Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

4,164 Comments »

  1. Hi PH, our constitutional republic just took a dagger to the heart. SCOTUS gave legitimacy to a democracy for the purpose of electing the president when it unanimously agreed that a state can force the all electors to back the popular vote winner. “Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution We the People rule.” The Framers of the US Constitution never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote. If they had they could have easily written it into the US Constitution, they did not because the framers deplored a democracy. The very reason for the electoral college. If a state gives all electoral votes to the popular vote winner, then they disenfranchise all the voters who voted for the candidate who received the 2nd most votes. Sad, sad, sad !

    Like

    Comment by Spense | July 6, 2020 | Reply

    • well, you sure are on top of things. That came out today.
      I just now went to the US Supreme Court’s web site and read their one page “opinion” reversing the brilliant Tenth Circuit Opinion.
      Yes, it is very very sad. So disappointed in Justice Thomas.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020 | Reply

      • My city’s local newspaper reported on it this morning and I am an earlier riser. As you know if every state adopts the winner takes all approach, then the 15 largest states in the nation will elect the president every four years. The voters in the small states may as well not even vote for the president, their votes will never matter. I’m glad I am closer to 70 than 7 years old; it’s going to get very ugly.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | July 6, 2020 | Reply

        • Well, the brilliant 10th Circuit opinion in Baca wasn’t about the national popular vote BUT about whether the Presidential Electors for a State could be could be required to vote in accordance with the popular vote in THEIR state; or whether they could exercise their own independent judgment in deciding for whom to cast their electoral votes.

          Many (if not most) States have “faithful elector” laws which purport to require the Presidental Electors for their State to cast their votes in accordance with the popular vote IN THEIR OWN STATE. Most of those States have “winner take all statutes” so that all the electors must cast their votes for the candidates who won the popular vote in their State. Only two States, Maine and Nebraska, allow split electoral votes.

          so the Supreme Court’s ruling isn’t nearly as bad as the National Popular Vote; and, as a practical matter, it won’t change much. I just had hope that that wise Jurist in Colorado who wrote the 10th Circuit’s Opinion in Baca v. Colorado, would be able to bring about a transformation in how the Supreme Court views —lots of things. For sure, I thought Justice Thomas would see the opportunities and the rich ground laid in the 10th Circuit’s Opinion.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020 | Reply

      • Doesn’t the Constitution let the states decide on election rules? I realize they are supposed to delegate electors proportionally but if a state is stupid enough to allow popular vote determine the elector vote then the Supreme court had no choice. The NPV movement itself is the problem.

        Like

        Comment by David | July 6, 2020 | Reply

        • “Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President

          Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 provides that each State is to appoint, in such Manner as the State Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives for that State. These Electors were supposed to be the ones who actually voted for President and Vice President!

          Our Framers never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote. While they recognize in Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) that The People are the source of political authority, they knew that all history demonstrates that The People lack the knowledge, wisdom and judgment to make wise choices when voting for politicians.

          In Federalist No. 64 (3rd & 4th paras), John Jay recognizes that People are ignorant and easily manipulated by small groups who take advantage of their “hopes and fears”, to steer them towards candidates favored by the small groups.

          Accordingly, the Electors would be “select assemblies” “composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens” who would vote for those men who were “the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue”. Furthermore, Electors would not likely “be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism” which “sometimes mislead as well as dazzle”.

          In all of Federalist No. 68, Hamilton explains the wisdom of having specially selected Electors who were “most likely to possess…information and discernment” elect the President. He also warns of

          “… the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? …” (5th para)

          and shows why specially selected Electors in each State could best protect us from such scheming foreign powers.

          Now that we see why Our Framers provided that Electors from the Member States were to choose the President of The Federation, let us see how the voting was – and is – to be conducted.

          The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.

          The long ignored 12th Amendment (ratified 1804) sets forth binding procedures for taking and counting Electors’ votes. This is what it requires:

          The Electors in each State are to meet and cast their votes for President; and then vote separately for Vice President. Say a State has 13 Electors, and the voting goes like this:

          For President:

          Mr. Falconer – 6 votes

          Mr. Lossie – 5 votes

          Mr. Bell – 2 votes

          For Vice President:

          Mr. Cross – 5 votes

          Mr. Duncan – 5 votes

          Mr. Nichols – 3 votes.

          The Electors sign and certify this list and send it to the President of the Senate. On the appointed day, and in front of a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate counts the Electors’ votes from The Member States. The person with the greatest number of votes for President becomes the President (if he has a majority). The person with the greatest number of votes for Vice President becomes the Vice President (if he has a majority). If one or both don’t have a majority – well, here’s a novel idea: read the Amendment to find out what happens.

          THIS is how Our Constitution – which all those in the political process took SWORN OATHS to obey – requires the elections of President and Vice President to be conducted.

          So! The way we conduct presidential elections today bears no relation to what the Constitution requires.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020 | Reply

        • David, I agree this feels like political activism

          Like

          Comment by Spense | July 6, 2020 | Reply

          • Since unanimous decisions are so rare for the supreme court I have to presume that the constraints of this case were such that even Thomas couldn’t put up a dissent.

            Like

            Comment by David | July 6, 2020

          • Ah, but we don’t know that it was unanimous. I saw where a newspaper article said it was unanimous; but the article writer merely assumed that.
            It’s a “per curiam” decision. It says Sotomayor didn’t participate. So that leaves 8 Justices. So all we know is that a majority of the remaining 8 judges (at least 5) on that court voted to overturn the 10th Circuit. And that Thomas sided with the majority.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020

  2. Happy 4th of July!

    Who are “WE THE PEOPLE…” in the preamble of the constitution?

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 4, 2020 | Reply

    • Americans no longer believe that a People have the right to set up – and take down – governments.
      They believe that government is god and you must obey government.
      It is so sad.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 4, 2020 | Reply

      • Hi PH, once people were conned into believing that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter, the people became sheep and the federal govt used that to their advantage.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | July 5, 2020 | Reply

        • Yes, now almost everybody thinks the courts get to decide every issue.

          The Michigan House just overwhelmingly passed “The Microchip Protection Act” which says that employers can’t force people to be micro-chipped as a condition of employment UNLESS a court orders it. Hello?

          The People and state legislators have no understanding of the concept of “separation of powers”. In Michigan, the House wants the Judicial Branch to take over the function of the legislative Branch. The Courts will be the branch which decides whether Michiganders must be micro-chipped.

          God protect us from our unthinking fellows.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020 | Reply

  3. Publius, I Live in Texas and I just received a Public Safety Alert on my phone and it says,

    “The state of Texas now mandates all residents wear masks while inside buildings that are open to the public and outdoors, when it is not possible to maintain six feet of distance from people outside your household. Punishable by a $250 fine. This Independence Day, we are depending on you to help slow the spread of this deadly virus.”

    This infuriates me. How can the state government force people to wear masks and fine them for not doing so. Is this constitutional? How can they get away with this? Can the state be sued?

    Like

    Comment by Mac | July 3, 2020 | Reply

    • Your Governor and Lt. Gov. are A***S. They are in the pocket of the Kochs [there are internet articles on the big bucks the Kochs have paid to those two.]

      what you describe is outrageous. Civil rights litigation under 42 USC Sec. 1983 may be an option. Several such actions have been filed in other states respecting the enforced lockdowns. From what I’ve heard, wearing those masks is a severe health hazard. I expect it violates your State Constitution. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/+supreme+court+justice/KtbxLvHSxQmlWGHJsTCFRpxXplrSKKqrqq?projector=1

      Where does your state Constitution authorize what’s in the Public Safety alert.

      Here’s the civil rights complaint filed in Michigan against their governor, etc. https://www.scribd.com/document/458892197/2020-04-28-Filed-Complaint-for-Declatory-Relief-and-Injunctive-Relief#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=88890X1542029Xdc099eac8e3fc81ff5d3864a5b74f391&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

      I’d say, organize, contact your patriot lawyer friends, and ask them to find the best civil rights litigation law firm in the State.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2020 | Reply

      • Thanks for your response. I was looking through the Texas constitution and I don’t see anywhere that authorizes governor Abbott to force people to wear masks because of “alerts” or “emergencies.” I was reading a little of the complaint that you posted that was filed in Michigan and I completely agree. This is illegal.

        I’m not going to let the mask regime ruin the holiday. In defiance of the order I won’t wear a mask. If I get fined, so be it. Sadly, I won’t be able to afford a lawyer if I was to be fined to retaliate. But I will resist this order, the mask police won’t force me to wear a mask. I will not comply.

        Like

        Comment by Mac | July 3, 2020 | Reply

        • so is Abbott the one who issued the order?

          I haven’t seen the order – would like to.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 4, 2020 | Reply

          • Here’s a link to the order signed by Gov Abbott. It can be found at the Office of the Texas Governor website.

            Click to access EO-GA-29-use-of-face-coverings-during-COVID-19-IMAGE-07-02-2020.pdf

            Like

            Comment by Mac | July 5, 2020

          • Please read Article 4 section 8 of the State of Texas Constitution on the subject of “meeting” that is written in this Texas Governor Code.

            Like

            Comment by georgetherock | July 5, 2020

          • thank you, dear Mac. I’ll get to this as soon as I can.
            I am so behind it is pathetic.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2020

    • I live in San Antonio tx and was just threatened for not wearing a mask Outdoors because I started talking the Constitution difference between a law and a ordinance

      Like

      Comment by georgetherock | July 3, 2020 | Reply

      • Texas Patriots must either organize MASSIVE RESISTANCE to that stupid mask wearing order – or file a civil rights action under 42 USC Sec. 1983 against the government culprits – or better still, do both.

        Attorney Gerry Spence in Wyoming is one of the best – his law firm works all over the Country. They associate with laws firms in the State where the case is. Here is his firm – and they do civil rights litigation https://www.spencelawyers.com/

        https://www.spencelawyers.com/civil-rights/

        Get a copy of the Texas Order which pretends to require all of you to wear those stupid [and harmful] masks and be prepared to email it to the Spense law Firm. If they can’t do it, ask if they can recommend civil rights firms in Texas.

        Under that federal civil rights statute, I think the courts make the losing government entity pay the attorneys’ fees to the prevailing Plaintiffs’ attorneys. But of course, this is one of the things you’d want to check out with the Gerry Spense lawyers.

        My email is publiushuldah@gmail.com please send me a copy of the Texas Order.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2020 | Reply

  4. Is it possible that all of this manufactured discord in the U.S. is a ploy to get the citizenry to ask for gov’t intervention ostensibly to keep us safe from looters and George Soros but ultimately to introduce Army troops inside our borders to control dissent from authoritarian control.

    Like

    Comment by weathertiteconstruction | June 28, 2020 | Reply

    • Yes, what you describe is one variant of a rage of possibilities. but I expect it will be UN troops instead of American troops. see this:https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/usmca-trade-agreement-the-north-american-union-an-article-v-convention-and-red-flag-laws-connecting-the-dots/

      What’s going on right now bears the markings of a Communist revolution.

      In addition, the Muslims have long been planning a takeover of our Country.

      So it appears to me that we have rival gangs determined to destroy our Country: The Globalists, the Communists, and the Muslims.

      And American Republicans are sitting on their hands.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2020 | Reply

      • Thank you Publis for the truth. I would probably have said the Republicans have their hands somewhere else other than under their “glutes”. JLA.

        Sent from my iPhone

        >

        Like

        Comment by Jack Adams | June 29, 2020 | Reply

      • When you add it all together, in my mind, it continually points its dirty little finger directly at the UN, New World Order, Council on Foreign Relations, and the rest of the world gov. freaks. For more years than I care to count I have advocated for removing ourselves from the UN and kicking them off our shores as well as removing ourselves from useless treaties and agreements with other useless international organizations, NGO’s, WHO, NATO, and others to numerous to mention. Although no huge fan of Pres. Trump, he’s possibly the only one not wholly owned by a political party and the deep state to get it done. All he needs is more pressure from Patriots. That he loves this country I have no doubt. If he’s got the moxie to call for NATO countries to pony up their fair share, he’s the one who can do it. Once he leaves office, it’s fairly certain to never happen. The longer this continues the more likely this will not end well.
        Thank you PH for all your efforts and diligence in keeping us informed, you have my eternal gratitude.

        Like

        Comment by N S | July 4, 2020 | Reply

        • But sadly, Trump is doing the globalists’ bidding. He says things we love to hear [like his speech before the UN saying we would never submit to globalism], but he signs and pushes the USMCA “Trade Agreement”. I waded thru it and wrote 3 papers on it: it’s a massive transfer of sovereignty FROM Congress and the American People TO global gov’t (UN). See my 3 papers & video on it here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/usmca-trade-agreement/

          He promised to control immigration and “build a wall”. but under the USMCA “Trade Agreement”, we surrender control over immigration to the UN.

          He appointed a gun control nut – Barr – as Attorney General. Trump is fine with taking the guns first – due process later.

          He lets the Federalist Society choose his nominees for the federal bench – but the federalist society carries out the agenda of the Kochs who have been funding them to the tune of $100K a year. Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court have been a disaster.

          He is sitting on his hands and doing nothing to stop the Communist revolution which is going on right now in our Country. Yet Trump has authority to call up the national guard and go into the cities and stop the insurrections. See Edwin Vieira’s recent article on this at News With Views.

          He is doing nothing while state governors are stripping us our Freedom using this fake corona virus scam as an excuse.

          So, I regret to say, Trump is all talk [stuff we love to hear] – but he does the opposite.

          and his ignorance of our Constitution is astonishing. He seems to know less about it than my chickens.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 4, 2020 | Reply

    • The communist wannabes are destabilizing the country with the unrest, setting the stage for a communist takeover. This is a very interesting authoritative video on the stages of a takeover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvXwuZ-bok

      Like

      Comment by Spense | June 29, 2020 | Reply

      • Hi PH, that was a good video. I can’t say anything in it surprised me but it is something good to share. Sadly he is right that no amount of data seems to persuade a “true believer” whether you talk about socialism, global warming, etc.

        Nelson

        Like

        Comment by Nelson Lazear | June 29, 2020 | Reply

        • drats! my filter sent your comment to “Trash”. If in the future, you post a comment that doesn’t show up, email me at publiushuldah@gmail.com I don’t normally check my spam & trash folders because they are too big and some of it is so filthy, I don’t want it polluting my mind. Just now, I checked my trash file because it had only one entry – yours!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 30, 2020 | Reply

  5. PH, can Trump lawfully and unilaterally designate BLM or any other domestic group as a terrorist organization, thus providing him legal justification to order the leaders’ arrest, indictment and trial for terrorism. Both Antifa and BLM are Marxist with the stated aim of overthrowing the US government. Seems to me that if he were able to do this, and if his advisors felt that it would be politically prudent, he would have done so already. I keep hearing folks say Trump must do more, but without understanding that the President’s power is limited. What say you?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 28, 2020 | Reply

    • What is accomplished when an organization is labeled “a terrorist organization”? https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
      Nothing.

      The US government continues to import them into this Country in droves – calling it “resettlement” of “refugees” – or permitting their entry with our totally open borders.

      Since 1965 with Wrong-turn Teddy’s Immigration Reform Act, it has been deliberate US policy to overrun this Country with third world immigrants. And these third world immigrants don’t wish us well.

      Like Trump’s Wall, the national governments’ “lists” of “terrorist organizations” is a sham.

      The US federal government has existing constitutional authority to suppress the insurrectionists. I’ve been writing about it for years. e.g., https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/293/

      Edwin Vieira recently wrote of using the militia clauses to suppress the on-going insurrections in the cities https://newswithviews.com/the-presidents-authority-to-suppress-insurrections/

      So the Constitutional authority already exists to suppress the Muslims and other insurrectionists. But the US gov’t won’t use the authority because the fed gov’t is controlled by globalists (Council on Foreign Relations, etc.) And President Trump is their tool. See my three papers on the USMCA “Trade Agreement”.

      I’m emailing a flyer to you on the 4 provisions in the US Constitution which authorize the fed gov’t to round up and deport the terrorists here. Look for an email from publiushuldah@gmail.com

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2020 | Reply

  6. PH, again need our counsel. Teh nut jobs in the House are planning to vote for DC to become the 51st State. My opinion is that Congress does not have the unilateral authority to do so. Seems to me that in order for them to do, they would need to invoke Art V to amend the Constitution. When I read Art I Sec 8 Cl17 and Art IV Sec 3 Cl2, I cannot determine with certitude that Congress may or may not do this.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 26, 2020 | Reply

    • Under Article IV, Sec. 3, US Constitution, Congress has the power to admit new States into the Union.

      For a list of States and when admitted, see: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_admission_to_the_Union

      Note that the new States were all “colonies” or “territories” before they were admitted into the Union as “States”. That is highly significant.

      The District of Columbia already has an existing constitutional status as “the Seat of the Government of the United States” – see Article I, Section 8, next to last clause!

      In order to change the constitutional status of the District of Columbia from the “seat of government of the United States” to a State, Article I, Section 8, next to last clause must be amended pursuant to Article V, U.S. Constitution.

      Any pretended Act of Congress which purported to confer statehood on the District of Columbia would be totally and blatantly unconstitutional.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2020 | Reply

      • Hi PH::

        Is a correction needed? For ten years (1836-1846) Texas operated as a sovereign republic or nation. It applied or otherwise became a state in 1846. Until that time it operated as a sovereign nation with its own government laws, rules, regulations, etc. As I understand it, should that state ship ever be surrendered or revoked, Texas would once again become a sovereign republic or nation. For years, only Mexico still considered Texas to be a breakaway province or territory of Mexico. Your thoughts?

        Like

        Comment by paradigmrw | June 26, 2020 | Reply

        • Yes, thank you for the correction! I corrected it on my website: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/congress-has-no-authority-to-confer-statehood-on-the-district-of-columbia/

          But I’m leaving my comment to Jim uncorrected so as to encourage others to correct me when I make a mistake!

          Who knows what will happen when our Country falls apart? If the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is imposed on us [and that is easily done], all of the State governments would be abolished.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2020 | Reply

          • Would that not also include Vermont which, I believe, was an independent country when admitted as the 14th State in 1791?

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 26, 2020

          • You people are wonderful – I am so proud of you for being Bereans. God loves Bereans who check out what they are told to see whether it is true!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2020

  7. Hi Ph, just wanted to provide feedback on Jim Delaney’s concern. I sent this to the president, both us senators and my congressman. Heard nothing back but crickets, Sen Durbin (Lawyer) even had the audacity to send an email stating he is a sponsor of the senate’s version of the “Justice in Policing Act 2020”. Our federal govt has become more organized crime than lawful govt.

    “Why are the democrats trying to enact a Justice in Policing Act? Such an act is wholly unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government. The Justice in Policing Act proposed by Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate is a violation of the US Constitution; specifically, the 10th amendment. The federal government has NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY over the local (and State) Police. That authority stays with the states. Any action the federal government takes is a violation of the US Constitution. The federal government possesses only those enumerated powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution; all remaining powers are reserved to the states or the people. THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY OVER LOCAL AND STATE POLICE. The unconstitutional proposed Justice in Policing Act is a usurpation, a power grab by the democrats to centralize more power within the federal government. The Justice in Policing Act must not go to the floor for a vote. Congress can only pass laws that are authorized by the Constitution and the power for congress to enact a Justice in Policing Act is NOT authorized by the US Constitution. If there is “one overriding principle” in the Constitution, it is to avoid the concentration of power, and it does so in many ways. The 10th Amendment is an instrument written to help ensure that the federal government would not be able to impose the kind of absolute authority over the states that the framers feared. The Justice in Policing Act must be opposed with vigor. If you disagree, I demand to be shown where in the US Constitution the federal government was granted that authority. What the 10th Amendment states:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The States possess the lawful authority of state sovereignty which includes authority over the police in their state. Congress’ unlawful Justice in Policing Act is both oppressive and dictatorial. ”

    We can only hope the senate leader will not call that proposed bill for a vote, Pelosi most assuredly will.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Spense | June 13, 2020 | Reply

    • a Five star Essay, Spense! Well done!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 14, 2020 | Reply

      • Thanks PH! I learned from you and I most humbly thank you for it.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Spense | June 14, 2020 | Reply

    • Spense… i read your 5 Star Essay and would love to post it on FB to share informing Americans … are you agreeable? … i think i would have to modify the beginning of it… leaving off the start of your statement and just posting like this: “”” Sen Durbin (Lawyer) STATES HE IS A SPONSOR OF THE SENATE’S VERSION OF THE “Justice in Policing Act 2020”. Our federal govt has become more organized crime than lawful govt…. and then the rest as you have written it. thank you

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Madelyn Thide | June 14, 2020 | Reply

      • Madelyn, you have my permission ~ Spense

        Like

        Comment by Spense | June 14, 2020 | Reply

        • Be sure to credit “Spence”!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 14, 2020 | Reply

          • Congrats to Mr. Spense for his essay/analysis. Good enuf to warrant my posting it on my FB site. Conservatives need this education AS MUCH as do the clueless or, worse, recklessly disdainful members of America’s Modern Democrat Party, aka Progressives. Spense proves how indispensable Publius Huldah continues to be to patriots.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 15, 2020

          • i also posted it on mine after i asked his permission and i agree America needs to know what he said.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by madelyn Thide | June 15, 2020

        • thank you for your permission Spense and as per Miss PH, i will give credit to Spense.

          Like

          Comment by madelyn thide | June 14, 2020 | Reply

        • yes Spense i will give you credit.

          Like

          Comment by madelyn thide | June 14, 2020 | Reply

  8. It’s downright dizzying and painfully disappointing that the feds routinely violate first principles. Now the House–I hope not the Senate too–is crafting language to regulate police throughout the country. Strikes me as yet another case of federal overreach. But, they will get away with it. Most people are stupid or brainwashed and the States, once sovereign, have morphed into obedient vassals of their federal Lord and Master. What are the congressional limits in such a matter?

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 7, 2020 | Reply

  9. When the constitution reads Art 1 sec 8 cl. 15 “laws of the union” and Article VI, cl.2, “law of the land” is there a difference?

    Like

    Comment by Blake | June 7, 2020 | Reply

    • Excellent question!

      The “Law of the Land” (Article VI, clause 2, US Constitution) is expressly limited to 3 things: (1) The US Constitution; (2) Acts of Congress which are authorized by the Constitution; and (3) Treaties which are authorized by the Constitution. Note that the US Constitution is The Standard by which Acts of Congress are measured and judged. It is also The Standard by which Treaties are measured and judged. So if an Act of Congress violates the Constitution, it is null and void. If a Treaty isn’t authorized by the Constitution, it too is null and void. [This is why Treaties addressing gun control, rights of children, “climate change”, etc., would all be unconstitutional: Our Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal gov’t to meddle in such matters.]

      Laws of the Union” (Article I, Sec. 8, clause 15, US Constitution) refers only to Laws made by Congress. The Militia of the several States can be called forth to “execute” – carry out – Acts of Congress: remember The Whiskey Rebellion during the Presidency of George Washington? The fed gov’t called forth the Militia to enforce the Excise Tax on Whiskey.

      The fed gov’t wouldn’t be calling forth the Militia to enforce “the Constitution” or a “Treaty” – just to enforce specific acts of Congress.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2020 | Reply

  10. Hello Publius Huldah,
    Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution states, in part, that the governments of the several States are prohibited from impairing the obligations of contracts. During this coronavirus shut down, my governor, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan has shut down private businesses. It seems to me that, when she shuts down private businesses, he is impairing the obligations of the contracts that employers have with their employees, and therefore, Governor Whitmer is violating the Federal Constitution. Presidents of the United States takes oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. It seems to me that the president of the United States has a duty to stop the governor of Michigan from violating this part of the Federal Constitution. Am I correct? Thanks.

    Like

    Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | May 28, 2020 | Reply

    • That’s an excellent point! I never thought of that – but yes, if you have a contract with someone to do work for them, and your contract is cancelled because of the Governor’s lock-down orders, then I think the Governor may well have violated that provision of the US Constitution.

      I was to speak at the MicPAC conventions in Michigan on April 17-18 in the Lansing area and again on May 16 in the Peninsula, but those events were cancelled. I don’t get paid for my appearances – BUT what if I had a contract to be paid for the appearances? The Michigan governor would have caused my contracts to be broken. I expect that there are people in Michigan who had “paying” contracts which the Governor in effect caused to be broken.

      I never thought I’d have to say this, but it seems that Trump is a follower and not a leader when it comes to the duties of his office. He takes his orders from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) with respect to USMCA “Trade Agreement” and the deliberate collapsing of the federal reserve system in order to move us into the new international monetary system controlled by the IMF (as provided for in the USMCA “Trade Agreement”). On purely domestic matters, he seems to take his lead from “what everybody says”…. His appointments have been dreadful – Attorney General Barr? Yikes, talk about a bully and gun-control tyrant! It would be the Attorney General [who serves at the pleasure of the President] who would file the appropriate civil action against Michigan’s Governor. But I don’t think that Trump would be able to take the heat the Democrats would generate if the Trump administration sued the Governors for impairment of obligations of contract.

      Some have even argued that the Trump administration should criminally prosecute [under 18 United States Code 241 & 242] the Governors for some of their actions respecting the COVID scare: See Edwin Vieira’s article here: https://newswithviews.com/is-the-president-an-essential-worker/

      But it seems that the Trump Administration is filled with people who aren’t really on our side………

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 29, 2020 | Reply

      • PH, really like your response to Kenneth Lloyd’ question. As I started reading his question I began thinking under most employee employer’s work arrangement it’s not a contract if your employer is a private concern. One is hired but few are “ contracted “.
        I am concerned as are others on the USMCA deal as it relates to our country. Trumps cabinet is made up of people affiliated with CFR and those folks don’t have this nation in their loyalty.
        But on the other hand Trump being a business man where could he have gotten the knowledge of so many people. It shows that their loyalty isn’t to our constitution or their advice to our President would be different.
        Thus being a “ follower “ would stand out. I voted for him knowing of his brashness and not a Sunday School teacher. I didn’t want a person to organize a Sunday social but someone to take care of our nation. He’ll get the blame but I believe it’s due to bad advisors.
        Any one against him is a critic and have answers. Where were all the one’s that thought they could have done better. He’s the most transparent President I’ve
        seen in my life. I think any one with an honest reason could get an appointment to see him.
        Love your honesty and deeply respect your knowledge of our constitution.
        Remember the only standard is “ Truth “.
        Jack Adams

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Jack Adams | May 29, 2020 | Reply

  11. Crystal-clear,PH. Most appreciative. Prof. Dershowitz asserts that one may be forced to have a vaccination if not doing so would potentially harm others. He cites a 1913 case, I believe. Entirely true? Also, is it lawful to permit a pandemic to justify either the feds or the states to shut down businesses or to restrain socializing? I had thought it could only be voluntary. And is the harassment of and giving out tickets to businesses and citizens who do not conform to CDC mitigation guidelines lawful.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | May 23, 2020 | Reply


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: