Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

2,562 Comments »

  1. Two additional injustices to Robert E Lee are that, again about 40 years ago, while the government was going through old filing cabinets stuck between two files was RE Lee’s application fir his US citizenship to be restored. The Confederates were stripped of their citizenship and had to prom8se fealty to the US declaring that they would never bears arms against the US again. Some clerk decided that he wouldn’t let Lee get his back.
    The other, greater, injustice the lack of honor given him. Instead of fighting at Appomattox and then surrendering he could have easily turned west and taken his army into the mountains and we could still be fighting a guerilla war all across the country to this day. How many millions of lives did General Robert E Lee save that day?

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | September 25, 2016 | Reply

  2. Another question. Since George Washington took his first oath of office it has been done in public. Is this a Constitutional requirement or custom. Since Obama mangled his oath both in 2009 and.2013 and was supposedly sworn in correctly in private thus we do not know what he swore to, if anything. Is he constitutionally the President? Please, convince that the Chief Justice couldn’t hear Obama mangling the oath.

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | September 25, 2016 | Reply

    • Did you look in the only place you could find the answer? In the Constitution?

      The Constitution prescribes the Oath the President is to to take. Does the Constitution address where the Oath is to be taken?

      I won’t be here forever – others must also read the Constitution.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 25, 2016 | Reply

  3. I can’t find information in the internet that I learned 40+ years ago. The stated purpose ar the time was that the reason that Federal dead were buried in Arlington was that no matter what happened after the war Robert E Lee, Arlington was his home, could never live there again with a grave yard in his front yard. Since this was illegal and wrong in so many ways does the Constitution prohibit such acts. The Federal government obviously didnt believe that they had the right to confiscate Arlington. It seems to me that Arlington Cemetery exists only by the unconstitutional exercise if squatters rights. Was Robert E Lee ever forced to sell Arlingtin or is the Federal still squatting?

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | September 25, 2016 | Reply

    • I don’t know! I visited Arlington several years ago and heard the spiel – but one never knows if the spiels in such places are true or false. So I made no effort to remember it. All I remember is that I thought that a grave injustice had been done to General Lee.

      The Constitution doesn’t permit the fed. gov’t to TAKE property from private citizens for any purpose. The fed gov’t may not force a private citizen to sell them property. See Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 17 (next to last clause).

      If the fed gov’t wants to establish a cemetery for our War Dead, then it must purchase the land WITH THE CONSENT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE for the State in which the Cemetery is to be located.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 25, 2016 | Reply

  4. Legal leg to stand on usurpers will will always use wharever force they have, be it police who do not belive in the Constitution ir the military with thensame problem or thise who just understand what their oaths meant. The usurpers will fight to protect their perfidys.

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | September 25, 2016 | Reply

  5. Hi, PH. With all the buzz about this election season being a ‘change’ election and the ‘most important in our lifetime’, etc, and more and more “populists’ coming out and saying they’re tired of DC and the elites, I was wondering how far the government could constitutionally go to preserve itself. You have written about the states’ right to secede, and also about the ConCon crapola vis-a-vis regular Amendment procedure, and we know about the Founders’ belief that when the people have had enough, they can rightfully abolish or alter the government, but does the government have a legal leg to stand on to forcefully resist? Say, under the banner of providing for “domestic tranquility”? Are the sedition laws valid?

    Like

    Comment by bobmontgomery | September 24, 2016 | Reply

    • The federal gov’t is already at war with us. They can not lawfully do anything to stay in power. Most of the property they own is unlawfully held because our Constitution does not permit the federal government to own and operate national parks, forests, wildlife preserves, grazing lands, etc. They are committing treason against us (Art. III, Sec. 3) by importing and subsidizing islamic jihadists who intend to make war on us, kill us, and replace our Constitution with sharia law.

      They got the State governments and much of local law enforcement on their side with bribes of federal funds and military weaponry and vehicles.

      Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 15 authorizes the feds to call forth the Militia [which no longer exists, thanks to the federalization of the State Militias by the infamous Dick Act of 1903] to execute the Laws of the Union and suppress insurrections and repel Invasions; but that presupposes constitutional laws and insurrections against lawful authority. The authority of the federal government is no longer “lawful”. It is unlawful and the federal government has become illegitimate.

      I would have to re-read the federal sedition laws to say yea or nay; but any law which pretends to criminalize political speech is, of course, unconstitutional.

      Most of the federal criminal code is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/us-criminal-code/

      We know that Hillary or Kaine would be the final death blow. I think that Trump is a decent man, a highly competent manager, a “do-er”, and loves this Country. He doesn’t know the Constitution, but it’s been ages since we had a President who knows it. And it’s been a very long time since we had a President who was a decent person and a competent manager. Reagan was “nice”, but that’s all. He squandered his 8 years in office and did nothing to turn the tide.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 25, 2016 | Reply

  6. I’ve watch abcouple of YouTube videos of your speeches. You often bring up the Declaration of Independence. It is my opinion that Abraham Lincoln rejected it. The primary reason that I believe this is that if he had accepted and believed the Declaration of Independence he would have had no choice but to allow the Southern states to secede. The opening line of the Declaration gives a people the right to disolve the bonds with another people. About thirty years ago while listening to the then Chief Justice being interviewed one of the questions was about the Declaration of Independence and he quickly said that the Declaration of Independence was not a document of the U.S. government. So, officially all of the principles that quote from the Declaration of Independence are not recognized by the Federal government.

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | September 24, 2016 | Reply

    • Yes, Lincoln was a tyrant and a usurper. Of course the States had the right to withdraw from the Union! They created the Union when they ratified the US Constitution. The States are the “creators”. The federal gov’t is merely the “creature”. Does the “creature” dictate to the “creator”? I suspect that if the South hadn’t been so immersed with the sin of permanent hereditary black slavery, the South would have won the War of Southern Secession.

      The Declaration of Independence is probably the only Document the hard Left hates more than the Bible.

      Yes, everyone ignores it just as everyone ignores our Constitution. But that is the fault of The American People: We keep electing these people who have contempt for our Founding Documents.

      Liked by 3 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 24, 2016 | Reply

  7. I have read several reports that Obama wants to “federalize” local police forces. In a conversation on another forum, someone stated that this would come under the “necessary and proper” cause.

    I’m sure you know the cause by heart but include it so my question is compete.

    “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

    My understanding is that the N&P only applies to the enumerated powers from my reading of the Constitution. Do I understand the clause and it’s usage correctly?

    I’m just trying too see light at the end of the tunnel and hoping it’s not the train!

    Like

    Comment by Douglas G Cowan | September 22, 2016 | Reply

    • go to my home page and look at the long list of categories.

      See the category which says, “necessary and proper clause”?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2016 | Reply

      • Thank you for the reference. It conforms what I got out of reading the Constitution.

        I had contact from the Article V people supporting Rob Natelson. During our conversation I mentioned that I read your page often and that what they state and what information you provide seem to conflict. Then followed a ten minute rant about you and your husband. I don’t do “PC” and I was shocked by some of the stuff I hears.

        Thank you again for what you do.

        Douglas G. Cowan

        Like

        Comment by Douglas | September 22, 2016 | Reply

        • They do that every chance they get. When I am scheduled to speak, they telephone my hosts, smear me, and try to get my hosts to cancel me. Michael Farris and Mark Meckler have personally telephoned my hosts to rant and rave about me, spread smears, and try to get me cancelled.

          Nick Dranias of Compact for America contacted at least one of my publishers, smeared me, and asked him to stop publishing my papers. Why? Because I exposed Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment as a scam to authorize Congress to impose massive new taxes: a national sales tax and a national value added tax.

          Those three men – with all their money – are terrified of a little 72 year old lady: Yours truly. Why? b/c I tell the Truth and expose them.

          but I have defenders – among them are: http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh237.htm

          http://freedomoutpost.com/cos-admits-it-cannot-defend-the-convention-method-of-amending-the-constitution/

          http://markmeckler.info/about/

          With all their money, why are they so desperate to keep people from hearing me speak?

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2016 | Reply

          • I do hope you took my e-mail the way I intended. I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for what you do.

            Thank you again you “little old lady.” We need more like you.

            I could not find a schedule for speaking engagements on your webpage. Are you coming too Florida anytime in the near future?

            Douglas

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Douglas | September 22, 2016

          • Oh, I knew you aren’t a hater & smearer – I’ve had so many dealings with them I can spot them easily.

            I’m reconsidering whether I ought to have an events page – I stopped posting my events there some time ago. Things are coming to a head in this Country and they are desperate to shut me up.

            I have spoken at The Villages twice in Florida. I don’t have any Florida events planned now. I’ve been working very hard on a project and haven’t been speaking so much in these last few months and haven’t set many events.

            email me if you like publiushuldah@gmail.com and tell me what city or town you are near and I’ll let you know if I am invited to speak in that area.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2016

  8. Art I Sec 7 provides that Congress shall “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, but, with the exception of Sec 9 in mind, doesn’t that leave it to the individual States to determine what refugees/immigrants (not imported slaves) are lawfully permitted to enter the States’ respective sovereign territories. I ask this in light of Texas’s recent decision to withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program from Jan 1, 2107.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | September 22, 2016 | Reply

    • Congress has power as of Jan 1, 1808 to control immigration.

      BUT what we are seeing with “refugee resettlement” is not immigration. It is an act of war being committed against us by the federal government. See this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/treason-cowardice-and-the-islamic-invasion-why-states-must-revitalize-the-militia/

      That why I call it “treason”.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2016 | Reply

      • In this matter, does the 10th Amendment apply at all? Seems to me a State is authorized to and is not prohibited from protecting its citizens from any federal program which, in the view of the State, imperils the security of its citizens.

        Like

        Comment by Jim Delaney | September 22, 2016 | Reply

        • The federal government has only the powers delegated to it.

          All powers not delegated (cite Article, Section, and clause), are reserved to the States or The People.

          The federal government also has duties: e.g., protect the States from invasion: Art. IV, Sec. 4. If the fed gov’t won’t do it, the States must resort to that original right of self-defense.

          The federal government is unlawfully redefining “Migration” – over which they have constitutional authority (Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1) – to mean invasion by islamic jihadists. The fed gov’t has become illegitimate and the States better revitalize their State Militia and get them ready for war. B/c when the islamic jihadists have sufficient numbers, they will start a hot war here.

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2016 | Reply

          • Sure hope Texas–and other States–being deluged with these so-called “refugees” understand their innate responsibility–indeed, authority–to ensure the security of their citizens in the face of this reckless influx. We shall see, I guess. IF ONLY THE STATES would honor their constitutional responsibilities, we’d actually have a constitutional republic again. I know. I’m a dreamer….

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | September 22, 2016

          • You are right. States which obeyed our federal Constitution could bring the federal government into line very quickly. The States could quickly make the federal government irrelevant. Start saying “no” to federal funds; start saying “no” to federal dictates on matters outside the authority of the fed gov’t (abortion, drugs, marriage, etc.).

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 23, 2016

          • Indeed. I read that every State now contains a known Hezbollah cell, and there must be plenty of sleepers and cells we have not identified. I believe they are preparing as we speak, getting ready to create massive chaos. There will be false flag attacks, terrorist attacks, and the federal government will offer Marxist “solutions” to these crises.
            And when I read articles indicating the feds want to nationalize our local and state police forces I get worried. This would give the federal government a “standing army” stationed and operating within the borders of the country. If our law enforcement agencies, departments, etc. take orders from the feds, they can force their will upon us.
            That would truly be a disaster.
            It is critical that State governments prepare, and strengthen their wills to reject federalization of their law enforcement officers and militias (those which still have them). If the States bend on this issue then they will no longer have any independence or authority. Didn’t Mao say something like “Power flows from the barrel of a gun”?
            It would be all but over for America if our law enforcement officers fall under federal control.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by topcat1957 | September 23, 2016

          • All that you said is True, dear Friend. I planned to speak on this very topic at the “Patriots” Fair in Mason, Ohio on September 17, 2016. But the City of Mason, and apparently also my hostess, Denise Waterman, were contacted by persons who objected to my speaking. So Denise Waterman cancelled me and let the people from the “convention of states” project speak instead of me.

            What Denise Waterman did is evil. She appeased evil and thus unleashed evil forces on us. Ayn Rand has a lot to say about appeasers: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/appeasement.html

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 23, 2016

          • One lingeirng, nettlesome question about Art I Sec 9 Para 1: as part of a constitutional convention compromise to placate the southern States, did not this provision essentially refer to the importation of slaves, especially since it provides for the imposition of a “tax or duty… not exceeding $10 dollars per Person”. And if it meant both slaves and non-slaves, why would the gov’t impose a $10 tax/duty on a non-slave immigrant/migrant/refugee. It also seems to indicate that this rule only applies to those “States now existing”. Not those entering the union after 1808? Not meaning to parse. Just want a clear understanding.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | September 23, 2016

          • Read it very carefully!

            It distinguishes between “Migrations” and “Importations”.

            Free Europeans “migrated”. Slaves were “imported”. The $10.00 was assessed only on “importations”.

            When the Constitution was drafted, there were 13 States (operating under The Articles of Confederation). There was unrestricted migration here by Europeans, and they would basically go and live wherever they wanted to live. The abolitionists at the convention (Alexander Hamilton, etc.) and James Madison and others wanted to end the slave trade [the importation of new slaves] immediately. But the slave states didn’t agree – so they compromised on 20 years from 1787 as being when the importation of new slaves would end; and as to when Congress would assume power over immigration.

            The term, “the states now existing”, doesn’t establish two versions of Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1: One version applying only to the original 13 States, and another version [where States can still import new slaves] to apply to all future States.

            The term merely describes what was then going on in the existing States and changing it as to (1) who has power over immigration [it was removed from the States and put in the hands of the fed. gov’t] and, (2) Ending the importation of new slaves FOREVER THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE UNITED STATES – PRESENT AND FUTURE.

            Congress’ control over immigration worked fairly well until wrong turn Teddy got his Immigration and Reform Act of 1965 passed. Before then, the US was selective as to whom we took; and the different ethnic, linguistic, and national groups were small enough that they HAD to assimilate. It was the 1965 Immigration Act which opened up the flood gates to this Country. And anyone who opposed it was called…… a racist! So, of course, that shut people up.

            Teddy Kennedy was a curse on this Country. But a majority in Congress went along with it – and we kept electing those people. So it all falls back on us.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 23, 2016

          • Appeasement is the big sin of “political correctness”, sycophantically agreeing with liars and evil men. It denotes a cowardly lack or character.

            Like

            Comment by topcat1957 | September 23, 2016

  9. PH:

    I’ve been trying to understand why you say that a ‘winner-take-all’ policy by a state in determining its electors for the presidential selection process is unConstitutional. Yes, I believe the Founders wanted each state’s legislature to select wise and learned people to determine who becomes an elector, but since the Constitution says that a state may act “…in such manner as the legislature ….may direct….” it seems to me that creating a ‘winner-take-all” policy through a popular vote by the public at election wouldn’t be unConstitutional. Wouldn’t it qualify as satisfying the ‘appointment’ of electors process? Also, I can find nothing to say that political parties cannot be a part of the candidate selection process if a state chooses to allow it.

    The 12th Amendment only addresses how the electors must proceed after they’ve been ‘appointed’ and how their votes are to be logged, so far as I can see. For myself, I prefer how Maine and Nebraska handle this but…..?

    I’m 81 years old and trying to get my old head around this properly but, while I have so much respect for your views on the Constitution, I can’t see how to reconcile this problem in my own mind and so badly need your insight.

    If you ever have time to address this issue, I’d sure love to know your view.

    Like

    Comment by Jerry C Nelson | September 22, 2016 | Reply

    • Winner takes all for each State is unconstitutional b/c it violates the 12th amendment. Go here https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/national-popular-vote-goodbye-sweet-america/ and read under the subheading, in red type, “The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors”. That sets forth procedures for voting.

      Article II, Sec. 1, clause 2, says the States shall decide how the Presidential Electors shall be selected and appointed. The phrase you rely on, “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”, addresses only the appointment of the Presidential electors. It doesn’t permit the States to violate the original Art. II, Section 1, clause 3, and then the 12th Amendment, re the apportionment of votes among the persons voted for!

      The quotes from The Federalist Papers in the linked paper show why our Framers said Electors should cast the votes for the States – the President and VP are not to be chosen by popular vote. Our Framers saw that People are too ignorant, stupid, gullible, and greedy to vote for President & VP. No one can reasonably deny that.

      The 12th Amendment sets forth the procedures which the Constitution requires to be followed re voting. If you will read it, you will see why the Constitution doesn’t permit political parties to ignore the 12th Amendment and have primaries, conventions, etc., etc.

      81 isn’t old {God forbid!} – you’ve just been so used to an unconstitutional system, that the system provided by our Constitution seems far fetched.

      That’s what happens when A People stop reading their founding documents for themselves and just go with what everybody says and does.

      I will always make time for you, Jerry.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2016 | Reply

      • PH,

        OMG! So simple, yet so clear when one’s eyes are opened just a little bit! Thank you, PH.

        Like

        Comment by Jerry C Nelson | September 22, 2016 | Reply

        • Yes, it is simple! All we have to do is lay aside the lies we have been told and …. BAM! It becomes so clear we wonder why we never saw it before. Been there, done that.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 22, 2016 | Reply

  10. PH: What must, could or should happen if a person nominated to the Supreme Court and accepted by the Senate should refuse to take the oath of office to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution?

    Like

    Comment by Jerry C Nelson | September 18, 2016 | Reply

    • Yours is a hypothetical question; but I’ll answer it anyway.
      Article VI, last clause, US Constitution, says judges “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”. So any judge who refused to do so could not properly be seated.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 19, 2016 | Reply

  11. I hope Trump is merely being politically astute. There is no way the man known as Obama is a NBC of the US of A.

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | September 16, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, we should tell the Truth no matter what.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 16, 2016 | Reply

  12. I just heard Trump on TV saying “Obama was born in the United States. Period.” His FATHER still wasn’t a US Citizen and that will never change. This keeps coming back over & over. How do we get it to stop. I written Trump tons of Tweets, but I suppose he only sends and not receives!! This is so disgusting!!!

    Like

    Comment by Jim Baines | September 16, 2016 | Reply

  13. We would like to join National Liberty Alliance.org and bring the militia in and get our armories back in every county through the committee of safety at National Liberty Alliance.org. We need to educate the militia, the sheriff, and the People and bring everyone in and educate them and establish committees of safety through National Liberty Alliance committee of safety in every county. Please reach out my name is [… personal info deleted by PH…] God bless you, I have listened to you speak and really enjoyed it, thank you.
    https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/COS

    Like

    Comment by Stephanie Strong | September 15, 2016 | Reply

    • I don’t think that any of the States have a constitutional Militia within the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16.
      All they have is the National Guard or the State Guard, which are adjuncts of the federal military.

      State Legislatures need to go to their law libraries and ask their Law Librarians [among my favorite people] to dig up the State Militia laws which were in effect in their State before the Militia was federalized as a result of the poisonous “Dick Act of 1903”. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44465921/32Stat775.pdf

      Then they should call upon the retired military men in their States to help them update the century year old State militia laws to reflect modern times.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2016 | Reply

  14. US News and World Report, and other sources have speculated that the date of the election may be delayed should Hillary Clinton die shortly before November 8, saying that Congress under Article II may decide the date on which the electors must cast their votes. I imagine the Democrats would insist upon this to give their replacement candidate time to put his or her message before the country. That seems unfair to me.
    They picked Hillary knowing full well she was sick (and that she is a criminal and a traitor). But any healthy candidate might die just before an election I suppose, so there must be contingency plans for such occurrences. The voters do need an opportunity to consider the new candidate before voting for or against them, theoretically anyway.

    If they pushed the date beyond January 20, would that make the speaker of the House acting President until the election were held?
    Some people have speculated that Obama would try to remain in office, but that would have to be illegal. His term is clearly defined as four years under the Constitution. On January 20 he has to go.

    This is all too bizarre to imagine.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | September 15, 2016 | Reply

    • Yes it is too bizarre to imagine. But this is what we get for allowing the political parties and everyone else to IGNORE the 12th Amendment.

      The system we now use to elect presidents is unconstitutional. Our Constitution doesn’t permit the parties to hold primaries & national conventions to select a nominee for their party.

      Instead, the Electors of each State are to meet within their own State and THEY cast the votes for their State for President; and then in a second ballot, THEY cast the votes for their State for vice-president. Then each group of Electors sends their list of persons voted for to the President of the Senate. Who, on a specified date counts the votes.

      The 12th Amendment specifies the procedures we are supposed to follow.

      I have two papers on this: The most recent is here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/trashing-the-12th-amendment-with-the-national-popular-vote/

      The footnote tells you where to find a description of how voting is to be carried out.

      The Constitution doesn’t address what happens if Hillary dies before the election, b/c under the Constitution, her nomination [like Trump’s] is unconstitutional.

      Remember, The Electors haven’t voted yet. So there is no President elect. Section 3 of the XX Amendment addresses what happens when the President elect dies.

      Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 4 delegates to Congress the power to determine the Time Electors are to be chosen and the Day on which they are to vote.

      We left the Rule of Law long ago.

      We are now in the Rule of Man. So the Democrat party will do whatever they want to do about replacing her. And Congress can do whatever they want to do about changing the date the Electors vote.

      But Sec. 1 of the XX Amendment provides that the terms of President and Vice president end at noon on January 20.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2016 | Reply

      • I can find nothing in the COTUS that either party “has” to have a candidate. There are other candidates besides Trump and Clinton on the ballot. The date for the election has been set by law. Would it not require a new law, setting a new date for the election, for the established date for the election too be changed?

        Like

        Comment by Douglas G Cowan | September 15, 2016 | Reply

        • Under the 12th Amendment, the Electors in each of the States vote for for President; and in a separate ballot, vote for Vice President.
          Under the 12th Amendment, political parties are not involved.
          When you say the “date for the election has been set by law”, which election are you talking about? When the general public votes? Or when the Electors vote?

          When we abandoned the 12th Amendment, we created a can of worms.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2016 | Reply

          • OK, I think found my misunderstanding. I’m referring to Article II, Section 1. So this is the Electoral College?

            How did we get the system we now have?

            In the system we have today, other than submitting candidates, what role do the parties play?

            Like

            Comment by Douglas G Cowan | September 15, 2016

          • Note that Article II, Section 1, clause 3 was superseded by the 12th Amendment, ratified 1804. Yes! That provides for the Electoral College. Be sure to study this and the link at the footnote which shows how the electoral College is supposed to work: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/national-popular-vote/

            And a portion of the 12th Amendment was superseded by Section 3 of the 20th Amendment.

            I don’t remember how and when we got to the mess we are in today.

            Political parties have no constitutional role – they are a plague and a curse on mankind.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2016

        • It sickens me. Nearly everything they do is unconstitutional and against the rule of law. But the people seem oblivious to this. Congressmen decide what they want to do and pass a “law” to dress it up as proper. Thus they just do what they please. It’s the rule of men instead of the rule of law.
          And the press, having become a mere propaganda arm of the system, backs them up and pronounces their usurpations as law. Those who speak out against the lawlessness are either ignored or discounted as “extremists”.

          Like

          Comment by topcat1957 | September 16, 2016 | Reply

          • That’s the truth!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 16, 2016

  15. we don’t have a problem with Congress, we can change them like underware. it’s the fungible cachet’ the Judges employ in their findings. The courts disregard the admonition placed in the First Amendment’s’45 word text. Are they not violating their oath by prohibiting the free exercise thereof? It’s hard to digest the usurpation just because they think they are above reproach. The way I read it, is there can be no violation unless Congress is involved. One could come to the conclusion that the courts can amend any law to meet their Will, instead of the Will of the Constitution; the outcome of the way they have left it is ripe for a smack down. Thanx for tolerating my ignorance PH

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | September 12, 2016 | Reply

  16. Can there be a violation of the so called “separation of Church and state “without Congress and or the usurpation by the Supreme Court” Congress shall make no law and the Supreme Court “can’t” make law, only their opinions.

    How do we the people exercise Jrfferson’s’ Federalist No. 22, (last para).
    The fabric of the American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONCENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, fountain of all legitimate authority?

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | September 12, 2016 | Reply

    • In the last paragraph of Federalist No 22, Alexander Hamilton is talking about how the Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution) were ratified, and how the proposed Constitution (the one we now have) is to be ratified.

      The Articles of Confederation were ratified by vote of the State legislatures. State Legislators have only delegated authority.

      But Article VII of our present Constitution provided that it would be ratified by Conventions in each of the States. Conventions represent “the pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”

      So that is why our existing Constitution was to be ratified by Conventions in each State instead of by the State Legislatures.

      It is important to understand that Hamilton recognized CONVENTIONS as “pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” That is why delegates to an Article V convention today have the authority to toss out the Constitution we have and write a new one.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 12, 2016 | Reply

    • To finish answering your questions:

      Our Constitution reflects the WILL of the American People. It is OUR JOB to enforce the Constitution. WE FAILED. Very few Americans understand this simple short document for the reason that they never troubled themselves to learn it. And it’s 12th grade stuff! This one page chart lays it all out: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

      As to your first paragraph: If you look through the list of enumerated powers delegated to the federal government (Art. I, Sec. 8), you won’t find any delegation of power over speech and religion. So the fed gov’t has no authority to regulate in those areas!

      Furthermore, the 1st Amdt specifically says the fed gov’t can’t infringe those rights.

      But the supreme court IGNORED all that and banned Christianity from the public square b/c THEY DON’T LIKE IT.

      And We The People elected to Congress people who are so ignorant, weak, and cowardly that they didn’t impeach and remove from office all federal judges who went along with the ban on Christianity.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 12, 2016 | Reply

  17. Hello and thanks for your work. Question : The Constitution Party and your opinion? Is it time to make the GOP a third party?

    Like

    Comment by David Yamarick | September 5, 2016 | Reply

    • Obviously, the Constitution Party is an infinitely better party than the corrupt GOP, from which I withdrew all support during the first Bush Presidency. But it is not within our power to make the GOP a 3rd party. The masses decide that. How to get the masses to move to the Constitution Party is out of my area of expertise.
      But it does appear that since Americans don’t care enough about our Constitution to trouble themselves to read it; we may have to wait until after circumstances have forced Americans to take an interest.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 5, 2016 | Reply

    • It’s hard for me to say whether that time will come quicker under Trump or Hillary. At present, I would like to see the Constitution Party grab some attentions and traction. Their platform is excellent, and they seem to actually believe in it which is so refreshing.

      Like

      Comment by David Yamarick | September 5, 2016 | Reply

  18. Having disbarred an attorney, been there, done that, the BAR isn’t Immune from civil lawsuits, been there done that again. Like any private
    Corporation the bar does have a soft under belly, and since the practice of law loves to make up law when ever they can conceal their crimes, they do so by concealing their crimes under the cover of laws the BAR writes through contamination of our legislative bodies. The answer is: don’t elect an attorney/ lawyer to any elected office. Look at both the current one in office, and who he is endorsing. I don’t think I need to explain my self…

    Like

    Comment by Rick1234 | September 5, 2016 | Reply

    • Your argument is fallacious! You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t elect lawyers to office b/c clinton and obama have law degrees and they are bad.

      Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were lawyers.

      Bill Clinton is over 6 feet tall; and James Madison was only about 5′ 6″ tall, so according to your “logic”, we should elect only short men to office.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 5, 2016 | Reply

  19. The following article seriously concerned me …, an excerpt and link to the article is listed below. Can this maneuver by the ABA be construed as an attempt to ‘muzzle’ lawyers and their clients? Would this also apply to any Judge, especially a Supreme Court Judge?

    August 17, 2016
    American Bar Association Attacks Attorney Speech Rights:
    “At it’s recent convention the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted a resolution amending Rule 8.4 of the ABA Model Rules Of Professional Conduct, the code of ethics that governs attorney behavior. …

    The adopted change sweepingly defines ‘conduct related to the practice of Law’ as including ‘representing clients, interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.’ …”
    http://www.jurist.org/hotline/2016/08/brad-abramson-speech-rights.php

    Like

    Comment by usnveteran | September 5, 2016 | Reply

    • This is a suggested rule of conduct for lawyers. It has no effect on any particular lawyer until or unless it is adopted by a Bar Association by which the lawyer is licensed. So it is the individual Bar Associations which decide whether to impose such rules on their members.

      These same Bar Associations write Rules of Judicial Conduct which Judges must follow (or get disciplined).

      But yes, speaking generally, free speech is disappearing. But it is Citizens who are abolishing free speech.

      All the Bar Associations in the Country are professional organizations – they are not “government” organizations. But leftists infiltrate them.

      When it is announced that I am to speak on the dangers of an Article V convention, Mark Mecker, Michael Farris and their State COS goons and underlings start a smear campaign against me. Mecker and Farris have both personally telephoned my hosts and urged them to cancel me. And when that doesn’t work, they send their underlings out to smear me and urge people to boycott my event. These are plain, ordinary Americans who have been manipulated to hate other Americans who oppose a convention and to do all they can to get them silenced.

      As a People, we are coming to the sorry state where ordinary people don’t want dissenting speech to be allowed.

      AMERICANS no longer say this: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.”

      When AMERICANS of today disagree with what you say, they will do whatever they can to get you silenced. The Left, which now has adherents who are posing as members of the Right, have divided the “conservatives”, sold them on leftist ideas (such as having an Art. V convention), and have turned them against the true conservatives.

      Yes, People are fallen and not very bright.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 5, 2016 | Reply

      • Thanks for taking the time to address my concern(s). You will always have my support – I really wish that I could attend your lectures/speeches … and I hope to one day find a way to help restore our Freedom and Constitution.

        Like

        Comment by usnveteran | September 5, 2016 | Reply

  20. Are the States allowed to set the qualifications to vote?

    Like

    Comment by James | August 31, 2016 | Reply

  21. PH, you’re so very right. Without a virtuous people, rebellion is simply destructive. We’d end up with something no better–or worse–than what we have now.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | August 30, 2016 | Reply

  22. JD, your arguments, though very well intended, they nevertheless conflict with the prescription of Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 & ’99 as well as Madison’s Report of 1800. Both were imminently qualified to prescribe the remedy for federal usurpation. Judge Abel Upshur was another. John Jay, the nation’s first Chief Justice, appointed by George Washington, said that the Jury has the right to judge both the facts and the law. His statement was the premise for taking Jefferson and Madison’s nullification argument down even further, i.e. to the local court level. Interposition/nullification is fundamental to every level of government. The people are constitutionally authorized as the final arbiters of all laws whether by the federal, state or local governments.

    Your point that “despite some genuinely strong efforts by some of us to encourage nullification and defiance to arrest federal tyranny, there is simply little or no interest in such remedies on the part of the majority”, and that nullification has not proven to be a “game changer”, PB correctly pointed out (in so many words) it is because the people have become so addicted to federal revenues that they keep asking for more and more of, as it were, “free money”, which of course has strings attached. So, my argument is that although Lincoln put the feds in charge of the plantation, and although the people are addicted to the “free stuff”, Jefferson’s remedy remains available, but it does depend on the people to demand their representatives implement the process. More specifically, if the people don’t have the strength of character to get rid of Joe Straus, Speaker of the House in Texas who has been elected each legislative session by EVERY Democrat and all but about 19 out of 96 Republican legislators, how do you propose to get the Texas legislature to do anything that requires moral courage, including secession? Straus and the majority of the Texas House and probably the Senate are establishment types who would have to be dragged out by their heels before approving secession. Jefferson offered nullification as a way to preserve the Union, and to avoid secession. Don’t forget what the “President” did when Southern states seceded the last time! Both nullification and secession require that a lot of citizens possess a spiritual IQ and the moral courage derived from it. That is the essential, but missing ingredient. Keep in mind that Joe Straus is the king-maker, and he could care less what the majority of Texans want. He appoints the committee chairmen, vice chairmen and calendar, which means that establishment liberals control the passage of all legislation. Thanks to the 17th amendment, the pervasive lack of moral courage and knowledge of our constitution, our elected reps have been bought and paid for.

    Like

    Comment by Tired Of Idiots | August 29, 2016 | Reply

    • All well land good, but for nullification and effective push-back of any sort requires informed, virtuous People willing to commit themselves to defending freedom and constitutional order. It always comes back to the People, the ultimate arbiters. And with the exception of the majority in Texas supporting Texan secession, virtuous majorities are at a premium and any hope for a return to constitutional order, either at the national or State level, is in serious jeopardy.

      Of course, we’d all prefer nullification to remedy federal excesses, and as an active member of the 10th Amendment Center, that remedy is being advocated every day; but, as said, any remedy requires something other than an ignorant, disengaged and unvirtuous majority. In those States where, miraculously, there IS majority support among the People for a particular constitutional remedy such as secession, are we to ignore, discount or dismiss it? Or are we to applaud and support such a virtuous effort to restore constitutional order? The answer is obvious for me.

      As for the entrenched politicians in TX–or in any other State–standing in the way of remedies supported by a vocal and committed majority of the People, if history is true, they will be swept aside. In the end, politicians always choose the path of least resistance, even if it means giving the appearance of supporting something they really don’t. Thus, the onus is upon the majority of People to see this through, and not upon an irrelevant Joe Straus or other self-serving political hack, failing which the People, by default, accept and encourage their State’s and their country’s wretched lawlessness and faithlessness. Such cannot be in any way tolerated.

      So, like you, I rely upon the wisdom and prudence of our Founders to remedy our enormously threatening political malaise. And if Texas secession advances the cause of constitutional order in one corner of this union, I’d be a fool not to vigorously support it. And I believe the Founders would do the same.

      Like

      Comment by jim delaney | August 30, 2016 | Reply

      • Nullification and Secession are not “constitutional” remedies! They are natural rights which pre-date and pre-exist the Constitution.

        The States ARE THE CREATORS OF THE CONSTITUTION. The STATES RETAINED ALL POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FED GOV’T.

        This is of fundamental importance.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2016 | Reply

        • My oversight. I stand corrected. Secession and nullification are natural rights, not constitutional rights.

          Like

          Comment by jim delaney | August 30, 2016 | Reply

          • James Madison told me to tell you, “Thanks, son!”

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2016

  23. What’s so sickening is observing pretentious oath breaking champions of the constitution deriding oath breaking comrades. After building layers of turd to rooftop levels, they have the arrogant audacity to sling one at opponents.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | August 29, 2016 | Reply

  24. Don’t think Texas “can take Oklahoma with it”. That would be up to OK. But, I understand what you’re saying, and I have precious little doubt that when the rubber hits the road OK will quickly secede as well. It would be one powerful and constitution-based confederacy, at least until we screw it up again.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | August 29, 2016 | Reply

    • Well Oklahoma has got some major BAD people in their State legislature.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 29, 2016 | Reply

    • True, and even TX has its share of corrupt and unprincipled politicos. If that weren’t the case, secession would have already occurred. But my hope is that the very act of a State’s seceding will so energize and motivate the citizens in other States that the influence of unprincipled power brokers in those States will be effectively nullified.I view secession as a remarkably positive solution to the lawlessness and faithlessness which grips this union–not as an unpatriotic, quixotic, knee-jerk or ill-conceived undertaking.

      Would I rather the USA be able to timely return to constitutional order, balance of power between the States and the federal gov’t, ushering in a deep reverence for individual and State sovereignty? Absolutely. But, as Caesar iterated when he crossed the Rubicon, “Alea jacta est”. (The dye is cast.) I honestly cannot see how either secession or rebellion can be averted. And of the two remedies, the more prudent among us would strongly opt for secession.

      Like

      Comment by jim delaney | August 29, 2016 | Reply

      • Avoid “rebellion” at all costs. The American People are THE PROBLEM. They must undergo a moral regeneration before they are fit to participate in a rebellion. If you will look at the history of rebellions, you will see that they are begun by “moderates” and are taken over by the most violent faction in the country.
        There was one exception: Our own revolution of 1776. But the American People of that time are gone. And we don’t have the leaders today we had then. And we sure don’t the Pastors.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2016 | Reply

  25. I understand the first Amendment, but I don’t think the framers would agree that a monopolistic press has the freedom to falsely accuse, slander or blatantly lie in order to steer elections.

    It seems broadcasters at least should be held accountable to objectivity and fact.

    There is something dangerously wrong when a combined MSM can conspire to promote a particular candidate.

    The extent to which MSM seeks to undermine Trump and promote Hillary is ioff the charts.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | August 29, 2016 | Reply

    • The first amendment doesn’t grant rights to anybody to do anything.
      All it does is list 5 areas where Congress is specifically forbidden from making laws.

      NOW that you understand THAT, you can see that the 1st amdt doesn’t give rights to anybody to lie and smear others.

      What’s the remedy for public figures who are smeared and slandered by the media and others? Well, in former times, a suit for slander or libel would lie. But in a famous slander case, New York Times v. Sullivan, the US supreme Court made it very different for public figures to sue people who smear and slander them. So you can thank the US supreme Court for this sorry state of affairs.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 29, 2016 | Reply

  26. Further, the electric power grid in Texas (my home state) is not embedded in the national power grid. They can run their own electric grid stand-alone.

    However, if Texas does leave the union, it has to take Oklahoma with it!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Manfred | August 29, 2016 | Reply

  27. Gary, according to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Federalist (now known as the Federalist Papers) constitutes “evidence of the general
    opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning.”

    I believe Jefferson and Madison are two of the men most responsible for writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Can you think of any greater authority on the genuine meaning of the Constitution than either Jefferson or Madison?

    You are suggesting that the Federalist Papers were propaganda. Propaganda is intentionally misleading information.

    Do you believe Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were guilty of promoting intentionally misleading information as to the genuine meaning of the Constitution? If so, what evidence can you offer to support that position?

    It seems to me that those interested in knowing the true meaning of the Constitution should eagerly accept and embrace a reference promoted for that purpose by the founding fathers.

    Progressives have agendas which are frustrated by the Constitution. It is for this reason that they invent and promote interpretations of the Constitution which differ so greatly than the explanations which the founding fathers offered.

    Progressives are exceedingly good authors of confusion and disinformation. Often they masquerade as conservatives in order to infect conservative thought with fatal errors. Be careful therefore of those who cast doubt upon the clear statements of the founding fathers.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | August 29, 2016 | Reply

    • I thought T. Jefferson was in Paris at the time of the Constitution’s writing…

      Like

      Comment by jim delaney | August 30, 2016 | Reply

      • Yes, Jefferson was in France when our present Constitution was being drafted.

        But Jefferson is the primary author of our Declaration of Independence; and he was with James Madison at the Board meeting on March 4, 1825 for the University of Virginia where they Resolved that the Federalist Papers were the best evidence of the genuine meaning of our Constitution.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | August 30, 2016 | Reply

        • But didn’t even Madison say we should look to the ratification debates in the federalist papers?

          Like

          Comment by Gary | September 6, 2016 | Reply

          • Are you saying that James Madison said, in The Federalist Papers, that we should look to the ratification debates in the various States to ascertain the original intent of the Constitution?

            I haven’t seen where Madison said that in The Federalist Papers. If you know where he said it, please identify the paper and paragraph!

            There are various places to look in order to ascertain the original intent: Madison’s Journal of the 1787 Federal Convention; the State Ratification debates; letters written by the participants in the Convention; other original source documents written at the time; and The Federalist Papers. I have used both Madison’s Journal of the 1787 Federal Convention and the Federalist Papers to prove original intent. see, e.g., https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/82/

            In this paper, I used additional original source materials from the time period: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

            But James Madison and Thomas Jefferson said at the meeting of the Directors of the University of Virginia during 1825 that the most authoritative commentary on the genuine meaning of our Constitution is The Federalist Papers: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/u-va-minutes-of-meeting-march-4-1825.pdf And it’s convenient to use the Federalist Papers. It literally took me weeks of scouring the internet to find original source documents for my linked paper on natural born citizen – and some of those links were given to me by a friend.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 6, 2016


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: