Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

3,705 Comments »

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

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

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

    Can naturalized citizens run for the house of representatives?

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

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

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Thx

    Like

    Comment by Gary Blake | March 18, 2019 | Reply

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

      Like

      Comment by Donald Crane | March 18, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

      Like

      Comment by Barbara Jennings | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

      A “naturalized” citizen is a Citizen.

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Gary | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

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

          You are most welcome. any time.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

        Like

        Comment by Gary | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | March 16, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

      2. The illegal aliens are NOT lawfully here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | March 16, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Jack Adams | March 5, 2019 | Reply

    • Questions for you:

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2019 | Reply

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

        Jack Adams

        Like

        Comment by Jack Adams | March 5, 2019 | Reply

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2019 | Reply

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

            Like

            Comment by Jack Adams | March 6, 2019

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

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019

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

            Like

            Comment by N S | March 6, 2019

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

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

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2019

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

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | March 24, 2019

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

    Like

    Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019 | Reply

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2019 | Reply

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

            Like

            Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019

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

            Constitutional New Deal Programs

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

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

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

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

            Like

            Comment by Gary | March 3, 2019

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

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

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2019

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by N S | March 5, 2019

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 17, 2019 | Reply

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2019 | Reply

  7. PH,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks so much for your time.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Bob | February 16, 2019 | Reply

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 15, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 16, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by nelsonaire9 | February 17, 2019 | Reply

        • neither do I.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 28, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 15, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 16, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | February 16, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | February 3, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

      Here’s info for Colorado

      Hearing!

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

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

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by hippie49 | February 3, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by madelyn thide | January 29, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | January 26, 2019 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | January 7, 2019 | Reply

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

      So three provisions in our Constitution give him authority:

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

      It is his duty to protect us from invasion.

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2019 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | January 8, 2019 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Countries really do destroy themselves from within.

          Liked by 3 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2019 | Reply

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

            Like

            Comment by N S | January 8, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Spense | January 18, 2019

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

            And defeat it.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 18, 2019


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: