Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!


  1. Dear P.H. if is of any service this is a quote from a book “Between Two Ages”, by Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter’s sixth appointment to Nation Security Advisor and Executive Director of the Trilateral Commision, This is taken from Anthony Sutton’s “Trilaterals over Washington” circa 1979) and confirms most of the points you make from this man who was clearly not abashed to state his purpose –
    Quote “The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation’s formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 – the two hundredth anniversary of the Constitution -could serve as a suitable target date culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements…Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the necessary political innovation will not come from direct constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The needed change is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly…in keeping with the American tradition of blurring distinctions between public and private institutions.”
    I am wondering if there is a transcript available of this speech you gave outlining the defects in the claims of COS regarding the proceeding of a proposed “Convention” This is a very expert and persuasive presentation (I saw this on in an age of pedantry and short attention spans! If so I would be happy to redistribute it as I am able!
    Thanks Carlos!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Carlos | April 30, 2022 | Reply

  2. Hi PH, recently U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), re-introduced the Pre-Registration of Voters Everywhere (PROVE) Act to expand voter registration efforts nationwide and increase American citizens’ participation in the democratic process. The PROVE Act would allow for U.S. citizens aged 16 and 17 to pre-register to be added to voter rolls when they turn 18. Does the federal govt have the authority to amend the states registration qualifications? In Illinois, there is this question “You must be 17 years old on or before the date of the Primary Election and turn 18 on or before the date of the General or Consolidated Election.” before you can register to vote.


    Comment by Spense | April 27, 2022 | Reply

    • The federal gov’t has no authority whatsoever with respect to the qualifications of voters – except that the States agreed, with the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments, that they would not deny the suffrage to Citizens on account of their being black, or a female, or not paying that poll tax, or being 18 years of age of older. The federal gov’t has the constitutional authority to enforce those 4 Amendments.

      Other than that, the fed gov’t has no authority over qualifications for voters; and no power to dictate re the registration of voters. These are powers reserved by the States. It is up to each State to determine how and when people are registered to vote – as long as the States don’t deny registration on account of a person’s being in one of those 4 categories.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 27, 2022 | Reply

      • Thanks PH, Senator Duckworth seems to believe the feds can because they are amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. I do know you have written often on how badly the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 usurps power and is unconstitutional. I hope you are doing well.


        Comment by Spense | April 27, 2022 | Reply

        • It’s so sad. “Conservative” Americans aren’t willing to do what needs to be done. Learn our two Founding Documents and enforce them with their votes. They just repeat what “everybody says”.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2022 | Reply

  3. Thank you


    Comment by Georgina | April 18, 2022 | Reply

  4. PH, we know that the bulk of Executive Orders have been unconstitutional. We also know that Art I Sec 8 Cl 16 limits federal land holdings to these specific purposes: “erecting Forts/Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings.” We also know that Art IV Sec 3 CL 2 stipulates that Congress has authority over the disposition and regulation of these federally controlled territories. (Note: Art I Sec 8 cite above also requires State legislative approval of the feds controlling any State lands for reasons outside these purposes. My understanding is that most of the millions of acres currently held by the feds do not meet these requirements, and I am, rightly or wrongly, blaming the States for this.) So, my question is this: is it constitutional for Brandon to shut down the Keystone Pipeline and to limit gas and oil exploration on federal lands which fall outside the scope of Art I Sec 8 CL 16? My understanding is the Northwest Ordinance also set the bounds on federal control over State lands as well. Thus, are Brandon’s EOs in this regard in any way lawful? Finally, is Brandon relying on the Commerce Clause, Art I Sec 8 CL 2, to justify what appears to me to have been his overreach in this regard? And, if so, does the Commerce Clause lawfully enable such an Executive action? What should the People’s proper response to all this be? Since the DOI enshrined our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and since Brandon’s actions have imperiled those rights, should not We the People, the final arbiters, compel our States to nullify these Executive Orders? I cannot see at all how his EOs are constitutional or in keeping with the promises of the DOI. What should be our position?


    Comment by jim delaney | April 17, 2022 | Reply

    • I haven’t had time to look into this issue – I can only repeat what I said before in my comment posted February 17, 2022 here:

      and add the following brief comments:

      1. Art I Sec 8, next to last clause, does NOT authorize the States to permit the fed gov’t to buy lands for other than the enumerated powers! It means that when the federal gov’t buys land within a State for one of the enumerated purposes (e.g., to build a federal courthouse), the feds may purchase the specified land only with the consent of the State Legislature.

      2. I don’t know how the fed gov’t came to retain so much land in the Western States. One would have to look at each State individually to see the documents re the transfer of the lands to that States. Don’t be too quick to blame the States.

      3. Don’t the oils which were transported via the Keystone Pipeline originate in Canada? I asked because you spoke of Brandon’s banning oil exploration on federal “lands” – which is a different issue.

      4. Re can Congress – or the President, by Executive Order – ban oil exportation & drilling on “federal lands”? We’ve reached the point where unconstitutional acts are piled on top of other, and underlying, unconstitutional acts – and so we are collapsing. The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to own & operate national parks, national forests, etc. Those lands should have been transferred to the States when the States were formed and became members of the Union. So when one speaks of whether the fed gov’t can ban oil exploration & drilling on unconstitutionally held lands, it’s a conundrum. Congress perhaps; the President, by Executive Order, never.

      5. You asked, is Brandon relying on the commerce clause? I expect Brandon is too busy feeling up naked underage girls to worry about banning oil exploration & drilling on “federal” lands. Filthy pervert.

      6. Too many people in our State governments are too weak, ignorant and cowardly to resist anything the federal gov’t does. And they don’t want to do anything which will jeopardize their federal funding.

      7. We should prepare for hard times ahead. Our Country has become extremely wicked and we are ripe for destruction.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 18, 2022 | Reply

      • Further, the keystone XL pipeline is a bit of a misnomer. That is to say pipelines are not the ONLY way to transport crude oil to refineries. Which is the purpose of the XL- transporting Canadian crude to refineries in the U.S. Rail cars, tank trucks, and ships are ALTERNATIVES that are used to accomplish the same purpose.
        It is argued that pipelines are a more economical and statistically a safer method of transport which begs another constitutional question; who pays for the pipeline? Are federal funds (infrastructure) committed? Tax incentives? Etc. Is this the basis for the “economical” arguement? Researching these questions may shed a different light on the matter.
        The point is; the so-called “conservatives” often employ the same tactics to whip up a frenzy within their “base”. The Keystone XL is but ONE mode of transport, and not necessarily the economic tragedy alleged.
        Having spent most of my career in the petro-chemical industry I can confidently say it is one of the most regulated industries. Between OSHA, the Dept of Energy, Dept of Labor, etc. nary a drop of petroleum avoids regulation of some sort. Of course only a few of us understand that these agencies are entirely unconstitutional.
        And I concur that hard times are ahead. State Legislators ARE too weak and uninformed to turn the tide of encroachment. The same may be said of the American population. Therein lies the real tragedy.


        Comment by Mark | April 20, 2022 | Reply

        • Well, Jim’s question didn’t focus on the constitutionality of transporting oil by pipeline, but rather on the constitutionality on the federal gov’t banning oil exploration & drilling on “federal lands”.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 20, 2022 | Reply

  5. Back in 2020 you wrote a piece about what could have been done with the stolen election , I can’t find it anywhere , can you repost that


    Comment by Georgia | April 16, 2022 | Reply

  6. Hi, PH. I know you’ve addressed this before, but I can’t find it. In short, Art I Sec 8 does not delegate authority to the federal government in the area of regulating marijuana. Thus, to me, and like abortion, such regulation resides with the individual States. Is it really that simple? Thanks!


    Comment by jim delaney | April 5, 2022 | Reply

    • Yes, it really IS that simple.

      Except that over the federal enclaves (Article I, Section 8, next to last clause) and the Territories belonging to the United States (Article IV, Section 3, clause 2), the Congress has the power to make laws addressing such matters as speed limits, use of drugs, etc.; and can even make laws providing that Persons visiting federal prisons, federal courthouses, military hospitals, etc., must leave their arms in their vehicles or check them at the door.

      Years ago, there was an excellent series on radio, then TV, “Gunsmoke”. The setting was the Territory of Kansas – it was still a “territory” and had not yet become a State. While it was a Territory, the federal gov’t had law enforcement jurisdiction over the territory – the Hero was Matt Dillon, a US Marshall .


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2022 | Reply

  7. Do you have a recommended version to the “Pledge of Allegiance” for America?

    Please share.



    Comment by dons2017 | April 3, 2022 | Reply

    • Hi, Don!
      No, I don’t have a re-worded version.

      I strongly oppose the current version, for several reasons:

      1. “one Nation” “indivisible”: Our Constitution created a “federation” of independent and sovereign States which were united ONLY for the purposes enumerated in the Constitution at Article I, Sec. 8, US Constitution. Furthermore, the States have the lawful right to withdraw from the Union.

      2. The Flag? why would we pledge our allegiance to a flag – a piece of cloth? What’s in a flag? Every country has their own flag – and the design of ours changes from time to time. There is nothing immutable in the design of a flag.

      We ought to be pledging our allegiance to the fixed transcendent Principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence – and the Constitution which implements those fixed and transcendent Principles.

      The wording of the pledge of allegiance is subversive of our Founding Principles! Americans have substituted chanting the Pledge of allegiance for doing what a REAL PATRIOT does – which is to learn our two founding Documents and enforce those.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2022 | Reply

      • Amen !!


        Comment by Mark | April 4, 2022 | Reply


          A socialist had his hand in drafting it. The Pledge really IS a nasty piece of work. It breaks my heart that conservative Americans think that chanting that Pledge is THE Patriotic thing to do.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2022 | Reply

          • Yes. I remember learning this from you years ago. (Back during TPN days). Most of what I understand of the Constitution originated with YOUR teaching. Other influences include Dr. Edwin Vierra and Larry Becraft.

            And yes. Most Americans have NO IDEA what our beloved Constitution means. Today’s population are apathetic fools who refuse to accept that what they “know” simply is not true. The Federalists are not difficult to understand. But alas, Americans want sound bites, cliff notes, and pontificating talk show hosts. “They will no longer endure sound doctrine…” Everything is upside down simply because We the People have set aside the very FIXED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS which were the foundation of our liberties and our prosperity. The average American has been duped and their pride will not allow them to admit it. Mark Twain (I believe) once stated that “It is easier to fool someone, than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled.”

            They follow PARTY rather than principle. They repeat nonsense because a so-called “Conservative” said it. They follow fools and charlatans rather than seeking wisdom and truth. The COS gang is capitalizing on this weakness to the detriment of all. The Tytler Cycle is nearing completion. If Hamilton and Madison returned today they would be livid, dumbfounded, and disgusted that we have been miserable stewards of the greatest gift to mankind since Christ’s redemption.


            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Mark | April 4, 2022

        • It is more correct to describe the U.S. Constitution as a “confederation” rather than a “federation”. Both are plural words and both have a federal structure, but federations use a system of “top-down/autocratic” authority whereas confederations use a “bottom-up” system of sovereign, independent state & local self-government in which the states have oversight and corrective authority over federal violations of the Constitution. This is an important distinction because when Lincoln violated the constitutional protection of slavery by invading the Southern states, he changed our form of government from a confederation to a federation. Before the North’s War on the South, we were a constitutional republic. After the war the states became vassals of a federal overseer. The people were “citizens” but are now “subjects”. Formation of the Southern Confederacy was not a “rebellion” but it re-established a constitutional republic in the secessionist states. The South followed the advice of Thomas Jefferson in his Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions of 1798 &’99, which Madison echoed in his “Madison’s Report of 1800.” The proper way to have eliminated slavery would have been to amend the Constitution. England eliminated slavery lawfully and without a war. Furthermore, the Union was never intended to be “indivisible” under a federal master. Both Slave and Free states entered the Union under a confederation/compact, the violation of which released the offended party from membership and obligations thereto. Secession was always available as a last resort, and the 9th & 10th amendments plus Article 1, Section 8 make it crystal clear that the states do not have to tolerate a bully.


          Comment by John Noble | April 4, 2022 | Reply

          • check the definitions of “federation” and “confederation” in Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

            Where did you get your definitions? I haven’t seen any of our Framers make the distinctions you made in your comment. They sound like somebody’s theory!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2022

  8. PH I am amazed that this attack on the Constitution is coming from the perceived “right” this strategy looks like it had it’s origins with the William F Buckley school and it’s progeny. Thank You so much for compiling this for this, can the posts on this blog be shared or is permission required to repost, Thanks


    Comment by Carlos | March 23, 2022 | Reply

    • Ever since, some 50 years ago, the Ford Foundation produced the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America ,
      it has been the hard left which has been pushing for an Article V convention [which they need to get their new Constitution imposed.]

      It is still the hard left which is pushing for an Article V Convention. Only this time, the convention pushers are posturing as “conservatives” and are marketing the convention to “conservatives”.

      And Americans are so ignorant of Civics; and so unthinking and gullible, that they have been falling for the marketing.

      and I don’t think that William Buckley was any friend of ours.

      Feel free to link to or repost anything on this site – just give a link back to the source!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2022 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: