Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

3,802 Comments »

  1. Is E-Verify constitutional? The whole I-9 employment authorization process depends on E-Verify, no?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | August 10, 2019 | Reply

    • Can you cite the Article, Section, and Clause of the US Constitution which authorizes the federal government to set up and operate E-verify over the Country at large? I can’t find it.

      They may claim that the purpose of E-verify is to control immigration [which they are empowered by Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1 to do]. However, that claim wouldn’t hold water because the fed and State and local gov’ts shower the invaders with welfare benefits – thus encouraging them to invade our Country.

      The real purpose of E-verify is so the feds can keep track of who has hired whom.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 10, 2019 | Reply

  2. PH, if the feds recommend/suggest gun control policies, e.g. “red flag” laws, to the States, that is not violating the Constitution–i.e. so long as they are but suggestions only, and not sweetened with federal funding to encourage greedy, spineless, unprincipled States to follow through with those suggestions. Is that your view? Isn’t attaching funding to a suggestion in this regard federal overreach?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | August 10, 2019 | Reply

    • Every member of Congress has taken an Oath to support the US Constitution (Article VI, US Constitution). If they do anything which encourages others to violate the US Constitution, they have violated their oath of office.

      Nothing in the US Constitution authorizes the fed gov’t to restrict our arms; and the 2nd amendment prohibits the fed gov’t from doing so. Accordingly, any Act of Congress which encourages States to disarm its Citizens would be unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted and as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

      Pursuant to the powers granted to Congress by Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, Congress has power to provide for the organizing, arming, and training of the Militia of the Several States. Accordingly, Congress has the power to require able-bodied adult male Citizens to buy firearms, and report to their local Militia Unit for training. and Congress did just this in the Militia Act of 1792.

      Everybody in the State gov’ts also took an Oath to support the US Constitution – and they also took an oath to obey their own State Constitution. Each State Constitution says something about the right to keep and bear arms. So State Legislatures can’t lawfully pass any laws respecting arms which would interfere with Congress’ power to REQUIRE American adult male citizens to get armed and trained; or which would violate their State Constitution.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 10, 2019 | Reply

  3. PH, can you please confirm what I already know, or think I know: neither Administration, the Supreme Court nor Congress may ban arms, impose interstate conceal carry or implement gun registry. Their gun-related powers are strictly to limited to Art I Sec 8 Cl 16. All of these powers rest with the individual States. And if the Administration succumbs to political pressure, what is our recourse? Is there any organization out here willing to take the government to court, this since individual States lack the spine to just unilaterally say no without recourse to the judiciary?

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | August 7, 2019 | Reply

    • what authority do know / think states supposedly have over 2nd Amendment related issues? Certainly the federal govt has NO enumerate power over it.

      Like

      Comment by madelyn thide | August 7, 2019 | Reply

    • Our Constitution is one of delegated powers only. If any Branch of the federal government has the power to do something, it’s listed – enumerated – in the Constitution. The feds can only do that which the Constitution says they can do. If a power isn’t listed in the Constitution, the feds can’t lawfully do it.

      Nothing in the Constitution permits the federal government to regulate firearms. Therefore, they can’t lawfully do it.

      Think of the enumerated powers as a grocery shopping list: I give my husband a list of items I want him to buy. If it’s on the list, I want him to buy it. But if it’s NOT on the list (ice cream, cookies, candy, potato chips, crackers, etc.), then I don’t want him to buy it.

      Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16 authorize Congress to provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia of the Several States. Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 16, Congress has the constitutional authority to REQUIRE Citizens to get armed and trained in the use of arms.

      And Congress passed such an Act in 1792: See The Militia Act of 1792 linked to here: Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamacare.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2019 | Reply

      • You can always post another edited comment and ask me to delete the first one!

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | August 9, 2019 | Reply

    • Jim, you are absolutely right. The ONLY power the federal government has over arms and ammo is to REQUIRE American Citizens to get armed and trained in order to provide for the organizing, arming and training of The Militia of the Several States as provided at Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution.

      What is our recourse? Here is where we must draw the line which they can’t cross. If they take our arms, then you can be sure that mass roundups of “excess populations” and exterminations camps are next.

      But please understand that we mustn’t let the federal courts have the last word on this issue. It’s OK to file a lawsuit in federal court and ask the federal court to declare the red flag laws unconstitutional. but we can’t count on the courts to decide this in accordance with the Constitution. I expect the federal courts to rule against The People and for the federal government.

      Then WE must resort to that original right of self-defense.

        REMEMBER THE JEWS IN NAZI EUROPE

      .

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2019 | Reply

      • Well said!

        Like

        Comment by Manfred | August 8, 2019 | Reply

      • Then we must find true leaders in this country who will stand up and say, and make it their mission to make it a reality, that the 9th and 10th Amendments mean what they say and that what Justice Kennedy’s opinion is is NOT the “supreme law of the land , that the Supreme Law of the Land are acts passed by Congress which adhere to the Constitution.
        I know the meme is “Well, you gotta do what the judge says or there will be anarchy”, but somebody has to police the judges,and it is the Congress’s job to do so, just as it our job to police Congress.
        And until it hits somebody in the face that 864 federal judges is way too many, by hundreds, and until somebody has the gumption to tell the 9th Circuit “We brought you into this world and we can take you out”, the slouch will continue.

        Like

        Comment by Bob Montgomery | August 9, 2019 | Reply

  4. Sorry with so many questions, but here they are: 1) Is the incorporation doctrine constitutional? What was SCOTUS’ constitutional reasoning? 2) How many of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated, legally or illegally, and when? 3) When did SCOTUS rule that Art I Sec 8 Cl 1 was a discrete power of Congress? How can that be corrected, short of a suddenly enlightened legislature?

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | July 18, 2019 | Reply

    • 1) No!

      As far as I know, they never gave a reason for making the absurd claim that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporates” the first 8 amendments to the US Constitution so as to give the federal courts judicial power over the States with respect to these 8 Amendments. SCOTUS may have given a reason somewhere, but I never saw it. If they did, I’m sure their reasoning was as absurd as was their reasoning behind saying that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment permits women to kill their unborn babies.

      Look at this paper re my discussion (at para 12) of the SCOTUS opinion in “Gitlow v. People” (decided 1925) which is the first instance I know of when SCOTUS claimed judicial power over how the States applied the First Amendment in their own State: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/

      2) I think that since Gitlow v. People, SCOTUS has decided (in individual cases) that each of the first 8 amendments were “incorporated” by Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment so as to restrict the powers of the States and give the federal court judicial power over how the States apply those amendments within their States. But I’d have to look it up to see which cases said this. I think the gun case out of Illinois a few years ago (perhaps 10 or so years ago) was where SCOTUS claimed that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporates” the 2nd Amendment so as to give the federal courts judicial power over how the States apply the 2nd Amendment within their own States.

      (3) I don’t understand your 3rd question. Clearly Congress has the power to lay the designated taxes. I discuss the “general welfare” clause in the various papers under the Category “general welfare”. James Madison is clear on this in Federalist Paper No. 41 (last 4 paras).

      We won’t get an enlightened Congress until Americans get off their lazy butts and learn the Constitution; and grow a spine and demand that the people they elect to office enforce the Constitution and impeach and remove from the Bench usurping judges.

      States should be nullifying the unconstitutional SCOTUS opinions! I show them how to man-up and do it in my most recent paper, “How States can man-up and stop abortion”.

      I sometimes think that if you collected all the guts of the American People and measured them, you’d not get more than 1/2 a cup.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2019 | Reply

      • RE question #3, somewhere in my readings I had read that early 20th century the courts interpreted Art I Sec 8 Cl 1 as a discrete enumerated power of Congress, this despite Madison’s and other founders’ view that it was a prefatory clause.

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | July 18, 2019 | Reply

        • How I wish you were a legal advisor to the President!!!!!!!!!

          Like

          Comment by jim delaney | July 18, 2019 | Reply

          • So do I. He needs a good lawyer.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2019

        • I see what you are saying.

          Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1 delegates to Congress the power to lay & collect those designated kinds of taxes & to pay the Debts of the United States.

          In Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras), James Madison is clear that the language, “to provide for the general welfare of the US” is a “general statement” which is immediately followed by an enumeration of the particular powers which explain and limit the general expression. I write about this several times in my various posts under the Category “General Welfare”.

          Congress provides for the common Defense by levying and collecting taxes SO THAT it will have the funds to carry out the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 11-16.

          It’s in modern times that statists have claimed that the “general welfare” clause empowers Congress to make any laws & spend any money which advances whatever THEY conceive serves the “general welfare”. I’m sure I’ve written on this under “General welfare clause”. I don’t know if SCOTUS ever said that. [After a while, mercifully, the specifics of some of the rubbish SCOTUS writes fades from one’s mind. Their opinions are like cheap horror films or porn which one wants to scrub off and rinse away.]

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2019 | Reply

  5. Hi PH, is there any legal recourse with teeth for a state, when a US Senator co-authors a proposed bill which is a blatant violation of our Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | July 18, 2019 | Reply

    • Well, you can’t maintain a lawsuit against the Senator because he has immunity – see Art. I, Sec. 6, clause 1, US Constitution. And even if you could maintain such a lawsuit, it wouldn’t do any good because the federal courts would more likely side with the US Senator than with aggrieved Citizens.

      All citizens can do is protest the legislation, try to get it defeated in Congress, and try to get rid of that US Senator in the next election.

      And if the Legislation passes Congress, urge Trump to veto it. And failing that, nullify it.

      States should exercise the powers they retained [at Art. I, Sec.2, clause 1] to qualify and register voters. States shouldn’t allow anyone to be registered to vote unless he can pass a stiff test on our founding documents and the Federalist Papers and the Kentucky & Virginia Nullification Resolutions of 1798.

      If States had stiff requirements for qualification to be allowed to vote, dingbats such as the Senator you mention wouldn’t have gotten elected.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2019 | Reply

      • spence , i encourage you to read the petition of remonstrance i sent you and join us in ours

        Like

        Comment by hippie49 | July 18, 2019 | Reply

        • I haven’t read your petition of remonstrance and so can’t endorse it. Perhaps you would like to post a link to it? If it isn’t too long, I’ll read it.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2019 | Reply

          • i will email it to you.. this is a remonstrance that they presented in Tennessee , ours dont have to be as long and im still trying to learn it.

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 18, 2019

          • thank you!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2019

        • How is that going to make US Senators Durbin & Duckworth see the light?

          Like

          Comment by Spense | July 18, 2019 | Reply

          • Oh, I expect nothing but lots of $$$ would ever make Durbin, et al, see the light. But public outcry can make OTHERS see the light.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 18, 2019

        • Was that a pdf file?

          Like

          Comment by Spense | July 18, 2019 | Reply

        • I looked the TN remonstrance over and that is something I could write. But I have to say in the state of Illinois I don’t see it being effective, because a remonstrance has no teeth. The first thing they teach in Illinois Democrat politics is the end always justifies the means. Nothing is unethical as long as it achieves your goal, moral turpitude doesn’t exist there. Illinois is the most politically corrupt state in America., thanks to Chicago. This quote by Harry S. Truman describes Illinois government perfectly. “Dictatorship is founded on the doctrine that the individual amounts to nothing the State is the only thing that counts and that men, women and children were put on earth solely for the purpose of serving the State.”

          Like

          Comment by Spense | July 19, 2019 | Reply

          • i understand what your saying but a petition of redress of grievances is a protected right of the people to keep government in check and making sure they dont give themselves authority they dont have per constitution.. they can not stop a remonstrance..

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 19, 2019

          • also , where is the illinois state preamble do we give up any of our rights to them… we maintain and keep orderly the Representative government . we created the constitution to keep them in order and we dont give up anything… we created their laws

            We, the People of the State of Illinois – grateful to
            Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty
            which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing
            upon our endeavors – in order to provide for the health,
            safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative
            and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality;
            assure legal, social and economic justice; provide
            opportunity for the fullest development of the individual;
            insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense;
            and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves
            and our posterity – do ordain and establish this Constitution
            for the State of Illinois.
            (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

            we are grateful to God not government , we are the leaders of this state not them and a petition of remonstrance is a protected right to keep them from becoming tyrannical

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 19, 2019

          • Some poison has been inserted into the preamble. It must have been amended fairly recently to add these words:

            “in order to provide for the health,safety and welfare of the people”

            “eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual;”

            The People of Illinois gave up much Liberty and their Property Rights when they ratified these poisonous phrases…

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2019

          • There have been 4 Illinois constitutions, 1818, 1848, 1870, and 1970

            Like

            Comment by Spense | July 19, 2019

          • very interesting! 1970 was a bad year for Illinois!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2019

          • i agree with that but it does say in the end… do ordain and establish this Constitution
            for the State of Illinois. now that Constitution limits the state would it not ? we already stated that God permitted us , in order to provide for the health,
            safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative
            and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality;
            assure legal, social and economic justice; provide
            opportunity for the fullest development of the individual;
            insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense;
            and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves
            and our posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution
            for the State of Illinois.

            and to secure those blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves created the state Constitution to limit them . they cant take whats not listed in the state constitution as well as the federal government cant take whats not theirs stated in the federal constitution. we give ourselves the blessings of freedom and liberty and their only job is to protect them . am i correct about the intent of the state and federal constitution. the declaration says of right come from our created of life liberty and happiness/ property.

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 19, 2019

          • the phrases I quoted are stock communist dogma and show the intention to grant enormous powers to the gov’t of Illinois.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2019

          • i am not challenging your intelligence or professionalism, im debating what im seeing and reading to your expertise and experience in the legal system.

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 19, 2019

          • in our state constitution i will highlight two things i see the state trying to manipulate.. it says we have the right to “apply” for redress of grievances .. meaning we need permission to be heard and have our grievances heard and sec 22 it says “subject to police powers” the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.. those two things right there are usurping our rights and the federal constitution

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 19, 2019

          • This is a pretty good discussion of “police powers”. The State governments have police powers; but the federal gov’t doesn’t have police powers over the Country at large. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)

            So a State which honored its Citizens’ God-given right to self-defense, could still make laws which prohibit Citizens from carrying guns into State prisons, mental institutions, and into courthouses. These would be proper exercises of the State’s “police powers”.

            A State has the power, under it’s police powers, to make laws criminalizing drunk driving, establishing building codes, fire codes, etc.

            So “police powers”, when properly exercised, are a benefit to Citizens and help secure our God-given rights to life, liberty, property, etc.,

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2019

          • yes, this is a discussion i can learn from.. my big question.. police powers must first be constitutional am i correct ? in order to create a more perfect union states are to follow the federal constitution, is that also correct ?

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 19, 2019

          • Yes, States must comply with the genuine meaning of the US Constitution.
            The article I linked to explains “police powers”. States and local governments have police powers. but the federal government has police powers ONLY over the federal enclaves described at Article I, Section 8, next to last clause.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 2, 2019

          • also , where did i give up my unalienable rights from my creator and am i protected by the 9th amendment to the federal constitution ?

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 19, 2019

          • If you live in Illinois, you are bound by the delegations of power from The People to the state and local governments of Illinois. In those provisions of the Illinois Constitution we discussed a while ago, The People of Illinois foolishly surrendered to the State and local governments some of their retained rights and powers. It continually distresses me to see how easily people are deceived into surrendering their Rights.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 2, 2019

          • ok , a lil change up here….let me compare citizenship to a drivers license. the states say driving is a privilege and mandate in a free country a license which they control by giving and taking away when they decide you shouldnt have it , so now , our founders had a big concern about just letting anyone from a different country into this country for safety and preserving our republic. now , we have the “squad” of 4 (squatters) and ilhan omar is a somalian refugee who now is in a public office (we were warned) , she was naturalized thru the 14th amendment and said she wont assimilate to this country, being she was naturalized thru a man made document created by government can her citizenship be revoke ? she also lied and married her brother to come here.

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 20, 2019

          • how about this part of the state constitution… to” maintain a representative
            and orderly government”; did we give up our power to keep them in check? because in our state constitution its say we can “apply” to petition for redress of grievances

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | July 23, 2019

          • ALL of the Illinois Constitution applies – not just the parts you agree with!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 2, 2019

          • where our problems started i think , i went all the way back to 1818 on state constitutions (preambles) its amasing what they have done to us .

            Constitution of 1818.

            Adopted at Kaskaskia in convention, August 26, 1818.

            THE people of the Illinois territory, having the right of admission into the general government as a member of the Union, consistent with the constitution of the United States, the ordinance of congress of 1787, and the law of congress approved April 18th , 1818, entitled “An act to enable the people of the Illinois territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union, on an equal footing with the original states, and for other purposes;” in order to establish justice, promote the welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, do by their representatives in convention, ordain and establish the following constitution or form of government; and do mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free and independent state, by the name of the State of Illinois. And they do hereby ratify the boundaries assigned to such state by the act of congress aforesaid, which are as follows, to wit: Beginning at the mouth of the Wabash river, thence up the same, and with the line of Indiana to the northwest corner of said state; then east with the line of the same state, to the middle of Lake Michigan; thence north, along the middle of said lake, to north latitude 42 degrees and 30 minutes; thence west to the middle of the Mississippi river, and thence down, along the middle of that river, to its confluence with the Ohio river; and thence up the latter river, along its northwestern shore, to the beginning.

            Adopted by Convention, August 31, 1847. Ratified by popular vote, March 6, 1848. In force April 1, 1848.

            We, the people of the state of Illinois-grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations-in order to form a more perfect government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the state of Illinois.

            PREAMBLE. 1862

            We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for
            the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted
            us to enjoy, and looking to him for a blessing upon our endeavors to
            secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, in
            order to form a more perfect government, establish justice, insure do-
            mestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the geneal
            wefare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
            do ordain and establish this constitution for the state of Illinois.

            preamble 1870

            Preamble
            We, the people of the State of Illinois — grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations — in order to form a more perfect government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Illinois

            preamble 1970

            We, the People of the State of Illinois – grateful to
            Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty
            which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing
            upon our endeavors – in order to provide for the health,
            safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative
            and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality;
            assure legal, social and economic justice; provide
            opportunity for the fullest development of the individual;
            insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense;
            and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves
            and our posterity – do ordain and establish this Constitution
            for the State of Illinois.

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | August 4, 2019

          • I don’t see any problems with the different Preambles until the one of 1970:

            “in order to provide for the health,
            safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative
            and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality;
            assure legal, social and economic justice; provide
            opportunity for the fullest development of the individual;”

            Yikes – those words are poison.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 5, 2019

  6. Ma’am,

    I recently got into an argument on Twitter with a few people. The whole thing started when supported Larry Klayman’s latest post about this. I went on to say that Kamala Harris was NOT a natural born citizen. I took that position because at the time of her birth, her parents were here on STUDENT VISAS; neither of her parents were citizens; by their actions, her parents didn’t show intent or desire to remain here permanently. I said that, as a result, she was a NATURALIZED citizen, but she could in no way be natural born. They then shouted me down, saying that every professor, judge, legal expert, etc. said that being born here DID confer natural born citizenship.

    They proceeded to cite William Rawle, a PA attorney and former district attorney who supposedly said in an 1826 letter to Washington that people born here were citizens. I found the quote attributed to him and the one they cited in our Twitter fight, which I’ll put below:

    Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

    If I’m not mistaken, Rawle’s comment could be countered by the fact that: 1) he wasn’t a Founder (I never heard his name mentioned with the Founders); 2) he didn’t partake in crafting the Constitution; and 3) what he wrote in his letter amounts to a commentary. I don’t see how his thoughts could be construed as legally binding. Upon researching Mr. Rawle, it seems to me what he said amounts to little more than his personal opinion.

    These same folks could cite US v. Wong Kim Ark. Are you familiar with the case? Long story short: his parents weren’t citizens, but they had a business here. He was born here. The SCOTUS said that he was a natural born citizen. I don’t believe that the Founders intended for that.

    When I brought up Vattel’s work, that was discounted because, in the French, he didn’t use the phrase, ‘natural born citizen’. I cited Franklin’s letter to Dumas, thanking him for the books (i.e. the copies of “Law of Nations”) to show that the Founders relied on Vattel’s work. They said that there was no evidence that the Founders relied on his work. I sent them a link to your post about what the Founders knew, and they discounted that too. I don’t think that they even read what you said, because they came back at me only a few minutes later; your posts, especially that one, take a lot longer than that to read, let alone digest!

    I was condescendingly told that I live in an alternate reality; they said that they live in the real world, where the judges make the rulings. They said that every legal expert, professor, judge, etc. has ruled on the question of birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship; that they knew and understood more law; and basically, you, I, and others adhering to a Constitutional position are wrong. When I questioned them about the validity of judicial supremacy, I was told to go back to high school civics.

    Where can I find good ammo to COUNTER these assertions? These guys were also saying that judges have the final say. When I pointed out to them that SCOTUS was the only court specifically created by the Constitution; when I pointed out that the district and appellate courts were created by Congress, per Art. III, Sec. I. Para. 1; when I pointed out that the courts were CREATURES and therefor not superior (i.e. judicial supremacy is BS), they simply said that I needed to take high school civics. I didn’t tell them that I did well in civics years ago, because it wouldn’t do any good.

    How can I COUNTER these spurious assertions? Though I understand that everyone knew what a natural born citizen was when the Constitution was adopted, why couldn’t the Founders have DEFINED it? Furthermore, how can people be so wrong about this now? Is there any convincing evidence I could present to undermine these arguments? Maybe I made a mistake in arguing with someone on Twitter, but damn it, if I’m right, I don’t like to give in!

    The whole thing started when I voiced support for Larry Klayman’s most recent post. I think you and he are right. How can I PROVE it next time? Usually, I can easily and quickly dispatch idiots like this on Twitter, but I failed this time. To put it simply, how can I prove these people wrong? I’m sure I’m not the only one with these questions. Thanks in advance, and thanks for the precious resource you’ve put up. Have a great day! Sorry for rambling; thanks for reading; and God bless you.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by MarkyMark | July 13, 2019 | Reply

    • You can show people The Truth, but you can’t make them accept it. After you have presented the Truth (with the back-up) – and you did that – all you can do if they refuse to accept it is to shake the dust off your feet and walk away. [Jesus said something like that – so you know it’s good advice.]

      Don’t worry about it! They are fools – and there’s not a thing we can do about it.

      Sometimes after dealing with fools like that I send them a parting shot – this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

      During the period before the 2016 presidential election, I got vicious hate mail and comments from Ted Cruz supporters in response to my video on Natural born citizen. Trump re-tweeted it here: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701045567783219201 Oh, those Cruz supporters were foaming at the mouth in rage.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2019 | Reply

      • Ma’am,

        Thank you very much for your timely response! I appreciate it. Thanks again for this resource you’ve created.

        I watched your video on natural born citizens earlier tonight; it’s very good. It’s like the old trigonometry text I have. It covers the basics in a simple and straightforward way. Your video should have prompted the Ted Cruz supporters to view the evidence, not send you hateful comments. You neither said anything hateful, nor was it said in a hateful way. You simply laid out the facts; A comes before B, which comes before C, and so on. That reminds me of what George Orwell said: in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act-how true it is.

        I think one of the problems (concerning my Twitter spat) is that I got emotionally involved; I let my ego get in the way. Jesus was right when he told His disciples that, if folks don’t want to hear the message, then shake the dust off their feet and take it to someone who does. He was right then, and He’s right now. I should have walked away a lot sooner than I did. I’ll do that next time!

        Secondly, I need to do what your post on SCOTUS opinions says: focus on first principles, such as the courts are creatures of the Constitution and Congress. When put that way, their inferiority is as plain as day! First principles, or fundamentals, are everything; no matter what one does, we must go back to the first principles. I’m going to spend more time here doing that-focusing on first principles.

        That was another big mistake; judicial supremacy is all wrong. Congress and most of our past Presidents have deferred to the Supreme Court and the lower courts when they shouldn’t. I think both Congress and POTUS do so to avoid handling political hot potatoes; they can tell people to blame the courts, not them.

        We’ve gotten so far away from the Constitution that we don’t even recognize it anymore, let alone follow what it says. Exhibit A is the fact that Congress and the whole gov’t have gotten away from enumerated powers; so much of what they do isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution at all. We, the American people, share part of the blame because we let it happen.

        In one of your posts I was reading earlier, you talked about the public schools and how they’d dumbed us down. Did you ever read John Taylor Gatto’s book, “The Underground History of American Education”? It’s quite an eye opener! The elites in both gov’t and industry (mainly the robber barons) wanted public schooling for their own nefarious ends. The public schools are doing exactly what they were DESIGNED to do.

        Anyway, thanks again for the timely response, Ma’am. I appreciate it. Thanks also for this blog you created; it’s the course in civics, gov’t, and history that we SHOULD have had! Have a great night, and God bless you…

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by MarkyMark | July 13, 2019 | Reply

        • I haven’t read Gatto’s book; but I read Samuel Blumenthal’s book, “Is Public Education Necessary?” Amazingly informative book – public education was a vicious hoax from the very beginning in the 1840s or thereabouts. Our pastors must have already gone bad – God told parents to educate their own children – why didn’t the Pastors point this out when public education was getting started here?

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 14, 2019 | Reply

          • Ma’am, it seems as if MANY of our problems go back to the mid 19th Century-public school, Lincoln’s imperial presidency, etc.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by MarkyMark | July 14, 2019

      • Ma’am, thanks for the quick response! It was just what I needed. All I can do is shake my head when I look the world around me…

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by MarkyMark | July 14, 2019 | Reply

    • Hey MarkyMark, what they did to you is called Gaslighting. Gas-lighting is a form of mental and psychological ABUSE in which false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity. Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.Those on the dark side don’t believe anything is immoral, so they lie and deceive. I believe PH penned this: ” Liberals are ideologically driven and have no love for the law. They are unconcerned with whether their desires for government action are legal. Their basis for what is right or wrong is how strongly they ‘feel’ about it. If they think something ought to be this way or that, then they don’t care what the Constitution says or the reasons it was written that way.”

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Spense | July 13, 2019 | Reply

      • Thank you, Spense! Very helpful!

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 14, 2019 | Reply

  7. PH,
    Concerning Comrade Bernie Sanders student debt forgiveness plan, or should I say debt transfer plan. If Art. I, sec. 10 forbids states from impairing the obligations of contracts, just how can they delegate a power they don’t have to the central government? Just how do this many elected officials think that the central government acquired this imaged power let alone the authority to make loans to individuals and guarantee them in the first place? Maybe they will be asked at the Democrat debates. When donkeys fly, right?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | June 24, 2019 | Reply

    • The federal gov’t usurped the power to impair the obligations of contracts because they felt like it and no one rose up to stop them. They’ve been doing this for a while. I don’t remember the facts or the details because I wasn’t involved in this litigation, but it had something to do with one of the unconstitutional agencies created by the federal gov’t foreclosing mortgages held by failed Savings & Loans even thou the debtor was current on his payments and had not violated the terms of the mortgage. If the debtor couldn’t come up with the cash to pay the whole debt [which under the terms of the recorded mortgage, wasn’t due until years down the road], the feds foreclosed and the debtor lost all his equity in his foreclosed property. It was evil. But the courts in which these mortgages were foreclosed went along with the scheme. It seems to me it was this entity which, as agent for the fed gov’t, foreclosed the mortgages on the innocent debtors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_Trust_Corporation

      And yes, you are absolutely right about the student loans. The whole scheme is unconstitutional. But people didn’t care that it was unconstitutional because they wanted the loans….

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2019 | Reply

  8. Hi PH, I just read with interest your recent article, “How states can man-up and stop abortion”. Does the same apply to stopping congress from passing the so-called Equality Act (HR 5)? Congress is trying to dilute our religious freedoms by forcing Christians to be supportive of sinful lgbt behaviors. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5

    Like

    Comment by Spense | June 24, 2019 | Reply

    • YES! YES! YES! The Principle extends to all acts of Congress, all federal court opinions & orders, and all Executive Orders, which violate our Constitution.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2019 | Reply

      • where is the article on how the states can end abortion

        Like

        Comment by hippie49 | June 24, 2019 | Reply

      • I certainly can’t find where HR 5 is among the enumerated powers for congress. And they are trying to amend the 1st amendment by way of a federal statute, which is a no-no. One stated purpose of the federal government is to secure and protect our rights. Yet the democrats are doing the opposite. If the federal government can change the US Constitution with a federal statute, what’s the point of the US Constitution and article V? Congress operates like organized crime. Thanks for your reply and hard work.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Spense | June 24, 2019 | Reply

        • You nailed it!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Rose Tinsley | May 23, 2019 | Reply

    • YES! YES! YES!

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 23, 2019 | Reply

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

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Rose Tinsley | May 23, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 23, 2019 | Reply

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

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | May 23, 2019

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 23, 2019

          • Publius,

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

            Jim Baines Copperas Cove, Texas

            Liked by 1 person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Rose Tinsley | May 23, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 24, 2019

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

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Gary | May 12, 2019 | Reply

    • Well, I’m pretty OLD!

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

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

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

      I suppose I sound like a wet blanket….

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 12, 2019 | Reply

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

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

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 13, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 13, 2019 | Reply

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

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

            I hope you and yours are well.

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

            Like

            Comment by topcat1957 | May 13, 2019

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 12, 2019 | Reply

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

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

        I would definitely put you on the court.

        Like

        Comment by Gary | May 12, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 13, 2019 | Reply

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by N S | May 13, 2019

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

    Like

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

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 6, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | April 30, 2019 | Reply

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

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

      Well done, Jim!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 1, 2019 | Reply

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

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

    Thanks

    Like

    Comment by John Noble | April 22, 2019 | Reply

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

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

      ///

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 22, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

        Like

        Comment by John Noble | April 22, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 22, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | April 22, 2019 | Reply

    • there is none..the judges should be impeached

      Like

      Comment by hippie49 | April 22, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Robert | April 20, 2019 | Reply

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Robert | April 21, 2019 | Reply

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 21, 2019 | Reply

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

    Thank you for indulging a recently-mined political nerd.

    Like

    Comment by Jeff E | April 20, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

    Can naturalized citizens run for the house of representatives?

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

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

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Thx

    Like

    Comment by Gary Blake | March 18, 2019 | Reply

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

      Like

      Comment by Donald Crane | March 18, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Barbara Jennings | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

      A “naturalized” citizen is a Citizen.

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Gary | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

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

          You are most welcome. any time.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

        Like

        Comment by Gary | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | March 16, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

      2. The illegal aliens are NOT lawfully here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | March 16, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Jack Adams | March 5, 2019 | Reply

    • Questions for you:

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2019 | Reply

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

        Jack Adams

        Like

        Comment by Jack Adams | March 5, 2019 | Reply

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2019 | Reply

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

            Like

            Comment by Jack Adams | March 6, 2019

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

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019

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

            Like

            Comment by N S | March 6, 2019

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

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

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019

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

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | March 24, 2019

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

    Like

    Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019 | Reply

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2019 | Reply

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

            Like

            Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019

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

            Constitutional New Deal Programs

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

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

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

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

            Like

            Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019

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

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

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2019

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by N S | March 5, 2019

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 17, 2019 | Reply

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2019 | Reply

  23. PH,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks so much for your time.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Bob | February 16, 2019 | Reply

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 15, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 16, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by nelsonaire9 | February 17, 2019 | Reply

        • neither do I.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 15, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 16, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | February 16, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 3, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

      Here’s info for Colorado

      Hearing!

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

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

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by hippie49 | February 3, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by madelyn thide | January 29, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | January 26, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | January 7, 2019 | Reply

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

      So three provisions in our Constitution give him authority:

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

      It is his duty to protect us from invasion.

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | January 8, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Countries really do destroy themselves from within.

          Liked by 3 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2019 | Reply

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

            Like

            Comment by N S | January 8, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Spense | January 18, 2019

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

            And defeat it.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 18, 2019


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: