Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

2,312 Comments »

  1. Thanks for the latitude, I really needed to vent that needless to say…

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | April 30, 2016 | Reply

    • I’d post a nice emotion here, if I knew how! Trump says he will take care of our disabled vets.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2016 | Reply

  2. I’m in a quandary over a comparitive question which I’m sure you may be of help.
    “If- I, acting in my federal employee position threaten or otherwise advocate for the removal of someone’s ability to exercise their 1st. amendment, God given right to speak in his or her own defense, either verbally or written; is that not tantamount to the crime of cutting out that individual’s’ tongue, and a violation of my oath of office”?

    “Then- should it not be a crime for any officer of the Federal Government to threaten
    the removal of “We the people’s” ability to exercise our 2nd. amendment, God given
    rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Hate crime is a description of late manufacture by the left to conflate an emotion with an action if there be hate speech it would be layed down as advocating the physical or mental injury or demise of an individual or group thereof which is illegal. Insults are not protected speech, your mama told you “Stick and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”!

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | April 30, 2016 | Reply

    • Don’t waste your time or energy being mad at people in the federal government. Everyone there was elected by us or appointed by people elected by us. This is on us – this is all our fault.

      Let me show you the PRODUCTIVE way to oppose federal hate crimes legislation. The People need to learn that federal hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional because:
      1. controlling speech is not an enumerated power delegated to Congress.
      2. Controlling speech is prohibited by the first amendment.
      3. The criminal jurisdiction of the federal government is limited! See: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/us-criminal-code/

      THIS is what The People need to know. It is not helpful for them to be angry.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2016 | Reply

  3. Thanks. I find myself forgetting to think of the enumerated powers. And that is why we are in so much trouble. I should know better

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 28, 2016 | Reply

  4. This response was published.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 28, 2016 | Reply

  5. What does he mean by “address hate-crimes legislation” and by “victimized”? These were short statements which don’t fully address his positions. If someone is assaulted because of their skin color or sexual orientation, should that assault be prosecuted more vigorously than a simple mugging? I can see arguments for that.

    I don’t see prosecuting anyone for speaking his or her mind however. I don’t think that is what he meant given what i know of him.

    At any rate, I don’t expect to agree with him on everything. I do see him as the most honest candidate and the one least beholden to the establishment. I have learned things about Cruz which lowered my opinion of him. I don’t feel like tearing him down now. There is too much negative talk about candidates presently. We need to look past the primary and focus on defeating hillary.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 28, 2016 | Reply

    • Actually, there is nothing ambiguous about the principles Donald operates from. But if you want to pretend, go right ahead.

      Re: ” If someone is assaulted because of their skin color or sexual orientation, should that assault be prosecuted more vigorously than a simple mugging? I can see arguments for that.”

      Emotion is no basis for law and justice. Why should someone get punished more severely for the same crime?

      The courts can’t read the mind of the offender to determine whether it was actually committed out of “hate”. To enable them to do so would be fatal.

      “The case is the same with a radical errour at the foundation of a system. The more accurately and the more ingeniously men reason, and the farther they pursue their reasonings, from false principles, the more numerous and the more inveterate will their inconsistencies, nay, their absurdities be. One advantage, however, will result ― those absurdities and those inconsistencies will be more easily traced to their proper source. When the string of a musical instrument has a fault only in one place, you know immediately how and where to find and correct it.” ~James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson (1804)

      “It is an unquestionable truth, that the body of the people in every country desire sincerely its prosperity. But it is equally unquestionable that they do not possess the discernment and stability necessary for systematic government. To deny that they are frequently led into the grossest of errors, by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise.” ~Alexander Hamilton (1788)

      Like

      Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 28, 2016 | Reply

      • Topcat1957 is a guest here as well as my good friend. He doesn’t pretend.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 29, 2016 | Reply

  6. If in fact Ted Cruz sealed his records from view then the intelligent voter who is concerned with the future of this Nation should run away from that Pig in a poke.
    Look what happened when Satans’ spawn wasn’t vetted properly in 08′.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | April 28, 2016 | Reply

  7. Another point Cruz supporters never want to respond to is this: why has Ted sealed his records, as Obama did?
    It is the responsibility of the candidate to prove he is eligible, it is not ours to prove he isn’t.

    Why seal your records Ted?

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 27, 2016 | Reply

    • They won’t respond to this.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 27, 2016 | Reply

      • Perhaps the reason they won’t respond is because when they do their response is not published. Doesn’t seem proper to encourage Cruz supporters to get involved in the discussion and then not publish their comments.

        Like

        Comment by Don Mellon | April 28, 2016 | Reply

        • You haven’t RESPONDED to the substance of what others have said or asked you to consider. You have copied and pasted stuff you got from Cruz supporters. I do not permit my website to be used to chant propaganda. See comment policy.
          Americans no longer seem able or willing to engage in honest DISCUSSION.
          But they sure do know how to copy and paste what others have said.
          THAT I don’t ordinarily permit.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 28, 2016 | Reply

  8. PH, isn’t it amazing how a little bit of sunshine can sometimes nourish the seeds of condescension to the point of petulance?

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | April 27, 2016 | Reply

    • It’s sad. As a People, we no longer put TRUTH above all else. All we care about is what we want – and we do whatever it takes to get our way.

      I wish I could convince those people that when TRUTH is your only interest (not ego, “winning”, etc.), then Truth sheds its own Light and one can begin to see.

      So many problems and issues become untangled when one’s sole concern is TRUTH.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 27, 2016 | Reply

      • It has been my sad experience that ideology trumps truth almost every time. A person really has to be aware of what they believe vs., what is real and not be afraid to learn that their belief is not consistent with truth if that is the case and then change one’s life. Pretty hard to do sometimes. But is necessary for an accurate internal belief system.

        Like

        Comment by IMO | April 27, 2016 | Reply

        • I don’t understand it – I love being corrected. I get goosebumps from the excitement of having error replaced with truth.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 27, 2016 | Reply

          • I didn’t realize I was an ideologue until I heard the speech by GHW Bush about of the collective and his thousand points of light. That speech shook me. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I had thought he was a good guy and the collective was a dirty word. That was when I decided that I had to change how I approached things. I realized that I was supporting him because he was a “Republican”, not because I had studied what he believed in and who he was. I found out that he is truly a scoundrel of the worst kind. But I have to thank him because that speech changed my life. I was in my early thirties in those days and had just graduated from Brainwash University with a degree in sheepology. I had to do some soul searching and since that time I have tried to not follow like a sheep. I have had to learn to search for truth and not just blindly trust. I realized that I have a weakness in that I tend to believe what people say. Since his speech I have tried most diligently to not be a follower but a critical thinker – especially politically. BTW – that is why I love your site so much. You have researched and I can follow the links and learn for myself. I don’t just follow you but you have my deepest respect for your independence and research. Thank you!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by IMO | April 27, 2016

          • WOW! and thank you for your moving testimony!

            I too had a paradigm shift in my life. I was a secular humanist. When I was in my mid-40s, I asked a Pastor, “How can you believe all that stuff?” He said, “I have preconceptions. You have preconceptions. Examine yours”.

            So I did, and discovered that I was a secular humanist because…. I had always been one and never questioned it. So I immediately started re-examining EVERYTHING I BELIEVED – the next years were a constant process of throwing off beliefs I had automatically accepted without question and replacing them with new beliefs based on REALITY and FIXED PRINCIPLES AND THE NATURAL LAW.

            So what you and I have done is what a great many more must do – but they better do it NOW. Because the window of opportunity is closing and soon it will be too late.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 28, 2016

  9. Hey PH,

    Most people realize that the NWO globalist elites are dominated by satanists. I have heard of musicians being offered fame and wealth but they had to buy into Lucifer, say he’s not a bad guy, praise him, etc. in order to be made into stars. The love of money and fame lures many into serving the dark side. But they stay in the shadows, or used to.

    I just saw this article about satanists publicly scheduling a satan worship ritual in a government building.
    https://www.rt.com/uk/340678-satanists-oklahoma-city-petition/
    They are getting more bold. I figure they will start going directly and publicly after young people soon.

    I guess there is no constitutional question for you today. I just wanted to show you the article.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 25, 2016 | Reply

  10. Re:Don Mellon April 1, 2016 question regarding How easily lying Tedy’s attorney could counter …etc:
    I was in the “April fools defense mode” (see date ⬆️ ) and thought the question was for laughs.
    Here I am 23 days later straightening up important points regarding the clouded meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” in my log book. Then I kicked myself for breaking the rule of assumption; do you know what assume means? Ass-u-&-me. When I read it the second time I saw the flaw in my assumption. There is no traditional Lawyer or court involved in the determination process.
    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/?s=Who+decides+qualify+for+president

    The power to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the office the Presidency is in the sole purview of Congress, not in any other Court.

    Note: It’s telling then that Senator Cruz would make multiple claims on Facebook and in the public square to have been declared eligible by 2 courts including one in Pennsylvania that he is a natural borne citizen and qualifies for the office of President.
    I, as a non lawyer, find it remarkable that Mr. Trump picked just the right name for Ted Cruz.
    Me thinks Teddy, that you dost protest too much.

    Could it be that Mr.Trump threatened to file suit like
    Democrat Allen Grayson of the 9th. District in Florida over Ted’s eligibility since he was born in Canada.

    He is obviously scurrying around trying to cover something up which is odoriferous and is afraid it will be obvious in the light of day. Something like this?http://northamericanlawcenter.org/ted-cruz-not-legal-u-s-citizen-at-all/#.VxW4_tT3arV

    Caution: This reads like self aggrandizement, or friends painting a large “S” for Superman on his chest.

    www. North American Law Center. org December 18, 2013 Honorable Senator Ted Cruz Dirksen Senate Officeyy Bldg!
    Suite 18″Washington, DC 20″10 Note: cc’d to all State offices

    RE: Your date with Honor Dear Senator Cruz,

    Seldom do we have an appointment with the destiny wherein our actions will make history as being either righteous or self-serving.

    Seldom, if ever, are we presented with an opportunity to protect and preserve the course of freedom and liberty in our beloved America, by simply doing what we know is righteous, rather than self- serving! Seldom does one have the national platform to act as God ordains Christians to act and do the right and honorable thing, and leave the consequences to Him!

    Senator, you stand on the precipice of true greatness! The above opportunities are yours for the taking! The God who we worship, has placed you in a truly unique position, and is saying to you, we will help you! I will strengthen you! I will uphold you with the right hand of Gods righteousness. Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall wear and Cast all your anxieties on God because I care for you and The lord is your light and your salvation’ whom shall you fear? The Lord is the stronghold of your life of whom shall you be afraid?
    It was planted to be found. (Note the reference above to Cc’d to all State offices) [a place to start verifying]
    (here the conversation points toward the Omama Presidency.)( reminds me of the lone Ranger or Superman coming to save the day.
    Senator Cruz, you have been placed in the position to end the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the United States of America, and to stop the systematic destruction of our Country! The action required is simpler but not easy, for it requires a selfless act of love and concern for others, and calls upon you to do the right thing! so MUCH for DOING the RIGHT thing.
    More smarmy words, (Yes, some will call it a true act of heroism!) Maybe if he had followed through on the following two plans the framers left for us. It’s not too late, it’s the House and Senate being too cowardly!

    [(Federalist No-66,(2nd. Para) & No-77,(last para)]

    Senator Ted Cruz, as a true Christian, you must say to the nation and the World what has been the delight and honor of my life that so many Americans have found me worthy of their respect and admiration, and have wanted me to run for President or vice president! Therefore, based upon unquestionable and prima facie evidence, I state for the record that Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a Kenyan Citizen father, is not now, nor has he ever been, nor will he ever be a natural Citizen of the United States! I call for the immediate removal of Barack Obama.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | April 24, 2016 | Reply

    • Con Ma, to bring you up to date on the matter of Cruz being a natural born citizen. In PA and NJ Cruz’s eligibility to be on their primary ballots was challenged by Trump supporters. Judges in each state ruled the plaintiffs had standing so the issue became is Cruz a natural born citizen.

      Both judges said yes he is a NBC based on English Law that existed before and while the Constitution was being written claiming the writers would certainly be familiar with that law and claiming English law was the basis for our Constitution. They also cited a definition of NBC created by the first congress. The conclusion of each after length and detailed written decisions is that born a citizen at birth means born a natural born citizen.

      You can easily find the decisions if you are interested.

      Like

      Comment by Don Mellon | April 25, 2016 | Reply

      • If that is what the Judges said, they are pretty stupid because English Law at the time didn’t recognize “Citizens”. The Brits at that time were all “subjects” of the King. It is only within the last few years that Brits are beginning to see themselves as “citizens” instead of “subjects”.

        In THIS Country, We had a Revolution so we could stop being “subjects” and could become “Citizens” of a Republic.

        You knew that, surely?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 25, 2016 | Reply

        • I am not trained in law, so perhaps the PA judges in the Commonwealth Court and the PA Supreme Court that affirmed the lower courts decision are all stupid.

          They were concerned with the meaning of “natural born ” , accepting there is a clear difference between citizen and subject. When they investigated the term natural born they were asking under what circumstances that “status” could be applied. They asked if a child was born overseas to a subject of the King would it receive the status of natural born. They decided it would based on English Law and therefor since we had citizens, not subjects, the status of natural born would apply to our citizens under the same circumstances.

          Here is the NJ decision that references the PA decision if anyone cares to read it. I suspect many that write their comments using the term Lying Tedy will not be so inclined.

          http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/williams-v-cruz-decision/

          Like

          Comment by Don Mellon | April 25, 2016 | Reply

          • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

            DO read the above – it explains the FUNDAMENTAL distinction between a “natural born subject” and a “natural born citizen” – the difference is night and day.

            It would be wicked to ignore such a fundamental distinction in order to “justify” the election of an ineligible candidate to the Presidency of the United States. I am well aware that Cruz supporters will embrace ANY theory which “permits” the result they want. This is one of the indicators of our moral collapse.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2016

        • That was the point I was trying to make. Cruz knows he’s not eligible, when ai saw his posts on Facebook about winning court cases, and one was in a Pennsylvania court. That reached out and slapped me in the face because the night before I re-read your post that the decision rests Entirely in the power granted to the Congress.
          Can you imagine a reason why Cruz, “the so called Constitutional lawyer” in the room” would make a statement so far off the mark knowing it was false. My take is that Cruz is highly intelligent enough to fabricate a plausible yarn which would bumfussle the average reader. I had been seeding the comment boxes with your “inheritance” example on how one becomes a NBC not much more than three weeks before the inheritance became available. The timing of his statement on Facebook was so far out of place and wrong it couldn’t be anything but a subtle subterfuge for no other reason that fear of being outed this close to the prize. Does anyone knowmhowmthey vetted Obama other than a dubious birth certificate from a hospital in Hawaii that didn’t exist when Obama was born and the Woman who certified the document unfortunately died in a plane crash just off the coast. She was the only fatality out of the 9 passengers on board. (Google it) I didn’t believe that story either

          Like

          Comment by Con Ma | April 26, 2016 | Reply

          • Con Ma…I have been doing the same thing with PH’s paper on naturalized v natural born as well. I have posted them on every Trump group and Cruz group Facebook pages I can find. I have gotten myself banned from a lot of them, but hopefully I am getting the information out there. I figured if the “tell a lie often enough and people will believe it” school of thought worked for the Nazi party, and everything that came out of Obama’s mouth for the past 7 years, it should work for me too. As of now, I have been banned from 20 groups on Facebook. Life is good.

            Like

            Comment by Chrisj | April 27, 2016

      • “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence … the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.” –George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

        There was a reason they stated you must be a natural born citizen, and not just a citizen. It makes no since to say a citizen = a NBC. If that were the case then the framers would have just said “citizen”. The framers were very concerned about foreign influence, as this quote from George Washington shows

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Spense | April 25, 2016 | Reply

        • Yes, Alexander Hamilton also warned about how we mustn’t allow foreign influence in the selection of our Presidents.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2016 | Reply

  11. Hi PH, hope you are doing well. People are learning just why allowing the federal govt to usurp power is such a bad thing. Obama recently announced he thinks North Carolina’s so-called bathroom law and identical measures in other states, including Mississippi, “are wrong and should be overturned…. AND he has threatened to withhold federal dollars if they don’t. Now, I can’t find the clause in the constitution, which gives the federal gov’t jurisdiction over our toilets or a right to use any restroom you want. The federal gov’t is social engineering like fascists, even though they haven’t been granted the authority to do so by the U.S. Constitution. Can the sovereign states refuse to allow their citizens to pay federal tax if Obama follows thru on his threat of withholding federal funds?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | April 24, 2016 | Reply

    • The proper course of action is for the States to man up and tell the federal government to take their federal funds and ….. well, you know.

      The fiscal note for Tennessee’s bill preserving separate bathrooms said that TN would lose over a BILLION dollars in federal education funding if we don’t get unisex – multisex – etc. bathrooms: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Fiscal/HB2414.pdf

      One of the biggest lies of our time is that the fed gov’t has been usurping powers over the States and The People. To the contrary, STATE LEGISLATORS have enthusiastically sold our retained rights and powers to the federal government for federal funds.

      And those accursed blame-shifting liars blame the federal government – and say we need an Article V convention to rein in the federal government! While they have their hands out for every penny they can get. A pox on them all.

      Hypocrisy, lying, dishonesty, greed, rule in America.

      and it is STATE Legislators who are elected by The People who have done this.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 24, 2016 | Reply

      • I agree the state legislatures have failed us, but I still think the federal govt has blame too. The feds initiated the dishonesty that the states failed to protect us from. I’m afraid ignorance and a trusting citizenry may have doomed America… still I can’t help but think the states could refuse to pay taxes to the feds that are taken for unconstitutionally authorized purposes, like education. A nullification action. It really is despicable, how our fascist federal govt takes tax dollars they are not entitled to take, then they act like they do us a big favor by giving some of it back. I agree with you the states must rise up against this subjugation or all is lost

        Like

        Comment by Spense | April 24, 2016 | Reply

        • The States are wrong to take the bribe money. If I offer you $1,000. for your child, and you sell your child to me for $1,000; are you any less guilty than I?
          We can’t control what others do – but we can control what WE do. If we are offered a bribe to do something WRONG – it is our personal responsibility to refuse to do it.

          Withholding tax money brings a whole new batch of complicating issues into the mix. And it puts individual Citizens at risk of criminal prosecution by the federal government.

          As a former criminal defense atty, I could NEVER NEVER NEVER suggest to others that they do something which will get them criminally prosecuted. It would be unethical to the highest degree! The FACT is that the stupid & morally blind (“soak the rich!”) American People delegated to the federal gov’t the power to tax “incomes”.

          The Solution is for the States to tell the fed gov’t to go jump in the lake and keep their accursed money.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 24, 2016 | Reply

          • It is an ancient Principle of Law that a “law” which is contrary to the Constitution is “no law at all” – it is void ab initio (void from the beginning) and binds no one.

            I fully understand your position, but…. my concern is the federal govt is taking tax dollars for unlawful purposes and as sovereign states they should have the power to stop their entire citizenry from paying those unlawful taxes. I have a real problem telling the feds to keep tax dollars they essentially stole. It would be suicide to do that as an individual. In my opinion the federal courts and DOJ are tyrannical and untrustworthy. As an individual I do not believe I would receive justice, only a political position. Yes, I do fear my federal gov’t…….

            Like

            Comment by Spense | April 24, 2016

    • I’ve heard that many states receive more from the feds than they pay so withholding their taxes could be financially detrimental. Once you’ve sold your soul, money controls your actions..

      Like

      Comment by llotter2013 | April 24, 2016 | Reply

      • According to the PEW Report, almost 40% of Tennessee’s revenue for FY 2013 was from federal funds. You can look up your State here: See “select a state” box: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-visualizations/2014/fiscal-50#ind1

        What you say is true. The Question for our time is: Can we get State Legislators to START to do the right thing? Individual People can change direction. But State legislators act like heroin junkies – it seems they will do anything for their fix.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 24, 2016 | Reply

      • Good comment, but wouldn’t it behoove those states with a negative return from the feds to tell them to take a hike! The whole system is stupid, why should the states give tax dollars to the feds so they can give it or some of it back. Its terrible management of funds, and you can bet there are unnecessary overpaid middle men siphoning off the top. If the federal govt were a business, it would have went bankrupt long ago. We have career congressmen who like to say at election time, “hey look what I got for you, $30 million for roads”…. its basically organized crime. Just let each states fund their own roads. The current system rewards failure, there are no incentives for the states to excel…. I think the states should be in competition with each other, a state with good schools that turn out well educated students in cores subjects, like math, science, etc… will attract businesses. The federal govt is moving us to communism, they want everyone to be dependent upon the mother federal government for everything!

        Like

        Comment by Spense | April 24, 2016 | Reply

        • The federal government IS a criminal organization, and they control the justice system so they have little to fear.
          The feds hooked the States on federal programs and federal funds. And there is no way the States can make up the money on their own; the feds just “borrow” more money from the Federal Reserve. They can always outspend our ability to make it up with State taxes.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by topcat1957 | April 27, 2016 | Reply

          • I remember when state gov’t was small – they didn’t “do” for everybody and they didn’t regulate everything.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 27, 2016

  12. Yes. Thanks again.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 23, 2016 | Reply

  13. One would think liberals had a problem with the Bill of Rights.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Victor | April 23, 2016 | Reply

  14. You are probably aware of a resolution condemning ‘hate speech’ toward Muslims. H. RES. 569

    Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

    Many people believe Congress is testing the waters, or preparing the people, for censorship laws, criminalizing speech offensive to Muslims.

    I believe we should all write Congress and put them on notice that any such law would be an unlawful usurpation and an infringement on our God given rights.

    I am sure we would all appreciate any specific points we should make to Congress in our letters.
    Thanks PH

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 23, 2016 | Reply

    • thank you, Top Cat.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 23, 2016 | Reply

    • Plus, restricting our speech:
      1) is not an enumerated power delegated to Congress; and
      1) it violates the 1st amendment.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 23, 2016 | Reply

    • Hi topcat

      Where you aware that the top contender for the Republican nomination for POTUS supports Hate Crime Laws?

      Perhaps not for Muslims, that remains to be seen, but it illustrates the person’s inconsistent and contradictory nature, along with their inability or refusal to reason well.

      “I like the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. It would be simple. It would be straightforward. We don’t need to rewrite the laws currently on the books, although I do think we need to address hate-crimes legislation. But amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans – it’s only fair. I actually suggested this first, and now I see [Democratic presidential candidate] Bill Bradley has jumped on the bandwagon and is claiming the idea as his own. [A bill to amend the Civil Rights Act that would have included protection on the basis of sexual orientation was first introduced in the 1970s. -Ed.]” ~Donald Trump Interview, The Advocate, Page 23-24 (Feb 15, 2000)

      “Absolutely. This is one of my great disappointments with George W. Bush. He had the opportunity in Texas to show national leadership by passing a hate-crimes bill but didn’t–presumably from pressure from the Christian right. When somebody is victimized because of their ethnicity, the color of their skin, or their sexual orientation, that must carry a harsh penalty.” ~Donald Trump Interview, The Advocate, Page 27 (Feb 15, 2000)

      Trump promotes himself as someone who will protect Christianity, but as we have already witnessed with Christian bakeries refusing to make gay wedding cakes, the unconstitutional and subversive legislation he supports and would sign into “law” does the opposite.

      ~BTG

      “This plainly shows that the highest state of liberty subjects us to the law of nature and the government of God. The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself. This, therefore, cannot be called a state of freedom, but a state of the vilest slavery and the most dreadful bondage. The servants of sin and corruption are subjected to the worst kind of tyranny in the universe. Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends.” ~Samuel West, Natural Law: The True Principles of Government (1776)

      Like

      Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 28, 2016 | Reply

      • I need an hour with Trump to teach him the federal Constitution. He has a spine; he knows how to manage; and I do believe he loves this Country. But like everyone else in this Country (except for a few), he is clueless about what the Constitution says or does. So he is guided by his own views on such matters. And whereas I expect he thinks through business deals, he [like everyone else except for a few] doesn’t think thru the implications of federal “hate speech” legislation.
        It is the curse of our Time that all (except for a few) are guided by their own opinions instead of by external, transcendent Principles and Standards.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 28, 2016 | Reply

        • YES. Trump is smart and a quick learner. His important qualities are that he does love this country, and will take advice from smart people. He has not spent his career polishing his image as politicians have done. Some of those who look and sound so perfect based on their publicized speeches and positions, are not nearly so perfect when you dig into their votes and actions.
          Anyway, the quotes above don’t refer to hate speech, but to hate crimes. Does he mean physical assaults for racial or social reasons? Certainly we don’t want the KKK lynchings of years gone by back again. So strict laws on such behavior would make sense.
          But if he means hate speech then he needs to learn from experts why that would be wrong. The good thing about Trump is that he is willing to learn from experts. He is an honest man. And he is right on so many things.

          Like

          Comment by topcat1957 | April 28, 2016 | Reply

        • Hi PH

          How do you teach someone who refuses or is incapable of reasoning well?

          I wish it were just a case of misinformation and ignorance, but it goes so much deeper than that. Trump holds to the erroneous worldview of Pragmatism… among other things. And as you undoubtedly already know, it’s neither consistent with reason or morally sound. Take a look at two of Trump’s principles on government:

          “Common sense tell us that the two basic principles of governing should work anywhere they are applied. First: Get government out of activities it can’t do well. (A list of thing government doesn’t do well is a very long list.) Second: Get government back in the business of providing for public convenience (transportation, public works) and safety (police and firefighters), and make sure it does so efficiently. Then judge its efforts by visible, definable results and fine-tune, as needed.”

          For everyone’s edifice, the definition of sophistry is: the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.

          As to Trump’s first basic principle, which really isn’t a principle at all, there was a similar argument trying to stop the ratification of the new constitution, to which James Madison replied:

          If powers be necessary, apparent danger is not a sufficient reason against conceding them. . . .”

          Well if powers be necessary, then neither is the government not doing those powers well.

          Apparently Trump’s second principle applies to the federal government since he recently announced the top three priorities of the federal government is Security, Education, and Healthcare, along with housing and great neighborhoods. Unfortunately we have people on the right validating Trump’s erroneous worldview of pragmatism by telling us it equals common sense and that he is a strict constitutionalist. Anyone who has ever read the common sense thinking of one pragmatic Pontius Pilate in the Gospel should know better, then there is John Dewey…

          Words mean whatever Trump wants them to mean, such as referring to himself as a conservative. He is a postmodernist as is most of his followers. So are you sure the country Trump love’s is the same country you love?

          Trump’s support of gay rights and perverts using whatever public bathrooms they wish, speaks volumes of his character. A immoral character coupled with a spine is a recipe for disaster in my book.

          ~BTG

          Like

          Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 28, 2016 | Reply

          • BTG,
            I know what Trump said.
            I know what the other candidates have said.
            None of them know what the Constitution says.
            So if THAT’s my sole standard, no one alive is fit for the office except for me.

            But I wouldn’t make a good President b/c I don’t like dealing with people – I prefer books; and I am a poor manager.

            So I look at all the candidates out there and I see ONE whom I believe loves this country; is a decent person; has a spine; is intelligent; is teachable, and knows how to manage. He has consistently opposed the “free” trade policies which have removed manufacturing from this Country (see video clip from Oprah show of some 25 years ago).

            I have never before in my lifetime seen a candidate for the Presidency who has those qualities.

            Even Reagan – whom I believe is overrated.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 29, 2016

  15. Hey PH, can you comment on how the delegates are supposed to vote? I am hearing reports that the RNC is changing rules in various ways in order to prevent delegates from voting for Trump.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 16, 2016 | Reply

    • I just gave a speech on Presidential Elections, how our Constitution says they must be conducted, and how we do it in practice. If the video turns out, I’ll post it.

      The way we do it today is totally unconstitutional.

      All of the problems we are having with cheating by GOP and Cruz are due to our ignoring how our Constitution says elections are to be conducted. WHEN WE REJECT THE RULE OF LAW – THE PEOPLE WITH THE POWER DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

      Yet Americans applaud this as long as THEIR gang is in power.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 17, 2016 | Reply

  16. Hi PH, just a comment, I stumbled across this while sipping coffee this morning. Maybe there are some in congress who get it.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/house-of-representatives-files-amicus-brief-in-support-of-judicial-watch-taxpayer-lawsuit-to-prevent-d-c-government-from-illegally-spending-taxpayer-money/

    Like

    Comment by Spense | April 6, 2016 | Reply

    • The District of Columbia is unique. Unlike the Country at large, where the Congress has only enumerated powers; over the DC, Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction (see Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause). Basically, THAT jurisdiction is limited only by the Bill of Rights. So, Congress has authority to write the budget for the DC and run its day to day operations. I believe that Congress has relinquished some of its jurisdiction over the DC to the locals, but I don’t know any more than that as to the extent of the power ceded. Bottom line is that the local DC government can lawfully do only what Congress has permitted it to do.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2016 | Reply

  17. My comment is in the form of an expression of gratitude for all that you do in broadening my horizons. Thank you so very very much.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Con Ma | April 4, 2016 | Reply

    • You are so welcome!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2016 | Reply

  18. And I would careless, Hillary is done, Bernie,pointless.

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    Like

    Comment by laserguy001@gmail.com | April 4, 2016 | Reply

  19. Do we need to continue to beat the dead horse over this? clearly they have fallen by the wayside. Dem’s and Republicans have become political aritifacts. I may not vote for the first time in my life for any office, they breached their oath of office. If you believe otherwise, please do tell.. The current liar and thief earned his legacy, let’s make it sure it is recorded in history for his ” Presidential library” as the SINGLE worst President in our history.
    So help us!

    Like

    Comment by Rick1234 | April 4, 2016 | Reply

    • consider supporting the candidate for the Constitution Party. I believe they are required by their Party to ….. actually READ our Constitution!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Your assessment of the Repubs and Dems is understandable. They are virtually all globalists now, with few exceptions as far as I can see.
      But Trump is not a globalist, which is why Soros has allotted $15 million specifically to derail his campaign, including smearing him and sending thugs to his rallies.
      Trump’s personality turns off a lot of people. But he will stop illegal immigration, he will cut taxes, help small businesses grow, and strengthen US sovereignty. He will NOT go along with the NAU or “new world order” plans of the globalists.

      Perhaps the biggest reason to vote for him is that the alternatives are straight up communists and globalists. A vote for Trump is a vote against a communist

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by topcat1957 | April 4, 2016 | Reply

  20. I think you are essentially correct if I understand you. The purpose of the Constitution, with respect to the practice of religion, was to prevent the government from interfering with the right of citizens to practice their religion anywhere, including on government owned property.

    The liberals have turned this upside down.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 3, 2016 | Reply

    • The FEDERAL gov’t is forbidden to establish a national church [i.e., a church which is supported by Taxes], and the federal gov’t is forbidden to interfere in what the States do in this area.

      BUT the States may “establish” a religion – i.e., a State may declare such & such to be the State church AND require everyone to support it with taxes. When the colonists came here, they quickly “established” churches in their Colonies. E.g, Massachusetts established the Congregational Church and everyone was required to pay taxes to support it, pay the minister, etc. Massachusetts didn’t disestablish its State Church until 1833 or so.

      And, as Jefferson showed us, people in the federal gov’t may practice their religion on government property. Holding communion service, prayer meetings, etc. doesn’t constitute “establishing” a church because the practices aren’t being supported by tax money collected from The People.

      The supreme Court got this totally wrong. If we had had men in our State Legislatures, they would have spit on the supreme Court’s opinions on this issue.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2016 | Reply

  21. I debated with myself over whether to reply to your comment. I have found that when I reply to a comment with outrageous inaccuracies the other person is not serious, not interested in an honest rational discussion. So I will only respond briefly.
    The most laughable assertion is that Trump supporters are “brown shirts”, an obvious reference to Nazi thugs, who are apt to physically assault others.
    This is a repetition of some leftist propaganda put out by the Soros machine. Soros has spent $15 million according to news reports in an effort to derail the Trump campaign. This effort includes paying for aggressive agitators who physically assault people at Trump rallies. They throw items at, taunt, block access of, and assault Trump supporters on their way to and at rallies.
    Money has also been spent spreading the propaganda that the Trump supporters are responsible for the acts of violence committed by the Soros paid agitators. The reason they spread this outrageous lie is that many people will only hear or read a short bit in the news that there was violence at a rally, without understanding that paid agitators rioted and attacked Americans who were peacefully gathering to hear someone speak.
    If they then hear a big lie repeated by paid Soros agitators who blame the victims, they may believe the lie. It is an old Nazi propaganda trick, something Soros knows well from his youth, that if you repeat a lie over and over, people will believe it.

    It is not surprising that Soros would go to such lengths to oppose Trump. Soros, like many other Democrats and even many Republicans, is a globalist in favor of the NAU. While it would be a disaster for the US as it would mean the end of our sovereignty, it would make a lot of money for the globalists and those politicians who help them achieve their goals.
    Trump is NOT a globalist and his plans for America are completely at odds with those of the globalists.

    Therefore there is a propaganda campaign against Trump like nothing seen against any American politician in my lifetime. This includes portraying Trump as a Nazi. This is hilarious coming from Soros, who was a Nazi collaborator who turned in his fellow Jews to the Nazis as a youth. Soros spoke of this time as the best of his life in an interview.

    I won’t bother going point by point through your Trump attack. You sound so much like a radical of some sort making wild character attacks that I am certain you are not serious and could not be objective.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 3, 2016 | Reply

    • True: No one who calls Trump supporters “brown shirts” is interested in honest discussion. I should have deleted the post – sometimes the trash slips by me and gets posted.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2016 | Reply

  22. Is this a valid analysis regarding separation of Church & State, or do I need to study something I’ve overlooked in interpretation?

    To give you an example of how bad it is in Governor Moon Beam’s State a federal judge in the 9 th. Appeals Court adjudicated a case where a complaint arose from an atheist that teachers were leading children in recital of the pledge of allegiance. The Judge found that the pledge was unconstitutional because of the phrase “under God ” violated the “separation of Church and State”.

    I submit that the term has been misused far too long and has caused extreme hardship and angst due to the corruption of the sense of the Constitution.
    The reasoning is that of James Madison, who has been called the Father of the Bill of Rights and or the Constitution, penned his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious assessments 1785 to keep future States intrusive desires at bay.

    http://founders.archives.gov/documents/ Madison/01-08-02-0163

    The gist of it is that Madison sought to remove any encroachment on religious liberties in the new Constitution he was drafting in which the State has no reason to intrude in anyway with the unalienable God given rights of conscience enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    To further clarify the error of the 9th. Circuit in California one only has to read all of Article VII of the United States Constitution as witnessed by the 12 framers who were present and participating while rewriting Article VII in the Continental congress.

    If the teacher led the students in reciting Article VII instead of the Pledge of Allegiance, can anyone imagine he would rule the Constitution Unconstitutional?

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | April 3, 2016 | Reply

  23. Globalism and a republic are antithetical. The globalist crowd are for dissolving the sovereignty of nations, and forming first large regional nations and finally a world government with a world bank and a world currency. The Club of Rome has spelled out their plan; they want an un-elected government made up of elites.
    You can be sure they have made promises to present day politicians who help them bring this about. But individual sovereignty and a representative government are not part of the plan.
    Globalism is not about rights and freedoms.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 2, 2016 | Reply

  24. PH has already made a sufficient answer I think. Her well researched, written, and referenced article on The Consitution, Vattel, and natural born Citizen, What Our Framers Knew shows that :
    “…Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787.”

    As far as what the courts may do, I suppose it might depend upon the court. I have become cynical and pessimistic because of the level of corruption in our government, including the judicial system. I have no doubt there are courts which might ignore or pervert established legal principles either due to ideological reasons or due to outside influences. I have seen evidence of these things happening a number of times.
    And if the press is not worried about it, it will go unnoticed by the general public. The decision might be appealed but, as I said, there is corruption in the system. And if the case went to the SCOTUS then… oh boy.

    I hope I am overly pessimistic and am wrong about the level of corruption in the system.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 2, 2016 | Reply

    • If you will recall: many cases were filed in federal court challenging Obama’s eligibility. Every single one of them was dismissed in the federal district courts (the trial courts in the federal system) for “lack of standing”. Every US Circuit Court of Appeals who got one of the cases on appeal affirmed the dismissals. And the supreme Court refused to hear every single one of them.

      But that was when obama’s eligibility was being challenged.

      But all of a sudden, some federal courts discovered that they have the judicial power to declare Ted Cruz eligible??????? Humm? Raise a red flag anyone?

      Actually, the federal courts who refused to hear cases challenging obama’s eligibility were correct in their result – though not in their reasoning: This is NOT a matter for the federal courts to decide. This is a matter for Congress to decide. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/who-decides-whether-someone-is-qualified-for-the-office-of-president-of-the-united-states/

      The immorality of the Cruz supporters is revealed by their glee over the opinion of the federal district court out of Pennsylvania which declared Cruz eligible. They embrace situational ethics and moral relativity – but then, so does their candidate.

      The system is corrupt. But it got that way because the People are corrupt.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 2, 2016 | Reply

      • This has been my big fear all along concerning Cruz’s candidacy. If he were to get the nomination, the liberal/leftist politicians and their allies in the judicial system would suddenly discover the law. They could mount an October surprise and challenge Cruz eligibility with no time left for the Republicans to mount an effective campaign for a replacement candidate.
        The news would be all about an ineligible candidate. Ironic that the Democrats would be pushing for the rule of law over eligibility.
        Yes, suddenly those same courts would determine that the case had merit, the plaintiffs had standing, blah blah blah.
        Even if doing so would shine the light on Obama’s ineligibility, it would be too late for it to damage him.

        The public doesn’t study anything anymore. They get “educated” by the media. The public is ignorant, and what they do know is all wrong.
        Every time I see one of those man on the street interviews in which the people are unable to name the Vice President, unable to say who we fought against in the Revolutionary War, in which century we fought them, etc., I am amazed and embarrassed for my country. But they can tell you which Hollywood star is dating which other star and trivial nonsense like that in a second. When they ask a visitor from some European country they know the answers, but not the Americans, with one or two exceptions, and they are always over 45 years old.

        So those idiots would swallow whatever they heard on the news and take it as fact. You are right, the courts always find a way to construct a decision they want. The communist creation of “politically correct” thoughts, speech, opinions, etc. has infested the judicial system as well. I feel certain that judges who don’t want to go along are threatened with harm to their families unless they do as directed. I am sure that is how Obama was able to fend off some of the challenges.
        The situation has deteriorated in this country to the point that we must be ready to fight once again for our freedoms. If the Demorats are able to steal this election I think it might be too late to nullify bad laws peacefully. The DemoRats will create a national police force and try to force their tyranny upon us. It will then be fighting time. I am rambling. I feel a little depressed about it all today.

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | April 2, 2016 | Reply

        • But as a practical matter, there’s no real difference between Hillary and Cruz. They are both globalists

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 2, 2016 | Reply

          • OK. I have to admit I know little about him. I guess we can assume then that he is full of crap whenever he pretends to be in favor of defending our rights and the Constitution. I voted for Trump by the way. He is my first choice.

            Like

            Comment by topcat1957 | April 2, 2016

          • yes, Cruz is full of c when he pretends to be in favor of our Constitution:

            See these: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/alinsky-tactics-are-being-used-to-manipulate-americans-into-supporting-art-v-convention/
            https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/natural-born-citizen-and-coverture/

            Do read the CFR Task Force report on the NAU – it is chilling: From my time in communist countries, I know what it means when the police and military are combined – and we are going to have a combined military/police for Canada, the US and Mexico! This is what the Bush Family and Ted Cruz and all the political establishment for both parties want!

            Yes, I too support Trump. He doesn’t know the 1st thing about our Constitution – but at least, he will close the borders. Cruz will erase the borders – unless, of course, we think that Heidi and Teddy don’t agree on erasing the borders????

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 2, 2016

    • Others besides PH have researched the NBC issue. I for instance also read the diaries concerning the day to day activities of those creating the Constitution and could find only one reference to Vattel’s work and that did not deal with NBC. So it wasn’t like the framers held Vattel’s book in one hand while writing the Constitution with the other.

      The term actually appeared only once and without comment in the final markup by a committee assigned to that article. Prior to the final committee work natural born was not used in previous markups so it was not a thought from the beginning of the discussion of the requirements for the presidency. It just appeared literally overnight possibly because of the John Jay letter.

      Others have searched prior English law and never found the term. Vattel’s writing either in French or English translations prior to ratification did not use the term. So saying that term was well known at the time seems to me to need more evidence. But to my knowledge no one has ever found the term used or written prior to ratification other than in the Jay letter or the Constitution.

      To me that weakens the position of anyone claiming to know exactly what the framers meant by the term when they accepted its use. We can speculate but without the term being defined prior to use it is just that.

      Like

      Comment by Don Mellon | April 2, 2016 | Reply

      • The evidence is there. Look at the paper I linked to and read the materials I cite and link to in the linked paper. You refuse to look at it b/c it contradicts the result you want. So to say the evidence ‘isn’t there’ isn’t honest when you don’t see the evidence because you refuse to look.

        And of course English law didn’t have anything to say about “natural born citizen”! England didn’t have “citizens” – England had “subjects”. Vattel was writing about a new system – a REPUBLIC! Republics have “citizens” – not “subjects”.

        You would know this if you hadn’t refused to look at the linked paper.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 2, 2016 | Reply

        • PH, I agree 100%, as a disabled Viet.Vet. I know how it feels emotionally and physically to have the contract changed after the fact. We trusted the Government to do their duty. We performed our duty, we stood up and stuck our fingers into the fan as ordered, we did our duty, however, hundreds of thousands of us have died while waiting for appointments just to see a primary physician once per year. If we encounter any issues in the mean time we have to go to the emergency room at the VA, IF WE DONT HAVE TRANSPORTATION we must call 911. But their ambulance can only deliver us to the non VA hospital emergency room which is approximately 200 yards from the VA emergency room. The Va only has 1 ambulance, lord help us if it is occupied when a vet. needs emergency assistance. I won’t get started on all of the thousands of disability claims forms which have been tossed into dumpsters. They have expiration time lines, so if you file a claim they say you can anticipate a decision in about a year. Buy your benefits don’t go back to the date of the claim. If it’s lost or they can’t find it because some bastard wanted a bonus and threw it in the trash it will be another year b-4 you get a decision. That is the ultimate violation of a sacred compact. It seems like the VA hired all of the pot smoking, draft dodging radicals from the 60’s to run the VA , the IRS and the White House for the las 7 years.

          Like

          Comment by Con Ma | April 30, 2016 | Reply

          • Yes, it is disgraceful how the federal government has treated disabled vets. Yet welfare parasites, muslims and mexican invaders are showered with benefits.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2016

    • The federal courts can only adjudicate cases limited by their enumerated power granted to them by the Constitution. The question of qualification is of a political nature and is therefore not in their list of cases an not within their purview.

      Like

      Comment by Con Ma | April 30, 2016 | Reply

      • Right! Determining whether a person meets the requirements for President or VP set forth at Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5, is delegated by the Constitution:
        Firstly, to the Electors; and
        Ultimately, to Congress.

        The Primaries show that the People are rejecting Cruz.

        It is bizarre how Cruz supporters (who say they are “conservatives” and “constitutionalists”) want the federal courts to have sole authority to decide this issue and to force their decision on us.

        This illustrates the moral failing I am always addressing: As a People, we decide on the result WE want, and then select an argument which gives us that result.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2016 | Reply

  25. Well, people do make buying decisions emotionally and only construct logical reasons to justify their emotional decisions. But I am not sure how to go about emotionally selling the rule of law. I guess giving examples of the suffering of people under big government, and showing how failing to follow the rule of law always leads to dictatorial government could be done in a way to affect someone emotionally.
    One way to appeal to the emotions is to make personal examples. If I made a contract with you, how would you feel if I cheated by trying to change the meaning of the terms of the contract after the fact? That is something everyone can relate to. Everyone has been cheated at some time or other and knows how bad it feels. Everyone knows it is wrong and gets angry if someone cheats them.
    Politicians are such excellent liars and con men. They frame issues in ways that get people on their side even as they cheat us. And it is because we are all so ignorant of the law that they get away with it.

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | April 1, 2016 | Reply

    • The above comment was in reply to someone who suggested we appeal to liberals on an emotional level, after I made a comment about how they base their positions on their feelings instead of on the law.
      Anyway, I must have done something wrong because the above reply seems to be in the wrong place. I don’t see the comment I was responding to anywhere. Mea Culpa.

      Like

      Comment by topcat1957 | April 2, 2016 | Reply

      • Well, you can do it again and then I’ll delete the first one which is in the wrong place.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 2, 2016 | Reply

  26. I think the argument that the phrase “natural born citizen” was well know to the writers of the Constitution, could be easily countered by Cruz’s lawyers. First, no one has discovered any place where that phrase was published in English prior to the John Jay letter where it was not defined. English translations of Vattel’s book published prior to the writing of the Constitution did not use that phrase, and the French version does not translate precisely as natural born citizen.

    I seriously doubt any court would deny the peoples choice for president based on assumptions concerning the precise meaning of the phrase.

    As an after thought if there is a special significance to natural born why is it not capitalized? Everything else is it seems. In the same paragraph they capitalized Citizen, Adoption, Constitution, Office, President, Person, Age, Years, Resident, and United States, but not natural born.

    Like

    Comment by Don Mellon | April 1, 2016 | Reply

    • Don, our Framers weren’t as profoundly ignorant as we are today. The notion that Vattel’s book just sat on the shelf unread until someone translated it into English is silly. Plus that notion is contradicted by the facts – as I showed here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ We know that our Framers read it.
      The idea that someone had to translate the French into English before our Framers could understand “natural born citizen” is idiotic.

      The argument you say Cruz’s lawyers would make is stupid. But stupid arguments convince stupid people. And Americans today are truly stupid. But it wasn’t always that way. The argument you say Cruz’s lawyers would make also reflects an inability to think conceptually. Read the quote from David Ramsay’s dissertation in the paper I link to in this post. Note that Ramsay didn’t use the term “natural born citizen”. But to a person who can think conceptually, it is obvious that such is what Ramsay is talking about. But people who can’t think conceptually won’t make the connection.

      Your “afterthought” reveals a lack of understanding of the rules of capitalization at the time of our Framing. At that time, Nouns were still generally capitalized. But adjectives weren’t. “natural born” is an adjective. “Citizen” is a noun. So Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 says, “natural born Citizen”. The term is in the Constitution!

      And you “seriously doubt” any court would do such & such because of your intense familiarity with how courts do things? Perhaps you have been a litigation attorney for a great many years and that is how you know what courts will do and won’t do?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 1, 2016 | Reply

  27. It seems to me that liberals think emotionally while conservatives tend to think logically. To argue with liberals, conservatives need to express their argument in emotional terms. From what I read, the right side of your brain contains emotions while the left side contains logic. This, if true, is ironic since conservatives are left brained and liberals are right brained.

    Like

    Comment by Victor | April 1, 2016 | Reply

  28. Well put sir. Thank you! Many can’t seem to follow the logic that if you don’t follow original meaning then you have made a change. No branch of the federal government has authority to change the constitution It must be done as stated in the constitution. I work at a University and for the life of me the professors are stupid. (So are my generally liberal co-workers.) It really makes me crazy to try to have an intelligent conversation with them about the role of government.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by IMO | April 1, 2016 | Reply

    • I know what you mean. Liberals are ideologically driven and have no love for the law. They are unconcerned with whether their desires for government action are legal. Their basis for what is right or wrong is how strongly they ‘feel’ about it. If they think something ought to be this way or that, then they don’t care what the Constitution says or the reasons it was written that way.
      Their hearts might be in the right place, kind of. What I mean is, they may really have good intentions. But again, they are all about their feelings. They won’t listen and don’t care what the history of governments with too much power or too much authority in too many areas is. You can tell them that giving government power over very much always leads to abuse of power, infringement of people’s rights, destruction of the economy, destruction of individual liberty, rights, and the crushing of people’s souls. You can give them case history after case history, and the testimony of people who lived under similar systems, They just won’t accept that it will be the same for them. THEY will be different, because they truly CARE about the people!
      Even if they are absolutely sincere and have hearts of gold like Mother Theresa, and even if they personally would never abuse power themselves, it will happen the same. Because even if they never abused power, stole money, etc. others in government would. And governments picking winners always screws up the economy. And it always happens that, given so much power over people, they become drunk with the power over time. They become corrupted by it. Without legal restrictions on the power of government, those in power begin to rule by whim. It just always happens.
      But the true believer liberals are blind to this. “They are good people so it won’t happen that way this time.” But it always does.

      They fall prey to this fallacy: “I must be right or else I would not have such strong emotions about it”. They are all about how they feel about it. They don’t care about the law.

      Like

      Comment by topcat1957 | April 1, 2016 | Reply

  29. Well it took a bit, but now i understand the NA of 1790 as saying that 1. Children of US Citizens (meaning two USC parents) born aboard. 2. And if the father is a USC, but has never been a resident in the US, the child will not derive NBC status.

    Where as before i was reading the second part saying 1 USC mother, and a father who was an alien but had residence in the US at some point.

    Like

    Comment by J | March 29, 2016 | Reply

    • “… And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.”
      But we must try to avoid endless disputes over irrelevancies. As a practical matter, what we are concerned with now is whether Ted Cruz is a nbc.
      There is so much Americans needs to learn right NOW: starting with the enumerated powers… and the powers of the federal courts.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 29, 2016 | Reply

  30. Good day ma’am. Have been away awhile, my father passed.
    Have searched and find no paper on the use of the 5th ammendment for the “taking” of private property by our government. There is a storm approaching. A private company is threatening the use of eminent domain “a railroad “. It will cut my family’s farm in half. Could you please point me in the right direction?
    In His service, Mark

    Like

    Comment by imtryingwolfy | March 28, 2016 | Reply

    • The eminent domain statutes in your State will address this. Those Statutes also probably provide that you are entitled to have your attorneys’ fees paid by the person who wants to take your land. I would look for the BEST eminent domain lawyer in your State and set up an appointment. I don’t know the eminent domain laws in your state; you may or may not be able to stop the railroad going through your Farm. But you ought to be able to get full compensation. And perhaps a re-routing. This isn’t my area of litigation, though.
      Tonight, I will try to find time to locate the eminent domain statutes for your State.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 29, 2016 | Reply

      • Thank you my lady. You are still in my thoughts & prayers.

        Like

        Comment by imtryingwolfy | March 29, 2016 | Reply

        • Thank you – I need the help!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 29, 2016 | Reply

  31. Since Oberkfell v Hodges relied on the 14th. Amendment I assume that would be the equal protection clause? If this is an accurate assumption, would it not apply regarding out of state driver’s license as well as concealed carry permits without further tests or examinations the same as marriage licenses in all of the States notwithstanding the states constitutional law? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | March 28, 2016 | Reply

    • Both the “equal protection” clause and the “due process” clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment were involved: See:
      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/marriage/

      As you see from the posted articles under the “Marriage” Category, Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with legalizing the killing of babies, legalizing homosexual sodomy; or legalizing homosexual marriage. Instead, the original intent of the clause was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to protect them from southern black codes which denied freed slaves basic GOD-Given rights.

      The federal courts perverted Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.

      THAT said – and under the theories used by the Progressives to legalize baby killing, etc.; your argument is excellent.

      However, since they don’t agree with concealed carry, I expect they would fabricate a distinction.

      They are not honest people.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 29, 2016 | Reply

  32. Chris J:

    I am sorry to hear about your frustrations and apparent lack of “official” interest at state and local levels. I was afraid of that type of response. At this point, I think I will concentrate on communicating with friends and known patriots that are at least nominally open and predisposed to Constitutional “original intent” and its value for America and its future development. Sometimes the bottom-up approach seems to prove of greatest value in the long run. It is more difficult to change minds at high level that are already locked in and frozen upon a particular ideology and methodology. However, as in today’s political world, it may take a longer time to develop a grass-roots tsunami of opinion and support, but it is at least much more difficult to ignore when it happens! And it yields more incremental progress and fewer frustrations!

    Like

    Comment by paradigmrw | March 28, 2016 | Reply

    • Don’t give up hope. Keep up the good work. You never know who you might reach without realizing it, or who might be persuaded just a little while from now by the efforts you made and the information you made available.
      There are people out there who are truly interested in the truth and want to do the right thing.

      Like

      Comment by topcat1957 | April 1, 2016 | Reply

  33. paradigmrw…CPL is concealed pistol license. Michigan is an open-carry state, but you need a special license to carry concealed. They’re working on making it so you don’t need a special license to carry concealed.

    Like

    Comment by Chris J | March 28, 2016 | Reply

  34. On your video of Natural Born Citizen. I have this statement that I believe you and others fail to address:

    So the question we ask ourselves is does the writings of Ramsey and Vettle who wrote about what their beliefs based on English law, what a natural born citizen is, allowed to limit the ability of the US Congress under the authority of the US Constitution to create its own legislation for the United States to define what the United States will consider to be a Natural Born Citizen?

    …… I deleted the rest of this post because it was long and confused. PH….

    Like

    Comment by jr | March 28, 2016 | Reply

    • Your LONG post – which I have shortened considerably – reflects confusion on your part:

      1. If you would study this paper, perhaps much would become clear to you: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

      2. Monarchies have “subjects”. Republics have “citizens” Blackstones’ discusses “natural born subjects”. That is not relevant to a Republic which has “citizens”. Vattel and Ramsay discussed CITIZENS OF REPUBLICS!

      3. Congress may not define and redefine words in the Constitution.

      4. The 1790 Act was titled, “an Act to establish an Uniform rule of Naturalization”. Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4.

      5. You are not distinguishing between being a “natural born citizen” and being a “naturalized citizen”. Only the former are eligible to be President.

      6. The Supreme court does not have authority to define words in the Constitution. We must go by original intent.

      7. The supreme Court has no authority to decide who is and who is not a “natural born citizen”. That power is vested – ultimately – in Congress. see: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/who-decides-whether-someone-is-qualified-for-the-office-of-president-of-the-united-states/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 28, 2016 | Reply

      • Who says the US Congress does not have the authority to define Natural Born Citizen for the purposes under Art 1, Section 8, clause 4. And why did the US Congress do so in 1790?

        Like

        Comment by J | March 29, 2016 | Reply

        • 1. We must look to the original definition of the term used by our Framers. READ THIS and you will see why: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

          2. Congress did not “define” “natural born citizen” in the Naturalization Act of 1790. They repeated the definition used by our Framers. Read above linked article.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 29, 2016 | Reply

        • You mean redefine, because it was already defined. The definition is the one which the founders used when they wrote the Constitution, and that definition is clear from their writings. Congress cannot make a law to change the definition of natural born citizen from that which the founders used. Because that is changing the Constitution, and you cannot do that with a law. You would have to amend the Constitution in order to do that.
          Read what PH suggested and it will be more clear.

          Most of the problems we have today (with respect to Congress making unconstitutional laws) springs from such revisionist definitions. You cannot do that with any contract or any law. You cannot point to some phrase or terminology and say “this is what we say that phrase means today” and thereby change the meaning from that the original meaning. And you cannot pretend that the phrase had always had the new meaning. This is what Congress and the Supreme Court do all the time in order to grant themselves powers not given by the Constitution as originally written. Just because they have been able to get away with it so often does not mean it is legal.
          As PH says so often, the problem is that most Americans were never taught the Constitution and have never taken the time to read it and read the Federalist Papers or other writings of the founding fathers. Most people don’t realize that Congress isn’t able to make law changing the Constitution.
          It probably was not evident to you that the phrase was already defined. The meaning was so clear to the founders that they didn’t feel it was necessary to spell it out in the law, but their contemporary writings do spell out the meaning they assigned to it, the meaning which which was commonly understood by the phrase, at the time the Constitution was written. It is not that Vattel and Ramsay rob Congress of any of their enumerated powers. It is that the definition which Vattel and Ramsay used is the one the founders used, and therefore that is the one which the Constitution uses. It is simply that Congress cannot change the Constitution without the amendment process as laid out in the Constitution.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by topcat1957 | April 1, 2016 | Reply

          • excellent and well said. Thank you!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 1, 2016

          • Thanks PH. I usually think the way I phrase things is too clumsy, that my points are haphazard and thrown together poorly. But if it made sense to you then I am happy.

            Like

            Comment by topcat1957 | April 1, 2016

          • the way you put it was excellent: clear and straightforward! Really anybody ought to be able to understand what you said and the pure logic of what you said.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 1, 2016

  35. It doesn’t seem to make much sense to me to have the Supreme Court, a creature of the states, to be the final arbiter of the extent of their own power as representative of the federal government. It is as though you hired a firm to handle your foreign legal business and they take it upon themselves to expand the contract to include your healthcare coverage and most everything else.. This can’t be what the Founders intended, is it?

    Like

    Comment by llotter2013 | March 27, 2016 | Reply

    • Right you are. Our Framers were emphatic that the States are the final judge as to whether their “creature” [the federal government] has violated the constitutional compact [the Constitution] the States made with each other. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/nullification/

      This is why it is so horrifying that people who pretend to be on our side [David Barton, Randy Barnett, Robert A. Levy (Cato Institute), Mark Levin, Michael Farris, Heritage Foundation, etc.] insist that Madison opposed nullification. Anyone who actually reads Madison’s Report of 1799 to the Virginia Legislature under his discussion of the 3rd of the Virginia Resolutions [I link to this Report in my nullification papers] can see that Madison said the STATES are the final authority and they must act so as to preserve our Constitution. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton were strong supporters of smacking down the federal gov’t when it usurped power.

      The LYING which goes on in this Country is breathtaking in its brazenness and scope. And then there are those who repeat what they have been told without checking it out for themselves. And then the liars and the parrots smear those who actually tell the Truth!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 27, 2016 | Reply

      • Nullification by individual states doesn’t seem to carry the ‘authority’ of the Supremes, speaking with one voice for the whole. If only one or two or even the majority nullify it leaves the law hanging w/o a good resolution.

        I have lost any respect for the court as it stands. The saying that w/o God, anything is permissible describes our pathetic situation.

        Perhaps we need to come up with an independent court that represents the states though it is not clear what the difference would be to the current, unsatisfactory situation. Maybe getting rid of the SC might be something to look at.

        Happy Easter to you and yours.

        Like

        Comment by llotter2013 | March 27, 2016 | Reply

        • Americans have difficulty with nullification because they don’t understand the relation between the States (the CREATORS of the federal government) and their “creature” (the federal government). They don’t know the enumerated powers. So they don’t know the difference between lawful acts and unlawful usurpations of power.

          And Americans have been totally brainwashed into a mindset of slavery – and cowardice.

          Americans don’t know what the existing constitutional remedy is for federal judges who usurp power.

          Your suggestion of an “independent” [are you kidding???] court is a horrible idea! Our problem is that everyone ignores the Constitution we have: the judges, Congress, Presidents, and The People.

          The People have no idea what our Constitution says about anything. They are too lazy to find out.

          Do you really believe that the cure for courts who ignore the Constitution and for a People who never troubled their precious little selves to learn it – is to get another Court? And THIS new Court will follow the Constitution? Really?

          The cure is for THE PEOPLE to learn what our Constitution says and how it works and to start enforcing it.

          We can not be ignorant and free. We can not be cowards and free.

          And lest you believe the lies that States are “victims” of federal tyranny, know that the fed gov’t has been BRIBING STATES FOR A LONG TIME TO GET STATES TO VOLUNTARILY IMPOSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS. The retained powers of the States and The People were SOLD by the States to the fed gov’t – they did it for the fed funds.

          But an “independent” court will fix all this?

          I would not presume to propose ANY Amendments to our Constitution until I FULLY UNDERSTOOD the Constitution we have.

          And now that I fully understand it, I can confidently say that the only amendments we need are amendments repealing some of the previous amendments a foolish, ignorant, and gullible American People got conned into supporting.

          Our Constitution is not the Problem. Ignoring it is the Problem – that and our moral and spiritual collapse.

          Liked by 3 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 27, 2016 | Reply

  36. Dear PH:

    I think I may know the answers, but I am obliged to ask you anyway as I respect your superior knowledge and experience.
    First, If a Muslim were to seek U.S. citizenship, (would/should) this be conditional upon accepting the U.S. Constitution and all related laws, thus foresaking all ties to Sharia law?
    Second, if a Muslim (or any other citizen of a foreign country) were to seek U. S. residency (either legal or illegal), should they also be expected to accept the laws established by the U. S. Constitution and such punishments as may be administered under it, as a condition of their residency?
    Third, if the answer to either of the above is “yes,” then under what provisions of the U. S. Constitution could/should such compliance be enacted and enforced? And why is it not?

    Like

    Comment by paradigmrw | March 26, 2016 | Reply

    • It is CRAZY for the United States to accept any Muslims as citizens or as resident aliens or to give them visas. We have no moral or constitutional obligations to accept snakes as citizens or residents or visitors.

      During the Cold War, I wanted a visa to visit the Soviet Union – first time I applied, I was rejected. I wanted a visa to visit Albania – I was ineligible. If I had had an East German passport, I could have gotten inside. My points are these: (1) Countries don’t have to let anybody in; and (2) Americans need to start saying, “Not in MY country.” And “to hell with multiculturalism.”

      See also: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/islamization-islamification/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 26, 2016 | Reply

      • Anyone who feels an allegiance to Sharia law cannot truthfully pledge allegiance to our country and form of government. And because of Taqiyya, the teaching that Muslims should lie to non Muslims to protect and advance Islam, such individuals would deceitfully pledge allegiance to, and subsequently work covertly to destroy our system of government and eventually, ultimately, replace it with Sharia law.
        Therefore we should revoke the 1965 immigration law which Ted Kennedy pushed through Congress and return to our former policy of only taking in people from cultures similar to ours.

        It is suicidal to approve applications for immigration to this country from people who believe a foreign legal system was given by divine revelation, who find our culture abhorrent, and who are ideologically and philosophically opposed to individual liberty, and the freedoms our government was created to protect.
        Any Muslim who practices his or her religion, i.e. who is not merely a Muslim in name only, is necessarily just this sort of person.
        I agree that they should not be allowed to immigrate to the USA

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | March 27, 2016 | Reply

        • Amen! Amen! Amen!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 27, 2016 | Reply

  37. Dear PH:

    Do you have any particular comments and/or convictions regarding the National Center for Constitutional Studies, see:

    http://www.nccs.net/

    Thank you for your considered response.

    Like

    Comment by paradigmrw | March 25, 2016 | Reply

    • I visited their site just now. They have great books there – Bastiat’s The Law, Skousen’s 5,000 year leap, etc. many of their other materials I didn’t recognize – don’t know who wrote them and what the mindset of the author is, etc.

      It was odd in that I saw no names. Perhaps their point is that we should focus on the message not personalities – and that is correct. But we must read articles by people before we can ascertain what their mindset is. There were some articles which were written by Earl Taylor, I think it was. I skimmed one of them – it was a good article, I saw nothing wrong with it and much to admire. But I didn’t have time to read all of them.

      On the whole the site looks Great – other than that one oddity. But I just now subscribed to their newsletter so hope to learn more soon.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 25, 2016 | Reply

      • Along that same vein, are there any Constitution reference or study sites which you recommend? I imagine you are somewhat reticent to do so since you cannot proof everything on a site easily and you have no way of predicting what may be posted there in the future.

        Given the caveat that you cannot really know the minds of those behind a site, cannot be held accountable for things not yet posted, may not have been able to read everything on the site, etc. are there any sites which you feel comfortable giving giving your seal of approval as it were?

        Like

        Comment by topcat1957 | March 25, 2016 | Reply

      • PH:

        Thank you so much for your quick response. I, too, just picked up some of their materials yesterday. These included a pocket-size handout bulletin that reprinted the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution including all amendments, quotes from the Federalist Papers, a list of 28 non-negotiable Principles of Liberty, list of significant Constitutional dates, and an index of covered subjects–all in less than 50 pocket-size pages. These materials are for sale at low cost in bulk to be used as handouts. I obtained these at my local music store owned and operated by two individuals who are committed to promoting, understanding and applying these principles as a matter of belief and business. Again, for those who may be interested, the site is:
        http://www.nccs.net

        Like

        Comment by paradigmrw | March 25, 2016 | Reply

        • My Tea Party had a speaker from the NCCS come and do an all day workshop on The Constitution; This was probably 7 or so years ago. Their speaker/workshop leader did an excellent job. He made everything easy to understand. We received a lot of information and resources to become more knowledgeable about our Constitution and everything related to it. We also had a workshop on the 5,000 Year Leap as well. It was another all day event and they did a wonderful job. I still use many of the things that I learned at those 2 workshops to this day.

          Like

          Comment by Chris J | March 26, 2016 | Reply

          • Thank you, Chris! That is very helpful and good to know.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 27, 2016

          • Chris:

            Have you used any of these NCCS materials in mailings to State and local legislators, Senators and/or Federal representatives? How about state and local law enforcement officers? If so, what response, if any, did you receive? How about emails of the PH materials to like-minded friends and family members–especially those who believe in an active, equipped, and organized civilian militia?

            Like

            Comment by paradigmrw | March 27, 2016

          • paradigmrw..I have sent and resent, copy/pasted and copy/pasted to my legislators and other gov’t officials at the local, state and federal levels. I have also sent information to our local county sheriff. He thanks me nicely for the information, but that’s all the further it goes. I tried to make an appointment one time to try and meet with him in person to give him actual materials to read and look over, but he was always “too busy.” I finally got an appointment with him by telling him I was going to vote for his opponent in the next election. Within a week I had an appointment. I have posted PH’s papers and writings on many sites, both liberal and conservative. I’ve gotten mixed responses, not all nice, including being banned from posting on some sites. I made a folder of PH’s papers and positions into a nice little packet and left them on the seats at the last convention where I was a precinct delegate. I was told I was doing an “illegal” lit drop and it was against the GOP rules. However, they couldn’t show me where in the rules it said that, so I won that round. I have been preaching PH’s positions and trying to explain to people what she is doing, but it’s a losing battle sometimes. I gave my CPL teacher took a bunch of PH’s position papers to read, and he said they were some of the best researched information he had seen. He has been passing them out too. I haven’t given up, but there are days I wonder for the fate of my country. This not the America I grew up with.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Chris J | March 27, 2016

          • Thank you, Chris, for your work!
            What is CPL?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 27, 2016

  38. I was handed a booklet titled, THE UCC CONNECTION. Before I wasted my time reading, could you shed some light on this theory of United States, Incorporated?

    Like

    Comment by rrstubbs | March 24, 2016 | Reply

    • Don’t waste your time! The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is a code adopted by a number of States which makes it so much easier to do business across State lines. Say you have a business manufacturing widgets. You sell to all 50 States. Without the UCC, you have to learn and deal with 50 different bodies of commercial laws. You probably would need to have a commercial lawyer in each of the 50 states.

      But with the UCC, the commercial laws are uniform for States which have adopted the Code. This slashes your legal bills and makes everyone’s life in your company easier.

      Really, much is written about the law by people who have no idea what they are talking about. But boy! are they conceited!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2016 | Reply

    • I clicked on your avatar. Great photo! Is that you? What is the setting of the photo?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 25, 2016 | Reply

  39. Dear Publius Huldah

    I would love to see You and Bugs Bunny create educational videos on the Constitution.

    Bugs Bunny ~ Daffy Duck For President

    “DAFFY DUCK PAC RAISING FUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL RUN”
    Chuck Jones ~ February 25, 2016

    http://blog.chuckjones.com/chuck_redux/2016/03/daffy-duck-pac-raising-funds-presidential-run.html

    “How narratives can aid memory”
    by Ed Cooke ~ January 14, 2012

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/15/story-lines-facts

    Like

    Comment by Merry Christmas | March 24, 2016 | Reply

    • I’ll check it out! I greatly appreciate suggestions on how to explain our simple and brilliant and God-sent Declaration of Independence and Constitution to a People who REFUSE to read those two short documents for themselves.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2016 | Reply

  40. With regards to your comment to bobmontgomery, it leaves me with a question. Your comment included, “Is such & such on the list of enumerated powers? If it is, the feds may do it. If it isn’t, the feds can’t lawfully do it.”
    Question: If it’s on the list, is the fed obligated to exercise that power or can it lawfully ignore it? I’m thinking specifically the powers related to the militia.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | March 23, 2016 | Reply

  41. Is there constitutional authority for the Federal Government to dole out money to municipalities?

    Like

    Comment by Doug Carlson | March 20, 2016 | Reply

    • I’ll pay you $1,000. if you can cite Article, Section, and clause of the US Constitution which authorizes the federal government to dole out money to municipalities.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2016 | Reply

      • What? You mean giving favored communities “block grants” is not equal treatment under the law?
        Well, surely giving a researcher at Berkeley a grant to study “climate change” is in there somewhere.

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | March 21, 2016 | Reply

        • As I’m sure you know, Congress can’t lawfully give ANY communities “block grants” because giving money to communities is not a enumerated power.

          And I will give YOU $1,000. if you can cite Article, Section, and clause which authorizes Congress to appropriate funds to study “climate change”!

          We must teach Americans to ask: Is such & such on the list of enumerated powers? If it is, the feds may do it. If it isn’t, the feds can’t lawfully do it.

          Now, that said, it is appropriate for the US military to have people knowledgeable about weather because our military needs to know the weather. But that study of the weather is so they can carry out their military missions. It was a hurricane which saved England from the Spanish Armada!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2016 | Reply

  42. Those are not my facts, they are simply facts. I am not advocating for any candidate, though there are several I would never vote for. Let each person deal with the facts, I cannot vote for a man who not eligible for the office.

    Like

    Comment by Manfred | March 20, 2016 | Reply

    • Ted Cruz’s Certificate of Birth shows he was born in Canada – but we already knew that. The Certificate doesn’t show that his Mother was a Canadian citizen. But we do know that Cruz is not a natural born citizen since his Father was not a US citizen when Ted was born. So Ted is not eligible to be President of the United States.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2016 | Reply

  43. Hi;

    The issue of Ted Cruz’ eligibility is almost identical to the fraud perpetuated on us by Barry Soetoro, so I wish to ask for clarification on one aspect of this as follows. Given that Ted’s parents were both Canadian citizens at his birth, does that fact mean that he was not a US citizen at all? Or does the law consider him to be a US citizen since his mother was once a US citizen, so that even though she became a Canadian citizen at a time when Canada did not recognize dual citizenship with the US, she still retained her US citizenship which also meant that Ted was a US citizen despite the fact that his mother was a Canadian citizen at the time? This is confusing and while I have searched for answers, I cannot identify a good source so any clarification you can make would be most appreciated.

    God Bless you for your work to defend the Constitution.

    Like

    Comment by Mike TTx | March 19, 2016 | Reply

    • I believe that Ted’s father was a Cuban national at the time Ted was born.
      And I have heard that his mother was a US citizen when Ted was born and also that both Ted parents were registered to vote in Canada.

      Furthermore, I don’t know the Canadian citizenship laws.

      We don’t have the FACTS to know whether Ted was ever a US citizen.

      He could resolve this issue by disclosing all his birth info; and any and all documentation he has respecting his becoming a US citizen [if he ever did].

      But we KNOW he didn’t stop being a Canadian citizen until May 14, 2014!!

      We KNOW he is not a natural born citizen. So he is not eligible to be President.

      If the People of Texas were so gullible and careless as to elect a person who isn’t even a US citizen to represent them in the US Senate, then they need to deal with this themselves. I marvel at Peoples’ lack of discernment – I saw thru that fraud after hearing him speak for 2 minutes….

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 19, 2016 | Reply

      • Further more, re: Rafael Edward Cruz:

        Fact: Ted Cruz was given a Canadian birth certificate when he was born in Canada in 1970.

        Fact: Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014.

        Fact: Canada did not recognize dual citizenship until 1977.

        Fact: Ted’s father was not a US citizen when Ted was born.

        Fact: Prior to 14 Nov 1986, US law required both parents to be US citizens at time of birth of a child born outside the country and its possessions in order for the child to be a US Citizen at birth. (see link: https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents)

        Conclusion: Ted Cruz is a natural born Canadian, was not a US citizen at birth, is not a natural born US citizen, cannot hold the office of President of the US (although Chester Arthur and the man known as Obama have done so). 

        Like

        Comment by Manfred | March 19, 2016 | Reply

        • I’m not disputing what you say – some of the things you say, I just don’t know one way or the other. e.g.,do you have a link to an online copy of Ted’s birth certificate?

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 20, 2016 | Reply

  44. Dear PH:

    I am having difficulty finding definitions and/or definitional differences between public land and federal lands. How did we end up with so much of our nation owned by the federal government? This applies to grazing land, park lands, sea shores, etc. How are some lands actually owned and controlled by the states, themselves? The federal government certainly seems to be on a concerted “land grab” all over the country. Does this have anything to do with maintaining a “reserve of value” to back global or international trade and economic pacts? It seems as though much of our lands are being “sold off” to be used/owned/and or governed by companies and governments of foreign countries. If so, foreign occupation may be next! Help!!

    Like

    Comment by paradigmrw | March 15, 2016 | Reply

    • Great Question – I haven’t written a formal paper on it – never got to it. But I summarized it in this paper on Mark Levin’s phony “liberty” amendments – see the subheading, “Levin’s amendment “to protect private property”
      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/

      The federal government took the lands – they got away with all that they have done – because the American People REFUSED to learn our two short and simple Founding Documents and hold their elected officials accountable.

      They still REFUSE. Many people believe every word Mark Levin tells them – they haven’t read his amendments. There are many very stupid People in this Country.

      Yes, it looks very grim for us all.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 15, 2016 | Reply

  45. The Leander Perez was a racist crooked parish judge from Plaquemine Parish Louisiana. He ran Plaquemine Parish like Obama. He once said if a civil rights protester got in front of his car he wouldn’t slow down. He was a real sleaze.

    Like

    Comment by Victor | March 14, 2016 | Reply

    • The State legislature should have impeached him after that.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 14, 2016 | 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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,848 other followers

%d bloggers like this: