Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!


  1. Hi PH, last Monday a judge found the Bundys not guilty WITH PREJUDICE. What kind of legal recourse is available to the Bundys for the Obama administration’s abuse of power? Obama’s Bureau of Land Management randomly shot some of Bundy’s bulls for amusement. The imprisoned Bundys had nearly two years of their life and liberty taken from them by a vengeful racist Obama; not to mention the damage done to the Bundy’s beef cattle operation by killing the Bundy’s breeding bulls. Only someone who gets their hands dirty can fully understand what that means, the Capitol Hill clowns don’t have a clue. I fear the Bundys will never get justice for this tyrannical abuse of power by Obama


    Comment by Spense | January 16, 2018 | Reply

    • She didn’t find them “not guilty” – what she did was dismiss the prosecution against them “with prejudice”. She did this because of the prosecutors’ grostesque misconduct in handling the case against the Bundys. The “with prejudice” means that the federal government can’t prosecute the Bundys for this any more.

      I didn’t do federal civil rights litigation. However, I hope the Bundys have skilled civil rights attorneys looking into 42 USC Section 1983 which provides a civil cause of action against those who engage in governmental misconduct. If such a case lies for the Bundys, and I expect it does, then the Bundys can sue the prosecutors personally for their misconduct along with (possibly) other defendants in the federal government.

      Also, the State and federal Bars should disbar the prosecutors. They are too dishonest and corrupt to be public prosecutors – or to be allowed to practice law.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2018 | Reply

      • The Bundy legal team (Whipple, Roots, Clayman) are indeed looking at taking some action, although nothing has been made public. It’s also important to recognize that the dismissal is concerned with only the Tier 1 group. (Cliven, Ammon, Ryan and Ryan Payne) The case is not over since there are still the so-called ‘tier 2’ defendants which include Mel and Dave Bundy who are not yet free and who have not yet faced a judge or jury. It’s unclear as to what will happen with their prosecutions.

        Tier 3 (of 3) was tried multiple times with mixed results, and still has some outstanding charges/sentencing to deal with. (Which will probably be rolled into the Tier 2 trials coming next, if at all) The feds are into this caper for about a quarter of a billion federal reserve fun tickets so far. It’s anyone’s guess what comes next… But with the investment so far, I can’t see them quitting.

        As much as I found the Judge’s rules of engagement hideously tyrannical in the tier 3 case trials, she DID exhibit some incredible intestinal fortitude by calling the prosecution out in a big way, and delivering the only just remedy available in the Tier 1 case. What’s going to be interesting is to see what will be done (if anything) with the defendants who are currently serving time. One defendant is serving an effective life term (67 years) based on the same ‘cooked evidence’ which got the Tier 1 case dismissed.

        This caper clearly illustrates the dangerous nature of a general government with unlimited resources available to it; And one which recognizes no Constitutional restraint whatsoever.


        Comment by cgdustdevil | January 16, 2018 | Reply

        • Thanks for the information, cgdustdevil!

          If the Judge doesn’t dismiss the other matters with prejudice, then Trump needs to step in and exercise his power under Article II, Section 2, clause 1.

          BTW: I’ve been wondering, are you a vacuum cleaner? You know, “dustdevil“!


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2018 | Reply

      • Looks like everything you mention is about to come to pass!


        Comment by Robert | January 16, 2018 | Reply

        • Thank you, Robert! That is great news. The new Prosecutors may dismiss the charges against the remaining defendants – that’s the proper thing to do.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2018 | Reply

      • Thanks PH, I learned something today


        Comment by Spense | January 16, 2018 | Reply

        • Well, I can one-up you! I learn something EVERY DAY!


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2018 | Reply

  2. I have tried to locate PDF’s of the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Do you know of anyplace that has these documents in the PDF format that are direct copies of the wording without alterations made by the creators of the PDF’s? The only alterations I could accept is reference links to what is being clarified by the Federalist Papers.

    Thank You for being such a strong advocate of the original intent of these documents and giving a concise clarification of the meanings behind them. I have learned a lot reading your blog on the constitution and use it as my backing points to others that are less informed.


    Comment by Tim Devore | January 14, 2018 | Reply

  3. It would be interesting in a presidential campaign debate for someone to ask where does the Constitution distinguish between discretionary and non-discretionary expenses.


    Comment by Klaus P Lindner | January 10, 2018 | Reply

    • Right -the Constitution lists the items on which Congress is authorized to spend money. These are the “enumerated powers”.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 10, 2018 | Reply

      • im sure you have seen now where a district judge in california has stopped trumps deadline on ending the daca program.. go ahead and correct me here where im wrong.. first off the judge cant stop it because the DACA program was enacted through and executive order and is not a actual law therefore the judge is not in good behavior and should be impeached. am i correct ?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by steve brandt | January 10, 2018 | Reply

  4. Dear PH, first time poster, reader for about 10 years and have thoroughly enjoyed your analysis(s). I did search your site before asking and didn’t yield any results. Therefore I am asking for your constitutional insight in regards to Article I Section 8 Clause 17. It is specifically in regards to Cliven Bundy’s mistrial which is a national federal case I hope you have heard of. He claims to not recognize federal land ownership based upon the aforementioned reference. Can you please enlighten? All the best, B.


    Comment by Bruce | January 10, 2018 | Reply

  5. Hello PH

    I just read a piece from a few years ago on Huffington Post by Jeff Schweitzer titled “Founding Fathers: We Are Not a Christian Nation”. To me, it sounded like a total hatchet job and misses the point that our founders believed we have “God given rights”.

    He included a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

    “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. … But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding….”

    And this quote from John Adams:

    “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

    He describes the references to God in the Declaration of Independence as follows:

    “Only four times is there any reference at all to higher powers — “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” “Supreme Judge of the world,” “their Creator,” and “divine Providence” — and in all four cases the references to a higher power appeal to the idea of inherent human dignity, never implying a role for a god in government.”

    He also says there is no mention of Christianity in the Constitution, but he forgot about Article VII where it recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

    After talking about the Federalist Papers, he concludes with:

    “As with the Constitution, at no time is a god ever mentioned in the Federalist Papers. At no time is Christianity every mentioned. Religion is only discussed in the context of keeping matters of faith separate from concerns of governance, and of keeping religion free from government interference.

    The founding fathers could not be clearer on this point: God has no role in government; Christianity has no role in government. They make this point explicitly, repeatedly, in multiple founding documents. We are not a Christian nation.”

    How do we reconcile the fact that we are not a theocracy with the fact that our founder’s believed our rights come from God and government is only required to secure those rights? The only thing I can think of is that securing God given rights isn’t the same as promoting religion. What’s your take?


    Comment by Chuck | January 9, 2018 | Reply

    • Did Jeff Schweitzer post a SOURCE for the alleged Thomas Jefferson quote? [I’d love to see it.]

      Did he post a SOURCE for the alleged John Adams quote? [I’d love to see it.]

      Schweitzer’s comments on the Declaration of Independence (DOI) don’t set forth the context. If one looks at the terms in the DOI, it’s clear that God is actively involved in man’s affairs:

      God has “Laws” which entitle people to political rights;
      God “created” man and “endowed” him with a Status which makes him EQUAL to all other men AND endowed him with Rights;
      God ordained the purpose of government as the hallowed one of securing the Rights GOD gave man [This means that governments are God’s agents and servants!];
      God gave man the Right to throw off tyrannical governments;
      God is the “supreme Judge of the world” [so God is up there right now judging the world and the People in it (including fools or liars such as Jeff Schweitzer); and that we
      rely on the PROTECTION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE” to get us thru this Revolution.

      Right, Art. VII of our Constitution recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

      I converted to Christianity during my mid-40s. I then read the Bible and saw that it has a lot to say about civil government . And even though I had already been a lawyer for many years, I [like just about every other lawyer in the Country] had never read the US Constitution. But when, after reading the Bible, and then, the US Constitution, I was thunderstruck to see how closely our Constitution is based on God’s model of civil government as set forth in the Bible. I outlined it here:

      So Jeff Schweitzer is as wrong as can be.

      Feel free to use any of the above as you deem appropriate to respond to the article!

      It is a crying SHAME and DISGRACE that our pastors don’t know any of this. I do believe that all they do in seminary is learn what they can say without offending the federal government since their main job is to get $ and keep their 501 (3) (c) exemption; without offending the big donors in their congregations; and how to grow their church so they can get more donors. Sadly, “religion” has always been a magnet for scoundrels and bullies. I just finished reading Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” and was reminded of how much harm and evil has been caused by BAD clergy.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 10, 2018 | Reply

  6. PH

    I’ve read the Declaration of Independence a few times today and would I be correct in saying that besides the example I have seen cited so far that you have shared about how our rights come from God and that our founders believed this as well (“endowed by their Creator”), two others would be “Nature’s God entitle them…” in the first paragraph and “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world…” in the last paragraph?

    Also, in the 2nd paragraph they write “Prudence, indeed, will dictate…provide new Guards for their future security.” I took this to mean that trivial reasons are not enough to abolish a government (such as not liking a president) but only when it can be demonstrated that a government has truly become oppressive of a people’s God given rights. Is that correct?



    Comment by Bob | January 9, 2018 | Reply

    • Yes, the Declaration of Independence has several references to God!

      Re your second para: what you said is the original meaning. However, as a practical matter, delegates to an Article V convention have the POWER to throw off the Constitution we have and set up a new constitution with a new mode of ratification which creates a new government for the corrupt reason that the Koch Brothers or Soros pay them enough to do so. I think we have seen that Americans of today will do ANYTHING for $.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 9, 2018 | Reply

  7. Dear PH, I did not know how to contact you other than through this blog. I know that you are an attorney living in Tennessee from watching some of the You Tube clips. A serious freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-religion issue is facing Tennessee attorneys this year! You probably have already heard about the proposed Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). In short, if adopted it will give the State power to discipline attorneys who say or do anything that offends another person regarding a litany of classifications. one of which is “gender identity.” Attorneys, judges, and the general public have through March 21st to submit comments either for or against the proposed rule. Here is the link to the Tenn. Sup. Court’s invitation:


    Comment by CWB | January 8, 2018 | Reply

  8. I read that federal judges succeeded in removing the Constitution from their oath 1991.


    Comment by ronvrooman38 | January 7, 2018 | Reply

    • Yes, the oath written by Congress for federal judges was watered down several years ago. but that does not relieve federal judges of their responsibility imposed by Article VI, clause 2, US Constitution, to “support” the US Constitution.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2018 | Reply

      • So, you say. However, I have 28 municipal, county of and state of and federal judges as defendants in federal court. I cannot find an Article III, 11th and VII amendment court. That I am guaranteed. Any idea where one might be. The one in Portland is bogus and does not abide by governing law.


        Comment by ronvrooman38 | January 8, 2018 | Reply

  9. Are judges evading the Constitutional limits of their power if they use discretion when sentencing people for crimes? Like, for example, giving a non-violent drug offender probation instead of prison?


    Comment by Bob | January 7, 2018 | Reply

    • Criminal statutes typically set the UPPER limits on what the punishment can be. Typically, judges have discretion to impose lesser punishments. In fact, typically, the “sentencing phase” is a separate proceeding. After conviction, the court reconvenes at a later time to take evidence from the prosecution and the Defense as to what is an appropriate sentence, given the circumstances of the crime, case, and defendant.

      A statute could set a mandatory minimum punishment.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2018 | Reply

    • My teacher told me that in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, has that changed in the last 243 years? I found a way to rectify the verdict of Sweet Cakes $135,000 fine. Just like I found a method to crush sanctuaries. I love my teacher, she guided me through the claymore mind fields placed in the Kleins predicament of losing their business and suffered the indignation of knowing that they were being crucified…then I remembered my mentor can find a way to correct a took 2 years to find it but James Madison opened the door to knowledge 243 years later up came Madison’s memorial and remonstrance. The first point boldly states that religion is a duty owed only to the creator and thus “must left to the conviction and conscience of every man; it is the right of every man to these may dictate. This right is in it’s nature an unalienable right”. Fortunately a disabled veteran is still honoring his oath to our Constitution, his name is of little importance the fact that the Kleins are vendicated because they knew in their heart that they were without malice of any kind… they prayed for justice and it came.


      Comment by Con Mah | January 7, 2018 | Reply

      • Interesting Con Mah, This is my take on it. When govt can tell Christians what Christians can’t believe then there is no religious freedom. The bakers refused to participate in the lesbians sinful same-sex marriage. The bakers were willing to sell the lesbians a cake but not one made special to celebrate a same-sex marriage. That ruling by the Oregon’s appeals court is in my opinion Judicial tyranny…. the arrogant court thinks they can lawfully force the bakers to sin and at the same time say they have religious freedom. That is an outrageous opinion by the Oregon court. No Christian can rewrite the Bible or ignore parts to please an oppressive state government. To be a true Christian one must have faithful obedience to God’s word.

        The Bible says, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17)

        While sin is a personal act, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

        • by participating directly and voluntarily in them
        • by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them
        • by not disclosing or not hindering
        • by protecting wrong doers

        To a true Christian, same-sex unions and same-sex marriage are a sin. You cannot separate freedom of worship, right of conscience, and freedom of speech without denying Christians the free exercise of religion. This is about the homosexuals forcing a Christian baker to sin, no one has to support a sinful behavior like homosexual marriage, like it or not, same-sex unions and same-sex marriage are a sin to true Biblical Christians. The Oregon state constitution contains no grant of power for the Oregon state govt to amend the Bill of Rights contained within the Oregon constitution by state statute. If you are denied the religious right of conscience then you have NO freedom of religion.

        Oregon constitution; Article one, Section 3.

        Freedom of religious opinion: “No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religious [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.” .

        There is a reason that ALL state constitutions contain a rigorous procedure for amending the state constitution, state govt cannot amend state constitutions by enacting a state statute, the voting public must be allowed to vote on it before the state constitution may be amended: The tyrannical Oregon court is denying the bakers constitutionally protected religious freedom

        No one has to be an accessory to a sin. To true Biblical Christians, same-sex marriage is a sin. In my opinion the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa are being unlawfully persecuted by a power abusing govt. One thing people have to learn is these Human Rights Commissions are little more than state govt created attack dogs whose purpose is to persecute for the Christian hating left. It doesn’t really matter if in the end Sweet Cakes by Melissa wins the court case, because for YEARS they have lost business, been pilloried, been drug thru the mud, stressed by power abusing govt, and lost large sums of money. This is done on purpose; the HR commissions have no accountability; worst case scenario for the members of a HR commission is they are removed from their appointed position. HR commissions operate like a dictator of a third world banana republic, only their facile opinion matters, not constitution law. This is not unbiased due process of law or justice… it is state govt terrorism. The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 is subservient to the Oregon constitution’s Bill of rights. Does a Captain outrank a five star general…. NO, the state constitution’s law is supreme


        Comment by Spense | January 7, 2018 | Reply

        • Wow, Spence! Applause! Applause!


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2018 | Reply

          • Thanks Mom, I owe it all to you…. it was your teaching about our God-given rights that opened my eyes and started a fire inside of me.


            Comment by Spense | January 7, 2018

          • You make me proud, Son!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2018

          • What I never understood was the concept of forcing people to enter into a contract when one party didn’t agree to the terms. One would think that the legal profession would be aghast at this. You would think that the artist colonies would get it. You would think that writers would understand they shouldn’t be forced to pen odes to things they may not be on board with.
            Even if one were to argue a civil rights case demanding non-discrimination, where is the statute? Is “sexual orientation” (which is a very broad term, by the way) mention in the federal civil rights laws?


            Comment by bobmontgomery | January 8, 2018

          • Our educational standards are today so low that many Americans have degrees that are far beyond their levels of competence. e.g., it is not necessary to be able to think in order to get a law degree or a Ph.D degree. All one has to do to get the degrees is repeat what he has been told. No thinking necessary!

            So! Now do you begin to understand how lawyers can “think” it’s just fine to force florists, bakers, etc., to participate in homosexual “marriages”?

            In addition to the intellectual collapse, we have a moral collapse. Many Americans are now bullies. And they love throwing their weight around.

            And your example of artists and writers is excellent! A cake is a cake. But imagine of forcing a writer to write say, a poem, in honor of an homosexual “marriage”!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2018

        • Well said. I applaud you.


          Comment by IMO | January 8, 2018 | Reply

  10. After reading your paper on abortion, would I be correct in saying that abortion is an issue on which each state should decide for themselves? If so, wouldn’t abortion still be in violation of someone’s God given rights?


    Comment by Bob | December 30, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, “abortion” is one of the vast number of issues over which the States and The People retained jurisdiction.

      Yes, abortion deprives the unborn of their Right to Life. Historically, the States criminalized it. But in Roe v. Wade (1973), the US Supreme Court declared abortion to be a “constitutional right”. Many of the States went along with that preposterous opinion because they were constitutionally & historically illiterate AND cowards. Some States (e.g., New York) had already legalized it.

      Our Declaration of Independence declares that it is the duty of the State governments as well as the federal government to secure – in their respective fields of jurisdiction – the rights God gave us. Do look at this one page chart which lays it out:

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 31, 2017 | Reply

  11. Dear Publius Hulda,

    My question for you concerns a House Bill introduced back in June of this year: H.R. 3057, which proposes to

    1 – Establish the use of ranked choice voting in States’ elections for their Representatives to the House,
    2 – To require each state (with more than one Representative) to establish multi-member Congressional districts,
    3 – To require the States to conduct Congressional redistricting via independent commissions,
    4 – And of course the catch-all: “…for other purposes.” (This statement alone should eliminate ANY bill from consideration IMO!)

    A link to the bill is here: The Constitutional Authority Statement indicates Article I, Section 4 as their ‘authority’ to consider this bill required by House Rule XII, clause 7(c) since 2011.

    Article I Section 4 Clause 1 States: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

    The phrase “*** but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,” appears to give Congress some legal authority to make laws regarding the “*** time, places and manner ***” of States’ elections of Representatives and Senators to the general legislature. However, the legislation as I cited above would seem to violate Section 2 of Article I.

    While I don’t believe this will gain much traction, I still want to write to my legislators to discourage them from considering this caper, and present solid arguments to those who support this proposed legislation. I’d like to know whether I’m on the right track, and would greatly appreciate your thoughts!

    Thank you!
    Regards, Pete …


    Comment by cgdustdevil | December 26, 2017 | Reply

    • I wrote this paper some years ago

      and addressed the “elections clause” under the subheading, ‘The Dishonest “Elections Clause” Argument.” ‘

      Congress does have power over the “manner” of holding elections for Congress. Whether that constitutional power extends to what the sponsor of the Bill you linked to wants to do I don’t know – since I haven’t had time to read it. But this business of “weighted voting” and payments to States for going along with the bill certainly raises eyebrows.

      Honestly, the States could solve so many problems if they would reclaim their retained power to qualify voters! No one should be allowed to vote in this Country unless he can demonstrate considerable proficiency in our Founding Documents and Principles.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 26, 2017 | Reply

      • Since we cannot even compel the lawbreakers in government to enforce immigration law at a bare minimum, nor enforce voting laws that require one to be a US citizen to vote, how can we expect them to worry about some procedural clause after they have violated the core laws protecting our sovereignty? Besides, it should be apparent to all honest citizens in America, few though we may be, that the traitors in government WANT the illegals to vote or they would actually enforce the law which they clearly are NOT doing.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Mike Travis | December 27, 2017 | Reply

        • Right! The leaders of both the Republican & Democrat parties support global government – under which (apparently) the world populations will be homogenized. Our Country has been controlled by the globalists for a long time – the Americans vote them in. Remember how Americans voted in the Bush Family 3 times for President thinking that Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were better than the Democrat nominees? They were neither better or worse – they were all the same. Under the North American Union [New World Order] the borders between Canada, the US, and Mexico are erased and the Parliament set up over the 3 will dictate immigration policy, just the the Parliament for the EU dictates immigration policy for the member states.

          That’s why our federal government has long refused to enforce our immigration laws. And yes, the traitors here want illiterate, ignorant, parasitic illegals voting so as to drown out the voices of the few wise ones.

          State governments could help fix this by reclaiming their retained power to establish qualifications for voting. It is astonishing that the American People got conned into believing that stupid silly people like Sandra Day O’Connor and that other moron can dictate how states qualify voters! [I never thought Ronald Regan was a great President – he certainly appointed BAD supreme Court justices.

          Yet for some reason, PEOPLE just don’t question whatever happens to be the prevailing dogma of their time.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 27, 2017 | Reply

          • theres a problems when saying the states doing their job.. thats because the people running the states want the new world order and they get elected to office to do just that.. what do we do now ?


            Comment by steve brandt | December 27, 2017

          • We elect such stupid and ignorant people to our state and federal offices. If we continue electing such people, then we can’t expect a good future.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 27, 2017

        • Mike – I agree completely. This legislation however seems to be (on its face) aimed at the issue of gerrymandering and “winner takes all” voting. Gerrymandering is certainly a troublesome issue to some degree. “Winner takes all”, or proportional/weighted voting goes beyond the term “manner” of conducting elections in the context that it appears to have been used by the Framers/founders.

          I find it comical in a terrible sort of way that the same people who promoted direct-election of Senators, and who want to bypass the electoral college with simple majorities are suddenly NOT so interested in simple majorities (winner takes all) in races concerning Representatives.

          Curious, no?

          Regards, Pete


          Comment by cgdustdevil | December 27, 2017 | Reply

      • PH- Thank you for your reply. I wanted to confirm what I thought was plainly obvious from the syntax of the Constitution as well as the discussions during the debates in spite of my personal disagreement with the notion that the general government (as a creature of the States) has any legitimate business in the election process of Representatives. One of the many tasks these days that I’ve dedicated myself to is the act of writing to & calling legislators when new bills are introduced to challenge their Constitutional Authority Statements when they are usurping powers. Obviously in this case there’s no valid challenge to the authority of the general legislature to attempt to make this law, which is what I needed to confirm. As much as I am completely suspicious of the motivations, the authority appears to me to be on (more or less) terra firma.

        From the pieces I’ve read about this legislation from the sponsors and other interested parties, it seems to be a ‘fair vote’ oriented law (ostensibly) that is being promoted to address the gerrymandering of districts by the two controlling parties. (Not entirely uncalled for!) However, their examples include arguments such as ‘Democrats got more votes, but the Republicans ended up with more seats in the House’, so I sense there’s a political goal here for the Democrats. (They were evidently irked in 2010 when the House shifted to Republican control)

        As screwed up and corrupt as both parties are, the current system of gerrymandering does sometimes serve to stop legislators on both sides from doing stupid and illegal things. And in fact if a State truly DOES have an issue with gerrymandering that interferes with proper representation, then it should be the State’s business to handle it to my mind. Just because the general legislature is legally permitted to do something, doesn’t mean that they SHOULD do something.

        Thanks again!!



        Comment by cgdustdevil | December 27, 2017 | Reply

        • well, I haven’t had time to read the bill you linked to. It may go beyond the “manner” of holding elections. That may not include congressional or judicial “gerrymandering” so as to get the result the persons doing the gerrymandering want.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 27, 2017 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: