Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

2,369 Comments »

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

    Thanks for all you do.

    Like

    Comment by Gary | May 24, 2016 | Reply

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 24, 2016 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Gary | May 26, 2016 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Poplicola | May 22, 2016 | Reply

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 22, 2016 | Reply

      • Can we hang her for treason though?

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 22, 2016 | Reply

        • We MUST wait till after her trial!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 22, 2016 | Reply

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

    Like

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

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

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

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | May 21, 2016 | Reply

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

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Chris J | May 20, 2016 | Reply

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

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

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | May 17, 2016 | Reply

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

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Con Ma | May 19, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 20, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

    Thanks again!

    Like

    Comment by Poplicola | May 17, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 17, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 17, 2016 | Reply

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 17, 2016 | Reply

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

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

            Like

            Comment by topcat1957 | May 17, 2016

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

            It is a GREAT Quote – thank you!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 17, 2016

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

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

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

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 17, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 17, 2016 | Reply

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

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | May 14, 2016 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | May 14, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 14, 2016 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | May 14, 2016 | Reply

        • remember that

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

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

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 14, 2016 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | May 13, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | May 13, 2016 | Reply

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

      Like

      Comment by topcat1957 | May 13, 2016 | Reply

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

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Dwain Decell | May 15, 2016 | Reply

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

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by bobmontgomery | May 13, 2016 | Reply

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

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | May 13, 2016 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Linda Demaree | May 7, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2016 | Reply

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

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | May 7, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 7, 2016 | Reply

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

      Like

      Comment by Spense | May 8, 2016 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | May 8, 2016 | Reply

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Spense | May 8, 2016 | Reply

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 8, 2016 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Sorry to ramble on a bit there.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by topcat1957 | May 9, 2016 | Reply

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 9, 2016

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

            Like

            Comment by topcat1957 | May 9, 2016

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

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by bobmontgomery | May 9, 2016

        • You are so right.

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

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

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

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

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by topcat1957 | May 9, 2016 | Reply

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

            Like

            Comment by Con Ma | May 19, 2016


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,884 other followers

%d bloggers like this: