaving off the start of your statement and just posting like this: “”” Sen Durbin (Lawyer) STATES HE IS A SPONSOR OF THE SENATE’S VERSION OF THE “Justice in Policing Act 2020”. Our federal govt has become more organized crime than lawful govt…. and then the rest as you have written it. thank you

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Madelyn Thide | June 14, 2020 | Reply

      • Madelyn, you have my permission ~ Spense

        Like

        Comment by Spense | June 14, 2020 | Reply

        • Be sure to credit “Spence”!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 14, 2020 | Reply

          • Congrats to Mr. Spense for his essay/analysis. Good enuf to warrant my posting it on my FB site. Conservatives need this education AS MUCH as do the clueless or, worse, recklessly disdainful members of America’s Modern Democrat Party, aka Progressives. Spense proves how indispensable Publius Huldah continues to be to patriots.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 15, 2020

          • i also posted it on mine after i asked his permission and i agree America needs to know what he said.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by madelyn Thide | June 15, 2020

        • thank you for your permission Spense and as per Miss PH, i will give credit to Spense.

          Like

          Comment by madelyn thide | June 14, 2020 | Reply

        • yes Spense i will give you credit.

          Like

          Comment by madelyn thide | June 14, 2020 | Reply

  32. It’s downright dizzying and painfully disappointing that the feds routinely violate first principles. Now the House–I hope not the Senate too–is crafting language to regulate police throughout the country. Strikes me as yet another case of federal overreach. But, they will get away with it. Most people are stupid or brainwashed and the States, once sovereign, have morphed into obedient vassals of their federal Lord and Master. What are the congressional limits in such a matter?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 7, 2020 | Reply

  33. When the constitution reads Art 1 sec 8 cl. 15 “laws of the union” and Article VI, cl.2, “law of the land” is there a difference?

    Like

    Comment by Blake | June 7, 2020 | Reply

    • Excellent question!

      The “Law of the Land” (Article VI, clause 2, US Constitution) is expressly limited to 3 things: (1) The US Constitution; (2) Acts of Congress which are authorized by the Constitution; and (3) Treaties which are authorized by the Constitution. Note that the US Constitution is The Standard by which Acts of Congress are measured and judged. It is also The Standard by which Treaties are measured and judged. So if an Act of Congress violates the Constitution, it is null and void. If a Treaty isn’t authorized by the Constitution, it too is null and void. [This is why Treaties addressing gun control, rights of children, “climate change”, etc., would all be unconstitutional: Our Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal gov’t to meddle in such matters.]

      Laws of the Union” (Article I, Sec. 8, clause 15, US Constitution) refers only to Laws made by Congress. The Militia of the several States can be called forth to “execute” – carry out – Acts of Congress: remember The Whiskey Rebellion during the Presidency of George Washington? The fed gov’t called forth the Militia to enforce the Excise Tax on Whiskey.

      The fed gov’t wouldn’t be calling forth the Militia to enforce “the Constitution” or a “Treaty” – just to enforce specific acts of Congress.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2020 | Reply

  34. Hello Publius Huldah,
    Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution states, in part, that the governments of the several States are prohibited from impairing the obligations of contracts. During this coronavirus shut down, my governor, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan has shut down private businesses. It seems to me that, when she shuts down private businesses, he is impairing the obligations of the contracts that employers have with their employees, and therefore, Governor Whitmer is violating the Federal Constitution. Presidents of the United States takes oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. It seems to me that the president of the United States has a duty to stop the governor of Michigan from violating this part of the Federal Constitution. Am I correct? Thanks.

    Like

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | May 28, 2020 | Reply

    • That’s an excellent point! I never thought of that – but yes, if you have a contract with someone to do work for them, and your contract is cancelled because of the Governor’s lock-down orders, then I think the Governor may well have violated that provision of the US Constitution.

      I was to speak at the MicPAC conventions in Michigan on April 17-18 in the Lansing area and again on May 16 in the Peninsula, but those events were cancelled. I don’t get paid for my appearances – BUT what if I had a contract to be paid for the appearances? The Michigan governor would have caused my contracts to be broken. I expect that there are people in Michigan who had “paying” contracts which the Governor in effect caused to be broken.

      I never thought I’d have to say this, but it seems that Trump is a follower and not a leader when it comes to the duties of his office. He takes his orders from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) with respect to USMCA “Trade Agreement” and the deliberate collapsing of the federal reserve system in order to move us into the new international monetary system controlled by the IMF (as provided for in the USMCA “Trade Agreement”). On purely domestic matters, he seems to take his lead from “what everybody says”…. His appointments have been dreadful – Attorney General Barr? Yikes, talk about a bully and gun-control tyrant! It would be the Attorney General [who serves at the pleasure of the President] who would file the appropriate civil action against Michigan’s Governor. But I don’t think that Trump would be able to take the heat the Democrats would generate if the Trump administration sued the Governors for impairment of obligations of contract.

      Some have even argued that the Trump administration should criminally prosecute [under 18 United States Code 241 & 242] the Governors for some of their actions respecting the COVID scare: See Edwin Vieira’s article here: https://newswithviews.com/is-the-president-an-essential-worker/

      But it seems that the Trump Administration is filled with people who aren’t really on our side………

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 29, 2020 | Reply

      • PH, really like your response to Kenneth Lloyd’ question. As I started reading his question I began thinking under most employee employer’s work arrangement it’s not a contract if your employer is a private concern. One is hired but few are “ contracted “.
        I am concerned as are others on the USMCA deal as it relates to our country. Trumps cabinet is made up of people affiliated with CFR and those folks don’t have this nation in their loyalty.
        But on the other hand Trump being a business man where could he have gotten the knowledge of so many people. It shows that their loyalty isn’t to our constitution or their advice to our President would be different.
        Thus being a “ follower “ would stand out. I voted for him knowing of his brashness and not a Sunday School teacher. I didn’t want a person to organize a Sunday social but someone to take care of our nation. He’ll get the blame but I believe it’s due to bad advisors.
        Any one against him is a critic and have answers. Where were all the one’s that thought they could have done better. He’s the most transparent President I’ve
        seen in my life. I think any one with an honest reason could get an appointment to see him.
        Love your honesty and deeply respect your knowledge of our constitution.
        Remember the only standard is “ Truth “.
        Jack Adams

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Jack Adams | May 29, 2020 | Reply

  35. Crystal-clear,PH. Most appreciative. Prof. Dershowitz asserts that one may be forced to have a vaccination if not doing so would potentially harm others. He cites a 1913 case, I believe. Entirely true? Also, is it lawful to permit a pandemic to justify either the feds or the states to shut down businesses or to restrain socializing? I had thought it could only be voluntary. And is the harassment of and giving out tickets to businesses and citizens who do not conform to CDC mitigation guidelines lawful.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | May 23, 2020 | 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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: