Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

1,793 Comments »

  1. I see,constitutional convention and the congress are the same. not a party to the constitution. if you do not see this then we lost what our free government.

    Comment by david | May 19, 2015 | Reply

    • Congress is the legislative body created by our Constitution of 1787. It is not a party to the Constitution, but merely the creature thereof, and is completely subject to its terms.

      A “convention” in this context (the “amendments” convention of 1787 or the convention provided for at Article v) is a meeting of the sovereign representatives of the People who have the inherent right to throw off one Form of Government (first, the British monarchy; and then The Articles of Confederation) and institute another. It is impossible to control these sovereign representatives. THEY are the ones who have the power to throw off one Constitution and institute another.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 19, 2015 | Reply

      • thanks, but what about “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” does this mean that the States Congresses can amend the Constitution with the approve of Congress, but in the Convention, but will still have to be “ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States” ?

        Comment by david | May 19, 2015 | Reply

        • see I miss the most important part of my comment, was the convention of 1787 run by the Representatives of the States Congress to help the Congress of the United States at that time? But it was ratified after the fact, now it must be requested to the People Congress first.

          Comment by david | May 19, 2015 | Reply

          • The Continental Congress called the convention of 1787 by Resolution dated Feb 21, 1787: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=032/lljc032.db&recNum=83

            The Continental Congress said in the Resolution that the States were to appoint the delegates. The States appointed Delegates and the convention convened. But instead of proposing Amendments to the Articles of Confederation, they drafted a new Constitution – the one we now have. Article VII of the new Constitution set forth the procedures for ratification of the new Constitution.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 19, 2015

        • No. 2/3 of the States can apply to Congress [the legislative branch of the national government] for Congress to “call” a convention.
          If delegates to the convention do nothing more than propose amendments to the federal Constitution [the Constitution of 1787]; then Congress decides how those amendments will be ratified. Congress may decide to send the proposed amendments to the State legislatures for ratification or rejection; or Congress may decide that each State must call a convention to ratify or reject the proposed amendments.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 19, 2015 | Reply

  2. I just discovered you PH. What a gold mine of information. Great work! Do you have anything written on the ninth amendment or something written by someone else you can recommend? I’m working my way through the amendments and I can’t quite grasp what this means. Thank you.

    Comment by Matt | May 18, 2015 | Reply

  3. When the courts overruled segregation, did they overstep their authority?

    Comment by llotter2013 | May 18, 2015 | Reply

  4. Thank YOU! You’ve been my best friend for some time now, PH. Your are the teacher of the Constitution. I am your student. I always will be.

    Comment by Sydney Cade West | May 16, 2015 | Reply

  5. The Post Roads were established to create suitable overland trade routes and for the express purpose of transporting mail from New York to Connecticut and on to Boston – hence the Boston Post Road. The (3) Post Roads predate the American Constitution so the article answers only the question of what is a post road and includes how long it has been in existence. In 1673, the first postal rider left New York headed for Boston, traveling through Connecticut and arriving at his destination two weeks and some 250 miles later. This bit of American history is worth the read. http://connecticuthistory.org/boston-post-road-carved-out-three-early-travel-routes-through-state/

    Comment by Sydney Cade West | May 16, 2015 | Reply

    • THANK YOU! We can be best friends forever. I didn’t know what it meant.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 16, 2015 | Reply

  6. I always thought ‘post roads’ referred to roads between post offices, especially in remote areas to enable mail delivery.

    Comment by llotter2013 | May 15, 2015 | Reply

  7. Article I, sec. 8, cl. 7 says congress is to establish Post Offices and post Roads. One of the major topics congress discusses deals with money for infrastructure projects. Aren’t the states responsible for most of our infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc.? Exactly what constitutes a post road today?

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | May 14, 2015 | Reply

    • Oh dear one! I have been meaning to research that for a long time: What is a “post” road? We need to find writings of our Framers or others from our Framing Era showing what a “post” road is. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed42.htm seems to be the only Federalist Paper which mentions “post roads”, but it doesn’t tell us what they are.

      Next place to look is in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787. Here is the link to Madison’s Journal: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html It took me a while to figure out how to search the site…

      I don’t have time to research this. But if you do and find proof of the original intent – it will be valuable! Just remember, you must use only original source documents to prove the original meaning of the term.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 15, 2015 | Reply

  8. Isn’t there a chance here is winning the battle and losing the war? While it would be great if our politicians adhered to the Constitution in all aspects, the fact is that we have strayed to far away from the original intent on the Art. I, Sec 8 issues, the Natural Born Citizen issue seem to pale in comparison to the elephant in the room, the Nanny State that is bankruptcy us both morally and financially.

    I am reminded on the partial birth abortion issue when conservatives attacked it as an obvious inhuman practice but we lost that case, and even if we won, it would be a hollow victory since it still allowed for 98% of all abortions.

    While is desperately want to get back to the Constitution as our governing document, I would hope we could concentrate on the most important infractions first rather that what will prove to be minor issues. We can take little comfort in winning the NBC argument and we are unlikely even to win that.

    Comment by llotter2013 | May 8, 2015 | Reply

    • But I suspect we are being softened up to accept foreign rule. Having presidents who are not NBCs is part of the transition to global government.

      But our side is hampered by ignoramuses who insist on promulgating ignorant rubbish. They place their precious Egos above Truth.

      What could possibly go wrong with a people who place their egos above Truth?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2015 | Reply

  9. Our government acts as it pleases. Without regard to law of the land. Attorney’s aid and abet these actions. Statuatory law does not negate the constitution. obozo is a muslim born of a muslim dad supposedly. DNA anyone! He will stand with islam. He promotes islam and denies the constitution. Impeach him. He’s worse than W who started DHS.

    I like a lot of what you say is why I darken your door. [vulgar comment delete by PH]

    Comment by Ron Vrooman | May 8, 2015 | Reply

  10. The “Frenchie” was Swiss …. and all he did was to expound on Aristotle’s observation made in Book III Part I & II of his work “Politics” in 350 BC.

    ” … (end Pt I) … He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.

    Part II

    But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors.

    This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen?

    Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- ‘Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.’

    Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other.

    For the words, ‘born of a father or mother who is a citizen,’ cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. …”

    And thus, with tongue in cheek, ‘we are all Larissaeans now …”,and said as to illustrate that a “country”, once founded, has the authority to say who are its citizens and to control the who, what, when, why and how of it.

    Comment by slcraignbc | May 8, 2015 | Reply

    • Huh?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2015 | Reply

  11. Egos PH? Yours is a beauty.

    Comment by Ron Vrooman | May 8, 2015 | Reply

    • So why do you darken the door with your presence?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2015 | Reply

  12. If the Frenchie can’t write a clear definitive statement on what a natural citizen is in one shot he is not the guy to seek enlightenment from.

    Comment by Ron Vrooman | May 8, 2015 | Reply

    • He did. You have to read past the first para. God preserve us from the ignorant, but highly opinionated, people!
      Obviously, you need a Readers’ Digest edition.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2015 | Reply

      • Ma’am, sometimes you just gotta hit’em between the eyes with a 2X4 just to get their attention.

        Comment by Bobby Berrie | May 8, 2015 | Reply

        • Vattel uses the format typical in legal treatises: Each separate concept – and variations on the basic concept – are explained in separate numbered paras. Legal encyclopedias in the Western world are written in that format. All lawyers know this.

          But laypeople! They insist it’s all got to be in the FIRST para. And then they condescendingly lecture people who actually understand the format for legal encyclopedias.

          We are being done in by EGOS and Ignorant CONCEIT. Can a 2×4 fix those vices?

          Well, I’m off to a site to put MY two cents in re the safety of nuclear power plants. Over 50 years ago, I had high school physics; and since then, I’ve watched a couple of shows on PBS about physics, plus I saw the Jane Fonda movie about the nuclear power plant. So I know ALL ABOUT IT! I’ll straighten out those Ph.D’s in nuclear physics….

          Geeessssccccchhhhh. Thank you, Bobby.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2015 | Reply

  13. Dear Publius:

    I have read your July 2012 post, The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What the Founders Knew. When I first contacted you by e-mail you said that “I quoted the Naturalization Act to show the understanding of the term, “natural born citizen” during 1790.
    Location of birth is irrelevant. A baby succeeds to the condition of his parents: if the parents are US citizens, the baby is “born” a US citizen. It matters not one whit where the baby is born.

    Of course, your post follows the same rationale. Concerning the Naturalization Act of 1790, You quote, in part, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed, and superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795 which says Chapter XX, Section 3, in part, “…and the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:…”

    So, I can only conclude that the location of birth in critical to the definition of natural born Citizen. I agree with Vattel in paragraph 212: “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    If this is not true, why did Vattel write that sentence?

    Thanks,
    Hugh

    Comment by Hugh Hudson | May 7, 2015 | Reply

    • I despair. It is hopeless. You have proved it. We are toast! Americans read one para and STOP. That it’s! One paragraph and they now know all about it and are experts on the subject and can go out and straighten out the world….

      You must Read ALL the paragraphs Vattel wrote on the subject…….. I give you the paragraph numbers.

      You are not familiar with the format he uses. He wrote a numbered para on the topic. Then he wrote another para on the same topic. And several more on the same topic. YOU MUST READ THEM ALL AND CONSTRUE THEM TOGETHER.

      GEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

      PLEASE: give me some hope that Americans can read several paras and construe them together.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 7, 2015 | Reply

      • Publius:

        Are you ok? I did not know what your response was going to be. I have dealt with people who just throw away their brains about this subject. Well meaning folks, but they throw away their brains. They just do not get it. It is like a fog over their minds. I learned this subject in the school of Leo Donofrio, and some of his associates, The Undead Revolution. Stephen Pidgeon is very helpful. Mario Puzzo and Commander Charles Kerchner are very good on the subject.

        In the Fall of 2008, I started to investigate Obama, and I soon concluded that America was in big trouble and that tyranny was coming. During this time, I had a word in the night, or at least an idea: “Philadelphia Anointing!”
        I took it to apply to the Church (Philadelphia) and our Government. (Philadelphia birth) We cannot get past Philadelphia and Boston during the Colonial period. Basically, America needs to return to her Spiritual, her Declaratory, and Constitutional roots.

        Statutory Construction–the necessity take all parts of a statue or law in to consideration–and taking the whole of Scripture into consideration (the whole counsel of God) go hand in hand. I did not even know about Statutory Construction until Donofrio explained it.

        So, there are examples of people who have not lost their minds in this matter. Look at Jeremiah 29:11-13. The LORD is not through with America.

        If you need to contact me by e-mail you may do so!
        Hugh

        Comment by Hugh Hudson | May 7, 2015 | Reply

        • “in pari materia” is the principle of construction which says we must read all the various paras in which Vattel addresses “natural born citizens”, and construe them all together. The Principle is that babies assume the status of their parents. So John McCain, who was born of two US Citizens in the Panama Canal Zone, is a natural born citizen. Before the 13th & 14th amendments were ratified, black babies born in this Country were born as slaves – they assumed the status of their parents.
          Thank you for your kind follow up post. Really.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2015 | Reply

          • Publius:

            I do not think John McCain is a natural born citizen.

            McCain’s citizenship seems to be found in US Code 8, Section 1403.

            §1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
            (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

            (b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
            (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, §303, 66 Stat. 236

            Leo Donofrio has said on his site that he is citizen of Panama at birth. (Articles 8 & 9 of their Constitution and Article 13 requires explicit renunciation). Therefore, he has dual citizenship. I do not think the Founders would allow dual citizenship because of loyalty issues.

            “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”—–does not violate to any degree “The Principle is that babies assume the status of their parents.”

            However, to say that birth location has nothing to do with the character of natural born citizenship, I think, goes too far. Why? The simple reason is Vattel wrote it into Section 212 and attached it in the sentence speaking of natural born citizen. “…born in country…” has to have meaning something. If not, why did Vattel write those words?

            The Constitution speaks of citizens (senators and representatives) and natural born citizens (President). Natural born citizen is the more restrictive term. Likewise, with “…born in country…”, Vattel gives a more restrictive definition for natural born citizen. In other Sections, he places no restrictions.

            Thanks,
            Hugh

            Comment by Hugh Hudson | May 8, 2015

          • Hugh, Congress may NOT amend the Constitution by means of a law. The Constitution means what it meant when it was drafted & ratified. I proved that original meaning in my paper.

            Congress can’t change the definition by means of a law.

            Ggggeeeeeesssssscccccchhhhhhh. My first instincts were right. It is hopeless. People don’t understand basic Principles and are so much in love with their own precious opinions that they refuse to learn.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2015

  14. Hi PH, no question today, just a comment. I finally got around to viewing the video of Alan Keyes at

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/impeachment-all-you-need-to-know-and-you-do-need-to-know-it/

    It is superb, I highly recommend everyone view it

    Comment by Spense | April 30, 2015 | Reply

    • Yes, Keyes is superb. 15 or so years ago, he was talking on the radio about the connection between the Constitution and the Declaration and for the first time for me, the lights came on in my head and I saw – really for the first time – what our Framers gave us.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2015 | Reply

      • I’m glad he did, because of that you were able to turn the light on for me… for which I will always be grateful!

        Comment by Spense | April 30, 2015 | Reply

  15. You indicated providing a handout(s) in your “Nullification” video. Do you have available for download? Or is this on your blog somewhere?
    Thank you for your work and dispelling the lies being put forth.

    Comment by ambiguousfrog | April 26, 2015 | Reply

  16. forgive my few omissions and typos. I always miss something>>>>

    Comment by CarolynW | April 24, 2015 | Reply

  17. Publius, Recently I learned that the Virginia Constitution does not have an amendment protecting citizens against illegal search or seizure (like the 4th and 5th amendment in our U. S. Constitution. A Tea Party organization in Virgina has contacted the former attorney general for the state and together with a tea party member has drafted an amendment for consideration in our General Assembly. The proposed amendment has now been picked by Congress and here is the link: http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/4th-amendment-fight-from-virginia-hits-capitol-hill/#KU2OK4Rb1Go3Wk4B.99
    My question is this. If a State does not have a 4th amendment in their Constitution doesn’t the U. S. Constitution apply here because its the Supreme Law of the Law.

    Comment by CarolynW | April 24, 2015 | Reply

  18. https://archive.org/stream/virginiareportof00virgrich#page/22/mode/2up , maybe you can believe what is written here about “uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government,” this is a department under the executive branch does. not my words, theirs.

    Comment by david | April 21, 2015 | Reply

    • Why are you telling me this? I have quoted The Federalist Papers on this point over & over!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 22, 2015 | Reply

  19. Hi again, PH! I hope that this finds you well and as feisty as always!
    {:-)

    For obvious reasons, I thought of you when I clicked on the following link (I’ve been a NAGR member for some time, and this was featured in one of their emails):

    Of course, I was so ‘offended’ by some of the comments which were posted that I posted some thoughts of my own (and, completely without permission, some of yours!)

    Blessings and best regards, Ted

    Comment by Ted Hatfield | April 15, 2015 | Reply

    • Well, I searched for your name and didn’t find your comments. To whom did you reply?

      Use whatever I have written or said anyway you like.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  20. aturalization Act of 1790 doesn’t exist no more?… Naturalization Act of 1790 got replace with Naturalization Act of 1795. Then Naturalization Act of 1795 got replace with Naturalization Act of 1798. Then Naturalization Act of 1798 got replace with naturalization law of 1802. Then naturalization act of 1802 got replace with Fourteen Amendment in 1868. Fourteen Amendment means granted citizenship to people born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of their parents’…????

    Comment by jimcolomas | April 14, 2015 | Reply

  21. PH
    I came across and read a Supreme Court decision:
    A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
    Was this decision ever overturned by subsequent Supreme Court decisions? Or does the decision have standing in today’s fascist world?
    .

    Comment by rrstubbs | April 13, 2015 | Reply

    • For many many decades, law schools have taught that the Constitution is a living, breathing document which changes as conditions change. Law students are taught that the Constitution means whatever the supreme Court says it means. Most law students uncritically accept whatever they are told, so they got brainwashed into believing this.

      So, most American lawyers believe the Constitution “evolves”. In 1935 it meant what the supreme Court said when the Schechter Poultry case was decided.

      Today, it means whatever the supreme Court today says it means.

      See?

      WE THE PEOPLE kept electing and re-electing people who believe this crap. Obviously, if the Constitution means whatever 5 Justices on the Supreme Court say it means, then we have no Constitution at all. We are ruled by whoever seizes the power.

      Meanwhile, Americans are so stupid they are all gaga over a new crop of phony “conservative” politicians and talk show hosts who would continue the march towards the totalitarian police terror state which is right now being constructed around us.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  22. PH,

    Conscription is not specifically enumerated as a power delegated to the Federal Government while the power to “Raise and support” the army is listed.

    During the war of 1812, legislation authorizing Federal conscription was rejected by congress and one of the reasons was that it was unconstitutional.

    Since conscription is not listed, is it covered under the “Necessary and Proper” clause as “incidental” to the power enumerated or “great and substantial,” thus unconstitutional?

    Arver v. United States seems to be the “standing” opinion.

    http://www.jimelwood.net/students/crosscultural/friedman_(1969)_conscription_original_understanding.pdf

    And Kneedler v. Lane in the PA State court seems to be what upheld conscription during the Civil War.

    Comment by John Hindery | April 13, 2015 | Reply

  23. PH,

    Hillary and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation= violation if USC? Yet all the “Talking Heads” can babble about is missing e-mails.

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. ~ USC Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0415/clinton_foundation_exposed.php3

    Comment by John Hindery | April 13, 2015 | Reply

  24. John Locke, CHAP. XI. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power. ” This legislative is not only the supreme power of the common-wealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it;” 136 “The legislative, or supreme authority, cannot assume to
    its self a power to rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense justice, and decide the rights of the subject by promulgated
    standing laws, and known authorized judges: for the law of nature being unwritten, and so no where to be found but in the minds of men, they who through passion or interest shall miscite, or misapply it, cannot so easily be convinced of their mistake where there is no established judge: and so it serves not, as it ought, to determine the rights, and fence the properties of those that live under it, especially where every one is judge, interpreter, and executioner of it too, and that in his own case: and he that has right on his side, having ordinarily but his own single strength, hath not force enough to defend himself from injuries, or to punish delinquents.” You see our Founders found its source “the Supreme Judge of the world”. The moral values of Adam.

    Comment by david | April 10, 2015 | Reply

    • You could go thru our Constitution with a colored pencil and highlight all the powers delegated to Congress and the President, and you would have a COMPLETE LIST of the delegated powers………

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  25. I am more in the Philosophy of the Constitution, then the legal side. Have you read Bryce, “the American Commonwealth”(1913); Strong, C. F. “Modern Political Constitution”(1930); Laski, H.J., “the Foundations of Sovereignty(1921); and Willoughby, W.F. “An Introduction to the Study of Government of Modern States(1919). Well you not going to believe me on this, but it is very interesting. I just went today to the five and dime store and pick up an “Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Encyclopedia”(1931) its just a little book, the book mention are their reference on the Constitution, here is what is written “Its field is strictly limited by its own provisions, for the powers of the sovereignty of the United States have been divided between the federal and state governments.” To me the Federal government came first then the states governments. Now the “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” makes sense. now I have to found some of these books myself, very interesting.

    Comment by david | April 7, 2015 | Reply

    • If you would learn our two founding documents backwards and forwards, and speak of those, you would provide a great service to your Country. I do not read commentaries on the Constitution EXCEPT FOR those written by our Framers.

      The most important thing a citizen can do is to learn all the powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  26. Sorry about that, I am looking at the ” secure the Blessings of Liberty ” In Romans 13:1-7(NIV) how “the authorities that exist have been established by God.” or the Union is to secure these governments for these rights, again I am still learning sorry.

    Comment by david | April 7, 2015 | Reply

    • Does the Chart help? And the slides Brent Parrish prepared?
      What is so amazing about our two founding Documents is that the Declaration of Independence says that Rights come from God – and the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

      So in our Constitution we delegated specific powers to the federal government – and the delegated powers secure specific God-given rights in the manner appropriate to the national government of a Federation.

      It really was a 5,000 year miracle.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 7, 2015 | Reply

  27. hi, I know I not a writer but, I believe to solve this understanding of both the Declaration and the Constitution here is in the writing: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” to secure means to “fixes”, what do we fix to our Liberty? Law. “consent of the governed” is a Citizen. Blessing is “God’s favor and protection” which is the State government for the rights, the Union is to secure the Blessing, not the rights of the men, but the right of men to have that Liberty. Is the United States law securing the Liberty or the rights of men to secure this Liberty. Maybe I am talking in circles but if you understand and can write more on this matter maybe.

    Comment by david | April 7, 2015 | Reply

  28. “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare” Declaration, “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” “shall be the supreme Law of the Land” This Constitution of the United States is between God and the People of the United States. Got to hand it to our Founders.

    Comment by david | April 5, 2015 | Reply

    • Oh yes – Our Founders were great men.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 | Reply

  29. Since the law leaves it up to the States to implement the standards, wouldn’t it be appropriate opportunity for the States to “Nullify?”

    http://mises.org/library/appropriate-and-necessary-whatever-we-say-it

    Comment by John Hindery | April 4, 2015 | Reply

    • “Environmental protection” is not on the list of powers delegated to the federal government. So States with any manly men in them should ignore all pretended EPA regs, Acts of Congress, and federal court opinions addressing this topic.

      I.e., States don’t need the federal “law” to give them the option of not implementing the standards! Since it’s not on the list of delegated powers, States should ignore it all. See?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2015 | Reply

  30. PH;

    I know you’ve rejected my thoughts on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen before, but in view of the fact that a couple of new candidate Usurpers are on the horizon I would like to clarify my proposition of Constitutional Law by saying ;

    “once that the law is written that provides for the perpetuation of U.S. Citizens, including U.S. natural born Citizens, then the “original source” of the concept of “citizen, natural born and otherwise” is no longer of importance, except for the benefit of general knowledge.”

    As you know, I contend that “U.S. natural born Citizens” were provided for in the 1790 Act and the words “considered as” belies the notion that the Act provided only for their “foreign birth”, in that those that were “foreign born” were being compared to those that were “native born”.

    The ‘established uniform Rule” of the Act in whole provided that ; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise,”, which, when considered with the Doctrine of Coverture’s effect on the political status of women, made being born as a “U.S. natural born Citizen” UNAVOIDABLE when born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father,( two (2) U.S. Citizen parents), anywhere in the world from March of 1790 and January 1795, then thereafter only within the limits of the U.S.

    The un-reconciled consequence of the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship and Citizenship retention Act, was the previously not possible, under the laws, circumstance of ‘dual-citizenship at birth.

    The 132 years distance from the Ratification of the COTUS would seem to make the un-reconciled circumstance of ‘dual-citizenship at birth” a condition alien to the term of words in A2S1C5, (U.S.) natural born Citizen.

    Comment by slcraignbc | April 3, 2015 | Reply

    • Your thoughts? Why would our own thoughts on this be relevant or important? I say your thoughts on this are not relevant – NEITHER ARE MINE. That is why I searched to find documents written during our Framing Era to learn the definition of “natural born citizen” OUR FRAMERS USED. THAT is the definition locked into our Constitution.

      It’s NEVER what you think or what I think. It’s always, “What is the original intent of this clause?”

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  31. Thank you, PH. Yes I have read and have a copy of your article on the Vattel, and Natural Born Citizen.” I refer to it constantly as well as most of your other articles on Understanding the Constitutions.

    Comment by James | April 3, 2015 | Reply

    • Then tell them to Prove it or Retract it.

      They can’t prove it.

      And we have no reason to believe that it is a recent addition to Vattel’s book – John Jay, David Ramsey and others of the time used the identical term the same way Vattel used it.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2015 | Reply

  32. There is a debate going-on around my area about the Vattel’s writings. Some say that the term Natural-born Citizen didn’t appear in the Vattel’s writings until after the US. Constitution was adopted. Is that so? Did our Founders insert that into the Vattel’s writings after the fact?

    Comment by James | April 3, 2015 | Reply

    • Sounds to me like someone is making stuff up to bolster Ted Cruz’ candidacy. Did you ask them to provide PROOF that the text of Vattel’s book has been altered?

      If you will read my paper on this subject, you will see original source documents which use the term. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ Click on the hyperlinks and read the original source documents for yourself.

      and don’t believe what you are told. People lie or ignorantly repeat what they have heard. So you must always look for original source documents.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2015 | Reply

  33. I have a hard time understanding the difference between an individual or group of individuals stealing my property. Both would obviously be labeled criminal acts? Can a law, converted into an instrument of plunder by a lawless group justify theft?

    Lo and Behold

    Federalist No. 1: “A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” (Lo and behold, this rights crusading strategy of government barrels full steam ahead).

    Federalist No. 1: “An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.” (Lo and behold, the stale artificial bait has caught nearly every public official of the union).

    Federalist No. 6: “Favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage or personal gratification.”
    (Lo and behold, lawless officials arrogantly scruple at the expense of national tranquility to indulge in personal advantages and gratifications).

    Federalist No. 6: “Momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice.” (Lo and behold, government appeals to emotions, passions and immediate interests at the expense of the supreme law of the land, reason and justice).

    Federalist No. 8: “Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.” (Lo and behold, government is taking advantage of this clever tactic to justify the overthrow the citizen’s civil and political rights).

    Federalist No. 10: “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it.” (Lo and behold, wicked projects are so pervasive that the whole body changes laws into instruments of oppression and plunder. Governments fine or incarcerate citizens and wage war to protect wicked projects).

    Federalist No.17: “It may be said that [the principle of legislation] would tend to render the government of the Union too powerful, and to enable it to absorb those residuary authorities, which it might be judged proper to leave with the States for local purposes. I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons entrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description. The regulation of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition.” (Lo and behold, the general government embraces temptations to divest states of authority. States give in to luring temptations).

    Federalist No. 17: “But let it be admitted, for argument’s sake, that mere wantonness and lust of domination would be sufficient to beget that disposition;” “still it may be safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite.” (Lo and behold, ignorant masses are so incessant to gratify selfish appetites, they forfeit their independence and liberties to fill them).

    Federalist No. 22: “Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation.” (Lo and behold, false interpretations of the constitution have not only created dead letters but converted law into lawlessness and lawful defense into crime).

    Federalist No. 28: “When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.” (Lo and behold, the disease has spread from head to toe and medicine to cure it is rejected by states and citizens).

    Federalist No. 30: “Who would loan to a government that prefaced [began] its overtures for borrowing by an act which demonstrated that no reliance could be placed on the steadiness of its measures for paying? (Lo and behold, nations and ignorant citizens, inundated with financial propaganda, continue borrowing from the bankrupt federal government, 210 trillion dollars in the hole).

    Federalist No. 31: “I repeat here what I have observed in substance in another place, that all observations founded upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, not to the nature or extent of its powers. The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty. It is by far the safest course . . . to confine our attention wholly to the nature and extent of the powers as they are delineated in the Constitution. Every thing beyond this must be left to the prudence and firmness of the people; who, as they will hold the scales in their own hands . . . will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments.” (Lo and behold, the majority of citizens couldn’t care a less. They no longer comprehend the prudence or firmness required to preserve independence).

    Federalist No. 32: “The individual States should possess an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of their own wants. And making this concession, I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution.” (Lo and behold, states have sold out to violent assumptions of power by the federal government that abridges them of rightful authority).

    Federalist No. 33: “But it will Not follow . . . that acts of the large society [federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary [state] authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” (Lo and behold, law abiding Americans trying to treat usurpations as such are labeled enemies of the state and extremist).

    Federalist No. 33: “the supremacy of the laws of the Union . . . only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from “the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION.” (Lo and behold, public officials reject the supreme law of the land and framers writings explaining the limited constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government).

    Federalist No. 36: “The United States will either wholly abstain from the objects preoccupied for local purposes, or will make use of the State officers and State regulations for collecting additional impositions . . . If such a spirit should infest the councils of the Union, the most certain road to the accomplishment of its aim would be to employ the State officers as much as possible, and to attach them to the Union by an accumulation of their emoluments. This would serve to turn the tide of State influence into the channels of the national government. But all suppositions of this kind are invidious, and ought to be banished from the consideration of the great question before the people.” (Lo and behold, this spirit has infested the union. Invidious suppositions are entertained and embraced by nearly every politician and public officer).

    Federalist No. 8: “The perpetual menacing’s of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; The continual necessity for [military] services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionally degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants . . . are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights . . . The transition from this disposition . . . is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.” (Lo and behold, the US government media/military industrial complex cleverly concocts menacing dangers to justify tyrannical control. Alarmed conditioned citizens give up liberties for safety).

    Federalist No. 15: . . . The United States has an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. (Lo and behold, countless illegal regulations and agencies pilfer citizens, destroy liberty and commerce).

    Federalist No. 17: “The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. But let it be admitted, for argument’s sake, that mere wantonness and lust of domination would be sufficient to beget that disposition; still it may be safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite.” (Lo and behold, ignorant masses manifest the opposite disposition and couldn’t care a less to control federal and state governments extravagant usurping appetite).

    Federalist No. 28: Would . . . militia, irritated by being called upon [by the federal government] to undertake a . . . hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting [imposing] the chains of “slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants [instead], [tyrants] who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined entrenchment’s of [lawful] power, and to make them [federal officials] an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execrations? . . . If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.” (Lo and behold, the federal government presently employs these impossible preposterous ambitions with impunity. Unenlightened abused masses are not incensed one iota).

    Federalist No. 32: “The plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments . . . clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States”. (Lo and behold, the states have sold out many rights to the federal government).

    Federalist No. 43: “A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.” (Lo and behold, states reject their rightful authority and merge with the federal government to isolate themselves in despotic power).

    Federalist No. 40: “Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the “States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.” (Lo and behold, states have renounced much of their constitutional independence).

    Federalist No. 45: “Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness [liberty], it would be, abolish the Union.” (Lo and behold, the union has become inconsistent with happiness and liberty. Instead of abolishing the union, the people embrace dangers to happiness and liberty).

    Federalist No. 46: “If the people should in the future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration . . . And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain [enumerated] sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.” (Lo and behold, the states have much to apprehend but reject the apprehension).

    Federalist No. 46: “But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.” (Lo and behold the federal governments maddened drive. States are not alarmed but complicit).

    Federalist No. 46: “The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may . . . accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. To these would be composed of a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.” (Lo and behold, oath breaking public officials are actualizing their extravagant incoherent dreams while labeling resisting law-abiding militia as extremist enemies of state).

    Federalist No. 49: “Judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised by the legislative councils. . . . Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control . . . The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them.” (Lo and behold, judges legislate from the bench and exercise arbitrary control).

    Federalist No. 49: “It is equally evident, that none of them [branches of government] ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” (Lo and behold, the federal government grafts branches together and disregards law that imposes effectual restraints on respective powers).

    Federalist No. 49: “How are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance? There is certainly great force in this reasoning, and it must be allowed to prove that a constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary occasions.” (Lo and behold, the remedy of nullification provided by the framers for the present extraordinary crisis is rejected by government officials).

    Comment by Dwain | March 24, 2015 | Reply

    • “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a definition of this “Compound Republic of America”, the Constitution gives power to the States Laws and the United States Laws

      Comment by david | April 20, 2015 | Reply

      • During New Testament times, one of the problems Paul had was new Christians wanting to teach others before they were ready.

        You could best serve your Country and your Posterity by reading our Two Founding documents over & over. When people move into the theoretical or philosophical, they tend to confuse themselves and others. There is no need to invent new terminology. The terminology our Framers used is supremely adequate.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 20, 2015 | Reply

  34. Is Ted Cruz eligible to be president?

    Comment by Diane Kozlowski | March 23, 2015 | Reply

  35. Spence & Publius;

    The Congress is LIMITED in its involvement of ‘immigration” by A1 Section 9 Clause 1;

    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    The “original concern was, of course, the continued importation of African slaves, along with Indentured and Bond Servants from the European countries.

    But in construing the Clause I perceive that the Fed is LIMITED to PROHIBITING ‘migration & importation” rather than DEMANDING States to accept ‘migration & importation” of persons known and or unknown.

    Comment by slcraignbc | March 22, 2015 | Reply

    • Well, after 1808, Congress got the power to ban the importation of new slaves and to control immigration.

      But we never delegated to Congress the power to supply businesses here with cheap foreign workers….

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2015 | Reply

    • ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution states;

      “the Congress shall have Power to establish an UNIFORM Rule of Naturalization throughout the United States.”

      I don’t know how you could make naturalization law without making immigration law too

      Comment by Spense | March 22, 2015 | Reply

      • Actually, they are different: “Naturalization” refers to how an immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen.

        Immigration refers to who comes here to live.

        Before 1808, people flooded in here unchecked – mostly Christians from Western Europe. During 1808, Congress got the power to restrict immigration.

        But Congress always had the power to make uniform laws on naturalization (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4).

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2015 | Reply

  36. Hi PH, I have been looking for the constitutional authority for congress to create a H-1B temporary worker visa program. I thought maybe it would fall under their power over immigration. But after looking up the word [immigration} I see it doesn’t qualify because the 1828 Webster’s say immigration is for the taking up of “Permanent” residence. Plus, the U.S. Immigration website states “…a H-1B visa which is a non-immigrant work visa.” I feel confident when I say; I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of corruption, against their American worker constituents. When one considers that congress’ granted enumerated powers were given to provide for the “general welfare of America”; causing thousands of Americans to be unemployed is certainly not good for the general welfare of America! What say you?

    What put this rock in my boot is an extended family member lost her job to a H-1B foreign worker. She was VERY qualified for and good at her job, but she had almost 15 years experience and was at the upper end of the pay scale so she became expendable because of this unconstitutional program. She is currently working to get a Master’s after being unable to find another employer. And she lives in the Chicago area. I did some research and found that a large utility company in Southern California is replacing their entire, 1200 member IT staff with H-1B foreign workers from India. The H-1B program rules state when employers submit applications for H-1B visas that they have to prove a need for a position that they are unable to fill with American workers. No one can tell me the entire 1200 member IT staff at that utility company isn’t qualified to do IT work, I don’t believe it. The unconstitutionally granted program is being abused by greedy companies and congress does nothing. It would be interesting to see how many of these H-1B using companies donated to congressional re-election campaign funds; but that is another issue…..

    Comment by Spense | March 22, 2015 | Reply

    • I also can not undertake to lay my finger on that provision of the federal Constitution which authorizes Congress to get involved in employment matters and workers’ visas.
      Your analysis is correct. I am so sorry for your family member.
      We pay a heavy price when we elect to Congress people who don’t know the Constitution and who don’t care enough to learn it.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2015 | Reply

      • Its true, what you don’t know will hurt you. And you have to be exceptionally foolish to trust the federal government!

        Comment by Spense | March 22, 2015 | Reply


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 986 other followers

%d bloggers like this: