Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

3,171 Comments »

  1. PH
    It was announced today that the City of Chicago will file a lawsuit that says that the withholding of federal funds by the Trump administration is illegal. That withholding public safety grants to Chicago and other sanctuary cities is illegal.
    If I’m not mistaken the federal government has no constitutional authority to use taxes to issue public safety grants or any other type of grant to cities, since it isn’t an enumerated power and thus can’t be a just power. Anyway, public safety is a local and state issue.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | August 7, 2017 | Reply

    • To lay the predicate for your comment, I copied this from a news article:

      Reuters reports that Chicago stands to lose $3.2 million worth of funding as a result of the Justice Department barring cities who do not co-operate with immigration agents — including by allowing them unfettered access to their jails — from receiving Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. Hundreds of American cities currently benefit from the grants, which provide federal criminal justice funding for equipment and law enforcement training.

      Trump is acting rightly:

      1. Immigration policy is set by CONGRESS, not by individual cities. See Article I, Sec. 9, clause 1 (immigration) and Article I, Sec. 8, clause 4 (naturalization).
      2. The President’s Duty is to carry out those acts of Congress which are constitutional. See Article II, Section 3.
      3. Neither Congress nor the President have the constitutional authority to dispense grants for criminal justice funding to the States and political subdivisions thereof. Such is not on the list of delegated powers.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017 | Reply

      • I hesitate as a mere chemist to venture into a question on the law but cynically I assume the courts will rule in Chicago’s favor since Congress passed 42 U.S.C. §3751(a) https://www.bja.gov/jag/index.html, even though the phrase “the Attorney General may, in accordance with the formula established under section 3755 of this title, make grants to States and units of local government, for use by the State or unit of local government to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice, including for any one or more of the following programs.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3751. To me the word may would indicate that the Attorney General has the discretion to grant or not to grant; consequently the suit should be thrown out on that basis as well. You can find a list of the grant amounts by state here: https://www.bja.gov/Funding/17JAGStateAllocations.pdf.

        Like

        Comment by Nelson Lazear | August 8, 2017 | Reply

        • The federal government has no constitutional authority to bestow “grants” on state or local governments. I can’t predict how the courts will rule. When no one obeys the Constitution, the people with the power do whatever they want.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017 | Reply

          • Absolutely, dear lady. And when no one faithfully executes his office and files criminal charges, the same thing occurs. What about this law: http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/2017/08/07/1907-title-8-u-s-c-1324a-offenses/

            Like

            Comment by bobmontgomery | August 8, 2017

          • EXCELLENT! Applause! Applause!

            but Unified Patriots is not a secure site. I’m told there needs to be an “s” near the beginning of the url. I’m told that in an unsecured site, thieves can steal passwords. Get the url fixed and then I’ll post on FB.

            Can you get the person in charge of the website to fix that?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 9, 2017

          • bobmontgomery and PH…I am not a techie, but try putting an “s” in manually after the HTTP: part of the URL. I don’t know if this would work or not, but I tried it and the same pic of Rahm Emmual was there along with the same comments on the right hand side.

            Like

            Comment by z1queenie | August 9, 2017

          • Try it Bob! My husband added the s to my url, so it’s can’t be difficult [we aren’t techies either].

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 9, 2017

      • One point further. PH described the law requiring the cooperation of local officials with ICE which is being violated. I think the better course of action would be to prosecute these officials under that law. Withholding funds effects the general safety in the community and could cause a significant political backlash. I am not arguing that the grants are constitutional!

        Like

        Comment by Nelson Lazear | August 8, 2017 | Reply

        • Good! Because they aren’t constitutional; and accordingly, should be terminated.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017 | Reply

      • PH, is it constitutional for a city, town or county to arbitrarily opt to extend the right to vote in local elections to illegal aliens/non-citizens?

        Like

        Comment by Jim Delaney | August 8, 2017 | Reply

        • The answer to part of your question is in the following provisions of our Constitution:

          1. Article I, Section 2, clause 1, US Constitution, which says the States set the qualifications for voters.

          2. The 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th Amendments where the States agreed the federal government could stop them from denying suffrage to people on account of race, being a woman, not paying a tax, or age if the person seeking voter registration was at least 18 years old.

          3. Notice that those 4 Amendments all have one word in common: CITIZENS! So only CITIZENS may vote in federal elections. States should man up and tell federal courts who say that State election officials may not require proof of citizenship to … [beg your pardon] “piss off!”

          4. That said, I suppose States could allow aliens to vote in State and local elections. If they do, then Americans deserve what they will get: A Muslim takeover.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017 | Reply

          • You’re right, PH. We as a people no longer deserve a constitutional republic. Just as well, I suppose, since the republic died a long time ago. All we can do is hang on and do what we can to restore some reasonable semblance of constitutional order, if not in the nation, then at least in one or more of the States which might at some point soon wisely opt to secede. So tragic. We can be so stupid, self-destructive.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | August 8, 2017

          • I saw this today: https://libertyforeverblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/tolkiens-timeless-trilogy/
            Well worth reading. The message is “fight with all that you have!”.

            And if the author is the 17 year old girl, then I am most encouraged for our future. I passionately love our Country.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017

          • Just read the link. Stirring, to say the least. Thanks. At some point, however, we will need to organize, lest we each hang alone.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | August 8, 2017

          • Yes, we better organize. Too many have given up. Shame on them, I say! They’d rather spend the rest of their lives playing golf and watching TV than fighting to restore our Constitutional Republic.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2017

  2. Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional?

    Like

    Comment by robert paulson | August 2, 2017 | Reply

    • I haven’t read it and so can’t comment definitely. However, clearly the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban discrimination in private employment!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 3, 2017 | Reply

  3. PH,
    President Trump tweeted the other day about banning transgenders in the military, does that come under his purview as Commander In Chief? Or is that reserved to Congress under Article. I, Section 8, clauses 14 & 16?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | July 27, 2017 | Reply

    • Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 14, CONGRESS has the delegated authority to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the military forces. And I remember when I was a JAG officer (some 40 years ago), that homosexual soldiers were given an involuntary “administrative discharge” under “chapter 13” of the Service Rules and Regulations – which were, of course, enacted by Congress.

      So it is CONGRESS alone which has the power to ban “transgenders” from the military. However, as CINC, it is proper for The President to urge CONGRESS to make a Rule banning “transgenders” and providing for the involuntary administrative discharge of those now in the military who are “transgender”. And it is proper for the President to relieve of their commands and duties the high ranking military officers who do not support him on this issue. And I sure would. We need to get rid of the Generals & Admirals who were promoted by obama.

      I put “transgenders” in quotes because we can’t change our sex! “Transgenders” are disturbed people who have surgery & take hormones to make them look more like the opposite sex. They need psychological and spiritual assistance – not surgery and hormones.

      I read the series of tweets by the combat soldier describing how we can’t have people with screwed up minds & psyches serving in combat! It’s hard enough without bringing in people with serious personal psychological and spiritual problems.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 28, 2017 | Reply

      • In 1968 when the draft was still in vogue I Volunteered so I could choose which branch Iwanted join there was a preponderance of draftees who claimed they were
        Homosexual because they were not eligible to serve, however, the military had a two word response, PROVE IT.

        Like

        Comment by Con Mah | July 29, 2017 | Reply

        • Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

          The ban on transgender service that President Trump reaffirmed was there for eight years under Obama. It was there in his first term and his second term. And the media said nothing.

          Only in the summer of last year did the ban technically end. And, in practice, it remained in force. All the while there was no angry clamor about the suffering of potential recruits who couldn’t enlist. Those who are fuming with outrage now had hypocritically remained silent. Obama had done it. So it must be good.

          Obama had kept the ban in place for almost his entire two terms in office. And he found a way to retain it throughout his final months. With a year’s review, the transgender recruits could only be accepted after he was out of the White House. That way he could have his social justice cake and eat it too. He would get the credit for ending the transgender ban without dealing with any of the problems.

          And there were plenty of problems.

          45% of transgender persons in the 18 to 44 age range are suicidal. This is a serious risk for personnel who are around weapons or operating machinery or aircraft. If this were the only issue, it would be enough to justify the medical ban.

          Transgender operations and hormone therapy requires constant monitoring by a doctor. They carry serious health risks. Some of those risks require serious medications and ongoing management.

          That is not what the military usually expects to deal with from recruits.

          The Rand study being touted by transgender advocates who claim that medical expenses will only be in the millions relies on a statistical bait and switch. The actual cost is estimated to be in the billions.

          The Army and Air Force wanted to delay implementation for another two years. That was on top of the original year review that was lapsing. The issue had become a heavy burden that we didn’t need.

          So President Trump got rid of it. His policy is the same one that existed for most of Obama’s time in office. The televised outrage over it is shameless and cynical posturing by media hypocrites.

          The transgender ban isn’t a moral or religious policy. It’s a medical one. The military doesn’t have the resources and isn’t equipped to deal with the complicated medical and social problems involved.

          The Department of Defense fitness standards have an extensive list of disqualifiers. A “history of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex” is there in between pelvic inflammatory disease and missing testicles. These medical issues are there alongside missing fingers, a history of gout and numerous other problems. They’re there because the military wants healthy and able recruits.

          It’s that simple.

          Military readiness demands personnel who can deploy on short notice without ongoing medical problems holding them back. It wants recruits in prime health who can give all they have. Medical issues don’t just drive up costs so that hard choices have to be made. They also cost lives.

          Our armed forces run on teamwork. When members of the team can’t perform, they put lives at risk.
          Isn’t it best to get Reliable information before condemning the messenger with false or inseficient information?

          Like

          Comment by Con Mah | July 29, 2017 | Reply

  4. PH,

    I could be wrong but… Is this not saying, this portion of the constitution can be modified by the passing of a law.

    “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.”

    I was under the impression of you wanted to change the constitution you had to amend it.

    Your thoughts.

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 18, 2017 | Reply

    • Right, If we want to change the Constitution, we must amend it.

      Article I, Section 4, clause 2, US Constitution, provided that Congress would meet on the first Monday in December, unless Congress by Law, set a different date. So that provision of the Constitution permitted Congress to make a law to set the date.

      In the XX Amendment, Section 2, The Constitution says Congress shall meet at noon on January 3 of every year – unless Congress makes a Law to set a different date. So again, the Constitution permits Congress to make a Law setting the date they are to meet.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  5. PH, I keep trying to figure out the difference. A little help if you have time.

    I read … Art 1. Sec 8.

    Clause five states….(5) To establish uniform Rules of Naturalization;

    Clause six states…..(6) To establish uniform Laws on Bankruptcies;

    one is “RULES” the other is “LAWS” why the difference and what does that do for naturalization if it’s not law?

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 3, 2017 | Reply

    • Well, aren’t you the cat’s meow!

      I don’t know why they used “rules” in (5) and “Laws” in (6)!

      In litigation, we always referred to statutes as “laws”; and the “rules” of civil procedure (or the “rules” of criminal procedure or appellate procedure or evidence, etc. ) as “Rules”. The Rules of civil procedure [or criminal procedure, or appellate procedure, or evidence, etc.] are written by the supreme Court which has jurisdiction over the area, and then passed by the Legislature which has jurisdiction.

      See Webster’s 1828 http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Rule

      The “rules” of evidence or procedure or whatever, are binding. It may just be that this is the way lawyers have always talked. It’s the way I always talked. And thought. And Madison, Hamilton, etc., were lawyers.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2017 | Reply

      • P.H. – Is it not correct that the fundamental difference between “Rules of Naturalization” and “Laws on Bankruptcies” is the element of punishment? In the two examples cited in Clauses 5 & 6, the “Rules of Naturalization” do not imply any punishments, whereas “Laws of Bankruptcies” do.

        Thank you!

        Like

        Comment by cgdustdevil | August 14, 2017 | Reply

        • I don’t understand your question. The two are totally unrelated. “Naturalization” deals with who may be a citizen and the procedures for becoming a citizen.
          “Bankruptcy” has to do with the orderly liquidation of estates in order to provide treatment, which is as fair as possible, of the creditors of the bankrupt.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 14, 2017 | Reply

  6. PH, Have you taken the time to read any of the books i previously mentioned (6 months ago) to you by the founding father “John Taylor of Caroline”?

    Those book were…
    1. An inquiry into the principles and policy of the government of the United States.
    2. New views of the Constitution of the United States.
    3. Construction construed, and constitutions vindicated.

    He even has another one that i found very interesting and thought you might like.
    A defence of the measures of the administration of Thomas Jefferson

    I assure you these are well worth it…Great reads and by someone from the time period… as you say “Original source” material.

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 2, 2017 | Reply

    • I’m glad you enjoyed them. but no, I haven’t read them – no time.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 2, 2017 | Reply

  7. Does the Trump administration voter registration investigation meet the constitutional test?

    Like

    Comment by Marshall Prichard | July 1, 2017 | Reply

  8. Gentlemen: Respecting who has power over Immigration – the federal government or the States: Things are getting out of hand. This website is not a forum for people to post their “views” or “opinions” about the original intent of our Constitution. I will not engage in arguments with you about this. We must look to actual original source documents only. And when we cite them as authority, we should provide links to where the original source document can be read.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017 | Reply

    • lol.. i was just reading where the democrats say they can create a bi partizan committee to determine the presidents fitness to serve..lmbo

      Like

      Comment by steve | July 1, 2017 | Reply

      • Do read Edwin Vieira’s article out today: https://newswithviews.com/legal-audacity-is-the-answer-to-political-aggression/

        The nasty comment about Trump goes to prove Vieira’s point.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017 | Reply

        • so who invokes the title 18 ? it seems government doesnt know how to invoke those against each other… so who will do their job? seems the right of WE the people but those have since been removed .

          Like

          Comment by steve | July 1, 2017 | Reply

          • 18 USC Sec. 241 is a criminal statute – it could be prosecuted by the US attorneys.

            In addition, as a general Principle, one can sometimes sue in a civil [not-criminal] action for a “statutory tort” – which can be a breach of a statutory duty or violation of other statute. I would have to do research to find out if Trump can properly file a civil action against those whose conduct falls within 18 USC 241.

            Remember OJ Simpson? He was prosecuted for the murders and acquitted. Then the family members filed a civil action against him for the wrongful deaths. I believe the family members won those civil actions.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

          • can WE the people file such cases against the public servants ?

            Like

            Comment by steve | July 1, 2017

          • No because we don’t have “standing”. “Standing” is the right to sue.

            If someone committed a crime or a tort against you, I can’t file a lawsuit because I lack standing. But, depending on the circumstances, your wife or dependents or parents would have standing.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

          • ok , i see what you mean. so like in my traffic court cases , if i find my rights or feel ive been injured i can file a tort against them. am i correct.. im not trying to stray off but use an example i understand

            Like

            Comment by steve | July 1, 2017

          • Well, not necessarily. It depends on the facts.

            A federal prisoner who is beaten up (without provocation) by the guards has a cause of action under the civil federal rights act.

            If you are stopped from voting and can show you were stopped BECAUSE you are, say, a Black Person, then you would have a cause of action. But if you get a speeding ticket because the hand-held radar device they use is miss-calibrated, then you probably don’t have a cause of action.

            But now we are talking about what constitutes a “cause of action” as opposed to WHO has standing to file a cause of action.

            I live in TN. I don’t know where you live. But say I file a lawsuit against you alleging you never mow your yard, your yard is filled with old tires which are breeding mosquitoes, and I ask the court to order you to mow your lawn and get rid of the old tires. Your lawyer would filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that I lacked standing to file the lawsuit. [Your yard doesn’t affect me!] But it does directly affect your neighbors – so they would have standing to sue you to ask the Court to order you to mow your lawn and get rid of the tires.

            So we don’t have standing to file a lawsuit on Trump’s behalf to protect him!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

        • Thank you Ph. I’ve been struggling to find this 18 hours a day. Now I can get some well needed sleep. Much of the time was spent in bolstering the Boss Hog’s confidence. Thank God Justice will prevail. Keep praying…my eyes are leaking. Thank you for all you do for us every day.

          Like

          Comment by Con Mah | July 1, 2017 | Reply

          • Boss Hog?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

          • That is among some disabled veterans where I receive my treatments a friendly oral salute acknowledging the stars and scares he carries with him all of his life without regret.

            Like

            Comment by Con Mah | July 1, 2017

          • I’m emailing a photo to you. I don’t have an url or hyperlink.

            Thank You for your service!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 1, 2017

          • how about this situation… lets take illegals.. does the constitution apply to them and can they sue ?

            Like

            Comment by steve | July 1, 2017

          • The purpose of the federal Constitution was to create the federal government. Thus, it addresses the powers of its “creature”.

            I’ll need you to be more specific as to illegals. The federal government can’t lawfully do anything it has no constitutional authority to do.

            You asked, “can illegals sue?” Anyone can file a lawsuit. Whether the lawsuit will withstand a motion to dismiss is the first big hurdle.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 2, 2017

  9. PH: I’m having a discussion with a friend about Congress having Constitutional authority over immigration. I’ve referred to Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 on ‘migration’ as giving such power to Congress but there is considerable argument that this entire clause refers only to the importation of persons as slaves. That’s my friend’s position and he also says that since all authority given to Congress over the people is enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, and no such power is mentioned there or elsewhere, no authority is given to Congress at all over immigration.

    I know there is a vast body of evidence of Supreme Court cases in which the Court has confirmed Congressional power on immigration but, in the absence of any direct and enumerated provision, that all boils down to an ‘interpretation’ based on various other powers such as the Commerce Clause or power of control of foreign policy and the like, doesn’t it?

    If you have a defined opinion on this yourself, I would welcome it.

    Like

    Comment by nelsonaire1 | June 28, 2017 | Reply

    • Oh dear! I’m afraid your friend needs a refresher course in 7th grade English, as well as lessons in basic constitutional principles and statecraft. In 7th grade, we learned how to diagram a sentence – a lost art in America of today.

      Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 speaks of two categories of people: slaves who were imported and on whom the tax could be imposed – and migration of free persons on whom the tax was not imposed.

      Before January 1808, it was a free for all with respect to importations of slaves and anybody who wanted to could come here and settle. But Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 provides that Congress would assume power over these issues as of January 1808.

      Other Writings of the time confirm this distinction between slaves and free Europeans who migrated here. I have them in my files somewhere – I’ll find time to write this up. This is not an issue of “opinion” but of Fact.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 28, 2017 | Reply

      • PH, I’ve taken a careful look at Art 1 Sec 9, and remain reasonably convinced that it referred only to the “migration & importation of slaves”, this per the intent of the framers during the Constitutional Convention to encourage southern ratification. Have read a number of opinions regarding the original meaning of this Section and am left with the gnawing belief that Sec 9, per original intent voiced during the Constitutional Convention, did, in fact, solely refer to “slaves”–not the garden variety “immigrants”. Well after 1808, many States routinely administered their own immigration programs. Why do these things have to be so darned ambiguous? Very disconcerting. Would appreciate your further commentary.

        Like

        Comment by Jim Delaney | June 28, 2017 | Reply

        • No, no, no! One NEVER looks to “opinions”! Why on Earth would you accept someone’s “opinion”? One looks to original source documents, only.

          Furthermore, “migration” and “importation” are not at all the same.

          They aren’t ambiguous!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 28, 2017 | Reply

          • Among other original sources, I read Madison’s ltr to Walsh in 1819 in which former explained the original meaning and intent. (When I mentioned “opinions” above I definitely didn’t mean unauthoritative judicial opinions, most of which are revisionist drivel.)

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 29, 2017

          • According to Madison in his 1819 ltr to a Mr. Walsh re Sec 9, “migration” appeared to refer to the interstate trafficking of slaves imported into the country.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 29, 2017

          • 1. Let me share with you what I have observed in some of those who support “Liberty”: Their starting point is their personal belief system: They believe that the federal government should have no power over immigration. Since that is what they believe, they reject the evidence that the States delegated this power to the federal government starting 1808.

            Some of them think that the “liberty” position is that the States control who migrates into their States.

            Others of them [the Libertarians] believe in open borders everywhere in the World – and they want open borders here; and then, they seem to believe, this wonderful idea will spread all over the world to places like North Korea.

            I suggest that those who believe that the States retained power over immigration haven’t thought it through: Imagine 50 States, each with its own immigration policies! And how will one State which prohibits muslim immigration keep them out? Checkpoints at ALL entrances to the States? That’s an impossibility. Even if they had checkpoints at all the roads and rivers, they’d have to build a monitored fence around the entire perimeter of each State to keep the muslims out. All this would wreak havoc with interstate vehicular travel.

            Only the federal government is in a position to control who enters this Country.

            2. Then there is the problem of reading comprehension: Americans are used to Readers’ Digest English. They have difficulty with late 18th Century English – even the extraordinarily elegant and clear late 18th Century English used in our Constitution. They stumble over Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 because it discusses two separate categories of new people entering the Country [in one sentence!]; and because the readers wrongly equate “Migration” with “Importation” as being synonymous, instead of opposites. They thus violate a fundamental rule of construction of Constitutions and Laws: one must give each word its due.

            3. When construing the Constitution, we absolutely must lay aside as totally irrelevant our personal opinions. Americans of today have lost the concept of reading for objective meaning. They were conditioned to use the literary deconstruction method of reading where a writing means what you want it to mean to justify the result you want. That is what the federal Judges have been doing for 100 years; and everyday Americans of today do it all the time.

            It is extraordinarily liberating to lay aside one’s personal opinions and to focus solely on the objective meaning of a text. When one is focused TOTALLY on reaching the TRUTH, and all personal considerations are discarded, the light comes on. Truly, TRUTH sheds her own light.

            4. Would you produce a link to Madison’s letter on which you rely? I read his letter to Walsh of March 2, 1819, and that doesn’t seem to be the one you referred to.

            Liked by 3 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2017

          • Further to your 6/29 8:33 AM reply, totally agree & understand importance of orig. text vs personal preconceptions, biases & danders of revisionist misinterpretation. (Devoted entire chapter in my book to properly interpreting orig. text.) Thus, am not burdened by the folly of opinionating. My sole intention is to understand framers’ clear meaning & intent–an exercise in objectivity which is challenging for all who seek accuracy in this regard. Re Art 1 Sec 9 Cl 1, am still diligently reading what original text I can find, and not until exercised dye diligence will I advance a conclusion about its meaning/intent.

            The recent sources I consulted during my search are “Document 20. James Madison to Robert Walsh. 27 Nov 1819. Writings 9:1-3. Also, Art 1 Sec 9 Clause 1. Doument 3. Recirds of the Federal Convention 2:95; Madison, 23 July 1787. How do you read these papers? In any event, remain determined to doggedly & objectively pursue the subject until its clear original meaning is clear to me. Thanks for your guidance & encouragement.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 29, 2017

          • would you post the hyperlinks to the original source documents on which you rely? If you’ve read the original source documents, you’ll already have the links. What you’ve posted looks like a footnote or bibliography from someone else’s works. That would be merely a “secondary” source – not a “primary” source. Madison’s actual letter is what must be read – not what someone said about it. That is why when I cite these original source documents as authority, I link to the actual primary sources themselves – so my readers can read the original source document for themselves and see if I told them the truth!

            I get most of my original source documents from The Library of Congress, the University of Virginia, and online library for liberty, etc. They have the books which we can rely upon as authentic.

            Here’s online library for liberty: http://oll.libertyfund.org/ I use it all the time for Madison’s letters.

            See, e.g., the footnotes here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/the-george-mason-fabrication/ When we cite a letter from one of them as authority, good scholarship requires one to show readers how to access it.

            And you mustn’t overlook the distinctions between the totally different concepts of “migration” and “importation”. Commodities – items which are bought and sold [like slaves] and on which import tariffs may be imposed – are “imported”. Persons, birds, and others acting freely, “migrate”.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2017

        • Jim Delaney….I’ve scoured all of the input at http://pres-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s23.html (The Founders Constitution) and believe that the only intent of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 was to tax ‘migration or importation’ of persons expected to be slaves. A couple of the writers express opinions which state that ‘migration’refers only to White people who are free and voluntarily move from their home countries into the US, while ‘imported persons’ definitely are brought here as slaves, so the intent of the provision is only to allow continued importation of the imported persons (slaves) until the year 1808 by imposition of a tax upon each one. There seems to be no Founder or commentator believing that such a tax was to be placed on anyone coming here as a free White migrant. I believe the thought was that the word ‘migration’ in the clause was far more intended to mean simply the ‘movement’ of the imported persons to become slaves rather than a definition of the actions of a free person since ensuing laws were aimed directly at the actual shipping/transportation of slaves. In fact, some feared that the possible imposition of a tax in that manner on simple ‘migration’ or free migrants would hinder the immigration of desirable white persons from Europe who were needed to bolster the economy of the new country as it expanded.

          Document by Charles Pinckney #23 and Joseph Story # 28 are especially informative here as also are numerous mentions from others that there contains within this provision no express delegation of power EXCEPT that of levying a tax for 20 years on importation of slaves; hence, IMHO, no delegation of power to Congress over ‘migration’ of free people.

          If the provision of the taxing power exists here, and it certainly does, the expiration of it after 1808 cancels the taxing power, it seems to me, if such removal of authorization exists, as it does, so does any implied power to restrict free immigration of migrants since no tax was imposed upon them in the first place.

          What do you think?

          Like

          Comment by nelsonaire1 | June 30, 2017 | Reply

          • I suggest you are deconstructing the selected writings to fit your opinion.

            Your link doesn’t work. Why not provide links to the complete documents from an original source?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 30, 2017

          • While it’s not a stretch to imagine that Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 4 logically implies federal authority over all immigration per authority cited in Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 18, I genuinely remain at a loss as to why the framers felt that the intrusion of the word “migration” in Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 9 was somehow clarifying. It wasn’t. This commentary alone attests to that. Best to have omitted the word “migration” entirely, and to have added authority over immigration in Art. 1 Sec 8 Clause 4 rather than imply federal authority over immigration by virtue of federal authority over naturalization. For me, such construction understandably and needlessly adds confusion and invites often errant opinions/interpretations or original source material–and our law school authoritarians just eat that up. SO, until there is absolute original source material which clearly questions or refutes that “migration” in Clause 9 refers to non-slaves , I will gracefully embrace your take. Thank you for your generous attention.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Jim Delaney | June 30, 2017

          • So, not only do YOU know more about the Constitution than I do – you also write better that the drafters of our Constitution!

            Have you lost your mind?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 30, 2017

      • PH: Thank you so much for your quick response. In my argument with my friend, I too stressed the difference between ‘migration’ and ‘importation’, my opinion being that a ‘migrant’ is acting voluntarily and a person being ‘imported’ is not. He doesn’t actually deny this but claims that all powers of Congress must be enumerated and this clause doesn’t do that; it merely implies that Congress may act to make rules on migrants after 1808.

        I do find it somewhat difficult to counter that argument since I’ve often stressed to others that the powers of Congress are enumerated and not inferred.

        I appreciate your longer reply to Jim Delaney below and your points make complete sense. However, it doesn’t dramatically cancel the ‘enumerated powers’ argument still in my own mind as I keep wondering why the ‘migration’ issue wasn’t simply addressed in Article 1 Section 8 instead of somewhat as a rather back door assignment of power in Article 1 Section 9 Clause1. The fact that the Supreme Court in numerous of its decisions on the authorized immigration power of Congress has turned to other rationales, such as the Commerce Clause or national sovereignty, for example, seems to indicate a big question mark over this issue even though it has consistently upheld the power of Congress despite the States themselves having had authority over immigration all along.

        But thanks again for devoting all of this effort to help provide the answer.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by nelsonaire1 | June 29, 2017 | Reply

        • Your friend makes idiotic arguments! There is no basis for his assertion that all powers delegated to Congress must be listed at Art. I, Sec. 8.
          I suggest you and he read through the Constitution and highlight all the powers delegated to the federal government over the country at large. And then remember that pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause, Congress has the power to make all laws necessary & proper to carry out those delegated powers.
          Your friend is the poster child for the saying, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”; except that in his case, it’s deadly and catching!

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2017 | Reply

          • good response, ph. that leaves me to wonder what federal powers usurped after ratification can be adjudged geninely “necessary & proper”. i bet clear thinkers can even justify fed health care based on the mangled interpretation of the “welfare clause”. and so it goes. looks like the Constitution can be a smorgasbord for opinionaters afterall. methinks i’m getting cynical.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by jim delaney | June 29, 2017

          • I think I am failing to grasp your point!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 30, 2017

  10. Mark Levin has a new book out. “Rediscovering Americanism.”
    I can only image what’s inside.

    Like

    Comment by Gary Blake | June 27, 2017 | Reply

    • Judging from what I’ve read and heard him say in the past, I expect his “new” book contains lots of stuff that sounds good on the surface and some misinformation.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 27, 2017 | Reply

  11. also this.. Section 3. INALIENABLE RIGHTS

    All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

    Like

    Comment by steve | June 26, 2017 | Reply

  12. Hello Ms. Huldah, I wanted to ask you about immigration laws although you have responded to questions and have written much about this subject. I just heard about a immigration law from the early 1900’s. It is something about “sponsors”, an immigrant coming to the US had to have a sponsor. It just jogged my memory that when I was a kid, this is going back to the early 1960’s, I just remembered that my Dad sponsored a family friend from Ireland. I can remember my Dad and the family friend always being in touch and remaining in touch for a long time. Can you tell me more about this law that obviously is now not being enforced.

    Like

    Comment by Donna Roesch | June 24, 2017 | Reply

    • Such a law is an excellent idea – the purpose being to help the immigrant ASSIMILATE into OUR Culture and OUR Values – and to help them get started working here so they could be self-sufficient.

      The law you describe may have been repealed with “Wrong-Turn” Teddy’s (Kennedy) Immigration and Reform Act of 1965. That is the execrable Act which opened the floodgates to massive immigration by people from 3rd world countries who went on welfare and didn’t assimilate. Which, of course, was the whole idea.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2017 | Reply

      • I seem to recall the same situation from the 60’s that immigrants had to be sponsored. I also recall that at one time Australia had a strict policy of those who wished emigrate, in that they had to have a skill set that was needed. That should be our policy as well, not only does one have to have “something to offer” but also be sponsored by a US Citizen.

        Like

        Comment by TIm | June 24, 2017 | Reply

        • Agreed!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2017 | Reply

          • Though I’ve been out of the immigration program scene for 15 yrs, in place at the time was a policy requiring that IMMIGRANTS must secure the sponsorship of relatives (I-134) in the US before they are permitted entry. Appropriately, access to welfare by the sponsored immigrant and his family are severely limited for five years since the sponsor is legally responsible for the immigrant’s living expenses during that period. Can’t think of a better way to encourage immigrants to become self-sufficient when one’s own relative is doing the pushing. (Of course, this doesn’t apply to asylees, refugees, C-H parolees).

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | June 24, 2017

  13. How hard would it be too put together a course to educate? This day and age with go to meeting like programs…you could run education seminars.

    Then get those who are educated to all run for office at the federal level. If 100 ran and 50 won and you continue the cycle couldn’t you replace every representatives in just a few years and get us back on constitutional track?

    Just a thought.

    Like

    Comment by Gary Blake | June 9, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, what you propose is an excellent idea. Education is the Key. But we also have to change the mindset of the American People. During the latter part of the 19th Century, Americans abandoned the belief that they ought to adhere to external higher standards [The Constitution, the moral laws, fixed Truths, etc.], and adopted the idiotic belief that their own “opinions” and “feelings” are valid guides to action. I explain that here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/how-progressive-education-and-bad-philosophy-corrupted-the-people-undermined-the-constitution-of-the-united-states/

      I knew a guy who wanted to run for Congress. I asked him if he knew the enumerated powers delegated to Congress, and would he adhere to the list of enumerated powers? He answered that no, he didn’t know what the Constitution said; if elected, he would be guided by his own common sense and the opinions of his friends.

      THAT is the mindset of virtually ALL of our elected politicians and appointed judges and executive officers, except that our politicians love bribes – I mean – large donations to their campaigns.

      So before they can learn the Constitution, they have to change their mindset so that they understand and accept that they must learn it so that they can obey it.

      But like original sin, instead of obeying God, men want to do what they want to do.

      So the question for us is: Are we willing to turn back before it’s too late? We are right now teetering on the edge.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 9, 2017 | Reply

      • I hear what you’re saying. I just find it hard to believe we couldn’t find 500 people put off 300million plus in our nation that would be willing to run and adhere to the constitution, and the founding principles.

        I would think with your site here and in your travels you would be able to recruit that many willing men.

        It’s sad if we can’t.

        Like

        Comment by Gary Blake | June 9, 2017 | Reply

  14. PH, Hate to keep pestering you with this query, but I’m eager for your learned reply. As you know, Congress may attempt to pass a bill which enforces concealed carry reciprocity between the states. The NRA, of which I am a member, has come up with a twisted justification for such a federal mandate and, with your astute analysis, I want to reply to them, but also post the analysis on my blog and Facebook. NRA’s foundational argument is that passage of such a law is constitutional because without such a law it restricts free travel between the states. Obviously, a huge stretch. Hoping you can find the time to craft an analysis of such federal mandate. Thanks so much. You’re a breath of fresh air.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 7, 2017 | Reply

    • OK, I’ll do it now. can you save me some time and send me a link to the bill which Congress is looking at?

      The NRA is worse than worthless – there never existed a Principle which they weren’t eager to compromise. They have no understanding of our Founding Principles, our Constitution, etc. Surely there are better gun rights groups! They should be doing all this stuff. But they won’t – so I’ll do it.

      As Dr. Edwin Vieira pointed out in one of his articles on revitalizing the Militia, the NRA should be leading the charge for States to revitalize their State Militia – but the NRA doesn’t even respond to Dr. Vieira’s letters. There is a very bad man on the NRA’s Board of Directors [I can never think of his name], and apparently the rest of them are just zeros.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 – Congress.gov
        Summary of H.R.38 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): Concealed Carry Reciprocity
        Act of 2017.
        https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22concealed+carry+reciprocity+act%22%5D%7D
        Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of … – Congress.gov
        Feb 27, 2017 … Text for S.446 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): Constitutional Concealed Carry
        Reciprocity Act of 2017.
        https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/446/text

        THANKS! Am also member GOA. They seem to be more level-headed.

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | June 7, 2017 | Reply

        • Oh my! Just read it – I’m on it!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017 | Reply

          • PH, have you had an opportunity to develop a brief analysis of the federal conceal-carry reciprocity bill Congress is considering for enactment? Also, one of your incisive, probing comments about NRA’s justification for such an overreaching law, that being “safe travel across State lines”. (I still can’t get over that one.) Thanks so much for ALL you do!!!!

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | June 24, 2017

          • I’m working on it now. It’s a truly BAD idea. Too few of us can think conceptually. You can. I can. But most Americans can’t; and their vision doesn’t extend beyond the immediate. And Americans love quick fixes. And they are shallow.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 25, 2017

          • change of subject for a minute… in reference of the cake shop case.. the supreme court will hear the masterpiece cake shop case involving a special request by the gay couple that the owner refused.. the tenth amendment states.. The powers not delegated to the federal government…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ~ ….. where does a state gain power to mandate the cake shop owner to provide a service the shop owner has power to choose or not ?

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 26, 2017

          • Actually, the only applicable governing authority over this cake shop case is The State Constitution. What rights are recognized and guaranteed by the State Constitution? Where (if at all) does the State Constitution authorize any governing body within the State to require that the bakery shop provide a cake for the homosexual “marriage”?

            It isn’t a federal issue, but because of the perversions of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment by the federal courts, they now claim judicial power over any evil they wish to legalize.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2017

          • would life , liberty and happiness prevail for the sore owner along with the protection of ones religion? we know how they twist that.

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 26, 2017

          • I just read the Press Release from Liberty Counsel, which is a reputable public interest law firm (for our side) http://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/062617-supreme-court-takes-the-cake-case

            The issue on appeal to the US Supreme Court is whether Colorado’s “public accommodations” law violates the First Amendment by requiring the baker to create custom wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. The state law currently states that businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.

            The original intent of the Bill of Rights is that it restricts only the federal government – see, e.g., Barron v. Baltimore (1833). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/32/243 It wasn’t until 1925 that the US Supreme Court fabricated the poisonous doctrine that §1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporated” the 1st Amendment so as to give the federal courts judicial power over the States on 1st Amendment issues [see https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/ at 12.]. It was the beginning of a massive usurpation of power by the federal Courts over the States.

            If American Lawyers understood our federal and State Constitutions [ha!], this would be decided under the Colorado Constitution. I haven’t read the Colorado Constitution, but I would check to see what it says about rights to free exercise of religion and rights of conscience, freedom of association, etc.

            It is an abomination to force people to participate in something they find morally repugnant. What if Muzzies want a cake to celebrate when they cut the clitoris [ahem, this is no time for modesty] off of a little girl? What if the Supreme Court “discovers” that having sex with 2 years old children is a “right” guaranteed by Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment? [They used that section to “discover” that women have the “right” to kill their unborn babies and homosexuals have a “right” to homosexual sodomy – so what’s to stop them from “discovering” that perverts have the “right” to sex with little children?] And what if they want a cake to celebrate the deflowering of a 2 year old child? Are we going to force bakers to bake a cake to celebrate this perversion and cruelty?

            Is there no limit? No, not when a People have abandoned Almighty God as the Author of the Moral Laws which we must obey.

            Liked by 3 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2017

          • ok , the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land so even if the state… real quick i found this from their constitution… Section 4. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

            The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by steve | June 26, 2017

          • Is there no limit? Oh, yes, there’s a limit. Don’t you dare ask a flaming homosexual Hollywood producer to accept a script and produce a movie glorifying traditional marriage and mocking the “anything goes” lifestyle. That’s a bridge too far. Our problem is either that the lawyers on our side are too timid or unimaginative to mount a “You really want to go there? defense” or we have 864 federal judges so all they have to do is walk down the street to the judge shop and get one to rule for the entire USof A. Or both.

            Abolish the Department of Education

            >

            Like

            Comment by bobmontgomery | June 27, 2017

          • As usual, every word which flows from your hand is true and reflects that you can think. [I follow you on Disquis and see many of your Comments, all of which are excellent.]

            Most of the lawyers on our side [like most Americans of today] got conditioned to unhesitatingly accept the prevailing assumptions and presuppositions of our time, and to work within those prevailing assumptions and presuppositions.

            Even though it is a simple matter to see that those prevailing assumptions and presuppositions are totally FALSE (and I show this every day), they still won’t examine their belief system.

            And then there is the sad fact that those who boldly challenge the prevailing assumptions and presuppositions get smeared and reviled!

            So it’s much easier to just go with the flow, and nibble at the edges of problems, perhaps slow the progression down a bit.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 27, 2017

          • Here it is: http://constitution.com/repeal-unconstitutional-federal-gun-laws-dont-add/

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 5, 2017

          • Many thanks, PH !!! In one way or the other, I will be sure to share this analysis with NRA and hope for a rational reaction. Thanks again for researching the issue.

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | July 5, 2017

          • NRA has ignored Edwin Vieira’s attempts to get NRA to lobby the States to revitalize the States’ Militia. So best wishes in opening the eyes of at least some of them on the NRA board. Still, they may listen eventually.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2017

          • Many thanks, PH. Have already sent a distillation of your analysis far and wide–esp. to my fellow gun owners who were at first totally flummoxed. But, being good patriots, they quickly acknowledged the wisdom of your analysis. Dr. Viera’s ltr to the NRA was brilliant! Hope it does some good. Thanks a bunch!

            Like

            Comment by Jim Delaney | July 12, 2017

          • I’m happy to see that the analysis resonated with people. Our Constitution is a miracle. I’m stripping away the misinterpretations, misconstructions, and perversions which have built up over the last 100 plus years. The basic problem is that Americans (judges and the people) no longer read a text and look for its objective meaning. Instead, they read in their own existing mindset, and say that’s what it means to them. Judges interpret the Constitution to get the result they want. This is literary deconstruction and I remember when it was being pushed in the American government schools. It’s now a universal practice – and people aren’t consciously aware that such is what they are doing because that is how they were trained to read a text: Not, “what does this mean?” but, “what does it mean to me?”

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2017

          • “Not ‘What does it mean?’ but ‘What does it mean to me?’ ” Eggs. Actly. The appeal to “ME” is a proven winner. I like to call it “unenlightened self-interest”.
            After you finish quashing the Art5 ‘COS’, would you make it your next campaign to quash the US Dept. of Education and at least let some of the individual states have a fighting chance?

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by bobmontgomery | July 13, 2017

          • “Unenlightened self interest” – you nailed it!

            The States could EASILY get the feds out of education: stop taking federal money to implement federal education programs. But the States REFUSE to say no to the federal government when it is handing out money. I’m told Tennessee was paid 1/2 a billion dollars to sign on to Common Core. All this money the States are paid to implement unconstitutional federal programs is added to the national debt. And then State legislators preen their moral outrage over out of control federal spending and demand a federal “balanced budget” amendment (BBA). And they are so ignorant they can not grasp the simple concept that a federal BBA changes the constitutional standard for spending from the enumerated powers and creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever they want to spend money on. This formally changes our Constitution FROM one of limited and enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. What I just said is over the heads of most Americans.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2017

          • its been really quiet here.. we have talked about federal judges in bad behavior , mayors making deal with foreign entity’s and ex presidents trying to sabotage the president . my question is, being they are supposed to make sure that they abide by their oath and what powers has been given them ( policing themselves) which isnt working . how do we uphold our right to take care of a government that’s become destructive of its duty’s ?

            Like

            Comment by steve | July 16, 2017

          • Our Framers did not place their hopes on Congress’ policing itself, or on the President’s policing himself, or on federal judges policing themselves. The only people I have seen insinuate such are the COS conspirators – and it seems they will say anything to hoodwink people into supporting their scheme which would permit the establishment elite to get rid of our Constitution and impose a new one [such as the new Constitution George W. Bush, the Council on Foreign Relations, Cruz, etc. need to move us into the North American Union].

            1. Our Framers built an elegant system of checks and balances into the Constitution. The federal courts’ check on Congress is to declare as such acts of Congress which are unconstitutional. Congress’ check on federal judges is impeachment, conviction, and removal from the bench. Congress’ check on the President is also impeachment, conviction, and removal. The Presidents’ check on both Congress and federal courts is the President’s solemn Oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”. So when, in the President’s independent judgment, he determines that Congress or the courts (or both in collusion) have violated the Constitution, the President is required to uphold the Constitution AGAINST Congress or the Courts.

            2. The supremacy clause at Article VI, clause 3, US Constitution, requires every State official and judge to support the Constitution. Their Oath is NEVER to obey the federal government – their Oath is to obey the Constitution even when it means that they must REFUSE to go along with unconstitutional dictates of any Branch of the federal government (or all 3 of them in collusion against the Constitution).

            3. Our Framers always told the States that they must REFUSE to submit to unconstitutional acts of the federal government: On “the rightful remedy of nullification”, see: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/16/nullification-made-easy/

            and http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/08/04/what-should-states-do-when-the-federal-government-usurps-power/

            4. Finally, We The People, failed in our sovereign duty to elect men of virtue and wisdom to public office. We The People were too darn lazy to learn our two Founding Documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution), and then to enforce them with our votes. Since we didn’t know what our Founding Documents said, we couldn’t see that the candidates for office we were so gaga over were also clueless about what they said – and also didn’t care what they said.

            5. As a People, our basic philosophical problem is this: We abandoned the belief that all must adhere to external transcendent standards (e.g., the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, the moral laws, etc.) and embraced the suicidal belief that we ought to go by our own feelings and opinions.

            And since we are now a Country of non-thinkers who know absolutely nothing and who go by our feelings and what “feels good”, we don’t even choose our own opinions and attitudes. They are instilled in us by our manipulators (TV shows, talk show hosts, popular culture, pop stars, and the like) – so that the opinions of which we are so proud aren’t even our own – we were conditioned to have them!

            We need to scrape those barnacles off ourselves, and return to First Principles and to Truth. And toss our precious instilled opinions in the trash where they belong.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 17, 2017

          • and yes, Dr. Vieira is brilliant! He is the world’s foremost authority on the Militia – plus he understands what the States must do to establish a sound money system in the States. Remember! Art. I, Sec. 10, clause 1, US Constitution, prohibits the States from making any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. But most would rather get their ears tickled.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2017

          • This bill is a sugar cookie full of arsenic. But unfortunately ‘gun folks’ are pumping their fists in the air thinking they’re gonna shove their little permits down some blue states’ throats. It’s a hideously bad bill for a boatload of reasons. I’m hoping the Republicans will fold like they did with the ACA repeal…

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by cgdustdevil | August 14, 2017

  15. can states and state mayors make agreement with the united nations

    Like

    Comment by steve | June 6, 2017 | Reply

    • States, cities, counties, etc., are prohibited from entering into treaties! See Art. I, Section 10, US Constitution. Only the President and the US Senate have authority to enter into treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 2).

      Furthermore, the President and US Senate can only enter into treaties which address the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. So the President and Senate can make treaties addressing, e.g., international copyright protection, because that is one of the enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 8). But the US government has no authority to enter into treaties addressing “climate change” and such like because “climate” is not one of the powers delegated to the federal government.

      See? You didn’t need me to tell you that!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2017 | Reply

      • thank you.. this compact of mayors which is a united nations agreement has over 200 mayors listed as being in the agreement and one city is close to me and i want to go to a city meeting and lay this on them that they are acting in treason to the constitution and start getting the word out to the rest of these mayors signing agreements about this paris agreement

        Like

        Comment by steve | June 6, 2017 | Reply

        • “Treason” is defined at Article III, Sec. 3, US Constitution. Signing on to the compact of mayors with the UN isn’t “treason” – but it is a violation of our federal Constitution.

          It’s a good thing if you go to a city meeting and protest this. Check the agenda of the city meetings to see when this will be brought up or how you can bring it up. And bring others with you – but don’t sit together, your allies should be scattered around the room and they should join in your protest against this unlawful act on the parts of the mayor.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017 | Reply

          • i gotcha.. would it be conspiring to over throw the constitution ? yes , i will take a few people and i appreciate the suggestion.

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 7, 2017

          • nah, it’s blithering ignorance, naivete, and going along with the prevailing dogma. The sad fact is that we elect fools to office – and we do it because we are fools. See this and learn and spread the word: http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/DefeatingDelphi.pdf

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017

      • Publius. would the logan act 1799 apply to the mayors and govenors signing these agreements / treatys ?

        Like

        Comment by steve | June 7, 2017 | Reply

        • No. The United Nations is not a “foreign government” within the meaning of the Logan Act; and the mayors who sign onto that idiotic compact are not trying to “influence” “the measures or conduct” of a “foreign government” – they are bowing to the idiocy of the global warming loons.

          As a people, we are too stupid and immoral to be free.

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 8, 2017 | Reply

          • what would the united nations be being they are a conglomerate of nations representing multi governments forming a (so called) world government or board?

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 8, 2017

        • I would have to say that the cities and states can not sign on to this treaty, but there is nothing that says they can’t follow it.

          They can pass laws a regulation that follow the accord until such times as the feds pass a law or the courts say they can’t.

          Like

          Comment by Boyd | June 8, 2017 | Reply

          • Hi, Boyd! Nice to hear from you.

            The distinction you make is well taken. But remember! All the actions local & state governments take to reduce “greenhouse emissions” have a dire effect on the citizens of the City and State. E.g., humans are THE biggest source of “greenhouse emissions”. Well, we know how to reduce those “greenhouse emissions”, don’t we? Kill some people – lots of them! The more people our governments kill, the better off the planet! http://www.worldwatch.org/node/563

            Do you see what is going on? Some people have an insatiable lust for killing other humans. The sociopaths and fools are in charge. The global warming hoax is the way to get rid of the excess people. And only the “superior” people, like Al Gore, will be left. And he’ll be so busy getting richer & richer by selling “carbon credits”.

            Um, from where did Al Gore obtain the “carbon credits” to sell?

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 8, 2017

          • would this apply to mayors and govenors that are dealing with foreign agreements ? 18 U.S. Code § 953 – Private correspondence with foreign governments

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 10, 2017

          • I’m writing a paper on this – so stay tuned. But for now, listen to a former criminal defense lawyer: 18 USC Sec. 953 is a criminal statute. Criminal statutes are strictly construed. If you compare the actions of the mayors and governors with the words of the statute, you see that their conduct does not fall within the reach of the statute!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 11, 2017

          • i will be looking for your writings on this issue as i want to address it soon with a local mayor was is on the compact of mayors list with the united nations.

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 11, 2017

          • For now, see this article from 2009: It shows that the United States has no constitutional authority to enter into “climate” treaties – “climate” is not one of the enumerated powers! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/climate-change-treaty-the-supreme-law-of-the-land-or-lawless-usurpation/

            Obama had no authority to sign the treaty. Trump was constitutionally correct to withdraw from an agreement the United States had no constitutional authority to enter into!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 11, 2017

          • and the states have no authority either and that goes for gov. and mayors correct..

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 11, 2017

          • Right! Cities and States may lawfully pass ordinances & statutes (applicable to their jurisdictions) addressing “greenhouse gas emissions” and such like – if permitted by their State Constitution. But they may NOT lawfully enter into agreements with foreign nations or with the United Nations addressing such subjects.

            We are witnessing right now the destruction of the United States, and our transformation into the global New World Order.

            Also: We are moving into a new Morality. Under the new morality, virtue is based on protecting the environment. Lying, stealing, adultery, sexual perversions, and such like, are now OK! What counts is, “Do YOU recycle?” “Are YOU exceeding your allotted carbon footprint?”

            God help us: Americans have lost their minds and are now totally stupid.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 11, 2017

          • publius, im no where on your educational level by far but im not afraid of going to the corruption and dealing with it personally.. im trying to keep records and research you have provided so i can call these traitors out in the state level

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 11, 2017

          • i couldnt find a section for the emolument clause so here goes…. two states attorneys claim trump is violating that clause of which congress has the authority over ..am i correct ? and just where are they all wrong other than trump isnt accepting gifts etc…

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 12, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 12, 2017

          • awesome.. i couldnt put it as yu did but i atleast was on the same track as your statement

            Like

            Comment by steve | June 12, 2017

          • You are most welcome!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 12, 2017

          • LOL…Yes I see your point, so I say let them lead by example. Wouldn’t it be nice.

            Like

            Comment by Boyd | June 8, 2017

          • Yes, the people who want the world population reduced – by force – should volunteer!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 8, 2017

  16. What do you think of the new Federalist Party (www.thefederalistparty.org)?

    Like

    Comment by mcguire302 | June 6, 2017 | Reply

    • I can’t tell from the website. Today, the Left has people pretending to be big “christians” and “conservatives” and “constitutionalists” – but they are none of those things. They say what we want to hear and they keep their true agenda hidden. They say one thing and do the opposite.

      In order to assess this organization, we need to see the NAMES OF THE PEOPLE BEHIND THIS!

      I am extremely suspicious of anyone who doesn’t disclose who they are but ASKS FOR MONEY. The website you linked to wants you to send money, but they don’t tell you who they are or how they will use the money.

      So if I had to guess, I’d guess it’s a scam.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2017 | Reply

      • JD Rucker is the name of the main person behind it. Almost all media interviews have him on it.

        Like

        Comment by mcguire302 | June 7, 2017 | Reply

        • I just read one of his posts at Red State: It chants the “conservative” line – with no specifics. That style of writing permits the reader to read in whatever he wants. Americans want to be rescued – they want to believe in a man on the white horse who will ride in and save them and our Country. So they want to believe that the “new guy” is the one who will save them.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2017 | Reply

  17. A very minor detail. It is a pity that as a native Texan you don’t know how to spell y’all; which is a contraction of you and all. A POI from one Texan to another. I hope that y’all have a good day.

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | May 30, 2017 | Reply

    • and I thought it was spelled “yawl”

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 30, 2017 | Reply

  18. PH, you’re oh so terribly right. This is why I am a strong supporter of the Texas Nationalist Movement. (A wise citizen must always keep his/her options open.) If TNM ushers in an independent Republic of Texas, and if its leaders are willing to learn from the self-induced failures of the great “American Experiment”, and if TNM is committed to applying the lessons learned from this failed grand experiment, then some of those among us who still cherish individual freedom and the Constitution as originally intended will find political salvation, failing which we patriots and constitutionalists will surely be enslaved with the rest of the self-destructive nitwits who fancy themselves “citizens” of this once great Republic.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | May 26, 2017 | Reply

    • Ya’ll (I’m a native Texan) have to us (now live in Oklahoma) when you leave to make a new nation.

      Like

      Comment by Manfred | May 27, 2017 | Reply

  19. In my reading of the U. S. Constitution and related historical documents, it occurs to me that the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional and illegal organization. It is a private corporation that simply holds American taxpayers in bondage to some of the world’s largest banksters. And furthermore, it is in no way accountable to the federal government or U. S. voters.

    President Andrew Jackson was an early opponent of central banking, and abolished a form of central banking during his term. Thus, for a short period, the United States operated without debt for the first and last time in its history. But a form of Central Banking was re-introduced during the following administration.

    In these times, U. S. currencies were generally backed by physical assets such as gold and silver. But in 1913, a meeting was held at Jekyll Island, Ga in which government officials and representatives of the world’s most powerful bankers (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, etc.) who agreed to establish a Federal Reserve which would create and control the distribution of US currencies, and thus wealth. This was known as a fiat fractional reserve system that need not be backed by items of inherent physical value. Furthermore it was based on the unfettered creation of unbacked DEBT!!

    Later, President John F. Kennedy sought to stabilize the U. S. economy by stripping the Federal Reserve of its unconstitutional powers. He thus enacted Executive Order 11110 (which has never been revoked) that empowered the Treasury Department to create and distribute U.S. currencies backed by silver bars, ingots and dollars contained in the Treasury. This was strictly according to powers granted in the U. S. Constitution.

    The subsequent new “silver certificates” were being printed for use, but his best laid plans went unfulfilled. He was assassinated Nov 22,1963–a warning to any future presidents with similar ambitions!!

    And to this day we operate with Federal Reserve Notes that hold the American economy in bondage to some of the world’s worst banksters who are too big to fail, too
    big to bail, too big to prosecute, and too big to jail.

    My questions follow:

    1. What do you make of this?
    2. How can we rectify this?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by paradigmrw | May 26, 2017 | Reply

    • This is not my area of expertise; but as far as I know, all that you say is true.

      Governments & The People loved the fractional reserve banking system because it provided the credit to enable the federal government to construct the socialist regulatory welfare state which they – and The People – wanted. People still want a welfare state!

      Unless The People repent, and man up and demand a constitutional money system, things are unlikely to improve. And that repentance seems unlikely because our Country is now overrun by 3rd world parasites with no comprehension of the concept of limited civil government, AND the American People have been so dumbed down that they don’t know what’s what.

      It appears to me that absent divine intervention, there is going to be an Article V convention, where a new Constitution will be imposed which moves us into the North American Union; and from there, things will get much worse. Think Sweden and France.

      There is a heavy price to pay for stupidity.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 26, 2017 | 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 )

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: