Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

4,006 Comments »

  1. Hello Publius Huldah,

    I have a few questions

    1. In part, Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3 of the United States Constitution delegate to Congress the power “To regulate Commerce… with the Indian Tribes”. What is the extent of this power?
    2. The other day, I came to the conclusion that the FBI is an unconstitutional federal agency. But then, I thought about article 4, section 4 of the United States Constitution, which states the following: ” the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Let’s say we had domestic terrorists who are threatening to overthrow the Republican system of government of one of the states, could a federal agency like the FBI lawfully apprehend them in pursuant to this delegated authority?

    Like

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | December 6, 2019 | Reply

    • 1. Someone asked me before about regulating trade with the Indians. I responded by posting a link to this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/read-the-commerce-clause-in-the-light-cast-by-the-other-parts-of-our-constitution/
      That is the extent of my knowledge on that issue. I don’t know more because, to my knowledge, it hasn’t been an issue.

      2. Our Constitution delegates to Congress a specifically limited criminal jurisdiction. I laid it all out here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/us-criminal-code/

      Any criminal Prosecutor will tell you that they base their prosecutions on criminal investigations done by others: By the police, or the sheriff, for the US Army the Criminal Investigation Division (CID), etc. Federal prosecutors – for the handful of crimes the federal gov’t has constitutional authority to prosecute, need investigations also.

      I haven’t read the Charter for the FBI, but it would be constitutional for the federal gov’t to set up an agency to investigate suspected violations of the criminal statutes the feds have constitutional authority to prosecute.

      3. Your point about domestic terrorists raises a complex issue:

      The liberals & progressives & globalists have convinced most Americans that domestic terrorists should be treated as “criminals”. As a former criminal defense attorney, I know exactly what that means: it means my clients are entitled to a whole host of due process and other protections.

      But I say we must distinguish between “criminals” and domestic terrorists. Domestic terrorists are making war against the United States and they should NOT be handled in the criminal courts. A movie was made some decades ago about the Soviets invading the United States. If that happens, should the United States try to capture the Soviet soldiers and prosecute them as terrorists?

      Heck no! They have made war on us and we should respond militarily.

      It is impossible to overstate the damage done to our Country by the de facto policy of open borders which has been in effect since Wrong Turn Teddy’s Immigration and Reform Act of 1965.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 6, 2019 | Reply

  2. PH, for some time, Texas has encouraged businesses and, by extension, Liberals from other States to resettle in that State. As a direct result, Texans are becoming concerned about the influx of those “economic migrants” from other States who bring with them their short-sighted Progressive mindset as well. I dub them “liberal locusts”. Worried that this myopic Texas policy of encouraging libs to populate their once crimson State is rapidly transforming Texas into another cuckoo’s nest of liberal insanity and subversion, I recall hearing a call-in to some patriot radio station suggesting that States prohibit newly resettled folks from other States to vote until they’ve resided in the State for at least 5-10 years, this to ensure that these migrants are properly acculturated. In any event, could a State impose such a restriction on American migrants from other States? Art I Sec 4 discusses the mechanics of State elections only and 14th Amendment states a citizen’s right to life, liberty and property without due process. The 15th & 19th Amendments state that a person may not be denied the right to vote on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude or sex respectively. If a State cannot impose such a restriction, and except for the State ceasing its encouraging such an unchecked influx, what can a State do?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | December 3, 2019 | Reply

    • Jim, It seems to me that this should boil down to a State issue. My State’s Constitution has the following:

      Right to register and vote. Every person who is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Georgia as defined by law, who is at least 18 years of age and not disenfranchised by this article, and who meets minimum residency requirements as provided by law shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the registration of electors.

      So reading the above, my State has the right to define residency requirements, as provided by State Law. I don’t remember what the requirement was when I moved here, but I believe you had to be a resident for six months before you could vote.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Brent Gauer | December 3, 2019 | Reply

      • Many thanks, PH. Will check TX Constitution. Merry Christmas!

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | December 3, 2019 | Reply

      • Excellent!

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | December 3, 2019 | Reply

  3. In reading an article on gun control, the author listed a number of excise (sin) taxes imposed at the federal level. So, I figured that any proposed tax on guns and ammunition (since owning one, according to some, is the greatest sin you can commit) were also sin taxes. My question to you is, since art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1 says that all excises are to be uniform, does that mean any excise on a booze product, tobacco product or guns and ammo, have to be at the same rate? Or can it vary, by product, as long as each type of such product is taxed at the same rate?
    Another way of asking this is, since the purpose of the taxing authority is for the raising of revenue to pay for the proper functions of government and not to try and change behavior, wouldn’t all the excises then have to be at the same rate?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Klaus Lindner | November 27, 2019 | Reply

    • By way of a brief introduction to the topic of excise taxes, see: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/the-plot-to-impose-a-national-sales-tax-or-value-added-tax/#comments

      1. I suggest that imposing a federal excise tax on guns and ammo would constitute an impermissible “infringement” of the right to keep and bear arms. Excise taxes are appropriate on “sin” items such as whiskey, tobacco, & junk food and gasoline (to pay for federal roads).

      2. The uniformity requirement at Art. I, Sec.8, cl.1 has to do with like items: E.g., if the feds impose an excise tax on Black Jack Daniels (e.g., 50 cents a gallon), the excise tax on that whiskey has to be the same in all the States. But they can charge, e.g., 50 cents a gallon on whiskey and 75 cents on a gallon of gasoline. The only requirement is that the tax of 75 cents per gallon be the same in all the States.

      I believe that in the early days of our Republic, an excise tax was levied on carriages – that couldn’t be imposed “per gallon”, but would have to be imposed “per carriage”. I think they also imposed an excise tax on certain types of paper.

      The feds can impose an excise tax on cigarettes – e.g., $1.00 a pack.

      So “gallons”, “carriages”, “sheets of paper”, “packs of cigarettes”, etc., – it would be impossible to impose an excise tax on all of the items at the same rate. Remember! Excise taxes are imposed on units of goods – they are not based on the value of the item – such as a sales tax.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 30, 2019 | Reply

      • Dear PH,

        in re your remark about the sales tax based on the value of the item, that got me to thinking about equality. For now, sales taxes are only a state matter, but if somebody buys the same item(s) at a different chain/dealer/store, he may pay a higher or lower tax depending on the price that venue charges. I suppose that’s up to the states, but what if there is, as some are clamoring for, a national sales tax? Would there be a problem?

        Like

        Comment by Bob Montgomery | December 2, 2019 | Reply

        • When different stores sell the same items but at different prices, naturally, the amount of sales tax paid would be different in the various stores. And different States impose higher or lower sales taxes. Some States impose sales tax on food – other States don’t impose sales taxe on food. Nothing in the Federal Constitution prohibits this long-established practice.

          The requirement of “uniformity” applies to the federally imposed taxes (import tariffs & excises) authorized at Article I, Section 8, clause 1, US Constitution. So if the feds levy an import tariff on tea from China, the feds must assess the same rate on the imported Chinese Tea throughout the United States. The same for excises: If the feds impose an excise of 50 cents per gallon of whiskey – they must assess that same amount throughout the United States.

          Oh yes, that “Compact for America” gang came up with a phony “balanced budget amendment” which would authorize Congress to impose a national sales tax AND a national value added tax (VAT) in addition to keeping and increasing the income tax. I’ve been warning about that malignant proposed amendment for years. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/compact-for-america/

          Yes, Congress would need an amendment to the US Constitution authorizing it to impose a national sales tax or a national VAT.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 3, 2019 | Reply

  4. Hello Publius,
    I have a few questions. First, as I continue to hear about the Democrats attacking the president with the claim that the president behaved inappropriately when he was conversing with the president of Ukraine, regarding corruption and the military funding that we give to that country, I couldn’t help but to wonder about the constitutionality our federal government handing over military aid to a foreign country. Our Federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to Congress the power to send military aid to a foreign country. It seems to me that if the United States entered into a treaty with the Ukraine that involved the United States giving them military aid, it would be a lawful treaty. Am I correct? Second, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 states, in part, the following: “To regulate Commerce…with the Indian Tribes”. What is the extent of Congress’s power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes? I have noticed that the Fifth Amendment use the word “person” and the Sixth Amendment uses the word “accused”. None of the Bill of Rights use the word “citizens”. Does this mean that the Bill of Rights apply to both foreigners and citizens alike? Thanks.

    Like

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | November 18, 2019 | Reply

    • Love that last question. Am sure PH will answer authoritatively. I too await her analysis.

      Like

      Comment by jim delaney | November 18, 2019 | Reply

      • Are you on Facebook, Jim?

        Like

        Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | November 18, 2019 | Reply

        • Sure am. Can’t keep my fingers off the keys. A number of Jim Delaneys on Facebook. My site is the one with pix of me wearing blue jacket with “US Citizen:emblazoned on the back. Am facing the Washington Monument. My nephew took the pix when we were attending a Tea Party rally in DC a few years ago. So thankful he took the pix. Check out my FB site so I can friend you.

          Like

          Comment by jim delaney | November 18, 2019 | Reply

    • 1. Military Aid to foreign countries: It is true that our US Constitution doesn’t expressly delegate to the fed gov’t power to provide “military aid” to foreign countries. HOWEVER, one of the great purposes for which the 13 States ratified the Constitution was to create a national gov’t which was empowered to “provide for the common defense” (See Preamble; Article I, Sec. 8, clause 1; and the specific grants of power in Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 2, 3, & 10-14.)

      Federalist 23 is the key paper on explaining the extent of the fed gov’ts power in this area. Hamilton says,

      “The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense….”

      So, let’s look at Iran. They have said that with their nuclear program, they will wipe out Israel and the United States. We should take that threat seriously and stop their nuclear program, one way or the other. We could stop them (1) by attacking them directly and sending our fighter jets over there to bomb their nuclear sites; or (2) we can provide financial assistance or military aid to allies – such as Israel – or to resistance groups within Iran itself.

      I am not an expert in foreign affairs or in military strategy, but I can see that situations would arise when it is in the clear and proper & just interests of our Country for the fed gov’t to provide assistance to foreign countries or to resistance groups within enemy countries to assist them in taking down our mutual enemies.

      Our Framers expected us to place in office virtuous and wise men who were capable of deciding when the United States should take such actions as I describe above. We have failed miserably in this regard. [E.g., we elected Bill Clinton who bombed an aspirin factory to detract attention from his scandalous affair with Monica Lewinsky.]

      2. If the United States entered into a treaty with the Ukraine that involved the United States giving them military aid, would it be a lawful treaty?

      If there is such a Treaty, I haven’t read it. Since I have no knowledge of this, I can’t comment except to say that the United States should not enter into ANY Treaties which don’t protect our legitimate national interests.

      3. Regulation of commerce with the Indian Tribes: The Federalist Papers have very little to say of this – and I don’t remember much of this from history. However, this paper should help on the general issue of the fed gov’t’s power to “regulate trade” among the foreign countries, between the States, and with the Indian Tribes. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/read-the-commerce-clause-in-the-light-cast-by-the-other-parts-of-our-constitution/

      4. It is impossible to overstate how our Country has been messed up – and has become totally out-of-kilter – due to unrestricted immigration of third world welfare parasites OR subversives [OR BOTH] flooding into our Country. WE ARE LITERALLY UNDER ATTACK BY THOSE WHO HAVE INVADED OUR COUNTRY WITH THE AIM OF DESTROYING US.

      I have always disliked “libertarians” – even the good-hearted among them are naive fools who take the kum by ja position that there should be no borders between countries and that everyone should be free to travel where ever he wishes. I have heard that fool, Andrew Napolitano, pontificating on this issue. Thanks in part to such fools as Napolitano, this Country has fallen into the deadly TRAP of treating these invaders as persons who are entitled to all of the protections and rights listed in the Bill of Rights. What our Country should be doing right now is massive deportations and termination of all welfare benefits to the invaders.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 19, 2019 | Reply

      • The reason I was a bit confused about your response is because I interpreted the “provide for the common defense” clause in the same way that I interpreted the “general welfare” clause. I thought that both of the clauses merely states the purpose for which the enumerated powers of Congress that follow the clauses are to be exercised by Congress. I reasoned that, since James Madison said that the general welfare clause doesn’t delegate any power to the federal government, the provide for the common defense clause must not delegate any power to the federal government either, since they appear in the same sentence. In federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton seemed to suggest that the “provide for the common defense” clause delegates discretionary powers to Congress to take any action that they think should be taken in the interest of the common defense of the United States. If that clause delegates to Congress such discretionary authority, why did the founders follow this clause with a list of enumerated powers such as, the power to declare war, support armies, provide for a Navy, Grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and call out the militia in service of the United States under certain conditions? Was I wrong when I thought that the United States Constitution intended for Congress to carry out its responsibility to “provide for the common defense”, by exercising some of the enumerated powers that follow that clause?

        Like

        Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | November 26, 2019 | Reply

        • Your analysis is correct. Congress does “provide for the common Defense” by exercising those specific grants of power at Article I, Section 8, clauses 11-16. They also are supposed to provide for the common Defense by exercising their power to control Immigration (Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1). The President and the Senate also may provide for the common Defense by making Treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 2). Article IV, Sec. 4 imposes on the federal government the DUTY to protect each of the States against invasion. The federal government also may provide for the common defense by prosecuting traitors (Art. III, Sec.3); but our federal gov’t and Country have long been infested with traitors and nothing is done about it.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 26, 2019 | Reply

  5. Am sure you’ve read about this travesty, but, briefly, SCOTUS refused to review a decision by CO Supreme Court which would permit victims of guns to sue the gun manufacturers. On its face it appears to be arbitrary and in defiance of an earlier law which protected manufacturers in this regard. So it not only doesn’t make sense, makes it easier for the gun control mob to eliminate guns altogether (except those secreted across the borders) and, in effect, nullfies the 2nd Amendment. What;s your take on this aggravated assault on guns and the gun industry? Does the Chief Justice alone decide whether to review lower court case? Constitutionally, should SCOTUS have reviewed the case and rendered an opinion?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | November 13, 2019 | Reply

    • This blog gives accurate info about lawsuits:

      https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/supreme-court-will-not-halt-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-remington/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=5083a2ea-8cae-49a5-bb21-da59355d2c6a

      I don’t follow the various lawsuits, but if you want to, this is the best blog for litigation out there. The head of the blog is a law professor and usually on the right side. I do subscribe to the blog because it is a very good blog for litigation.

      When a party looses a case in a State Supreme Court, that party sometimes has the right [depending on the issues in the case: e.g., Is there “a federal question” involved in the litigation?] to petition the US Supreme Court to review the case [we call this “a petition for Writ of Certiorari”.

      Assuming the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case [e.g., it has “federal question” jurisdiction], it is within the discretion of the US Supreme Court as to whether they decide to hear the case [and perhaps overturn the State Supreme Court] or whether they “deny cert” and let the State Supreme Court decision stand.

      So now what happens is that litigation against Remington may proceed in the Connecticut State Court system. But the Sandy Hook families have a long road to travel before they win. I’ve been involved in so much litigation that I see the US supreme Court’s denial of cert as a mere roadblock – so now, defense counsel must find other ways to win …. !

      But yes, the globalists want to disarm us – and they need to get it done before Americans understand – after the fact – WHY some of us have devoted the last several years of our lives to try to STOP an Article V convention. When Americans finally see the outcome of what they asked for, they will be really angry – and the globalists need them to have been disarmed by then.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 13, 2019 | Reply

  6. In an 8-0 vote Tuesday night, the city council of Tacoma, Wash., approved new taxes on the sales of firearms and ammunition.

    When the taxes take effect July 1, 2020, gun buyers will pay a $25 tax on each purchase, plus 2 cents per round on ammunition of .22 caliber or less, and 5 cents per round on all other types of ammunition, the News Tribune of Tacoma reported. IS THERE ANY FEDERAL OR STATE JUSTIFICATION FOR SURE NONSENSE ???? THANK YOU.

    Like

    Comment by madelyn thide | November 13, 2019 | Reply

    • If Washington has a recall statute, voters in Tacoma might be able to get those dunderheads recalled. Seems that something similar was done in another State (Colorado?) several years ago when elected officials voted to restrict or prohibit possession of arms.

      See the Constitution for the State of Washington: http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Documents/12-2010-WAStateConstitution.pdf

      “SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

      Does the tax “impair” the right to bear arms? It would be good for any gun rights groups in Washington State to get with a good lawyer who could research the Washington court opinions and rulings on this.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 13, 2019 | Reply

      • In Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) the the USSC said about charging a license fee, but it’s still a right, they said: “A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” I know that they used the word granted instead of guaranteed. Wouldn’t that same principle apply to sec. 24 of the Washington Constitution in this Tacoma case?

        Like

        Comment by Klaus Lindner | November 20, 2019 | Reply

        • EXCELLENT point, Klaus! Thank you!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 22, 2019 | Reply

    • In my opinion, increasing the cost(fees & taxes) to keep & bear arms is nothing short of infringement. “The power to tax is the power to destroy,” wrote John Marshall, memorably, for a unanimous Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 193 years ago. And that is exactly what the gun grabbing communists on the council in Washington state are doing to the constitutionally protected right to keep & bear arms…. using fees and taxes to destroy a God given right. What they are doing is unconstitutional in my opinion. The Washington state constitution, Article one, Declaration of Rights, SECTION 24, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be IMPAIRED, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” No rational think person can say increasing the cost of gun & ammo ownership impairs the right of the individual citizen. What the council did is a usurpation and despicable. http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx

      Like

      Comment by Spense | November 13, 2019 | Reply

      • The People of Washington State need to find a competent lawyer to argue this for them. I STRONGLY ADVISE THAT THE LAWYER MAKE HIS ARGUMENTS BASED ON WHAT THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS – NOT on the US CONSTITUTION. If he does the latter, he will probably lose the case.

        A few years ago, people in Connecticut hired a “fancy” law firm to challenge the Constitutionality of a state gun registration statute which violated the Connecticut Constitution. We advised that they base their arguments on the undeniable fact that the State Statute violated the State Constitution, and that they file it in State Court.

        But oh no, the fancy lawyers filed it in federal court and claimed it violated the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. For a variety of reasons, that was the worst argument they could make. Needless, to say, they lost the case.

        I’d be glad to consult behind the scenes and for free with a lawyer whom the people of Washington State hire.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | November 16, 2019 | Reply

    • Correction: I meant to write, “No rational thinking person can say increasing the cost of gun & ammo ownership doesn’t impair the right of the individual citizen to keep & bear arms.” . Not everyone is wealthy…… poor people have rights too!

      Like

      Comment by Spense | November 13, 2019 | Reply

      • Amen!

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | November 16, 2019 | Reply

  7. Hi PH, I seem to remember you writing a paper on Art one, section,9, clause one ( Migration & Importation of persons) , but am unable to find it. Do you have a link for it? Thanks!

    Like

    Comment by Spense | November 12, 2019 | Reply

    • Oh Spense! I’ve never gotten around to writing the paper on immigration – though have addressed it from time to time in the Comments. If you type immigration in the search box for comments, you’ll get it – at least some of it.

      The key to understanding the section is that free Europeans “migrated” here; but slaves [being property] were “imported”.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 13, 2019 | Reply

      • Okay, thanks PH

        Like

        Comment by Spense | November 13, 2019 | Reply

  8. Publius, I know you wrote an article warning about a Constitutional Convention, but is this (from a friend) any better?:

    (The) “Constitutional convention isn’t the same as an Article 5 Convention of States. Opposition uses the term Constitutional Convention to misrepresent COS. Article 5 of our Constitution was put in to give us a way to reign in an out of control Federal government. It takes 34 states to ratify any changes to the constitution. What could be more Democratic than that? And it is the States that have to vote to accept, not the Feds., thus bringing the power back to the States and away from the swamp in DC.”
    I am attempting to educate myself on our Founding documents, so I will be equipped to defend our rights, in my sphere of influence – but I’ve only just begun…

    Thank you for replying.

    Lee

    Like

    Comment by leeboardway | November 8, 2019 | Reply

    • I should have said I believe you wrote an article on COS. I may be mistaken…

      Like

      Comment by leeboardway | November 8, 2019 | Reply

      • For several years, I’ve been warning Americans of the danger of an Article V convention and exposing false claims told by convention proponents.

        Here is my most recent paper on it: Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution: What “Convention of States Project” (COS) isn’t telling you

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | November 8, 2019 | Reply

        • Thank you. I don’t mean to dominate your time, but my friend replied to your response with this:
          “All well and good but as informed as she seems, she is reading other things into her argument, as I see it. And it’s her arguments against COS that I see gives more fuel to the need for COS! The argument that all power lies in the federal government and not the states is not how I read our constitution and it’s original intent. Although slavery was made as the cause for the Civil War, it was not the only cause. States rights were also under attack, and at the end of the war was the Federal government empowered to centralize it’s power base, taking from the States – thus giving us the mess we have today.
          Another point that she doesn’t bring up was that our Constitution was crafted by State Delegates.. hmm what a novel idea !! lol..”

          Publius, I am only seeking the truth. While my friend is truly my friend, I would defer to you, as you have the background to speak with authority.

          Lee

          Like

          Comment by leeboardway | November 8, 2019 | Reply

          • DID YOU NOTICE:

            1. That your Friend didn’t produce a quote to substantiate his initial claim that “Article 5 of our Constitution was put in to give us a way to reign in an out of control Federal government”. I challenged him on that – produce the quote, I said – but he ignored my challenge, and you didn’t call him on it!

            2. That your friend didn’t respond to anything else I said;

            3. That your friend said, I was “reading other things into [my] argument”, but he failed to identify anything I “read in”.

            4. That your friend asserted that my “argument [apparently with respect to “calling” and setting up the convention] that all power lies in the federal government and not the states is not how [he] read[s] our constitution and it’s original intent”; but he fails to identify where I made a mistake. He fails to identify anything in our Constitution which gives to the State any power to do anything with respect to a Convention other than “apply” to Congress for Congress to “call” a convention.

            5. That your friend’s last “shot” is “Another point that she doesn’t bring up was that our Constitution was crafted by State Delegates.. hmm what a novel idea !! lol.”

            Oh my, your friend is desperate. When the Continental Congress, by resolution of Feb. 21, 1787, “called” the convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”, Congress specifically authorized the States to appoint Delegates. So yes, the States chose the Delegates and instructed them as set forth in THIS Flyer. https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/delegate-flyer-011019-1.pdf But the Delegates ignored their instructions from the Congress – and from their States – and wrote a new Constitution which created a completely new government. The Continental Congress chose to permit the States to select the Delegates to the federal amendments convention of 1787. But where does Article V of our Constitution require Congress to permit the States to select delegates to an Article V convention? It doesn’t! Therefore, since Congress has constitutional power to “call” the Convention, and since Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause, grants to Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its power to “call” the convention, it follows that Congress has the power to make laws deciding how Delegates will be selected. Accordingly, Congress has the power to appoint themselves as Delegates.

            6. That your friend changed the subject and started talking about the Civil War? Did you really not notice that?

            I hope this illustrates for you the process of actually THINKING.

            COS hirelings and their lemmings use the same two techniques over & over:

            1. They never PROVE a thing they say; and
            2. When you call them on a lie or an unsubstantiated claim, they change the subject.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 12, 2019

          • Your friend’s response is anything but compelling or cogent. But I will leave PH’s erudite reply to PH. She does it best.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Jim Delaney | November 12, 2019

    • Your friend is parroting COS propaganda – which is all lies.

      The convention everyone is talking about is the one provided for at Article V, US Constitution – the convention which Congress “calls”, and for which (pursuant to Article I, Section 8, last clause), Congress has the power to make all laws [such as how delegates are to be selected] to organize and set up.

      But COS has redefined the convention provided for at Article V as a convention which is totally controlled, from start to finish, by the States. COS is making all this stuff up! None of what they claim is in the Constitution.

      Black’s Law Dictionary defines “constitutional convention” as:

      “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.

      TLD Example: Delegates to the constitutional convention convened in 1787 quickly dispensed with any thoughts of retaining the Articles of Confederation and turned, instead, to the creation of a new Constitution.”

      https://thelawdictionary.org/constitutional-convention/

      The only power the States have is to “apply” to Congress for Congress to “call” the Convention. Once that is done, the matter is totally out of the hands of the States and is in the hands of Congress which has the constitutionally delegated authority (Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause) to make the laws necessary and proper to organize the Convention. But once the convention convenes, the Delegates have that “self-evident” right, recognized in our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the governments we now have and come up with a new Constitution with its own new mode of ratification, which creates a completely new form of government. New Constitutions are already prepared or in the works.

      It is so sad to see how COS is able to deceive people. But ignorant people are easily deceived.

      One of the reasons COS is able to deceive people is that COS tells lies! None of our Framers EVER SAID that the purpose of amendments is to rein in an out of control federal government. COS has NEVER produced the quote where a Framer said that, and COS can’t produce the quote, because no Framer ever said it. COS MADE IT UP! [Ask your friend to produce the quote! He has never seen it, he just blindly accepted what COS told him. And for that, I rap your friend’s hands with my virtual ruler. It is disgraceful to accept a statement without proof, and then go around repeating it as if it were Fact.]

      If you want to know what our Framers REALLY SAID about the purpose of amendments and the purpose of a convention, see this and look up the original source documents at the links provided. https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/rescission-flyer-020319-.pdf

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 8, 2019 | Reply

      • I pray that our present congress is not called upon to conduct a Constitutional Convention. The America we know (still) will no longer exist. It is barely hanging on now. I have read some of the pre-written and proposed “new” constitutions – in a word – scary!
        It is detestable and makes my blood boil that so many so-called “knowledgeable” people insist on referring to and calling America a “democracy”. Continually taught throughout all school grades for the last 50 years or better has brought us to the brink of the abyss we find ourselves facing today.
        It is a “Constitutional Republic” – the rule by law and not rule by democracy, or rule by mob/popular vote: as in everyone making over 50K a year, paying 25% in taxes with deductions, voting for everyone making under 50K a year paying 35% in taxes with no deductions. That is democracy. Get it right people, it is not going to change until we start stepping up to the plate and start acting like it is important.
        We will not keep our beloved America and all the principles which made it great, unless we start by practicing what is explained in Eric Metaxas book “If You Can Keep It”. The trifecta of freedom requires: Virtue – Virtue requires Faith – Faith requires Freedom. Without those principles being constantly practiced, and living by those principles, this experiment in self governing will surely fail – it CANNOT happen!
        I thank you PH for your untiring effort and determination to keep us educated and informed on the principles this country was founded upon.

        Like

        Comment by N S | November 9, 2019 | Reply

        • Thank you, NS! I haven’t read Eric Metaxas’ book, but it is clear that the ONLY solution to our problems is an intellectual, religious, and moral REGENERATION of the American People.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 9, 2019 | Reply

  9. Hello. I have just subscribed to your blog, and am overjoyed to see someone with the same convictions and love for our Founding Documents and principles.
    My question is: are political oaths (to support, uphold, and defend the Constitution) of office legally binding? In other words, if there is an attempt to weaken or even subvert our protected rights, can we legally sue to have the offenders removed? If not, what recourse do we have, when surrounded by uninformed, ignorant, self-serving voters who elect people who care nothing for the vital protection of our system of government?
    I am extremely concerned and outraged at what politicians are doing and attempting to do to our Constitutional rights.

    Like

    Comment by leeboardway | November 2, 2019 | Reply

    • One of the peculiarities of modern day Americans is their belief that the solution to most problems is to file a lawsuit. Yes, they want to let the Government – in the person of the Judge – solve their problems and tell the parties what to do. We have been conditioned to believe that. But it is a lie.

      The Truth is this: There is no political or legal solution to our problems. Our problems are caused by the intellectual, philosophical, religious, and moral collapse of the American People. When people elected to public office violate their Oaths of Office – but the American People keep supporting them and keep re-electing them – there is no “fix”, no “cure”, no “remedy” except for a complete Moral, Religious, and Intellectual regeneration of the People.

      Another of the peculiarities of modern day Americans is that they want a “quick fix” to all their problems. They want a band-aid
      they want to treat the symptoms of their problems – THEY DO NOT WANT TO ADDRESS THE CAUSE OF THEIR PROBLEMS. Oh no! They want to keep doing that which caused the problem, but they want a “fix” so they don’t have to suffer the consequences of their wrong-doing.

      Yes, we are in trouble. But the Bible is an awesome history book: It illustrates what causes Countries to collapse and tells us what we need to do to heal our Country.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 2, 2019 | Reply

      • Thank you, Publius. I am a Christian, too, and I certainly agree that, because we have abandoned the “Primary Guidebook” (the Bible), we cannot hope to succeed in restoring our country. I do not realistically expect America to recover, yet I want to try to keep the “patient” on “life support”. My motivation for asking the question was an attempt to find a “goad”, as it were. I am frustrated to see my country being trampled and want to act, to at least stay the darkness, for awhile longer…

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by leeboardway | November 2, 2019 | Reply

        • I just finished reading Jeremiah, and am now reading Lamentations. I too want to keep the patient on life-support. There are lots of Christians in this Country. However, BAD THEOLOGY has been pushed on them from the pulpits – so most Christians have been neutralized. The Christians turned the culture, law, civil government, etc., over to Caesar to manage while the Christians retreated and focused on saving individual souls [Caesar found this VERY convenient.] So because Christians have been focused on withdrawal from the culture and ESCAPE [they are going to be raptured out of here any day now, they think], our culture went down the toilet. In essence, I think the root sins of these Christians are laziness and cowardice: It’s always easier to do nothing about a problem instead of doing something about the problem; and they didn’t want to challenge Caesar, so they turned our Country over to him. I can’t understand how any pastor could agree to SHUT UP ABOUT MATTERS OF THE CULTURE in order to get a 501 (c)(3) exemption for the donors to his “church”. As someone said, modern day American Pastors – particularly in the mega churches – are really CEO’s of 501 (3) (c) organizations.

          And American Christians of today won’t read the Bible – some of them tell me I shouldn’t read the Hebrew Scripture – “that’s all been done away with”, they say.

          Also, these Christians were painted a FALSE picture of Jesus. Jesus was actually a kick-ass man who didn’t mince words when dealing with wicked people. And He fashioned a whip and drove the money lenders out of the Temple. But modern day Christians are WIMPS who are sooooooooo “non-judgmental” about evil. And they have a totally false conception of God – they view God as someone who INDISCRIMINATELY JUST “LOVES” EVERYBODY – Hillary Clinton and Mother Teresa are the same in the eyes of their false God.

          So Americans have been seriously mislead and deceived by their pastors. These worthless pastors have much to answer for. Some of them are getting a spine – and a few always had one – but whether this will bear fruit in our time is yet to be seen.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 3, 2019 | Reply

  10. Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution states, in part: ‘No State shall… emit Bills of Credit”. That means, when the states ratified the Constitution, they agreed that they would not use paper money. If a state charters a state bank that emits bills of credit, would that state be violating this part of the United States Constitution?

    Like

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | November 1, 2019 | Reply

    • That’s an interesting question. Certainly, you and I, as private Citizens, may lawfully make an arrangement where I borrow 100 ounces of silver from you and give you a “promissory note” in exchange – a promise to pay you back in silver coin. The government has nothing to do with that; except that, if I fail to pay you back, you can take me to Court and get a judgment enforcing the Note.

      But when a State government charters a state bank, and the state chartered bank issues paper money, the State would be violating Article I, Sec. 10, cl. 1.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 1, 2019 | Reply

  11. Ma’am,

    I have another question: how is it that both houses of Congress are approving treaties now? One of the MAJOR issues I had with NAFTA was that the House was involved in passing it, while only the Senate has sole purview here. Secondly, NAFTA should’ve been passed by 2/3 of the Senators present, not a simple majority! I remember shaking my head at the time, because no one in media was discussing this.

    They’re doing the same with the USMCA. The issues of the USMCA are a separate issue, but the problem that everyone’s kvetching about Nancy Pelosi and her merry Democrat band not bringing it up for a vote. She and the House are not SUPPOSED to vote on it! It’s a treaty, so it’s not under the House’s purview at all! Am I the only one who sees this? I’m no Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that people are either woefully ignorant of what COTUS says, or they simply don’t care and ignore it.

    Black’s Law Dictionary agrees with me. I looked up their definition the word treaty. They say that it’s an agreement between two or more independent states. That’s fine so far. My question is this: how can they call a treaty an “agreement” and get around Article II, Section 2, Clause 2? Even if they call it an agreement, since that agreement is between two or more states, does this not make USMCA a treaty anyway, regardless of what they call it? Isn’t a rose by any other name still a rose? As such, why is Nancy Pelosi and the House involved in USMCA? The ignorance just APPALLS me…

    That’s the end of my question/rant. Thank you, and good night…

    Like

    Comment by MarkyMark | October 29, 2019 | Reply

    • You said it right and very well. I couldn’t have written it better myself. The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 30, 2019 | Reply

      • Hi PH, am I correct in saying the house has the authority to vote on a treaty, if the treaty subject is not allowed by the US Constitution. Doesn’t the house have the duty to vote down such a proposed treaty?

        Like

        Comment by Spense | October 30, 2019 | Reply

        • Respecting ratification of a Treaty, the House has NO ROLE to play. Only the President & Senate are involved in the “making” of Treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, US Constitution).

          However, as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, when implementing legislation is needed to implement a Treaty – THE HOUSE CAN KILL THE TREATY BY REFUSING TO PASS IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/
          [See subpoint 7 in hot pink]

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 30, 2019 | Reply

          • Ph, thanks! Very interesting… the more i learn, the more I see the genius of the US Constitution.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Spense | October 30, 2019

          • Same here! Look, e.g., at how much is said at Article I, Sec. 1 – it’s new in the history of mankind.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 30, 2019

      • Along these same lines, I also have another question. Article I, Section 5, the first clause defines a majority necessary for a quorum to do business. In the Senate’s case that would be 51 Senators to do business.

        With that in mind, in Article I, Section 3, clause 6, and in Article II, Section 2, clause 2 what is or does the word “present” mean? If it means those answering roll call, then the lowest number to be present would be 51 senators for a quorum to do business, the highest would be 100 or any number between 51 and 100. So, 51 “present,” if that is the case, then two thirds of 51 which is 34 is all that would be required to do business, or to convict for an impeachment or to concur for a treaty. So with 100 present, the number would be 67 to convict for impeachment or to concur for a treaty.

        Now Article II, Section 2, clause 2 also continues for the President on nominating and with appointing Ambassadors, public Ministers & Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the U.S. There is no mention of the word “present” for these nominating persons. Does “present” also apply to all of them?

        As another example, if one looks at Article V. for Amendments, it states two thirds of both Houses are required to propose Amendments. We don’t see the word “present” in that sentence, therefore 67 Senators would be required as long as there are 50 States in the Union to propose Amendments and two thirds of the total House population.

        So if in Article I, Section 3 and Article II, Section 2, is to apply to all members, why bother with the word “present?”

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Brent Gauer | October 30, 2019 | Reply

        • Note that I edited your post – but only to provide my favorite thing in writings….. paragraph breaks. [But you are in good company, James Madison didn’t use them either].

          Right, there must always be a Quorum (Art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 1) before any business can be conducted in either House.

          So a trial in the Senate of an Impeachment can’t take place unless a Quorum is present. So at least 51 of the Senators must be present for the Trial to take place. And at least two thirds of the Senators “present” [which would be anywhere from 51 to 100 Senators] would have to agree before the person can be convicted. (Art. I, Sec.3, cl. 6).

          [Now here is an important point: Dr. Alan Keyes says that the two thirds requirement for conviction applies only when the President is being tried. Dr. Keyes says that to convict all other persons, only a simple majority is required. Dr. Keyes comes to this conclusion due to the structure of the sentence. I don’t know – I need the time to research this to find out what our Framers said.]

          A vote in the Senate on ratification of a Treaty can’t take place unless a Quorum is present. So at least 51 of the Senators must be present when the vote is taken. And at least two thirds of the Senators present [which, again would be anywhere from 51 to 100 Senators] would have to agree before the Treaty can be ratified. (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.2)

          But for the various appointments of Judges and officers mentioned at Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, only a simple majority of votes (a quorum being present) from the Senate is required for confirmation.

          Article V sets forth the most stringent voting requirements which appear in our Constitution. Congress can’t take either of the two actions described at Article V unless two thirds of both Houses agree. That means two thirds of the 100 US Senators and two thirds of the 435 voting Representatives must agree.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 30, 2019 | Reply

          • SO, just to be sure I’m reading this right Ony 2/3 of those PRESENT, so long as they number 51 to 100, is all that is needed to convict the President. Correct?

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | October 30, 2019

          • Yes.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 30, 2019

  12. Ma’am,

    I got into a discussion about the Federal Reserve on Twitter. I submit that it’s unconstitutional because it’s CONGRESS’ job to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, per Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. In order to delegate this function to another entity, wouldn’t it be necessary to amend the Constitution? I say yes. Whether or not The Fed is a good thing is a different debate. I submit that passing a mere law isn’t sufficient for delegation of a key duty; it would seem to me that the Constitution should’ve been amended to allow The Fed.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by MarkyMark | October 29, 2019 | Reply

    • All that you say is True.

      I would just add that the Fed was a wicked – evil, really – idea which destroyed our Country. It allowed the federal gov’t to have access to unlimited amounts of credit which it used to corrupt the People and to set up the socialist regulatory welfare state we have today. See So you think Trump wants to get rid of the Fed?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 30, 2019 | Reply

  13. Aside from replacing all district judges–or eliminating those courts– with conservative judges, how else can these rogue courts be reined in? I don’t think the Constitution contemplated lower court opinions applying to issues of a national scope, did it? And assuming that only SCOTUS opinions, if they themselves are lawful, can legally affect Executive actions, why doesn’t Trump just ignore those nutty district opinions and so-called orders? Lack of courage, knowledge, political courage?

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | October 28, 2019 | Reply

    • I should write an article explaining the 10 categories of cases the federal courts have constitutional jurisdiction to hear. I’ve given speeches about it – so have already done all mental work.

      Federal judges can be controlled in two ways: (1) The people we elect to Congress should impeach rouge judges and remove them from the Bench and (2) President Trump should tell them, “OK, big guys. You’ve made your decision – now enforce it.”

      Why doesn’t Trump do that? Well, he doesn’t share his thoughts with me, but my guess is that he doesn’t know that he can do what I just said and that it is his DUTY to refuse to enforce federal court orders & judgments which violate the Constitution.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 28, 2019 | Reply

      • Isn’t that a Pandora’s Box which would work to discredit the court?

        Like

        Comment by llotter2013 | October 28, 2019 | Reply

        • Oh no! What is a disgrace is when the Executive Branch enforces unconstitutional federal court opinions. The President’s Duty is to his Oath of office – it is NEVER to obey the federal judges. Besides, Alexander Hamilton mentioned this same remedy in Federalist No. 78, 6th para. I wrote about it here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/06/30/how-states-can-man-up-and-stop-abortion/

          CHECKS & BALANCES! The President must “check” the powers of the federal courts by refusing to enforce their unconstitutional orders and judgments.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 28, 2019 | Reply

      • Althugh I’ve read and heard much of your work, I eagerly look forward to the paper. Thanks, PH.

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | October 29, 2019 | Reply

  14. Yes. We can’t believe in a deity but we are supposed to believe that a Supernatural Supreme Court created itself and everything flowed from there.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Bob Montgomery | October 28, 2019 | Reply

    • Brilliant!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 28, 2019 | Reply

  15. What about the Treaties signed by other Presidents like the one Clinton did in I think it was 1988 or 89. That allows The President to ask the Ukraine President to check in to Criminal matters between that Country and the US?

    Like

    Comment by Mort | October 28, 2019 | Reply

    • Well, I don’t know about the particular Treaty you mention, but every President has the Duty to refuse to enforce a Treaty which is unconstitutional or otherwise improper.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 28, 2019 | Reply

  16. Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states, in part, the following: “this Constitution, and the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land”. When it comes to the federal government, only Congress can make law. By stating “which shall be made in pursuance thereof”, the clause is stating that, in order for a law to qualify as “the supreme law of the land”, that law has to be relating to a power that has been delegated to Congress. When it comes to the federal government entering into treaties with foreign governments, only treaties that had been made prior to the ratification of the Constitution, and treaties that are made “under the authority of the United States”, qualify as being the supreme law of the land. Do the phrases “made in pursuance thereof” and “made, or shall be made, under the authority of the United States” have the same meaning?

    Like

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | October 26, 2019 | Reply

    • In essence, YES!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 26, 2019 | Reply

  17. Ms. Hulda,
    I’ve read your arguments regarding Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”, and am convinced that our founders understood it, agreed with Vattel, and applied it accordingly. But, someone recently pointed out that congress amended the constitution per U.S. Code §1401 “Nationals and Citizens of United States at birth”, and overturned Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen.
    See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 which lists 8 categories of “Nationals” and “Citizens”. Item “d” defines a natural born citizen as “A person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of it outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States.”

    If the congress passed this into law, then only one of the parents must be a citizen, not necessarily the father.

    Question: Does U.S. Code §1401 “Nationals and Citizens of United States at birth” invalidate Vattel, and is it now the current law? If not, why not?
    Thank You,
    John Noble

    Like

    Comment by coolflow@comcast.net | October 25, 2019 | Reply

    • Congress has no power to amend the US Constitution by making a law! The only way the Constitution can be amended is by an Amendment which has been ratified by at least 3/4 of the States.

      Furthermore, contrary to the prevailing dogma of our time, our federal Constitution is NOT a “living, breathing document” which evolves throughout time and has the meaning which those in power choose to assign to it at any given point in time. NO ONE has the power to redefine words in the Constitution. So the words in the Constitution have the meaning today which they had when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

      Any law made by Congress which violates the Constitution is unconstitutional. If Congress purported to amend the definition of “natural Born citizen” by means of a law, that such law is a usurpation of power and is unconstitutional.

      I’ve made a short video and written several posts on NBC https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

      The Never Trumpers (who generally supported Ted Cruz for president) were foaming at the mouth furious about my video. But Cruz is a globalist, a scoundrel, an adulterer, and is NOT a “natural born citizen”. Also, it appears that he isn’t even eligible to be a US Senator! He didn’t renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014; and Article I, Section 3, cl. 3, requires that a US Senator have been a US Citizen for at least 9 years before he is elected.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 25, 2019 | Reply

      • Ms. Hulda,
        Thanks for your reply. I agree that there is a lot of spurious case laws that are not supported by constitution, but would you mind commenting on, what seems to me as being a dispassionate, fair and rational investigation on the subject presented by David Benner at the Tenth Amendment Center, and organization which expresses opinions with which you frequently agree? I have to admit that Mr. Benner makes a very persuasive argument that the issue is still unsettled. https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/01/19/natural-born-citizen-the-original-intent/

        I truly want to know the truth regarding this issue, either way. I try not to allow my emotions to cloud objective analysis.
        Thanks,
        John Noble

        Like

        Comment by coolflow@comcast.net | October 26, 2019 | Reply

        • The Tenth Amendment Center has lots of good stuff on their site; but like most sites, it also has some people writing about matters they don’t understand. Dunning-Kruger understand the problem of ignorant people not knowing that they are ignorant.

          The first clear evidence that this particular writer doesn’t know what he is talking about is his insistence that Vattel couldn’t have influenced our Framers because the English translation wasn’t available until after the Federal Convention of 1787. What this ignoramus doesn’t understand is that many of our Framers read French!

          I proved in this paper that our Framers read Vattel – even in French! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

          Americans were much better educated before public education.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 26, 2019 | Reply

          • From my understanding of it you are entirely correct in that the framers read languages other than English. From my reading, many read more than just French, and I understand that Thomas Jefferson read 6 languages and could write a good number of them. As I understand it, he wanted to read in it’s original format, French, German, whatever, so he would not run the risk of misinterpreting what he was reading and studying. And yes, Americans were much better educated during that era, even into the 50’s. Try and get any student today to pass a test given during the 50’s, most could not even comprehend the question let alone come up with correct answers… Thank you PH for all you do and bringing light upon the understanding of our Founding Documents…

            Like

            Comment by N S | October 26, 2019

          • While I’m fairly sure this probably wasn’t intentional, but who could really say. I like to believe that there is proof right within the Constitution itself that the Framers of the document used Vattel’s book Law of Nations. I refer to Article I, Section 8, the list of enumerated powers.

            Look at this one:

            To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

            Like

            Comment by Brent Gauer | October 31, 2019

          • Well, the phrase you mention certainly is an indication that our Framers relied on Vattel’s Law of Nations. However, the PROOF that they used it is laid out in my very first paper on Natural Born Citizen: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

            Some people have triumphantly crowed that our Framers couldn’t have used Vattel’s Law of Nations because it wasn’t translated into English until after the federal Convention of 1787 where our Constitution was drafted. To which I respond: God protect us from the ignorant and stupid: Our Framers obviously read French – there was a time (before public education) when all educated people everywhere learned French – it was for a long time THE international language.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 31, 2019

      • In 2016, I remember hearing a rumor that Ted Cruz cheated on his wife. I haven’t seen the proof of it. Back then, I fell for Ted Cruz. I’m smarter, now.

        Like

        Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | November 2, 2019 | Reply

        • Yes, I first heard about the adultery (with several different women) from Diamond and Silk. Then I saw it in other sources. Yes, Ted talks a good game but is THE biggest fraud ever. He probably isn’t even eligible to be US Senator! He didn’t renounce his Canadian citizenship until May of 2014 – Article I, Sec. 3, clause 3, US Constitution, requires US Senators to have been US Citizens for at least 9 years before they are elected. I have a video on why Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz aren’t eligible to be President – and link to the Canadian document showing Cruz’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/natural-born-citizen-and-naturalized-citizen-explained/

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 3, 2019 | Reply

  18. Democratic Presidential candidate Warren is proposing a wealth tax, a tax on accumulated wealth. Isn’t the only way to impose a wealth tax by a direct tax? It’s only been done four times in our history. Wouldn’t the steps be for congress to set the amount to be raised, say half a trillion dollars and then apportion that amount to each state based on the population? If California has 12% of the population, then they get charged 12% of the half trillion. It would then be up to the states to figure out how to come up with that amount.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus Lindner | October 25, 2019 | Reply

    • A “wealth” tax is unconstitutional as our Constitution does not authorize Congress to impose it. In my most recent paper, https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/so-you-think-trump-wants-to-get-rid-of-the-fed/ I explain the 3 types of taxes our original Constitution authorized Congress to impose. With the 16th Amendment, the “income” tax was authorized.

      The estate and gift taxes are and have always been unconstitutional – our Constitution doesn’t authorize Congress to impose them.

      A wealth tax would also require an amendment to the US Constitution to authorize it.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 25, 2019 | Reply

      • they dont care whats constitutional or not , they create laws at will. the feds just created a animal abuse law . whats that say ?

        Like

        Comment by hippie49 | October 25, 2019 | Reply

        • “Animal abuse” is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal gov’t over the Country at large.

          Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, next to last clause, Congress may make animal abuse laws for the federal enclaves [the District of Columbia, military bases, federal buildings, and the like]; but no where else.

          If Americans were informed, they would get rid of every person in Congress who voted for the animal abuse law.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 25, 2019 | Reply

          • oh i tried to explain that to a staffer who went to college on constitutional law . she claimed the animal abuse law fell into the catagory of title 18 sec 48 ch 3 ..under commerce.. yes .. commerce and thats when i let into her … she totally ignored it told me i need to go to law school and learn how government works… lol

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | October 25, 2019

          • oh yes , she also told me to read a book and learn how government works from it and call her back… the book is called plain honest men… and that i need to use google scholar to learn how the supreme court decides cases and that they are the final arbiter and their rulings are the force of law. whatever the supreme court rules is how it is . thats is exactly what she told me

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | October 25, 2019

          • So the “Creature” of the Constitution [the Supreme Court was created by Article III, Sec. 1], is the sole and exclusive judge of the meaning of the Document which created it?

            See? We are a Country of non-thinkers.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 26, 2019

          • you have a nation of traitors and they are being elected to offices everywhere

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | October 26, 2019

          • I’d say WE have a nation of traitors. Yes, we do and they are being elected to office. This is the rotten fruit of public education and open borders.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 26, 2019

  19. When did Americans begin to view the meaning of the United States Constitution to be a matter of subjective opinion? I thought that the view was introduced during the Progressive Era. However, as I read history, I have discovered that members of the Federalist Party abandoned the objective meaning of the Constitution. For example, George Washington signed a bill that charted the First Bank of the United States. According to the original, fixed meaning of the United States Constitution, the federal government doesn’t have the delegated authority to charter a National Bank for the country at Large.

    Like

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | October 13, 2019 | Reply

    • publius, a little different question.. i believe the federal government is mandating whats called a REAL i.d. in order to travel and i believe its by plane it could be more. where in the constitution would they get the authority to mandate them ?

      Like

      Comment by hippie49 | October 13, 2019 | Reply

      • A national ID card is TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL b/c nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to do that.

        It is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS: it will be just like the “internal passports” the Soviet People were required to have. They couldn’t travel from point A to Point B without written permission from the government.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | October 14, 2019 | Reply

        • could not a drivers license be considered an internal passport ?

          Like

          Comment by hippie49 | October 15, 2019 | Reply

          • I think you mean, “are they the same?”; and the answer is “No”. Originally, the ostensible purpose of a State driver’s license was to permit only those who had passed certain competency tests to drive on the public roads.

            But an “internal passport”, as in the Soviet Union, served the same purpose as the passport Americans need to travel abroad in foreign countries. Plus the Soviet People had to get written permission to travel from Point A to Point B.

            The State drivers’ licenses in these United States are now being transformed into items one must have in order to travel on airlines. First, airlines, then it will most likely be extended into other forms of private transportation; then perhaps to cross State borders in a privately owned vehicle.

            The globalists have big plans for us!!!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 15, 2019

    • Well, the major transformation began during the late 1800s when Darwin’s theory of “evolution” was applied to Law. See this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/how-progressive-education-and-bad-philosophy-corrupted-the-people-undermined-the-constitution-of-the-united-states/

      But almost from the beginning, some started chipping away at the enumerated powers limitations on the powers of the federal government. The first example I can think of right now is the one you mention – the First Bank of the United States. But the mindset at that time of the supporters of a national bank was not yet that the meaning of the Constitution is a matter of subjective opinion, but that Congress has the implied power to do this; we need to do this so the federal government can do its job; it will help the Country, etc.

      It was highly controversial, but no one challenged it in Court.

      when the Second National Bank was chartered [the charter of the First NB expired in 1811], it was challenged; and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the US Supreme Court held that it was constitutional. They said the powers delegated to Congress by Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 2, 3, & 11-14 PLUS the “necessary & proper” clause at Article I, Section 8, last clause, gave Congress the “implied” power to charter a National Bank.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 14, 2019 | Reply

  20. My friends thinks that the Federal Constitution prevents the States from imposing term limits on their members of Congress. I don’t see anything in the Federal Constitution that stops the States from imposing such term limits.

    Like

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | October 12, 2019 | Reply

    • Well, you are in good company as my favorite SCOTUS Justice, Clarence Thomas, agrees with you.

      but in 1995, SCOTUS decided this precise issue, and ruled that States may NOT add to what the Constitution says about the qualifications to be a Member of the US House or US Senate. See U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON(1995) at this link:

      https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/514/779.html

      You can read Justice Thomas’ dissent!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 12, 2019 | Reply

      • Do you agree with Justice Thomas and myself?

        Like

        Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | October 12, 2019 | Reply

        • I haven’t thought it through to the end. But the truth is, we all have our own private qualifications we impose. E.g., I wouldn’t vote for a man who is an adulterer and doesn’t know the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and Federalist Papers like the back of his hand. So why can’t States write such additional qualifications into State Law? Our problems are caused by electing immoral & ignorant people to office. Madison said our Constitution depends on a moral & virtuous People electing moral & wise men to office. So why can’t States codify that as “additional” requirements to be a US Congressman and US Senator?

          But TERM LIMITS are a really bad idea. See, https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/term-limits-a-palliative-not-a-cure/

          And if you read thru the Articles of Confederation, you will see that term limits were imposed in that Constitution. But our Framers wisely left them out of our present Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 14, 2019 | Reply

  21. That answered my question too. Thanks.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | October 11, 2019 | Reply

  22. Hi PH, Am I correct in saying the retained rights spoken about in the 9th amendment are God given natural rights?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | October 11, 2019 | Reply

    • Our original Constitution doesn’t pretend to grant any “Rights” to The People. Instead, it is about the Powers which We The People granted to the federal government.

      Article IV, Section 2, clause 1, says “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States”. Blackstone’s shows us that for eons in English Jurisprudence, “privileges and immunities” refers to the 3 great basic rights with which God endowed us: Life,Liberty, and Property. Art. IV, Section 2, cl. 1, simply means that the God given rights of people in the different states are the same – and the federal gov’t is to act accordingly.

      That’s the only mention of our “Rights” in the original Constitution. Remember! The Constitution isn’t about OUR “Rights” – it’s about the Powers WE granted to the federal gov’t.

      The first 8 Amendments do not pretend to grant any rights. Instead, they list SOME of the rights God gave us, and say the federal gov’t can’t infringe them.

      The 9th Amendment basically says, that the “privileges and immunities” of the people, and the Rights listed in the first 8 Amendments IS NOT THE COMPLETE LISTS OF RIGHTS THE PEOPLE HAVE.

      It was a mistake to call them the “Bill of Rights” – that misnomer has caused much confusion and misunderstanding.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2019 | Reply

      • Thanks PH, my reason for asking was for determining that the 9th amendment “secures” parental rights from the federal government. I agree about the name “Bill of Rights” creating confusion. I think the author of Virgina’s “Declaration of Rights”, George Mason chose the perfect name

        Like

        Comment by Spense | October 11, 2019 | Reply

        • And remember that the Prime argument against federal control of children and their upbringing is that IT IS NOT AN ENUMERATED POWER!

          The feds can decide whether we go on the metric system or stay where we are – because of Article I, Sec. 8, clause 5. But nothing gives them power over children and their upbringing.

          Did Mason suggest “Bill of Restrictions”? That’s a better name than Bill of Rights. But it still causes a problem because the federal gov’t is prohibited from doing everything [over the Country at Large] which is not an enumerated power.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2019 | Reply

          • PH, no, Mason chose “Declaration of Rights” The people declared by way of the constitution we declare these are our rights and government keep your hands off. Thanks for reminding me parental rights is also protected by the fact it is not an enumerated power.

            Like

            Comment by Spense | October 11, 2019

      • Great point, PH, re the Bill of Rights. Of course, the framers were justifiably fearful that if they didn’t better spell out our natural rights, the feds would more readily usurp those rights. Anyway, great point.

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | October 11, 2019 | Reply

  23. PH
    In your recent article on NewsWithViews entitled “So You Think Trump Wants To Get Rid Of The Fed?” you included the following statement, “in order to fund still more massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending by the federal government.”
    In your opinion and based on your knowledge and experience, what percentage of the current budget is actually constitutional? It has to be around 80 to 90%.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus Lindner | October 8, 2019 | Reply

    • Gimme a break! At least 80-90% of all federal departments and agencies are strictly unconstitutional!! There are only about 10 or maybe 12 functions designated by the U.S. Constitution specifically for the Federal Government. All else is reserved for the states and individuals. And with more than 2,000 federal agencies currently employing untold millions of civil service employees, how much of our federal budget could be spent for constitutional purposes. Maybe 10-20% at most?

      Like

      Comment by paradigmrw | October 8, 2019 | Reply

      • If we were betting, I’d say 1% of the spending is constitutional.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | October 8, 2019 | Reply

    • Oh, my Dear. I’d need several days (or weeks?) to read thru the federal budget and strike out everything which is unconstitutional. I really have no idea how much of the spending is unconstitutional. But if a person who went thru it, item by item, said 99.5 of the spending is unconstitutional, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 8, 2019 | Reply

  24. What was the original intent and purpose of the federal Constitution’s emoluments clause?

    Like

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | October 7, 2019 | Reply

    • An “emolument” is a perk attached to an office. See Webster’s 1828 dictionary http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Emolument
      See also the Federalist Papers: I searched for “emoluments” and 12 Papers mention the term. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

      “Emoluments” are mentioned at Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, and at Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause.

      Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, prohibits any federal officer from accepting (without the consent of Congress), any present, Emolument, Office, or Title from any foreign State.

      Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause, prohibits the President from receiving additional Emoluments from the United States or from any State.

      The Emoluments now attached to the office of Presidency include living in the White House, with a full staff, Air Force One, security protection, and such like. Those perks can’t be increased or decreased – by the United States or any of the 50 States. And Trump can’t get a job lobbying for any foreign State while he is President.

      But this has nothing to do with Trump’s private businesses! George Washington’s Mount Vernon was a large business enterprise selling whiskey, flour, and such like. When Washington’s farm sold its produce, the proceeds weren’t “emoluments” within the meaning of the Constitution – they were the income from his farm.

      It has been so long since we had a President who did something besides live off the taxpayers while in public office, that we have forgotten that real men can have successful businesses BEFORE they run for office. And the Constitution doesn’t require Presidents to divest themselves of their businesses.

      If a President should corruptly run his commercial business – say grant favors [made possible by his official position] to those who benefit his commercial business [you know, like Secretary of State Clinton apparently granted official favors to those who donated to the Clinton foundation], then Congress can impeach, try, convict, and remove him from office.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2019 | Reply


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: