Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

4,450 Comments »

  1. Morning Publius. I wish to ask and perhaps make a statement more so on our current supposedly president Joe Biden and his desire to stomp on our 2nd Amendment. Accordingly all federal firearm restrictions are unconstitutional. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, wrote in the Federalist Papers that being armed is an advantage we Americans possess over people of almost every other nation.

    And, Samuel Adams in Massachusetts, said a Bill of Rights should include a guarantee that the ” Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress – to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

    Obviously Congress for the most part and certainly the President don’t give a gnats gluteus maximus about the Constitution. So realizing all of what the democrats want to do with or about the 2nd Amendment and the peoples constitutional rights why doesn’t the good ole folks of each state tell DC their all wrong?

    The part ” shall not be infringed” doesn’t require a senator or congress representative to have a doctorate degree to understand what it means.

    If the state governments refuse to stand up it seems the people are going to have to?

    Jack

    Like

    Comment by Jack Adams | July 23, 2021 | Reply

    • Some of us have been, for many years, showing people that the remedy our Framers actually advised, when the federal gov’t usurps powers not delegated, is NULLIFICATION. But people don’t seem to be willing to make the effort to learn about nullification – though it is easy to understand. Also, Americans have been demoralized and conditioned to obey gov’t and they have become too cowardly to say, “No way!”.

      Then too, some of those pushing for an Article V Convention have been disparaging Nullification, as well as smearing those who advocate it.

      State Legislators (who are typically as profoundly ignorant as the general public of our Constitution and The Federalist Papers) have been unwilling to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t because they don’t want to lose their federal funding. The Truth is that the federal gov’t bought off the States who willingly sold the reserved powers of the States and The People to the federal gov’t. E.g., the States and The People lost control over education because the federal gov’t gave the States lots of money to implement crazy federal education schemes. An education expert in Tennessee told me that the Tennessee State gov’t was paid $500 MILLION to adopt Common Core.

      So, once again we see that Love of Money IS the root of evil. And State governments would rather permit children to be corrupted than pass up “free” money.

      People are going to have to stand up and resist. I’d say, “elect more faithful representatives who have spines to your state Legislature”, except that we have lost control over our elections.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 25, 2021 | Reply

      • Publius, I surely thank you for your genuine reply. I used the terms stand up by the states in essence alluding to nullification and interposing but do the states understand? Given the XL pipeline for instance all the states allowed Biden issue an order that was unconstitutional and look at the damage. Trump had gotten all the permits. It was approved.

        Again thanks for your insight. Jack.

        Like

        Comment by Jack Adams | July 25, 2021 | Reply

  2. PH, please, please, please, put all your papers in a book.

    Like

    Comment by John | July 18, 2021 | Reply

    • John, thank you. I’ve been waiting for the world to stop so that I would have time. I don’t know how people find the time to write books! I do want to.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2021 | Reply

      • Publius Huldah. RE: Writing a book – Why not simply publish all of the Q&A in one book?

        Like

        Comment by Jean MacAllister | July 19, 2021 | Reply

        • Well, the Q & A’s are scattered over 543 pages – I’d have to figure out how to organize them!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2021 | Reply

  3. Hi PH, The constitution violating National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) notwithstanding; am I correct in saying the Congress has the constitutionally granted authority over places, now also the places choosing senators? Because the way senator are chosen has changed?

    Article One, Section 4 US Constitution:
    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    Like

    Comment by Spense | June 13, 2021 | Reply

  4. Dear PH,
    I find no listing on your website entitled “Secession”, but I know you have discussed it at some point. It seems to me that the question of whether it is authorized by the constitution depends on whether the U.S. Constitution is a FEDERATION or a CONFEDERATION. The Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that a federation is a perpetual system in which states have no right to secede because they have no state constitutions which give them the rights of sovereign, state and local self-government. A confederation is different and is not perpetual because the states do have sovereign, state and local self-government, thus the federal government may be held accountable based on the terms and conditions of the compact/agreement; therefore, as a last resort, if the federal government breaches the terms and conditions of the compact, the states may secede. America became a confederation of independent nation-states upon entering the Union. Furthermore, the Declaration itself was/is a secessionist document, e.g. “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, etc.” The original confederations which preceded the U.S. Constitution used the term “perpetual” but the new constitution of 1787 did not use the term. I believe it was because America was created as a confederation which specifically listed the limited powers granted by the states to the federal system. I also think that the confederation argument makes a much better case against what Abe Lincoln did when he invaded the South. He breached his authority under the compact and changed our form of government from a constitutional republic of confederated nation-states to an oligarchy. Our founding document did not grant any of the 3 federal branches morality police authority over the states. The constitution did not promote slavery, but it was a protected institution. He could have amended the constitution to eliminate slavery, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The South seceded and formed a separate confederacy which re-established the firewall between the states and federal government that our founders had created at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. So, the term “Confederacy” is a good word. Until America revisits the true motives for Northern aggression and quits using slavery as a pretext to justify the false narrative that it was a just war, our nation cannot heal. The critical race theory, BLM, and Antifa all carry the sword of Lincoln, and are using it the same way that he did. Victim-hood is a Marxist tool that is used by tyrants to divide and conquer.

    Please tell me if I am correct in my understanding of the distinction between federations and confederations.
    Thanks

    Like

    Comment by John Noble | June 3, 2021 | Reply

    • Yikes! The proper starting point for your inquiry is our Declaration of Independence. It is not an encyclopedia article used to shoehorn the rights of the People and the powers of the States into definitions someone else wrote!

      Ponder the 2nd para of the DOI: what are the 4 “self-evident Truths” (Founding Principles) on which our system is based? That is where you find the “natural right” of a State to withdraw from the Union.

      See also – and commit to your thinking – what our Framers said in this paper on Nullification: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense-1.pdf

      Those same “self-evident Truths” which authorize States to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t also authorize States to withdraw from the Union.

      In the History of mankind, there has never before been such a magnificent political Document as our Declaration of Independence. This is why the left hates our DOI with a virulent, seething, malignant hatred.

      In all matters of political inquiry, start with our DOI!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 4, 2021 | Reply

  5. This is a copy of an email I sent you. The attachments described are in my email.
    A group of us in Texas have sent our County and District Attorney’s certified letters requesting they petition the proper court for a writ of quo warranto on our behalf because the voting systems used to elect the seat holder’s we are contesting were not legally certified as required by Texas law. I have attached a copy below, it’s the file labeled (WQW Template). (We obviously changed out the items in red fonts to our representatives and counties). Some of the people in our group have began receiving responses (see attached QW1 & QW2). Clearly, these DA’s are not going to act. I was wondering if you can give me an idea on where to look for guidance on what options we have if none of them are willing to act. I’ll do the research if you will point me in any direction. Thank you for your time!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Lindsey Turney | May 21, 2021 | Reply

  6. PH:

    How does Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 impact the call for a Convention of States, if at all? Does it buttress the assumption that it is Congress alone which has all authority over rules and procedures such a convention might be obliged to follow?

    Like

    Comment by jerrynelson1676 | April 26, 2021 | Reply

    • Article I, Sec. 10, cl. 3, addresses different issues.

      Congress’ powers to call and set up an Article V Convention, as set forth at Article V and at Article I, Sec.8, last clause, are complete and cover the whole subject.

      There is no such thing as a “convention of states” called to address our federal constitution. The convention provided for at Article V is a federal convention, called by the federal gov’t, to address our federal Constitution. It is not a State function. The States have nothing to do with it except “apply” to Congress for Congress to call it. Once that’s done, the States are out of it altogether.

      So COS, with their “newspeak”, renamed the convention provided for at Art. V as a “convention of states”; and then redefined it as “a convention controlled by States”. But such a thing doesn’t exist – COS fabricated the whole thing!

      I addressed that here: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/rebuttal-to-senator-steve-halloran-final2red.pdf see part 4B

      On a personal note: Are you the Jerry Nelson I “met” years ago – if I recall correctly, you are a pastor? I wondered where you were and how you were doing!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2021 | Reply

      • PH: Thanks for the response. You confirmed my own understanding of Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 as not applicable to the CoS and I appreciate it, as always.

        No, I’m sorry to say that I haven’t had the good fortune of meeting you except through your blog here, for which I am grateful nevertheless.

        God bless you for all you do for us.

        Like

        Comment by jerrynelson1676 | April 26, 2021 | Reply

        • Well, I never met Jerry Nelson in person – but you and I have not been in direct contact before? Are you a pastor?

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2021 | Reply

          • PH, to my regret, we have never met nor had any contact outside of here on your blog. But I think we are friends and comrades in spirit nevertheless.

            Like

            Comment by jerrynelson1676 | April 27, 2021

          • and will meet in the next life!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2021

  7. HI PH, our organized crime federal govt just crossed the line again, I still can’t believe it. “The United States Postal Service is apparently tracking social media posts as part of a clandestine program searching for “inflammatory” messages. The program, known as the Internet Covert Operations Program, or iCOP, has not previously been made public and involves analysts combing through social media sites looking for “inflammatory” postings and then sharing those posts with government agencies, according to a document obtained by Yahoo News.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/usps-spying-social-media-posts-reporting-to-government Someone needs to hang for this violation of the constitution, the P.O. scope of powers doesn’t include being a spy agency. I am so ashamed of this country

    Like

    Comment by Spense | April 24, 2021 | Reply

    • Yes – the stupid how holds the reigns of power. It is heartbreaking.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 24, 2021 | Reply

  8. What limit is there on the power that is delegated to the United States Congress at Article 4, section 3 to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States?

    Somewhere, I have heard the argument made that the power that is delegated to Congress over territories is limited to the objects that are delegated to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution of the United States.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | April 11, 2021 | Reply

    • I join you in your question, and ask PH if, noting that Congress has exclusive legislative authority over forts and dockyards, etc, whether Portsmouth Naval Shipyard could petition Congress to become a state?

      Like

      Comment by Bob Montgomery | April 15, 2021 | Reply

      • Conferring statehood on a fort or dockyard would be unconstitutional for the same reason that any law made by Congress which purports to confer statehood on the DC would be unconstitutional – BUT the people holding the power don’t care about such things. publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/congress-has-no-authority-to-confer-statehood-on-the-district-of-columbia/

        The Law has disappeared. the people holding the power do what they want – and the cowards go along with it.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 15, 2021 | Reply

    • sorry for the delay!

      No, it’s just the opposite: Over the territories, Congress had general legislative powers. See this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/

      under the subheading: Federal Enclaves & Territories

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 15, 2021 | Reply

  9. Hi, PH. Quick question. Sed 4 stipulates that the times, places & mannerof holding elections for senators andd representatives shall be prescribed by State legislatures,, but that Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators. So, as horrendous as HR1 is, would it not be constitutional? Hope this isn’t a silly question? Thanks very much.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | April 8, 2021 | Reply

    • Any laws Congress makes must comply with the Constitution:

      As to the “times, places and manner’s clause” See my 3 papers on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. In those papers, I show what our Framers said “times”, “places” and “manner” means. Congress’ authority is limited to those 3 specific factors – it is NOT a carte blanche grant of power to Congress to control every aspect of federal elections.

      As to Article II, Sec.1, clause 2: Congress may not do anything to interfere with the Constitutional grant of power to State Legislatures to determine how Presidential electors will be chosen.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2021 | Reply

  10. Dear PH,

    I see that TN legislature has passed a so-called “constitutional carry” law. Similarly, TX is debating a “state sovereignty” bill (TX HB 1215).

    While on the surface these types of legislation appear to be a step in the right direction. However, they also appear to be in preparation for federal suits. Much like the heartbeat law strategies taking root among the states.

    According to the Framers straight up Nullification is the proper response to federal usurpation. You showed us the propriety of nullification in several of your papers. Courts are not the answer to usurpation, especially in light of their lack of jurisdiction, (The Enumerated Powers of Federal courts) as well as their complicity in decades of usurpation.

    My question, therefore, is should we encourage and support such state legislation as justified interposition? Or; as bait for federal suits, are these merely wolves in sheep’s clothing?

    Blessings.

    Mark

    Like

    Comment by Mark | March 30, 2021 | Reply

    • Nullification IS the “rightful remedy” to federal usurpations of powers not delegated.

      But sometimes, States need to pass laws. The People of the States need a state Law to fall back on – this is one way a State can stand between the feds and the Citizens of their State.

      I updated my nullification Flyer: In a moment, I’ll post a link.

      wordpress (aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh) changed the formatting of this site to make it difficult to use – so It may take me a while to get a url made for my nullification flyer.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2021 | Reply

  11. PH:

    I’ve had a conversation with Rob Natelson re Convention of States, and I’ve used your analyses to rebut his positions several times. Here is a direct quote from him about you:

    “One last point: I wouldn’t take Publius Huldah too seriously. A client gave me the assignment about three years ago of reading and assessing her writings. Although she has a law degree, she has not had a law license for many years and she never had any constitutional law expertise. Not only is her understanding of the Founding Era and the constitutional debates very superficial, she is ignorant even of basic stuff students learn in law school. I think the only reason she has a following is that because she has J.D. after her name, non-lawyers assume she knows what she’s talking about. But she doesn’t.”

    I responded with a request for detailed explanation on his specific claims of instances where your constitutional analyses are mistaken or where you supposedly have inadequate knowledge as stated in this quote but have received no response.

    I’ve also responded by saying that the Constitution is written in the English language and, in those instances where the meaning might be questionable, we should go to the advice of the Founders to adhere to the intent and not attempt to assume intentions not compatible with the words and THEIR meanings at the time of construction.

    I also suggested to Mr. Natelson that having a law degree or accolades from others doesn’t necessarily make one an expert on the constitution, either, since it is the actual words and intent of the original construction of provisions which must be the guiding rule and not the ‘opinion’ of those who have come later, especially 200 plus years later. .

    Do you have a response to this criticism?

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by jerrynelson1676 | March 28, 2021 | Reply

    • I’m an elderly lady and retired from litigation some years ago! When I was practicing law – litigation (trial and appellate) – I worked 7 days a week from 10 to 20 hours a day, and it was ruining my health. I knew that I had to stop if I were to live. So I retired! And yes, my law license is inactive. So what?

      Natelson’s disparaging comments about me are “conclusory allegations” without any facts to back them up. As a lawyer himself, doesn’t he know that such comments carry no weight? [In a trial, we move to strike “conclusory allegations“, and the Judges do strike them.] So you were right to ask him to point out any errors in my work. My motto has always been, “SHOW ME WHERE I MADE A MISTAKE SO I CAN FIX IT”.

      And to the best of my knowledge, it is only others who are pushing for an Article V Convention who praise Natelson’s work. E.g., this past Tuesday at a legislative committee hearing in Kansas, Mark Meckler (after insulting the Legislators on the Committee and bragging about how HE [Meckler] is a “constitutional attorney”), he told the Committee that Rob Natelson is the “premier expert in the Country” on the Article V Convention issue. You can watch the hearing here – it was eyeopening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be3uVLEREf8

      That high opinion of Natelson was apparently not shared by his colleagues at the law school where he taught – since (according to reports on the internet) they denied him “Emeritus Status” when he left the Law School.

      When I was litigating, lawyers could be disciplined for misrepresenting the facts or the law to the Court or the Jury. But on the internet, that policing function must be served by other lawyers who analyze the faulty papers.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 28, 2021 | Reply

      • PH:

        Thanks so much for your reply.

        Since I’ve turned to your blog for answers to my questions on the Constitution (and so much more!) for quite a few years now, and since I’ve often double-checked your opinions as far as my own feeble capabilities allow, and thus have confirmed for myself many times over that you give us the straight and true answers, I’m convinced once again that one need look no further most of the time to discover what is right/wrong on these important issues.

        Thanks again for all you do.

        (PS: I’m an elderly man myself and one who has come late to the Constitutional questions so important to our country and am so appreciative of having this sound source of accurate information to depend upon).

        Like

        Comment by jerrynelson1676 | March 29, 2021 | Reply

        • Thank you, and thanks for checking my work. I always tell people to check out what they are told. Even though I don’t lie [you wouldn’t know that unless you check out what I say] – I do make mistakes! And kind readers have corrected my mistakes.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 29, 2021 | Reply

  12. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    I hope you are doing well. Thank you for all you do for us. I know you are busy, but I wanted to ask if you could take a look at the State of Pennsylvania proposed amendments to their Constitution which will be on their primary election in May. My sister lives in PA and would really appreciate your opinion. I took a quick look and the amendments are about disaster emergency declarations and equality of rights.

    Like

    Comment by Donna M Roesch | March 23, 2021 | Reply

    • I am sorry about the delay in responding. I don’t have time to find the proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution! Perhaps if you send me the links to the proposed amendments, I can look at them.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 28, 2021 | Reply

  13. Hi PH
    Again, thanks for taking the time for me.
    Do you think Trumps’ Globalist tendencies are because he is a true believer or has his time spent in NY corrupted his worldview?
    I am from NY and indoctrination is difficult to see around.
    I only knew all the details in the horrors of the trade agreement because I listen to you. So maybe his tendency to look at deep subjects superficially and bad advisors are to blame.
    If he is elected 19th POTUS I will suggest that he hires you as a Constitutional advisor. There, fixed it,
    DG

    Like

    Comment by weathertiteconstruction | March 22, 2021 | Reply

  14. Hi Publius
    Can you discuss Executive Orders? How can they supercede the law? Why do people have to obey executive orders at both the federal and state level? Or do they?

    Like

    Comment by Jennifer | March 21, 2021 | Reply

  15. PH – How are our schools able to get away with this Critical Race Theory nonsense? Can this be defeated constitutionally?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Bob | March 18, 2021 | Reply

    • Our Framers told us what to do! Nullify all unconstitutional federal edicts. As I trust you know, control of education is not delegated to the fed gov’t. This is a matter reserved by the States or The People. They can tell the feds to go take a hike. Yes, they may lose federal funds, so what? With federal funds comes federal control. If you don’t want the feds controlling it – THEN DON’T TAKE THE MONEY!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2021 | Reply

  16. Good evening Publius. Short and to my point is a question pertaining to the Executive Orders our supposedly elected President Joe Biden is issuing or has. In the Constitutions Declaration of Independence the rights of all men are created equal having Gods unalienable among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Considering that Bidens EO’s impact all of our rights and most if not all are unconstitutional why can’t the states nullify the orders?

    Furthermore given that certain states that supposedly were wrought with fraud and some are now taking steps to investigate and finding confirmation of fraud and assuming enough proof will come out proving Trump did indeed win in 2020 how would that outcome be handled?

    Trusting to hear from you I remain an avid fan of your constitutional intellect.

    Jack

    Like

    Comment by Jack Adams | March 8, 2021 | Reply

    • Jack,
      At the bottom of this page you will find links in blue text to Publius Huldah’s papers.
      Therein you will find one titled “Executive Orders” which discusses and explains the Constitutional powers delegated to the President.
      What is KEY to your question in that paper, is the differentiation PH shows between legitimate EOs and illegitimate EOs. (Not all Executive orders are usurpations-though many today are)
      What you will see is that Executive Orders Which are outside of presidential powers are not law, but mere usurpations which deserve to be treated as such. Accordingly, as PH shows, The State Legislatures would be entirely within their NATURAL RIGHTS to NULLIFY such usurpations. (The State’s CHECK on federal usurpation) However, we must contend with the fact that the states have been complicit in usurpation by accepting federal funding in exchange for administering unconstitutional programs. (See also “Nullification” in the links below.)

      Hope that helps. But please do read the paper titled “Executive Orders”.

      Mark

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Mark | March 12, 2021 | Reply

    • Of course the States can nullify – ignore – the pretended president’s “executive orders”! Do read my paper on the enumerated powers of the President and on nullification.

      And Biden is not the “President” – he is in office only because (1) the State Legislators in the battleground States are brainless cowards; 2) former US Attorney General Bill Barr is a traitor; (3) Congress is filled with traitors; (4) the US Supreme Court betrayed their Mission and our Country; and (5) former President Trump failed to do his clear Duty.

      And I will go further and say that the fault is laid at the feet of Donald Trump: He is the one who appointed Barr to the office of US Attorney General, and he appointed the traitors & cowards Kavenaugh & Barrett to the US Supreme Court. Who then stabbed him & the American People in the back.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2021 | Reply

      • Tell us what you really think Jo…

        Trump was fighting a battle uphill nearly by himself it is true but do you think Barr was a bad pick from the beginning or did the swamp get to him as I think happened to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

        Do you think Trump applying to be President again is a good idea or better to play kingmaker? If Trump does get another turn in the saddle will he have enough backing to out-gun Xi?

        Your friend, David

        Like

        Comment by weathertiteconstruction | March 21, 2021 | Reply

        • Trump implemented the globalists’ policies. He pushed the CFR’s USMCA. He advocated socialist policies.
          Barr has been a longtime swamp creature. loves gun control. Bad pick. Re red flag laws, Trump said, take the guns first, due process second. See the video link on my “connecting the dots paper” https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/usmca-trade-agreement-the-north-american-union-an-article-v-convention-and-red-flag-laws-connecting-the-dots/

          Kavenaugh, Roberts, & Barrett were darlings of the deep state globalist “The Federalist Society”. Yet Trump allowed them to pick his federal judge nominees.

          Gorsuch voted the right way on the Pennsylvania v. Brockvar case – he wanted SCOTUS to review it. read about the Pennsylvania lawsuit here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/01/03/article-iv-4-us-constitution-requires-congress-the-supreme-court-and-the-president-to-stop-the-steal/ Gorsuch was on the right side in that case. Barrett & Kavenaugh stabbed Trump in the back and sided with the evil 4 on the Court.

          Trump is too constitutionally illiterate and politically naive to be a good President. He was a weak President because he has no Political Principles – he went along with the globalists. He allowed them to separate him from our Country’s true friends. He turned him back on Gen. Michael Flynn because globalist Mike Pence and other vermin told him to. His globalist handlers in the White House didn’t want Trump meeting with Sidney Powell, so he obeyed his globalist white house handlers.

          He was a terrible President. but he DID win the last election.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2021 | Reply

          • I thank you for taking the time to answer, I’m glad Trump really won I just wish he could continue the MAGA (shortened because I am lazy) policies. What about his work with Isreal and moving their capital? Is that Globalist shenanigans?

            Any suggestions for escaping the Leviathan?

            Like

            Comment by weathertiteconstruction | March 21, 2021

          • I expect Trump has a good heart. But he is woefully ignorant of Statecraft and of our Founding Principles & Constitution, politically naive, and thus was easily deceived by the deep state globalists he appointed.

            I was glad he supported the move of Israel’s Capitol to Jerusalem; but that doesn’t undo the dreadful harm he caused to our Country by pushing USMCA “Trade Agreement” and by his poisonous appointments to the federal courts.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2021

          • No worries! Trump will return soon as our 19th President!!!

            Like

            Comment by Jim Baines | March 22, 2021

          • see my comments on this page and on the comments on this page: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/03/21/when-the-feds-violate-the-constitution-should-we-blame-the-constitution/

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2021

          • I wonder if trump could be taught constitutional literacy? The WH Handlers may however be a formidable hurdle I fear. God how I wish we still had statesmen instead of politicians.
            Trump was a case that exemplifies people’s willingness to support usurpation because they glean benefit. Washington’s farewell address warned us about such.

            Like

            Comment by Mark | March 21, 2021

          • Anyone can be taught constitutional literacy IF he has an open mind and will listen or read. The problem is always getting access to people – and there is no way I would have been able to spend a day with Trump educating him on the basics.

            Another problem – and this is serious – is that the internet is flooded with distractions, irrelevant “news”, and idiotic theories about the Constitution put out by ignorant idiots (if not black ops personnel). People who are constitutionally illiterate can not distinguish between the True and the False.

            Yes, if I were a school Teacher, Washington’s Farewell Address would be required reading.

            Constitutional illiterates run for office who chant “conservative” slogans and talking points – but the constitutionally illiterate “conservative” American People are unable to discern that these are fake “conservatives”.

            A friend told me of a candidate for office who claimed to support “the Constitution” and had a pocket copy in his shirt pocket. He supports an Art. V Convention. My friend asked him to read aloud the text of Article V, US Constitution. This fake “conservative” candidate could not locate Article V in his pocket copy of the Constitution.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2021

  17. Looking for an educated opinion on this proposal –
    Please note they are demanding as a prerequisite that any state with a current Article 5 application must rescind the application to participate in the Republic Review.

    http://www.reclaimingtherepublic.org/

    Like

    Comment by Jeff Hill | March 4, 2021 | Reply

    • Well, the States certainly need to man up and start obeying the Constitution whether the feds do or not. But I’m not sure I understand what the material at link is saying. I know people hate lawyers; but on some things, one really needs a lawyer skilled in Statecraft to steer one in the right direction.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2021 | Reply

  18. PH,
    As I read about the house passing HR1, I turn, as usual. To our constitution..

    Art1,Section. 4.

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,
    except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    The first half of the clause makes perfect sense. Then there is the about face in the latter portion. Perhaps I’m not understanding it correctly but it seems to be contradictory to state rights, and the principle of Federalism.

    I understand that Senators were (and rightly so) elected by state legislators thus the specificity of the latter language.

    I just can’t wrap my head around this exception. Am I mis-understanding this?

    Mark

    Like

    Comment by Mark | March 4, 2021 | Reply

    • Mark, I’m glad you asked that question, for I’ve also wondered about that. So the Constitution gives the authority to the State Legislatures, but allows Congress at any time to change the Regulations by Law. Assuming the Regulations are the Times, Places, and Manner? The question in my mind also arises, the words “except as to the Places of causing Senators.” We know that up until 1913 State Legislatures selected the Senators, then the 17th Amendment changed that to a direct vote of the people. That would have meant a constitutional change of Places from State Legislatures to voting or polling places, or does the 17th Amendment also now allow Congress by Law to change the places of choosing Senators, or does the “except as to the Places of causing Senators” in Article I, Section 4, clause 1, still stand?

      Like

      Comment by Brent Gauer | March 4, 2021 | Reply

      • see my reply to Mark!

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2021 | Reply

    • I first wrote about the “elections clause” (Art. I, Sec.4, US Constit.) here https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/arizonas-proposition-200-what-the-constitution-really-says-about-voter-qualifications-exposing-the-elections-clause-argument/

      under the subheading: The Dishonest “Elections Clause” Argument. Hamilton gives a reason or two why Congress should have oversight over State laws made pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 4.

      Ten years ago, when I wrote that paper, I was castigating the 9th Circuit for enforcing the unconstitutional National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Under that Act, Congress usurped power over the registration and qualifications of voters.

      I have 3 papers on the NVRA, you can find them under the Category, “National Voter Registration Act”.

      But what has gone on since, as documented in my last 5 papers, boggles the mind. Our Republic was overthrown in the last election [since We The People no longer have the right to choose our Representatives]. And nobody did a thing to stop it: The State Legislatures; DOJ, Congress, SCOTUS, and President Trump.

      I don’t know where we go from here. There IS a way – but the people in our State Legislatures are (for the most part) too ignorant, lazy, and cowardly to do what needs to be done. In a nutshell, they should make the feds irrelevant by stop taking their $ and stop obeying their unconstitutional dictates.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2021 | Reply

      • Thank you PH!! Crystal clear now. Maybe I just have brain fatigue from arguing with Art v proponents all week.

        Blessings
        Mark

        Like

        Comment by Mark | March 4, 2021 | Reply

  19. PH,
    As you may be aware, Texas is again making a push for secession (though the promoters are rebranding it as “Texit” playing off Britains recent extrication battle)
    Based upon studying YOUR work I believe every State has the NATURAL right to depart the Union. However, it is much more logical simple, (though not easy) to simply enforce our God given rights through nullification. It would be cowardly to leave the remaining states embroiled in tyranny whereas restoring our Constitution has the potential to restore liberty to 300M Americans as opposed to a mere 30M Texans.
    In drafting letters to this effect, for my State reps and Senators.
    To wit; I was wondering at what point the SCOTUS transformed into a rubber stamp for progressive agendas. Was there a key case or landmark decision that I can read and then identify to show precisely when the SCOTUS became complicit in the Usurpation?

    Thank you and God Bless
    Mark

    Like

    Comment by Mark | February 18, 2021 | Reply

    • Yes, the States have the obvious right to withdraw from the Union. I have never in the past advised it however, because the States are not innocent victims of federal tyranny – they willingly sold the reserved powers of the States and of their own Citizens to the federal gov’t in exchange for federal funds; federal funds which were used to implement unconstitutional federal programs. So the States ARE as guilty as the fed gov’t in creating the mess we are now in. Also, the States refused to take many steps which people like Dr. Edwin Vieira and me have been urging them to do. And the American People are so ignorant, corrupt, and degenerate that, among their other sins, they consistently, year & year, elected fools, ignoramuses, and moral degenerates to public office.

      so secession wouldn’t have solved the problem. It’s like a divorce – after the divorce the former spouses persist in the sins which caused the problems in their marriage!

      However, during the recent election, we saw every Branch of the federal government fail to do their Duty: Congress, the Department of Justice, the federal courts & the supreme Court, and even President Trump. My recent papers address these failures and derelictions of duty. As a result of their refusals to do their Duty, our Country is now in enemy hands.

      It now appears that the Chi coms have seized control of the federal gov’t; and the 3 Branches of the fed gov’t are just fine with that.

      They will want a new Constitution which legalizes their plans for us. I expect them to push for an Article V Convention to get this new Constitution. The States must not allow themselves to be put under the jurisdiction of the Chi Coms and the new government which will be created by the new Constitution.

      So I’m now thinking that all of the States [except for the soon to be new State of “the District of Columbia”] should secede from the Union. I say a pox on the federal courts and the Supreme Court except for Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. If they seek sanctuary in your State, by all means, let them in! I say a pox on the Executive Branch and everyone in it. I say a pox on Congress and 99% of the people in it.

      That said, the State Legislatures in the battleground States behaved as wickedly and disgustingly as the federal gov’t. We were telling those State Legislators – showing them – that they had the constitutional authority to ignore the fixed election and appoint a new slate of electors themselves. Not a single State legislature did – because they were too stupid or cowardly to do it.

      I’ll write up a road map for the States to follow which will get them out of the mess [though an attack upon them by the chi-com army is likely] – even though I expect the State Legislatures are too short-sighted, ignorant, and cowardly to do what needs to be done: Man up and tell the feds to get lost and keep their borrowed FRN’s.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 18, 2021 | Reply

      • “A republic; if you can keep it.”
        And;
        2 Timothy 4, (2-4)

        These two keep me up nights.

        I was avid during the TPN days. However I soon realized that even those who professed to be on the side of truth and demanded constitutionality, refused to surrender pride and their clutch on immoral programs.
        Its easier to fool someone, than to convince them they’ve been fooled.
        It doesn’t appear that we have enough Hamiltons, Madisons, or Jeffersons left to mount a worthy defense. Critical thinking has been eradicated. The time has come when they will not endure sound doctrine.
        The Tytler cycle is almost complete. I surmise we are between dependence and bondage. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my prayers that we would go back to the ways of yesteryear.

        I’m not certain that secession would necessarily restore liberty in light of the aforementioned facts. TX has an executive and AG who keep running to federal district courts rather than instructing legislators to Nullify. They claim to stand for State rights yet as recent as last week requested fed funds for disaster relief. In such light I do not feel assured that Texas independence would restore much liberty at all. Not to mention that a new (or existing) state constitution forming a centralized government would carry enough “checks” to insure liberty.

        God bless you and yours!!
        Mark

        Like

        Comment by Mark | February 19, 2021 | Reply

        • Mark, I assume this is the Mark from ‘yesteryear’ on TPN. Good to hear from you again. Those were the days, my friend.

          Like

          Comment by Mike Foil | February 19, 2021 | Reply

          • Yes, I was also thinking must be our Mark from the earlier days. I too wondered what happened to him. It is good to hear from him. It’s also good to hear from Mike!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2021

          • Yep. I’m still on this side of the sod.
            While it may have never made a difference in the grand scheme of things I sometimes regret that I didn’t stay more active in promoting, explaining, and disseminating the truths of our founding on a public scale.

            To the point of numerous or unanimous secession of States; my question is this; if there is support for secession, why can’t such support be harnessed and steered in the infinitely superior direction of constitutional restoration? Doing so solves EVERY SINGLE ISSUE for which the public clamors. It solves election fraud, removes incentive for career politicians, reduces federal expenditures, restores freedoms contemplated in the Bill of Rights, strengthens our economy, etc, etc.
            If these are truly the ailments (and aside from the staunchest progressives, I believe they are) then we have the most effective cure in PHs papers and the Federalists explanations.

            Like

            Comment by Mark | February 19, 2021

    • It was during the New Deal that SCOTUS became the lap dog for FDR. In the beginning, SCOTUS ruled against New Deal programs; but then when FDR threatened to “pack the court”, one Justice flipped to the New Deal side of the Court.
      The miserable little coward.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2021 | Reply

      • 10-4. I found those cases. Just wanted to be sure there was not a prior case that could be identified as the turning point in Federal jurisprudence.
        Now I need to go reread your explanation of the proper applications and venue of natural law and common (aka case) law.

        Much thanks!!
        Blessings,
        Mark

        Like

        Comment by Mark | February 19, 2021 | Reply

        • well, there were some bad decisions very early – the worst was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) where SCOTUS held that Congress had constitutional authority to Charter a national Bank!
          but I think the turning point was the new deal SCOTUS.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2021 | Reply

  20. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    I hope you are doing well. What are your thoughts on the impeachment trial now that it has been going on for a few days? For many weeks we have heard from republican senators that the impeachment will be dead on arrival to the senate because it is unconstitutional. Well, the vote was taken and the majority voted that the impeachment is constitutional. That has me really concerned. Is it like you talked about in the movie you saw, the law disappeared?

    Like

    Comment by Donna M Roesch | February 11, 2021 | Reply

    • Yes, the Law has disappeared.
      I have a proposal; but the weakness of my proposal is that it requires State Legislators of Spine & Integrity to carry it out.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 11, 2021 | Reply

  21. PH, so where do we go from here? I vote we find 50 people, one from each state that is willing to spend the next year learning the constitution from you and then who is willing to run for house of reps on a constitutional platform. What say you?

    Like

    Comment by Blake | February 7, 2021 | Reply

    • Well, I have a very different proposal.

      The real power is in the State Legislatures. The State Legislatures can control their Governors and their State Judges.
      The State Legislatures can make the federal government totally irrelevant. S%$&W Congress! S%$&W federal judges! S%$&W the Executive Branch!

      but we have been electing ignorant and weak people to our State Legislatures. Some are corrupt. Few have a spine. And that, of course, is our fault because we elected these spineless ignoramuses (some of whom take bribes) to the State Legislatures (except when their election was stolen. But people have been warning for decades that the voting machines were being tampered with in state elections; and they were brushed off).

      So we have to figure out the mechanics of how we replace the unprincipled & weak ignoramuses in our State Legislatures with People of Moral Integrity who learn the Constitution and enforce it.

      Actually, our Declaration of Independence & Constitution are not difficult to learn. When I started writing for the Public some 12 years ago, I didn’t know those two documents. [We didn’t have them in law school.] The key to learning them is to read them over & over. I always make outlines. and polish my outlines. then one day, I realize that the outline is now in my head. and from there, I keep adding.

      We in this house are computer challenged. But I’m studying Russian on line – and my Russian teacher is on-line. So I’m thinking of figuring out how to do on-line lessons on the Constitution. But I have to wait until legislative season is over because all I have time for now is stopping an Article V Convention.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2021 | Reply

      • If I remember right, Hillsdale College (may be the only one) has an online Constitution course. And I also believe they “require” for graduation in anyones chosen field, everyone must take a course in the Constitution. And they take no fed money.
        And thank you PH for the reminder. I used to read my pocket edition of the Declaration and Constitution daily (I got distracted with other things it seems), one page per day every day, then repeat, right after my daily reading of the Bible.
        Thank you PH for your continued wisdom and guidance.
        Long Live Our Republic

        Like

        Comment by N S | February 8, 2021 | Reply

        • Well, I am increasingly suspicious of Hillsdale. I know they never took federal money – but we need to find out who is funding them. It is the BIG MONEY (Kochs, Mercers, etc.) who have been funding the push for an Article V convention – and I suspect that this Big Money may be now funding Hillsdale. I haven’t had time to look into this.

          Re the Constitution: Get the Big Picture first. What does Article I do? What does Article II do? and so on.
          then go back and gradually fill in more of the details. and each time you go over it again, fill in more details. I always made charts.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 11, 2021 | Reply

      • PH,
        Hope you are all well!

        Isn’t it amazing that patriots can read hundreds of snaps, tweets, blurbs and posts daily, yet a document of profound importance and critical to the proper function and survival of our republic is too much effort to read?
        I too have thought an online tutorial might actually spark interest in the crucial words of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. Without their insight, too many well meaning yet Constitutionally illiterate patriots fall for the hoaxes and distortions which are designed to cause confusion to would be students.
        With the plethora of political concerns the single solution to them ALL is original intent, enumerated powers, and the proper understanding and application of federalism.

        Mark

        Like

        Comment by Mark | February 12, 2021 | Reply

      • Thank you, Blake.
        I am seeing various arguments I have been making being used more & more by others on the internet.
        But our is a “Cliff Notes” culture. People don’t want to LEARN; they just want something to say so that they “sound smart”.

        And 90% of the State Legislators! Well, I never thought people like that existed. The “conservative” ones are the worst: they walk around with a pocket Constitution in their shirt pocket – but they can’t even find where Article V is in their copy of the Constitution – even though they support an Article V convention! How does one cure such hypocrisy? I carry one around – mine is battered, frayed, and has been re-stapled umpteen times.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2021 | Reply

  22. PH,
    Any comment on the first 13th amendment, proposed in the early 1800’s, the titles of nobility amendment. From what I’ve read, at that time thirteen states needed to ratify it of the seventeen that comprised the union at the time and it got twelve. Apparently, things were moving right along until the Civil War and then it just seemed to disappear. It seems that a good number of states up until the 1860s or so still printed it in their official copies of the US Constitution indicating that the original thirteenth amendment actually may have been ratified. So, since at the time it was proposed there was no time limit for adoption, as there is now, couldn’t it be taken up again and finished?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus Lindner | February 3, 2021 | Reply

    • It may well be that as some States ratified the proposed amendment you are talking about that they put it in their own State Code books – but that, of course would not mean that it was part of the official US Constitution.

      I’m sure you are already aware that Article I, sections 9 & 10, US Constitution, prohibit the federal gov’t and the States from issuing titles of nobility.

      It’s been a while since I looked as the supposed “real” 13th Amendment; but wasn’t it some drivel about how Lawyers are aristocrats and we shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office? It seems that some idiots have concluded that the term, “Esquire”, is a “title of nobility”.

      In any event, that is the least of our problems today, don’t you think?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2021 | Reply

  23. Can you address the so called Act of 1871? There’s a lot of conspiracy artcles floating around about it. This three part article came my way this morning and it seems like it might be reliable. I highly regard your insight. Thank you for all you do.
    https://mainerepublicemailreport.com/2021/01/16/misinformation-about-the-act-of-1871-is-an-ongoing-problem-part-2/

    Like

    Comment by Deb Whitacre | January 27, 2021 | Reply

    • “Anna von Reitz” can’t be a “Judge” and she can’t be a lawyer. No lawyer, and certainly no judge, would write the way she writes. The little I have read of what she has written is like a compilation of every moronic patriot myth which has been foisted on the gullible and profoundly ignorant American People – some of whom, no doubt, have been deceived by her claim of the Title of “Judge”.

      I have no medical training. What would you think if I claimed to be an “M.D.” and began giving medical advice? Would that be immoral? Yes it would.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2021 | Reply

  24. Are there any “publius-huldah” zoom lessons coming soon? I would love to learn more directly from the source… YOU!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Blake | January 24, 2021 | Reply

    • Thank you, Gary! I needed that lift. Are you referring to the two I did for the Oklahoma organization?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 24, 2021 | Reply

      • No thank you, your work is what gives me (us) hope. I was unaware of the Oklahoma video’s. I would love to find them, are they currently on line?
        I was more so talking about any future plans you may have to do video conferencing or just plan teaching about the constitution.

        Like

        Comment by Blake | January 24, 2021 | Reply

  25. Why does the Speech and Debate Clause prevent senators and congressman from being held liable for lies they commit in debates? One recent instance, amongst many, is of Adam Schiff who lied in his many false claims against Trump regarding Russia collusion.

    Thank you!

    Pam

    Like

    Comment by Pam | January 16, 2021 | Reply

    • Because in certain situations, such as legislative bodies, people must be allowed to speak freely.

      Schiff is a disgusting POS, but the remedy for his lying words is for his House to expel him, or for the People to refuse to reelect him.

      But neither of those remedies will be used because our Members of Congress are corrupt or pathetically weak; and for a long time, we haven’t had honest elections – that’s how these POS’s [I never thought I’d be talking that way in public] keep getting re-elected.

      The Truth is that Laws can’t fix immorality. And it is true that Our Constitution works ONLY for a religious & virtuous People. And the Americans are neither religious or moral. What’s actually needed is a moral and spiritual REGENERATION of the American People.

      But with spineless, cowardly, hirelings in our pulpits, I don’t see a moral Regeneration ahead. However, when God brings Judgment on a People – as I believe He is doing now – some of them actually turn back to Him.

      Be of Good cheer – God is on the Throne. I think we are being spanked right now – and we do deserve it!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2021 | Reply

      • Thank you Publius Huldah for your input! I so enjoy reading your comments and learning more about the intent of those who drew up our Constitution and how it’s laws are to be applied in the various scenarios we see playing out in our government. I too have also found myself using words to describe these swamp rats and traitors, even more so over this past year, that I never thought I would. Your words are actually more mild than mine have been! I agree with everything you have stated. As a Christian I cannot agree more that we are under God’s judgment. The lack of courage and moral failure in the leadership in our country has continued to deteriorate over the years leading us to the point we are at today. You are absolutely correct about the pulpits caving to the culture and political correctness rather than standing for truth which has been the biggest contributor to the mess we find ourselves in to date. I pray that there will be a turning to the Lord in repentance, as you have stated, as without that we have no hope of things turning around. Thank you so much for the work that you are doing. There are not many who can be relied upon to present the truth as you do in a way that does not rely on agenda or the judicial
        activism that has become the norm. You also break it down in a very understandable way.

        Like

        Comment by Pam | January 17, 2021 | Reply

        • Thank you!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 17, 2021 | Reply

  26. Hi PH, I don’t have a question, just a link to a article of interest “DuPage County Clerk signed anti-transparency contract with Dominion Voting Systems – Dominion encouraged County to resist disclosure of information” https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2021/01/dupage-county-clerk-signed-anti-transparency-contract-with-dominion-voting-systems-dominion-encouraged-county-to-resist-disclosure-of-information/

    “Considering this software deals with the people’s voting results, this contract prohibits the County to analyze the software. If there was any type of vote tally concerns it appears the County is prohibited to analyze the Software. Analyzing the software would be one of the first steps to determine or identify if there was or was not a problem in the vote tally. The most concerning issue, in light of all that national attention regarding Dominion and our elections, is the reference of modifying the software. The county is prohibited from altering or modifying the software. While I agree nothing should be altered modified, such a prohibition appears to indicate the software can in fact be altered or modified.”

    Like

    Comment by Spense | January 15, 2021 | Reply

    • I think that every word Lin Wood said about the Governor of Georgia and the Georgia Secretary of State are true. And don’t forget, that disgusting republican woman who was running for a US Senate seat from Georgia is said to have bought stock in Dominion at the time the State of Georgia signed the Contract with Dominion. She too is a disgusting POS.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2021 | 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: