Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

2,982 Comments »

  1. Does anyone know how to get your rely into a White House web blog–perchance the President’s people might bring it to his attention?

    Like

    Comment by Bob | March 18, 2017 | Reply

    • I don’t know – but I sure do need to talk with him or with Kellyanne Conway for 30 minutes.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 18, 2017 | Reply

  2. Also Congress can defund a rogue court. Defund them and they have no ability to hear cases. The 9th circus can be dissolved and 3 separate new appeals courts can be formed. The circus already have broken themselves up into 3 sub panels of 10, 10 and 9 judges. Doing this would only require majority votes by Congress not two thirds votes. Imagine you’re coming before the 9th and they just rule something off the wall. That costs you millions to right their arrogance.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | March 17, 2017 | Reply

    • As long as federal judges are in Office, their compensation shall not be reduced: Art. III, Section 1.

      However, Congress can disestablish some or all of the lower federal courts.

      Creating 3 new Circuit Courts out of the 9th Circuit is a REALLY BAD IDEA.

      The problem is that we elect as President, and to the Senate, morons or evil people who nominate and confirm BAD PEOPLE as judges.

      The American People are the problem. They have the government they voted for. Americans are too lazy and apathetic to learn our Declaration of Independence and our federal Constitution; and besides, they think their own opinions on government are more important than what those two Documents say.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2017 | Reply

      • PH, couldn’t agree more about the American People being the problem…I’ve run into more than a few “idiots” on different posts claiming to support the Constitution, but think it’s government’s job to provide health care, regulate guns etc. believe the Supreme Court is the final word on everything and can make law.

        Like

        Comment by Timothy Martin | March 17, 2017 | Reply

        • For 100 years, ever since the Progressives took over, we have all been told that it’s the federal government’s job to do these things.

          That is NOT the original intent.

          However, at least the “classic liberals” want to keep our Constitution. We can have civil debates with them over the proper role of government under our existing Constitution. And they are capable of civil discussion. And they are honest. Mistaken, but honest.

          But the con-con lobby wants to get rid of the Constitution we have and substitute a new one. They are not capable of civil discussion. And they are not honest. There is no common ground with them. They are our enemies.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2017 | Reply

  3. why cant WE the people file a suit against the judges.. they are public servants and the right of the people to fix a failing government is our right

    Like

    Comment by steve | March 16, 2017 | Reply

    • Where would you file the lawsuit against federal judges? In federal court. Need I say more? Furthermore, all judges have immunity for their judicial acts.

      The remedy already set forth in the Constitution is impeachment of federal judges who aren’t in “good Behaviour”. Our job was to elect to Congress people of wisdom and integrity who would obey the Constitution and support it by removing federal judges [and Presidents] who usurped powers.

      WE are the ones who failed. WE elect to Congress scoundrels and airheads who don’t know what the Constitution says, don’t care, but are in our party and tell us what we want to hear. So WE have the federal government WE voted for.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2017 | Reply

  4. I can add nothing but a big “AMEN”! Our congress is negligent in serving the People by not protecting and abiding by our Constitution.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Jim MacLellan | March 16, 2017 | Reply

  5. Shouldn’t Congress impeach the judges that ruled against Trumps EO’s? Their reasoning certainly wasn’t following the law as much as totally political. The judge in Hawaii was appointed by Obama and was a classmate of his at Harvard. On the news tonight they said that Obama made a quick trip to Hawaii the day before the ruling was delivered. Just a coincidence? Isn’t it this the kind of thing that the founders were worried about, and the reason for putting the holding office during good behavior language in Art. III?

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | March 16, 2017 | Reply

    • Trump’s obligation is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States. THAT is his only obligation – all else is secondary. So if federal judges issue unconstitutional rulings, the President must spit on them. That IS his obligation to his Oath. The President must make his own independent determination as to whether an act of the other two branches is unconstitutional. He must NEVER look to the federal courts for that determination. THAT would put the federal courts above the executive branch. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/the-oath-of-office-the-check-on-usurpations-by-congress-the-executive-branch-federal-judges/

      YES, When federal judges usurp power, a remedy already exists within the Constitution: Article III, § 1 says federal judges hold their offices “during good Behaviour”. In Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton said that when federal judges usurp power, the remedy is for Congress to impeach them and remove them from the Bench. But Congress has failed to exercise this existing Constitutional remedy because the people in Congress aren’t sufficiently enlightened to know the difference between “a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority” – or they don’t care.

      So our Constitution empowers CONGRESS to make THEIR OWN DETERMINATION as to whether federal judges have acted unconstitutionally.

      If people would just USE the brains which are in their heads – they wouldn’t miss such OBVIOUS STUFF. Yet somehow Americans got indoctrinated into the idiotic belief that only the federal judges can determine constitutionality.

      Why that’s almost as stupid as saying that when everyone ignores the Constitution, the solution is to amend it.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 16, 2017 | Reply

      • PH…..I second your call that President Trump should simply ignore the rulings of the federal district court judges where they’ve accepted cases filed by states against the president’s EOs on immigration policy. My reason is, Article 3 Section 2 clearly says: “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY, (my emphasis), the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

        Seems clear enough to me that federal district courts may not even hear such cases as they did on cases from Washington State and Hawaii. The judges in those courts should have refused to accept them, acknowledging that they had no authority, and referred them to the Supreme Court. Or could I be wrong?

        It is astounding to me that this hasn’t ever been mentioned anywhere on the news that I’ve seen or heard, to say nothing of the Trump administration being ignorant of it. But maybe Trump doesn’t want these things to go to the Supreme Court until his new nominee is confirmed?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by nelsonaire1 | March 17, 2017 | Reply

        • Don’t be astonished that this hasn’t been mentioned anywhere. Lawyers don’t know about it – See these two articles and the comments: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/original-and-appellate-jurisdiction/

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2017 | Reply

        • Agreed. He should simply say the judges’ rulings are unconstitutional, and are therefore null and void, and order the new rules to be carried out. Let the press have a field day with it. Then once the national press is in an uproar over it for a week or two, he could give a nationally televised statement, laying out the clear and simple facts.

          He could cite Art. 2 Sec. 3, and refer to the founding fathers’ belief that the Constitution was written simply and clear enough, with The Federalist Papers as clarifying reference, that anyone who studies it can know its meaning and determine the constitutionality of laws, policies, etc.

          He could then cite his oath to uphold the Constitution, and declare that he meant what he said when he took the oath. He did not declare to uphold the rulings of judges whose decisions are clearly in error.

          The press, by creating an uproar over Trump’s dismissal of the judge’s ruling, would bring the issues of who has jurisdiction to hear cases on this issue, and judicial misconduct, to the national attention. And because of the uproar, any statement the President makes would have national attention. And being that his position would be correct and irrefutable by any honest person, many who look at the question would see Trump is correct to ignore the faulty decision.

          I may be more than a little naive to imagine things would go that smoothly. I am sure the press would hyperventilate over ‘the NERVE of the President to ‘presume’ to understand the Constitution better than a judge, and to say that a judge is wrong!’ — or statements to that effect.

          But the issue of judicial misconduct needs to be brought to the attention of the nation. And the President must not have his lawful conduct held hostage by partisan and unlawful judges.

          Like

          Comment by topcat1957 | March 18, 2017 | Reply

  6. To take care of the judicial branch interfering with EO’s on immigration issues can’t congress pass a law under their Art. III, sec. 2 power and list immigration issues as an, “*** exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make?”

    Like

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

  7. Sorry. The reciprocity legislation congress is considering which will permit carrying across state lines. NRA magazine published a weird justification for such legislation, basing their argument on the freedom to travel and be afforded the right to self-protection. I thought gun control, if any, was a State authority, not a federal authority. Wanted to advise NRA, of which I am a member, that their argument was constitutionally specious. But, I would like to tap your wisdom on this issue before I do this.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | March 7, 2017 | Reply

  8. PH, any thoughts on this issue as yet?

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | March 6, 2017 | Reply

    • All I do these days is try to stop State legislatures from passing applications for Article V convention.
      Remind me: what issue?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 7, 2017 | Reply

  9. PH
    There has been a great deal of talk about federal grants to states, universities, communities, etc. The Preamble says one of the goals or purposes of the constitution was to promote the general welfare. Art. 1, sec. 8 says taxes can be raised to “provide for the common defense and general welfare…”
    To me “general” means just that, not specific welfare, so a grant to one community would mean it should be given to every community.
    How can we stop this madness if our elected officials are either that ignorant about the constitution or are that that easy to buy off?
    If a suit were brought, wouldn’t the courts just ignore it, or rule against it since they to are recipients of grants.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | March 2, 2017 | Reply

    • Oh, Klaus, we never say, when discussing our Constitution, “to me it means….”.

      We must always look for the OBJECTIVE MEANING. We must NEVER read into the Constitution our own subjective definitions.

      Use The Federalist Papers to find out what it means. I have several papers on the “general welfare” cause which set for the original intent of the term, “general welfare”. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/general-welfare-clause/ Read all of the papers on the topic and it will sink in.

      Also use Webster’s 1828 Dictionary for word definitions. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 2, 2017 | Reply

    • Klaus….James Madison had this to say about ‘general welfare’:

      “If Congress can employ money indefinitively to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. Were Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America”.

      Clearly, use of the term has nothing at all to do with giving specific or general powers to Congress.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by nelsonaire1 | March 3, 2017 | Reply

      • That’s an amazingly valuable quote! Can you find the link to it? Preferably from a reliable original source such as an online edition of his collected works.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2017 | Reply

        • PH….as it happened, that quote was just given me yesterday by a friend as we were also discussing ‘general welfare’. I hadn’t yet checked it for accuracy until just this minute.

          It comes from Madison’s remarks concerning the Cod Fishery Bill, granting bounties, House of Representatives, February, 1792, according to the Constitution Society’s link at:

          constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.,html.

          Madison’s entire remark is given and it appears the quote I first posted is a condensed version of it but accurate nevertheless. That’s all I have on it.

          Like

          Comment by nelsonaire1 | March 3, 2017 | Reply

          • Excellent! We all should keep it handy. Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras) where he discusses the “general welfare” clause, is tedious reading.
            His comments on the Cod Fishery Bill are almost poetic.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2017

          • Correction to the link:
            http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm

            Like

            Comment by Mike Foil | March 3, 2017

          • Thank you, Mike!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2017

          • Hi PH

            Though they all basically say the same thing, here are several more quotes by Madison on the subject of enumerated powers and the General welfare clause.

            Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper which broaches a new constitutional doctrine of vast consequence and demanding the serious attention of the public, I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government, as contrary to the true & fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.

            https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0174

            With respect to the words “General welfare” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation,” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning every thing, had the former meaning taken for granted.

            https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-2332

            And a bonus from Thomas Jefferson:

            …that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action…

            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8_1s25.html

            Unfortunately the heinous 16th Amendment allows the Congress to tax for whatever purposes they desire, yet they are still not legally allowed to spend it on non-enumerated powers. Which is where the Balanced Budget Amendment comes in, it finishes the job of destroying limited government.

            Like

            Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | March 5, 2017

          • Excellent quotes, Blue Tail! Thank you!

            But the 16th amendment doesn’t permits the fed gov’t to tax for whatever purposes they desire. It is the BBA which would officially remove the enumerated powers limitation on taxation and spending!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2017

  10. PH,
    Were you ever able to get to the constitutional analysis of a inter-state gun rights reciprocity law which congress is still mulling?

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | March 1, 2017 | Reply

  11. Hi Publius. Hope all is well. Were infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, or the Interstate Highway System constitutional? As far as I can tell, they were all very beneficial to our country. How about NASA? Obviously the constitution says nothing about space exploration so would that make NASA unconstitutional?

    Also, I would like to know what you think about Trump’s executive orders? Isn’t it hypocritical of us to criticize Obama for his abuse of executive orders and yet now we praise Trump who seems to be doing the same thing? Or has Trump kept his executive orders within their constitutional limits? Thanks

    Like

    Comment by Santiago | March 1, 2017 | Reply

    • Let me ask you: Cite Article, Section, and clause of our Constitution which authorizes Congress to determine whether we change to the metrics system: The answer is Article I, Sec. 8, clause 5.

      Now that you know what I’m looking for: Cite the Article, Section, and clause which authorizes the federal government to build the Hoover Dam.
      To construct the Panama Canal?

      Article I, Sec. 8, clause 7 authorizes Congress to establish post offices and “post Roads”. What’s a “post Road”? Well, we’d have to do research. Why was the interstate highway system built? This is one of the few instances where the answer isn’t completely clear. I suggest the better course of action would have been to get an Amendment to the US Constitution to authorize the interstate highway system.

      Right, “space exploration” isn’t an enumerated power.

      Don’t fall into the old statist trap of thinking that only “governments” can build dams, overseas canals, interstate highways, and do space exploration! In a free market, private enterprise always does this stuff better and much less expensively.

      To learn about what Executive Orders the President may lawfully make – whether we like him or not – see this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-presidents-enumerated-powers-rulemaking-by-executive-agencies-executive-orders/

      And finally: The Standard for whether the federal gov’t may lawfully do something is whether our Constitution says they may do it. The test is NEVER whether it’s a “good idea”, “will be helpful”, or will (in someone’s view) be “beneficial”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2017 | Reply

      • Had they restricted the space program to military uses I guess it would have been justified.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by topcat1957 | March 1, 2017 | Reply

        • Right!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2017 | Reply

  12. The problem is the states have no power to instruct anyone at the national level. Repeal the 17th amendment. Currently Pennsylvania is being rolled for “Real ID” compliant drivers licenses and non-driver ID cards.
    If this convention happens do you think the states give (3/4) approval if big taxes are included? Thanks

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 13, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi, Robert,

      1. Yes, the 17th Amendment was a huge mistake. But Americans are easily deceived. They seem proud of being gullible.

      2. The States are NOT victims of federal tyranny – the States have been enthusiastic participants in federal tyranny. According to the PEW Report, for FY 2014, 30.8% of Pennsylvania’s revenue was from federal funds. What retained rights of the States and The People did your State government sell to get that money? HOW MUCH IN FEDERAL FUNDS IS PENNSYLVANIA GETTING TO IMPLEMENT “REAL ID” drivers’ license and other ID cards? The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to force States to do this – that’s why they pay – BRIBE – the States to do it.

      As long as we have State governments who, like Aldrich Ames, will do anything for money, we will HAVE A FEDERAL GOV’T WHICH USURPS POWER.

      The American People need to pay a whole lot more attention to the people they elect to their State legislatures. They have been electing people who have NO knowledge whatsoever of what our Founding Documents say.

      If there is an Article V convention, the Delegates won’t propose Amendments to our existing Constitution. We will end up with an entirely new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. The global elite wants us moved into the North American Union. See the most recent post on my blog.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  13. Yes Ron, the big bad wolf said he wouldn’t eat Little red Ridinghood too. Would you allow a child to play with a Boomslang? That is the equivalent of entertaining the CFA as a good idea, the analogy is apropos

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  14. Ron Swanson don’t you believe a bit of it. That is the beginning of a walk through hell.
    The only way I would give anyone plenipotentiary powers is if I was holding a loaded pistol to his head to have even a little confidence that he would carry through.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • In CFA, the delegates really don’t have that much power. The states that pass what is equivalent to a COS resolution, are signing a compact that they “pre-ratify” the amendment, which is specified in the compact. The convention is limited to 24 hours. The rules are very strict. It’s not open at all like even the BBA application. Read some of the info on this link. http://www.compactforamerica.org/single-post/2014/11/29/Got-the-Runaway-Convention-Blues It’s pretty full proof.

      Like

      Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • The purpose of the Compact is to get an Amendment pre-ratified BEFORE State Legislators and The People find out what has been done. The pre-ratification aspect circumvents all that pesky public discussion.

        Americans would NEVER support an Amendment which delegates massive new taxing powers to Congress. So the way to get such an Amendment ratified is to bury the actual import of the Amendment in convoluted writing and get State Legislatures to pre-ratify it.

        Ron Swanson: Did YOU know that CFA’s proposed Amendment actually delegates to Congress the power to impose a new national sales tax AND a national Value Added Tax (VAT) on top of the existing income tax???

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

    • “The Compact automatically terminates and recalls any member state delegate who deviates from its rules and agenda.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Oh, Ron! You show your hand – at first I thought you had questions about the CFA scheme. Now I see you know all about it…..

        As you well know, once a State Legislature passes the Compact Legislation – they have pre-ratified the NEW TAXES AMENDMENT. The provisions about the convention, the sentence you just now quoted, etc., etc., is all window dressing to conceal the actual import of the pre-ratification of the new taxes amendment.

        How could you push such a wicked scheme to deceive the American People?

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  15. PH,
    Art III does not appear to grant the supreme court authority–much less exclusive authority– to interpret the Constitution. From my readings, it appears empowered to review and to issue opinions (vs rulings) with respect to constitutionality of a law’s or a lower court ruling, but that’s it. Seems to me weve recklessly permitted SCOTUS awesome powers not delegated to them by the Constitution. One wonders why have a legislature at all!! In short, we’ve invested far too much unconstitutional POWER in the hands of these black-robed oligarchs and it’s frightening. What’s your abbreviated understanding as to what authority the framers granted to the SC? Also, even if Congress impeaches a faithless judge, impossible to remove him/her unless convicted by 2/3 of Senate. Correct? Shouldn’t there be a tightening up of controls, which would involve State input as well, over the federal judiciary? And isn’t this sufficiently alarming to warrant an amendment to do just that. I weary of judicial tyranny which most Americans have come to view as virtue. Tragic and scary.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Jim Delaney | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • I’ve written much on the supreme Court’s usurpations of power – look under the categories for 14th Amendment, and separation of church and state.

      This paper addresses the enumerated powers of the federal courts – they actually have limited jurisdiction! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-federal-courts/

      The supreme Court was NEVER intended to be the final authority on the Constitution! Remember, federal courts are merely the “creature” of the Constitution and are completely subject to its terms.

      Our Framers always said the States are the final authority on whether the acts of the federal government are constitutional; and we have as much right to judge the acts of the Supreme Court as we do the other branches of the federal gov’t. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/nullification/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Right you are.

      I’ve written much on the Supreme Court’s usurpations of power. Look under the Categories “14th Amendment” and “separation of church and state”.

      The powers delegated to the federal courts are enumerated and limited: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-federal-courts/

      Our Framers always said that the States are the final authority on whether the acts of their “creature” [the federal gov’t] are constitutional: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/nullification/

      our problems today are:
      1) Americans don’t know this; and
      2) They are too cowardly to do what our Framers told them to do: resist!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • so if every amendment i the constitution can be repealed or abolished why was there a bill of rights created and what good is a constitution if you can change it as you wish and has no solid foundation which keeps certain aspects of it intact such as the bill of rights defines , so again , why was the bill of rights created and signed after the constitution?

        Like

        Comment by steve | February 7, 2017 | Reply

        • OK, Steve. I give up. There is no use continuing on this topic! Forget about it and then come back to it later with fresh eyes.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  16. Thanks. It looks like they are reinventing the wheel.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  17. What about XVIII/XXI? Nothing is sacred.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • I pointed that out – to no avail.
      Patriot myths get firmly embedded.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  18. Curious as to your thoughts on the lmmigration kerfluffle.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/12/28/usappeals-court-approves-iranian-student-deportation/3930b354-c5c6-45be-8124-22cfd6cff296/

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • I’ve printed out the E.O.s and the trial court’s Order – will look at them and write it up – as soon as I can get to it. I spend all my time now trying to stop the con-con.

      I’ll have to begin with asking how Americans ever let themselves be manipulated into the Lie of Multiculturalism. Our Framers weren’t multiculturalists!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  19. What do you think about the Compact for America Article V Convention? I was curious, because they seem to take all the possibility of a runaway convention out. http://www.compactforamerica.org/single-post/2014/11/29/Got-the-Runaway-Convention-Blues

    Like

    Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi, Ron,

      My two papers on the CFA re here: What it actually does is delegate to Congress massive new taxing powers: The power to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) – on top of the existing income tax. Read the paper at the bottom first https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/compact-for-america/

      The language of the actual compact legislation is so boring it is difficult to read – nevertheless, I read it all, and then re-read!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Wow. Thanks for your info! In general, what do you think of the process CFA is trying. Is that a good way to go about doing an Article V Convention if there was a decent amendment?

        Like

        Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

        • I have two papers on Compact for America’s (CFA) phony “balanced budget amendment” (BBA). It is actually a massive new taxes amendment – it delegates to Congress the power to impose two new national taxes: a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) on top of the income tax! See the two papers here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/compact-for-america/

          The “compact method” of obtaining amendments to our Constitution is unconstitutional. Article V of our Constitution sets forth the two methods of obtaining amendments. James Madison always said that when States want amendments, they should instruct their Delegations to Congress to propose them.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  20. Authorizing someone (delegates) to exercise plenipotentiary powers in respect to our Constitution, in a new Article 5 Constitutional Convention, might aptly be compared to giving a general & unlimited power of attorney to one trusted friend and the very same power of attorney to 49 strangers at the same time, and trusting them all to respect our rights and best interests.

    By the time the strangers finished emptying our bank accounts or transferring our properties, it would be too late to rescind the power of attorney authorizations. Our money and our property would already be gone. It could easily be the same with a COS, considering the wide variety of forces that are pushing for an Article 5 Convention from both Democrats and Republicans (and others) with each group looking to gain additional federal governmental powers or restrictions to help their particular special interest group. Our individual rights or even our system of divided powers could be fundamentally altered in an Article 5 Convention. It only takes several words inserted here, or a phrase inserted there, to make a substantial difference kn the reading & meaning of the Constitution.

    The “giving power of attorney to a stranger” analogy (above) is sort of like the “giving a blank check to a stranger” argument that I’ve used when speaking to our State legislators against requesting that Congress call an Article 5 Convention, or a COS, or a Constitutional Convention (they are all the same).

    Not one of the legislators that I’ve spoken to yet has told me that they would give a blank personal check to a stranger (or to 49 other strangers) and trust them to not abuse that trust… and that’s exactly what calling an Article 5 Convention would amount to.

    Most people that I know would be hesitant to even give a blank check to many of their own relatives, and knowing some of their relatives I don’t blame them.

    I am also confident that none of my legislators would be willing to give a general power of attorney to even one stranger let alone 49 others that they could not intimately & unconditionally control. And as we know, that is impossible.

    I have simply asked them not to do the equivalent with our Constitution, and to NOT request that Congress call a Convention.

    If they think that the Constitution is not adequate to meet today’s needs, and if they wish to amend the Constitution, let’s use the very same method that brought us the 13th Amendment or the Bill of Rights. In doing so, we will know the exact proposed language of the new amendment BEFORE it is even voted on by Congress or sent to the States for ratification. Special interests will have no opportunity whatsoever, to meddle with or otherwise alter, our rights, our freedoms, or our fundamental system of governmental checks & balances.

    Like

    Comment by B. Carson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  21. So your saying then that the bill of rights are subject to abolishment to , correct ? so thats why i believe the bill of rights were create to keep the original amendments safe by calling them rights and put in a seperate document

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution can be repealed by later Amendments. They aren’t in a separate document – they are additions to the original Constitution.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  22. where did it say in the constitution that slavery was permitted ? so if slavery was permitted they could make another amendment to abolish it ?

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • The original Constitution accepted slavery as an ongoing institution: Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3 and Article IV, Sec. 2, clause 3.
      The 13th Amendment superseded those provisions and abolished slavery.

      Abolitionists were at the federal convention of 1787 (e.g., Alexander Hamilton); but other Delegates at that convention wouldn’t hear of abolishing slavery….and so we fought a war and huge numbers of Americans were killed.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  23. Steve, I suggest you read the preamble to the Bill of rights. they would be no Bill of rights if they were not demanded by the people. a number of states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends to this institution. the bill of rights were interwoven into the one whole cloth Constitution with many Chapters mixed together make them One Book of Law which we call our Constitution

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  24. being it is totally seperate from the constitution and called the bill of rights

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • No, Steve, that is not correct. You are taking a wrong turn. The first ten amendments are part of the Constitution. The idea that they “can’t” be amended is a myth.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  25. THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION, THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Really? From where do you obtain such a ….. novel idea?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

      • theres 3 .. 1. declaration of independence , 2. the bill of rights and 3. the constitution.. all three created separately or have i been mis reading how and why they were created ?

        Like

        Comment by steve | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • 1. The Declaration of Independence (DOI) is The Fundamental Act of our Founding.

          2. The Constitution drafted at the federal Convention of 1787 implemented – to a great extent – the Principles set forth in our DOI. See this chart: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

          [Obviously, to the extent the original Constitution permitted slavery, it violated the Principle in the DOI, that “all men are created equal – that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. Other than that manifestation of fallen human nature, the Constitution of 1787 was a 5,000 year miracle.]

          The 27 Amendments are part of the Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  26. If it can be amended out of the constitution where in the Constitution did we grant anyone the enumerated power to do so? I didn’t think so. where is the Articl, section, and Clause?

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Con Ma, the procedures for ratification of new Amendments is set forth in Article V, US Constitution.

      Congress decides whether a proposed Amendment is to be sent to the State Legislatures for ratification or rejection; or whether the States are to call conventions within their respective States to decide whether to ratify or reject a proposed Amendment.

      An Amendment to our US Constitution may address ANY provision in the Constitution including the Amendments. E.g., the 21st Amdt repealed the 18th Amdt.
      And many of us would dearly love to see Amendment repealing the 16th & 17th Amendments.

      So yes, State legislators or state convention delegates could vote to ratify an amendment repealing the “bill of rights” or any portions thereof.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

      • Do you think its a good idea to make the Bill of Rights amendable? I’m not so sure that it is. They are the only thing protecting our rights.

        Like

        Comment by Santiago | March 1, 2017 | Reply

        • Somewhere someone started the rumor that the “bill of rights” couldn’t be amended! Of course they can!

          Furthermore, one former US supreme Court Justice has already drafted an amendment to the 2nd amendment which would restrict guns to persons on active duty in the military.

          Anything in the Constitution can be amended; taken away; wiped out. If there is an Article V convention; the entire Constitution can be taken away and replaced with a new Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2017 | Reply

  27. In re the fed. district ct. judge’s TRO on Trump’s immigration halt. As I understand it, the plaintiffs are states.
    If that is so, then does the part of Article 3, Section 2 which says “…In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”…..does that mean a district Ct. judgeis out of bounds issuing a TRO?

    Like

    Comment by bobmontgomery | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, if the States are parties to cases involving federal issues such as this, then you are correct: The trial should take place in the Supreme Court.

      Here are my two papers on that issue when the feds sued Arizona – the earliest one is at the bottom: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/arizona-lawsuit/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

      • Thanks, PH. I thought original jurisdition meant what it said, and how an “opinion” or even a statute can either absolve SCOTUS from it’s duties or infringe upon it’s constitutional mandate is beyond me. But still, even if it ends up that SCOTUS is the tryer of the case, can a district judge issue a TRO until SCOTUS takes it up, even if the district judge doesn’t have “original jurisdiction”?

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Well, actually the federal district court has no jurisdiction in this matter – so his acts are “void” for lack of jurisdiction. He can’t lawfully do anything except remove it to the Supreme Court.

          But look! Long ago, Congress passed a statute (!) saying federal district courts would have original jurisdiction in cases like this and lawyers all went along with it – most of them don’t know what Art. III, Sec. 2 says, anyway; and they don’t care, they just go along with what they’ve been told….. no one thinks independently – except for a very few of us. The others just go along with what everybody else says and does…

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  28. only the constitution can be amended.. the bill of (secured) rights had to be created before the constitution was ratified

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  29. is not the 2d amendment not in the bill of rights ? the bill of rights can not be changed

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • Of course it can be changed – it can be amended out of the Constitution, just as slavery was amended out of the Constitution. Or, if we get a new Constitution, such as “The Constitution for the Newstates of America”, we will all be disarmed.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

      • the 13th amendment was added to the constitution. as thats what the constitution is for

        Like

        Comment by steve | February 5, 2017 | Reply

        • Right, the 13th Amendment was added to our Constitution during 1865; and it superseded all provisions to the contrary in the preceding parts of our Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  30. Re. Sanctuary city’s or States have to sware or affirm to do their best to do their duty to preserve protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. they have violated their Oath in California, they have an ordinance which restricts gun rights. Not everyone voted for the gun restriction but from what is available the ban is State wide. James Madison Said that no majority can take away the rights of the minority. (Albert Gallatin of New York Historical Society, October7, 1789) that alone is enough to bring charges of discrimination and violation of the full faith and credit clause. Also violates the General Welfare clause which remains unamended and still holds the meaning as it was ratified. the 1828 Dictionary says Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity;The enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government. The violations by the State can and most assuredly will, bring litigation costs in the millions when the greedy figure it out.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  31. Are States required to cooperate with the lawful actions of the federal government? It seems obvious they should be. I just read that Oregon will no longer assist or cooperate with ICE agents efforts to locate or apprehend “undocumented immigrants”.
    This amounts to the governor enabling the flight of illegal aliens from the law.
    Gov. Kate Brown thinks she is justified in opposing the rule of law when she disagrees with legitimate and constitutional laws, as liberals always think.

    What is the remedy for these types of cases? Gov. Abbott of Texas recently cut off law enforcement assistance funds to a county in Texas which also refuses to work with ICE.
    That is a practical response.

    But what is the legal remedy?

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | February 4, 2017 | Reply

    • I’m in a rush – so will give you the short answer. Even if the federal gov’t is carrying out a constitutional function (well, it’s theoretically possible that they might do something constitutional now and then), they cannot force States, Counties, etc., to use their own resources to enforce federal laws. This is the famous anti-commandeering doctrine

      http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/ Anything written by Mike Maharrey will be spot on correct and well written!

      If States subvert, interfere, etc. with the feds when the feds are carrying out a constitutional function, then the States would be subject to the prescribed penalties, etc. One would have to examine the enabling legislation to see what penalties, etc.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2017 | Reply

      • Thanks.
        I suppose this means Trump has to ask for cooperation between ICE and their LE agencies and other agencies which might have data which can help them. The States or counties or cities can then refuse to cooperate. OK, but if the federal government is providing any auxiliary funding for the agencies in question, he could choose to cut those funds in response, or at least a portion of them. Trump knows how to negotiate well. I imagine he will work this out.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by topcat1957 | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Well, Trump’s duty is to enforce Constitutional laws of Congress. I have been so busy trying to stop an Article V convention that I haven’t had time to red all the immigration laws passed by Congress.

          But the bottom line is that if any federal agencies of the executive Branch are disobeying the Constitution or constitutional federal laws; then Trump is in a position to lock their heels.

          If States or Cities are violating constitutional acts of Congress, then they are subject to the penalties set forth in the Act for violations of its provisions by States or cities.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  32. I have a problem with the phrase “constitutional illiterates on the Supreme Court.” I see this as saying that they don’t know that they are destroying the Constitution and thereby violating their oath of office and showing themselves to be internal enemies.

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | February 1, 2017 | Reply

    • Well, I was being generous to them. I know how they were brainwashed in law school to believe the rubbish they spout. That doesn’t excuse them; they are still morally culpable; but people generally tend to believe what they are told and what the people around them believe. I suppose this is due to cowardice and laziness.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2017 | Reply

  33. I share your sentiments, PH. Good intentions are seldom equivalent to solid constitutional law. I look eagerly forward to your article which I plan to share with my conceal-carry friends and key congressional reps . Despite the fact many of my friends may not want to hear the “truth”, they’re, so far as I can tell, solid constitution-first types and will carefully review their positions on this matter. I’ve already warned them. Also, I pray you share your analysis with NRA and GOA. The ignorance, intentional or otherwise, even within “patriotic” organizations, is frightening and alarming. Finally, what is the best constitutional way to advance interstate conceal-carry–states urged to agree to do so among themselves. Thanks a million!!!!!

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | January 31, 2017 | Reply

  34. PH,
    Don’t know if you remember my query some 4 weeks ago re Congress’ interest in enacting a right-to-carry reciprocity law. An NRA member, I was confused by an article in their February1st Freedom magazine which unconvincingly (to me, anyway) posited the following: “One of the most important issues facing the new Congress will be legislation to protect the safety of interstate travelers so that a person who has a conceal-carry permit at home can lawfully carry in other states. Some people wonder if such federal legislation would violate the letter or spirit of states’ rights. In fact, national Right-to-Carry legislation is solidly within Congress’ 14th Amendment powers to protect the Second Amendment and the right to travel.” What’s your initial take on this assertion?

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | January 30, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi Jim,

      I mean to write an Article on this – I printed out the federal bill you mention – but haven’t had time to do anything on it – I am so busy trying to get States all over the Country not to pass any more applications to Congress for an Article V convention, and to rescind the applications they have already submitted to Congress.

      The NRA is in serious need of some clear thinkers – they don’t have a Principled basis for what they do and say.

      The claim that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amd’t incorporates the 2nd Amdt is utter rubbish [as contrary to the original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt]. However, that is the doctrine put out by the constitutional illiterates on our supreme Court.

      My various papers on the 14th Amendment prove the original intent of Sec. 1 – I rely heavily on Prof. Raoul Berger who proved the original intent of that Section. It had to do with protecting freed slaves – it had nothing to do with killing babies, homosexual acts, marriage, and gun rights.

      I’ll have to do some clever thinking to justify the federal right-to-carry law – and clever thinking might not be enough, since Truth must always trump all else. And since I haven’t read it, I may find that it is so horrible that no rational person would want it.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 31, 2017 | Reply


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: