Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

2,095 Comments »

  1. Can we determine if he is NBC or not? Is there an attempt to hide the results?

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, I expect that the date when Bernie’s father got naturalized is available to the public.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  2. Father entered from Poland in 1921 at age 17. Can find no mention if or when he became citizen. Mother born in New York City 1912. . Bernie born 1941. From Wikipedia

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Then we can’t determine from the Wiki article whether he is a natural born citizen.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  3. Were Bernie’s parents citizens before he was born? (Polish immigrants) Is he also not Natural Born?

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • I don’t know any of the facts of Bernie’s birth or the status of his parents when he was born.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  4. What are your thoughts on Tom Woods, Kevin Gutzman, and Brion McClanahan?

    Like

    Comment by Gary A. Blake | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • I try to refrain from making personal comments about People – I strive to limit my remarks to their proposals and arguments.
      Obviously, I oppose an Article V convention for the reasons set forth in my papers on the issue.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  5. This morning I read an editorial in Investors Business Daily dealing with taxes in Kansas and one to the things them mentioned was their pension fund. Looking through your work I didn’t see anything dealing with government pensions at the federal level. Is this expenditure constitutional?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | February 3, 2016 | Reply

    • That is an excellent question. The Constitution uses the words, “compensation” to be ascertained by law and “emoluments” – which terms I should have used instead of “salaries” [slap my hand!]

      I don’t know exactly what those terms meant. And I can’t look now.

      But I have seen documents on-line showing the pension Lists of Revolutionary War soldiers who got pensions.

      I haven’t researched this – so can’t say for sure as to constitutionality.

      However, as POLICY matter, is it a good idea to pay pensions? Leaving the military aside for now, let’s consider legislators and civilian employees: as a policy matter – should we encourage people to make careers in the federal government by paying them pensions? [I say, “no!”]. And the enumerated powers of the federal government are so short that there SHOULD be very FEW civilian employees. Do we want to encourage any civilian employees who are constitutionally there to make a lifetime career of it by promising them pensions?

      Our Constitution contemplated that federal judges would serve during “good Behaviour” – we wanted experienced judges. If they behave throughout their judicial career, and uphold the Constitution, we want them to stay on the bench. However, as any litigation lawyer can tell you, we want them to leave BEFORE they start sleeping on the job [yes, sometimes they are asleep on the bench!]. Perhaps a pension would encourage them to step down when it is time for them to go.

      An argument for paying pensions to the military is to compensate them for the risks they take. But non-combatant military don’t normally take those risks – thou medical personnel sometimes do. But other civilian jobs are risky also.

      So assuming pensions are constitutional – there are important policy decisions to consider.

      Your question is valuable – these are the types of things which SHOULD be debated in Congress: The wisdom of paying pensions…

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2016 | Reply

  6. PH,

    You speak the truth as usual. However, all our Michigan governors worship at the altar of federal largesse and would sooner throw us under the bus than refuse the federal dollars. Medicaid expansion, insurance exchanges for Obamacare, and the new road tax scheme are 3 that come to mind. Our AG wants to run for governor, so he’s not going to question the status quo either. Michigan is considered a donor state because we get so little back from the federal gov’t

    Like

    Comment by Chris J | January 27, 2016 | Reply

  7. How does nullification work within the states? Does the Governor state that he/she is nullifying unconstitutional laws, since they are the enforcer of the laws? Or must it be done through a State’s legislature?

    Thanks for all that you do.

    Like

    Comment by Concerned Citizen | January 27, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, it depends on the circumstances as to how nullification [which is nothing more that resistance to unconstitutional laws] is carried out:

      Martin Luther King & Rosa Parks nullified the unconstitutional State and local Jim Crow laws by refusing to comply.

      Citizens in Connecticut nullified an unconstitutional State statute which pretended to require registration of previously owned firearms by refusing to register their firearms.

      States could nullify the unconstitutional SCOTUS opinions which pretended to ban prayers and the 10 Commandments from public schools by passing a law directing Schools in their States to IGNORE the unconstitutional opinions.

      States could nullify a whole host of unconstitutional federal programs by refusing to take the federal grant money offered to bribe them into selling out the reserved rights of the States and the People. I have been advised that Tennessee was offered – and accepted – the bribe of 1/2 a billion dollars in federal grant money to implement common core! Tennessee didn’t nullify obamacare b/c if they did, they would lose $6 BILLION IN BRIBE MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

      States could easily nullify many federal programs by REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE BRIBE MONEY! Check out the PEW Report to see how much your State was bribed to go along with unconstitutional federal programs: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-visualizations/2014/fiscal-50#ind1 [see “select a state box” to find out about your State.

      State could nullify Roe v. Wade (which pretended to legalize abortion) by re-instituting state laws criminalizing abortion. And IGNORE federal court decisions which say that baby-killing is the law of the land.

      You get the idea. We can all read the US Constitution. If we do, we know that the powers of the feds are limited and defined to the 18 -21 powers listed in the Constitution. When the feds exercise powers not delegated, manly men have one response to the feds: Go jump in a lake – we won’t comply.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 27, 2016 | Reply

      • Thank you for the information. How would a state take back federal lands? Ask all the government employees in those areas to leave, assume control, then decide what to do with the land (I think the Founders were in favor of privatization of lands)? As far as gun laws, such as silencers, full auto firearms, and other Class III firearms, the governor (or probably the state legislature) could say that those tax stamps for Class III firearms are no longer required in the state of ________, correct?

        One day, after learning more about the Constitution, I’d like to run for state public office (legislature, governor) and help give power back to the states and the people. There are not enough people are stepping up in public office who know or believe in the Constitution.

        Like

        Comment by Concerned Citizen | January 28, 2016 | Reply

        • We will not be able to restore our Constitutional Republic unless:

          * Americans trouble their precious selves to read our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution over and over until they know what they say; &
          * Elect to office people who know these two documents like the backs of their hands and have the moral integrity to obey them.

          Then Congress could pass laws to sell the lands the feds hold unconstitutionally. Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause, shows what the fed gov’t may own lands for.

          Congress has authority to dispose of those lands pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2. We need a national discussion about the best way to dispose of these lands: sell them but ONLY to American citizens? Transfer them to States in exchange for States assuming social security and medicare payments? I’m not a manager. People who are excellent managers would have better ideas.

          The federal government has absolutely NO AUTHORITY to restrict our arms, ammo, etc. see, e.g.: https://vimeo.com/60944105

          One could reasonably argue that the word, “infringed” in the 2nd Amdt prohibits the feds from assessing excise taxes on arms, ammo, etc.

          The feds do have the power to assess excise taxes (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1). Hamilton discussed how it was important to choose carefully the objects of federal excises taxes. The idea was that excises would be levied on “sin” objects (whiskey) or Luxury items (carriages) not necessaries – guns and ammo!

          To learn the Constitution – start with this Chart: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

          Read this and do the “homework assignment” I mention in the paper: http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah139.htm

          Read the Declaration and Constitution over & over until you know what they say. Make your own charts. I find that making charts is the BEST way to make a document YOURS.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 28, 2016 | Reply

          • Thank you again for the information. I agree that Americans need to read the Declaration and the Constitution, along with the Federalist Papers. I would like to see each state nullify the Dept of Education and each state implement their own educational requirements based on that state’s needs, and make the Lee Resolution, Declaration, Constitution, Federalist Papers, and any other related documents as required in schools (go through the actual history, and not make it seem like the federal government is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that the states are subservient to the federal government), starting at a young age.

            I don’t mean to be a pain, but I am trying to understand the federal land issue better. Congress under Article IV, Section 3, clause 2, can dispose of lands that the government constitutionally owns. So the lands that the federal government is controlling unconstitutionally would not fall under that constitutional authority for Congress to dispose of, correct? That would lead to the States assuming their constitutional powers to take control of the land and then deciding how to best dispose of those lands.

            I am also trying to figure out, for each situation, whether it is the governor’s duty, or duty of the state legislature to properly use the nullification method. For example, is it the governor, since he/she is the enforcer of the law, that can state that all gun control laws are unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot stop citizens, at least in that state, from owning a suppressor or short-barreled rifle? Is it the governor that can tell the EPA and BLM that they have no authority in that state and have the state ignore those unconstitutional laws and rules? Or would all of that have to go through the state legislature, or maybe certain things go through the governor only while others go through the state legislature? I’d like to know who, within the state, has the authority to nullify things that are unconstitutional as far as government laws go. An individual cannot nullify gun laws in the same manner that Rosa Parks nullified the laws that she did without getting locked up for life.

            Like

            Comment by Concerned Citizen | January 28, 2016

          • 1. States can easily regain control over education if they stop taking the federal grant money to implement federal educational schemes. Obviously, “education” is not a power delegated to the federal government over the Country at Large. So how did the feds get control of it? By bribing States to sign on to federal education schemes! I have been told that Tennessee was paid $500,000,000. – that’s 1/2 a billion – to sign on to common core! So States should tell the feds to go jump in a lake when the feds come with unconstitutional federal education schemes and a big fat check. It was the States who sold the retained powers of The States or The People to the federal government.

            2. Your next question is how does the federal government get divested of unconstitutionally held lands such as the federal grasslands, forests, national parks, wildlife areas, etc. You suggested that Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2 addressed only constitutionally held lands such as the Western Territory which the United States acquired after our Revolution of 1776.

            Look: We are where we are. So we have to figure out the best way to downsize our federal government back to its constitutional limits. We want to do it in as orderly and reasonable and fair a manner as possible. So why not make use of Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2? That deals with disposal of federal lands. Our Framers didn’t address disposal of UNCONSTITUTIONALLY held federal lands!

            It’s like social security and medicare: two extremely unconstitutional and destructive [in many ways] programs. But it would be viciously unjust to suddenly shut them down for the reason that the programs are unconstitutional. They must be gradually phased out in an orderly and peaceful manner – so that the rug is not pulled out from American Citizens who are dependent on them.

            3. Nullification really isn’t a big deal. It takes any variety of forms. It’s going on in this country right now [it’s about time!]. It occurs whenever someone spits on federal bribe money or declines to submit to an unconstitutional law, rule, order, court opinion, or treaty. There is no set format. Here is a link to the Tenth Amendment Center’s Report on the 2015 State of the Nullification Movement. Read it, I think you’ll find it encouraging. American must begin by changing their mindset from the mindset of slaves to the mindset of The People who ratified the Constitution which created the federal government. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 29, 2016

          • About the federal lands. I can see what you are saying about the Constitution not having a provision of what to do in the case of the federal government “owning” land unconstitutionally. In my mind, if it’s unconstitutional, then it doesn’t exist, so the federal land ownership doesn’t exist, and therefore it is ok for the States to assume control and then decide what to do with the land. Now, this can be done gradually, but if the States wait for Congress to do it, it will never get done. Rand Paul has had a bill to do this, but it has gone no where because no one in Washington DC cares. Things like social security and medicare are different because they are tied to literally every person in America.

            Thank you again for the additional links and information. I feel like I have to do something to help and change things because only a few are willing to do so.

            Like

            Comment by Concerned Citizen | January 29, 2016

          • In your mind it doesn’t exist? Be careful. THIS is an issue which governments must handle. For starters, as a legal matter, one would need to study the official documents surrounding each States’ entry into the Union to see what was said or agreed to re the lands.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 29, 2016

          • Yes, doesn’t exist. To me, it doesn’t matter whether or not each state had an agreement with the federal government regarding the lands; the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to own those lands, therefore their claim to those lands do not exist.

            Like

            Comment by Concerned Citizen | January 29, 2016

          • To you, it doesn’t matter? So that’s the new standard?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 29, 2016

          • But yes, I agree this is a government issue, but more on the State side than federal.

            Like

            Comment by Concerned Citizen | January 29, 2016

          • Oh, well then, since you “agree”, I guess that settles that one issue!

            Do you not see? THIS is the problem of our time: Everybody thinks he is an expert and knows all about it and their minds are slammed shut to anything which contradicts their own precious “opinions”.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 29, 2016

        • I understand that the federal government (and state for that matter) cannot restrict the 2nd Amendment. I’m looking more at HOW a state can stop those unconstitutional laws and stop the feds from locking up anyone within that that state who nullifies the unconstitutional gun laws.

          Like

          Comment by Concerned Citizen | January 29, 2016 | Reply

          • Subscribe to the Tenth Amendment Center – you’ll get daily notices re nullification bills filed in various States. You can find bills addressing unconstitutional federal gun laws, etc., and all the other nullification bills being filed all over the Country every day.

            Also, you can read & download their 2015 Report on the State of the Nullification movement:
            http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 29, 2016

  8. I was talking about the attitude of the electorate, not so much, about Trump. The current situation, also, reminds me of how Isreal insisted on a king to God in the Bible and the resulting difficulties. When a country relies on one man to solve their problems and not the proper process, it leads to tyrany, no matter if the original “King” is bevolant.

    Like

    Comment by Victor Landry | January 26, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, I keep going back to the Book of Judges – it shows that the People need a human leader. If they are reasonably virtuous, God will send them a good one. When they are bad, God sends them BAD ones – such as we have had here, for the most part, for a very long time.

      And I know about the People rejecting God and wanting a king like other nations. It breaks my heart also! But that’s how people are. So like Phyllis Schlafly I have come to think that Trump is our best hope for the human leader people want. He doesn’t know the Constitution – but at least he is decent. But I don’t know how he can take his Oath of Office unless he learns it.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 26, 2016 | Reply

  9. Do you see a parallel between the Weimar Republic in the middle to late twenties and the USA now?

    Like

    Comment by Victor Landry | January 25, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, my field is philosophy and law – not history. But I know something of the Weimar Republic – the massive inflation and the moral decline of the German People, and then tyranny and then death and destruction. Which is what we have here: moral collapse and financial collapse – and probably tyranny just around the corner. I think our future looks grim.

      It doesn’t HAVE to happen that we collapse – we could fix it. But I think it is unlikely that we will because it doesn’t seem that the American People are willing to undergo a moral regeneration. They refuse to listen to wisdom, they are filled with ignorant conceit; and their highest value is to feel good.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 25, 2016 | Reply

      • I see, also, the parallel between the popularity of Trump and the popularity of Hitler. People are looking for a strongman to solve their problems instead of looking to themselves to solve them constitutionally. I’m afraid the results will be the same.

        Like

        Comment by Victor Landry | January 26, 2016 | Reply

        • The two men are not all alike! Mein Kampf was published in the mid 1920s – anyone who read it could find out exactly who Hitler was. That Germans elected him anyway is a disgrace.

          I have never seen nor heard of any similarities between Trump and Hitler – to the contrary, all reports suggest that Trump is a thoroughly decent man – generous too.

          Hitler was a megalomaniacal dictator. Trump seems to be competent, decent, and a manly man – he doesn’t tremble before the PC crowd.

          “Strongman” suggests a dictator. Why would one apply that term to Trump?

          Americans are sick to death of smarmy career RINO politicians. And they are incensed that persons who are ineligible for the office seek it anyway and at the same time, pretend to support the Constitution.

          It is a sad thing – but I should have learned this from The Book of Judges: People need human leaders to follow. They are not able – or willing – to be what our Framers expected them to be: the “natural guardians of the Constitution”. They follow leaders. So it seems that the best we can hope for is that they will finally elect a DECENT man to the Presidency.

          I know this sounds contradictory to my last post – it’s my disappointment in People: that they won’t make the effort to think and learn and do right – they have to be led. So our only hope is to get good leaders that they can follow.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 26, 2016 | Reply

  10. i stopped by to see what you’ve had to say on the constitutionality of Martial Law but haven’t been able to locate anything specific?

    My position is that it’s not an enumerated power, therefore, the government does NOT have any Martial Law or Emergency Powers.

    The Constitution only mentions the suspension of the privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus in specific circumstances (Art. 1, Sec. 9, para. 2) but I do not see that as allowing the suspension of the Constitution and BoRs!

    Thanks in advance.

    Like

    Comment by Diamondback | January 25, 2016 | Reply

  11. Hello PH,

    I would like to ask you about two issues:

    1) Do you believe the SCOTUS got it right in the case of Zivotofsky v. Kerry? Who has the power to recognize foreign countries and which territory/city belongs to whom?

    Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote, “Recognition is a matter on which the nation must speak with one voice. That voice is the President’s.” Do you agree? Why/why not?

    2) Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the decision on whether or not prosecute an offense committed by a member of the Armed Forces is made by that member’s Commanding Officer (CO). As such, the CO is the Convening Authority.

    But if a commander of one of the Unified Combatant Commands (e.g. NORTHCOM, PACOM, or STRATCOM) or one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commits an offense (let’s say he rapes someone or sells US secrets to a foreign nation), who would be the Convening Authority? Who would decide whether or not to prosecute him? Those officers are at the top of the military chain-of-command. They don’t have any officers appointed over them. They report directly to the President and the SECDEF – i.e. to civilians.

    Like

    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | January 17, 2016 | Reply

    • Hi, ZB
      I haven’t read the case you cite. And can’t read it now. But the President’s constitutional powers are limited and narrowly defined: He has only the powers which the Constitution delegates to him [cite Article, Section, and clause] and which Congress gives him in constitutional laws. For example, Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 15 delegates to CONGRESS the power to “provide for” calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. Congress may lawfully “provide for” calling forth the Militia for those 3 purposes by having the President decide WHEN it necessary to call forth the Militia. For more on the President’s powers see: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-presidents-enumerated-powers-rulemaking-by-executive-agencies-executive-orders/

      So who has the power to recognize foreign countries?

      Foreign Affairs is not my area – so I don’t know the history of it as it has involved the US. But it appears that President H. Truman unilaterally “recognized” the new State of Israel: https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/us-israel/ Is that one of his enumerated powers? No. Did Congress pass a statute delegating this power to the President? Not to my knowledge AND I don’t find anything in the Constitution which would permit Congress to delegate that power to the President.

      The US Constitution doesn’t expressly address “recognizing foreign nations”. But it does address Treaties – and they are formed by the President AND the US Senate. So I think the intent of the Constitution is that such matters are to be done jointly by the President and the US Senate. The better – and clearly constitutional – practice would be for the President and the US Senate to issue a joint Resolution or formal Statement when they wish to recognize a new Country.

      Who decides what territory/city belongs to whom? Unless there is a formal Treaty signed by the affected parties which gives the US the power to decide, it’s none of our *amn business!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 17, 2016 | Reply

    • Re your UCMJ question: It’s been almost 40 years since I practiced under the UCMJ; and I haven’t kept up with military law. And I’m in a rush and don’t have time to research this. But if one of the top military commanders whom you mentioned commits a court-martial offense, then I believe that the President, as CINC, would be the only person who could convene a courts martial.

      If one of those top commanders committed a criminal offense which was not military related – say a rape committed off-post in a geographical jurisdiction under the control of the civilian authorities, then the civilian authorities would have criminal jurisdiction over the rape.

      Military personnel are under UCMJ criminal jurisdiction for certain “military” offenses and for offenses committed on military bases, in combat zones, etc. But if a service member commits a crime off post in the US, the civilian authorities generally have jurisdiction. As I recall from decades ago, jurisdiction could sometimes get complicated.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 17, 2016 | Reply

  12. I just found this information on the internet. I hope you find it useful.

    Ted Rafael Cruz is Not a Natural Born U.S. Citizen

    The Founding Fathers lived under the principles of Colonial English Law with regards to the rights of women and a married woman in that time period was considered to have no autonomy as stated by English jurist William Blackstone famously in his Commentaries on English Law (1765–1769):

    “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing.”

    Rafael Cruz left Cuba in 1957 to attend the University of Texas at Austin, obtained political asylum in the United States after his four-year student visa expired. Rafael Cruz was not a US citizen until 2005. Eleanor and Rafael Cruz were married in 1969.

    Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada on December 22, 1970 to his mother Eleanor (Darragh) Wilson born in Delaware, US and father Rafael Cruz a Cuban citizen.

    The founding fathers that were trained and educated under English law and wrote the Constitution in 1787 stated that in order to be President a person must be a “Natural Born Citizen”.

    At the time of that writing under Colonial English law a woman lost all autonomy and legal existence which would include any claim to US citizenship and she became incorporated into the identity and legal rights of her husband and therefore she was no longer a US citizen and took on the citizenship of her husband which was Cuban citizenship in the case of Rafael Cruz.

    The Founding Fathers interpretation of Natural Born Citizen would have been based on English law interpretation and would only pertain to children either born on United States soil or to a father that was a Natural Born United States Citizen.

    The Founding Fathers gave no other explanation of Natural Born Citizen in the constitution however their legal training and understanding came from Colonial English law and would be derived from that interpretation.

    Rafael Cruz did not become a U.S. Naturalized Citizen until 2005 and at marriage (according to colonial English Law) Eleanor (Darragh) Wilson gave up her citizenship legal right to become covertured to her husband and therefore she was a Cuban citizen under Rafael’s last name and marriage authority.

    Ted Rafael Cruz was therefore born to a Cuban citizen Father and Mother and is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and does not meet the qualifications to become President of the United States.

    This opinion may be reprinted as long as it is copied in it’s entirety and credited to the Center for U.S. Constitutional Law Studies.

    Like

    Comment by Alexander Reagan | January 15, 2016 | Reply

    • I have addressed these issues here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/
      My first paper on this topic shows that the concept of “natural born citizen” – as opposed to the English feudal law concept of “natural born subject” – came to our Framers from Vattel’s “Laws of Nations”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 15, 2016 | Reply

      • Thank you.

        Like

        Comment by Alexander Reagan | January 15, 2016 | Reply

        • I’m at your service anytime you have a question about our Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2016 | Reply

          • God bless you in your service to Him and the Republic He Inspired.

            Like

            Comment by Alexander Reagan | January 16, 2016

  13. PH,

    I hate to delve into Presidential eligibility once again because you have covered it so well in your writings and I fully understand your analysis. In our Founding documents specifically the Declaration of Independence it states all men are created equal. We know many of the founders including Jefferson believed that applied to the slaves as well. So why does that not apply to women?

    The society was patriarchal in the 1700s but wouldn’t moral and natural law suggest that all people are created equal? Granted the Constitution is a legal document and that may be the sticking point in my dilemma but if we are to truly embrace natural and moral law and our founding documents can it not be argued that the citizenship of the mother equally contributes to the citizenship of the child? Thereby a single citizen parent either mother or father can convey natural born citizenship to their child.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by David | January 15, 2016 | Reply

    • The Declaration of Independence recites at the 2nd para “that all men are created equal”.

      In our Constitution, we implemented that Principle when we abolished titles of nobility at Art. I, Sections 9 & 10.

      At the time of our Framing – remember, we had just broken from a King – all of continental Europe was under the rule of hereditary aristocracies and kings. With the new Republican form of government, we threw off the hereditary aristocracy.

      But our Framers included fallen men and they permitted permanent hereditary slavery to continue.

      Now let’s look at Family Law: One of the virtues of reading THE CLASSICS [American stopped reading THE CLASSICS some time ago] is that one gains an insight into earlier times. Anyone who has read the magnificent novels of Jane Austin can understand the status of women during the time she wrote of – the early 1800s: WOMEN HAD NO INDEPENDENT LEGAL STATUS. When they were born, they were under the protection of their Father. When he died, they were under the Protection of their Elder Brother. Or Uncle. Or some other adult male relative or guardian. When women married, their identity was subsumed under that of their Husband.

      THAT’S HOW IT WAS.

      So Vattel expressed the view [almost universal] at the time that “Husband and Wife are ONE – and the Man is The One.” It is a FACT that this is what the mindset of the time was. The MAN’S STATUS IS WHAT COUNTS. The Wife’s legal identity is subsumed into that of her Husband’s. E.g., when she married, all her property became her HUSBAND’S to do with as he would. If you had read the Austin novels, you would understand all this. All the literature of the time reflects this – I cite Austin b/c she is a particularly good writer. This is what Family Law at the time was.

      Think about what you are actually saying in the last para of your comment: Peoples’ understanding of the “moral and natural law” trumps the Constitution! And as their understanding of the “moral and natural law” changes and “evolves”, SO DOES THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

      And there you get to where we now are: The Constitution has no fixed meaning – the meaning “evolves” to meet the changing understandings and conditions of the Time.

      And since supreme Court Justices sit on the Supreme Court – they have the power to decide what the “moral and natural law” is – and so the Constitution means WHATEVER THEY SAY it means. Do I need to illustrate the consequences of this view? I have already done so in my papers on the 14th Amendment.

      I found another excellent article on this issue: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.html

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 15, 2016 | Reply

      • PH. Thank you for taking the time to give me such a thorough answer. I have always tended to be an originalist when it comes to the Constitution but have trouble arguing the “birther issue” with liberal friends and many of my conservative friends. The article you attached was extremely helpful in defining the three main theories. I fear there aren’t many originalists out there on this issue as they are outnumbered by texturalists and living constitution advocates.

        Sorry for bringing this up again.

        Like

        Comment by David | January 15, 2016 | Reply

        • Don’t be sorry, dear one. As long as people have questions – I have work to do. That’s my work in this life.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 15, 2016 | Reply

  14. Just a question on the ongoing situation in Oregon. Isn’t the only part of the constitution that gives authority for the US to purchase land given in art. , sec. 8, and that’s only for purposes of the defense of the nation. It requires consent of the state legislatures, they can’t just come in and buy up anything they want. Isn’t it Teddy Roosevelt that we have to thank for this?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | January 10, 2016 | Reply

    • Yep, Yep and Yep. Teddy Roosevelt was a bad man – that entire family has been a curse on this Country. BUT the Americans loved it – so really, Americans are to blame. Teddy just took advantage of their foolishness. And the Democrats were just as bad. Dr. Alan Keyes is right – our two party system is a complete sham.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 10, 2016 | Reply

  15. Hi PH, I recall reading in one of your papers at length about what land the feds may lawfully own, and for what purposes. And how the feds have no authority granted by the constitution to own national parks, etc… I cannot find it, do you happen to remember what paper it was in. Thanks..

    Like

    Comment by Spense | January 9, 2016 | Reply

    • I will try to find it. I need a webmaster to run my website.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 10, 2016 | Reply

      • Please don’t spend allot of time on it, its not that important. I was going to write something for my local newspaper (letter for the editor), the Oregon situation is a hot topic. And of course the constitutionally ignorant liberals are pillorying the Patriots in the Oregon standoff

        Like

        Comment by Spense | January 10, 2016 | Reply

      • Dear PH & Spence;
        Regarding the issue in Oregon, here is a link to a You Tube video http://youtu.be/T424sWq1SkE as well as the website of Kris Anne Hall, http://krisannehall.com/ who like you PH, can quote the Constitution (or most of it’s parts) from memory. These might help in determining the Oregon status. I fear the time for our Great Republic is coming short.
        I enjoy listening and reading from Kris Anne Hall as she appears to know what she is talking about, but you PH are my favorite TEACHER.. Thanks for all you do, never let the buggahs get you down, they aren’t worth it…..
        Semper Fi
        GOD – Country – Corps
        NS

        Like

        Comment by N S | January 12, 2016 | Reply

  16. I see that Marco Rubio is now vowing to support a Convention of States if elected President. He isn’t a natural born citizen and is now backing the destruction of the Constitution as President. Wow!

    Rand Paul vaguely suggested that Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be President and he got hammered by some of the conservative media.

    Lastly we have a report that about 20% of all Democrats would vote for Trump and why not he isn’t a Constitutionalist or conservative (classical liberal).

    Very strange times. I fear the Republic is doomed.

    Like

    Comment by David | January 9, 2016 | Reply

    • Oops Rand suggested Cruz may be ineligible.

      Like

      Comment by David | January 9, 2016 | Reply

    • I think you are right. Americans have gone stark raving mad. Wolves dressed up in sheeps’ clothing are leading conservatives astray; Americans don’t think; most internet writers don’t know what they’re talking about; and the comments get nastier every day.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 9, 2016 | Reply

  17. January 6, 2015 ~ Todays Show ~ Mark Levin explains what a NBC “is” is. He said that he is willing to debate the issue.

    Like

    Comment by Merry Christmas | January 6, 2016 | Reply

  18. If anyone thinks CONgress cares about your opinion, individually they pay lip service to the Constitution, but collectively they are destroying that which they took that sacred honor oath to protect. We can argue all we want, but the obvious should stand out, they are collectively destroying what little is left of our bill of rights, until none are left, but history repeats it self for a reason, it’s because we forget the past too quickly. When are we ever going to learn? Humans do a very poor job of Governing our selves don’t we? End this sham called the Federal Reserve while we can, before it collapses the country and the world economy. It’s already done that by debasing our dollars, while CONgress spends madly.

    Like

    Comment by Eric R. | January 2, 2016 | Reply

  19. Obama is preparing to release more Guantanamo detainees by executive action, isn’t that a direct violation of Art. I, sec. 8 cl. 14? It states that congress has the authority “To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” Doesn’t that cover dealing with captures?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | January 2, 2016 | Reply

    • Yes, so does Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 11. Congress is to make the Rules.

      and the Constitution doesn’t permit Congress to re-delegate that power. [As opposed to clause 16, which permits Congress to “provide for” organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…. Congress may direct other bodies to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia.]

      The President has no authority to act apart from the powers delegated by the Constitution or by Act of Congress made pursuant to [i.e., authorized by] the Constitution. See this – my most popular paper of all time: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-presidents-enumerated-powers-rulemaking-by-executive-agencies-executive-orders/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 2, 2016 | Reply

  20. How say you Publius?
    I find no evidence of law, only color of law since 1860-61. The government of Lincoln onward or forward is repugnant to the Constitution of the united States of America. Only those documents in place when the change happened are lawful. The corporations acting in color of law from federal to municipal are ripe for nullification. To come into compliance the government of city, county and state in Oregon need to renounce color of law and return to the Constitutions in effect 1860-61. They stop their unlawful practices and come into compliance and begin to settle all issues by Constitutional law. Which is Common law, until it is determined that the UCC and ORS are valid.

    There are no federal judges in compliance in Oregon, nor state judges. It is all bogus until it is sorted out. Each and every act since 1860 is suspect or actually unlawful until proven valid.

    If you read the Constitution and the D of I what Lincoln did was repugnant, it has never been corrected, only papered over. Only laws not repugnant can stand. You read the enumerated powers. You file the action with the SCOTUS.

    Like

    Comment by ron vrooman | December 31, 2015 | Reply

    • I have little idea of what you are talking about…..

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 31, 2015 | Reply

  21. Read Frank O’Collins for a starter. Then apply your own belief system.

    Like

    Comment by Ron Vrooman | December 26, 2015 | Reply

    • I don’t know who Frank O’Collins is – so do not vouch for him.

      And Ron! This isn’t a cafeteria where individual people get to choose what they like! The FACT is that Our Declaration says the purpose of government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us. And our original Constitution did in fact secure some of the Rights God gave us in the ways appropriate for the national government of a Federation. See, https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/how-our-federal-constitution-secures-our-god-given-rights/

      But our Constitution was flawed in that it permitted permanent hereditary slavery to continue – thus denying to black people the “equal status of men” recognized in our Declaration.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 26, 2015 | Reply

  22. I find it difficult to consider that the only Founding Documents are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence when both are heavily influenced by the Christian Bible. Why isn’t the Christian Bible considered one of the Founding Documents and shouldn’t it also be read. If the precepts of the Christian Bible were followed would we not be a better nation? My voting guide is Exodus 18:21. And if this were the guide for the majority of voters, including alleged evangelical Christians, our nation would be on the rebound. Thanks for being out there and offering this forum to keep us on the straight and narrow.. Happy New Year to All!

    Like

    Comment by Jim MacLellan II | December 26, 2015 | Reply

    • Yes. Our Declaration of Independence shows that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of securing the rights that GOD gave us.
      And our Constitution implements this hallowed purpose.
      See also, e.g.: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/the-biblical-foundation-of-our-constitution/

      But with the beginning of the Progressive Era in the early 1900s, the purpose of government was changed: To provide for our needs and make us “safe” from the risks and uncertainties of Life.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 26, 2015 | Reply

  23. Mam,

    I am trying to do my best to learn and understand our Founding Documents, and have been reading up on the founders for quite some time. My goal is to become active and teach people our true history, founding principles, and the real american culture that our founders pledged their lives, liberty and sacred honor to secure for the millions yet unborn. Would it be o.k to print out some of your writings and use them as a reference to study, learn and teach from? And would you have any good tips or pointers on how to learn, study, and keep organized in a more effectual way when trying to retain all of this knowledge. Any tips would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for your help and everything you do!

    Yours in Liberty,

    Matthew Graeff

    Like

    Comment by Matthew Graeff | December 26, 2015 | Reply

  24. Got to call bullshi on you Publius. Just a little not all over and messy.
    In Oregon there is an old law that states the schools will teach the Constitution and government for 5 years beginning in the 8th grade. The government decided that an ignorant population is easier to control. So, don’t lay it on the people that are a product of what they have been taught. I am in the transition generation between the WWII and the boomers and later. These people are the product of the education that they received and it has progressed to the “common core”.
    Attorneys write most of the laws and hold most of the positions of power. Most are members of the BAR . I think the gradual and relentless dumbing down is the result of the actions of our government, ergo attorneys.

    Like

    Comment by ron vrooman | November 29, 2015 | Reply

    • Stop blame-shifting! Nothing stops anybody from reading our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and learning what they say and how they work.
      I didn’t have “cooking” in school, but became an excellent cook. Of course, I could have whined about how I am a victim of the public schools which didn’t teach me how to cook…and so I must still today eat at fast food joints.
      The truth is Americans are too lazy to do the little bit of work required to learn our two Founding Documents.
      In addition, Americans rejected the Principle that we ought to be guided by external transcendent Principles. They just wanna do what they wanna do; and they like what they like.

      And then, there are the angry ones who pick fights at every opportunity…..

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 29, 2015 | Reply

  25. Can you please shed some light on ‘The Act of 1871 – the United States’ secret second constitution’?

    RE: World Banker Karen Hudes Reveals Secret US Constitution

    Article on ‘Repeal -The Act of 1871’ Written by Paul Kincaid -the United States’ secret second constitution.
    Sunday, May 18, 2014

    Like

    Comment by Loretta Vargo | November 29, 2015 | Reply

    • It is rubbish. I think the progressives put this stuff out to confuse and distract patriots.

      Our problems are moral, spiritual, and intellectual: No one reads our two Founding Documents. No one understands what these Documents say and what they do. They don’t know because they don’t care. They want what they want. They like what they like. And that’s is all they care about.

      If People would read and learn our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution – and then obey them – we could fix our political and economic problems.

      But above all, we must close down the public schools: They have so dumbed down the American People that few are capable of rational thought and analysis.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 29, 2015 | Reply

  26. Dear PH;

    Thank you for your blog. I have an Obamacare question.
    If the government forces us to purchase private health insurance or suffer a penalty- doesn’t that amount to an illegal seizure with respect to the 4th amendment? And if so, how come I never see any litigation on that basis?

    Thanks in advance.
    Brian McNary

    Like

    Comment by brian mcnary | November 27, 2015 | Reply

    • every aspect of obamacare is unconstitutional. The principle reason is it unconstitutional is that it is outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.
      And if you want justice, the last place you will find it is in the federal courts….

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 27, 2015 | Reply

  27. Hi PH,
    I am in the process of reading your paper about Arizona and the federal gov’t. I think I basically understand what you are saying, but I have stupid legislators and an idiot governor. I need simple words so that when I call and/or write them and tell them that they CAN tell Obama to pound sand, I need to explain it in words that they understand as you don’t get a lot of time to get your point across. Our governor in Michigan has “temporarilysuspended” his bid to get more “refugees” into our state. He worships at the altar of Obama and it means that as soon as our backs are turned, the refugees are going to end up in Dearborn and/or Hamtramck where we already have the largest Muslim population in the country.

    Keep up the good work.

    Like

    Comment by Chris J | November 18, 2015 | Reply

    • Chris, I am writing a paper now on the invasion of the Islamists and what States MUST do. And I will make it simple. Civil War is being forced on us – Americans are going to have to defend themselves from the muslim invaders. So The States better revitalize their State Militia.
      Move out of Michigan if you can – or get far away from the Muslim areas. I assume you are familiar with our beloved Brigitte Gabriel? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFO1AtjoUoo

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 18, 2015 | Reply

    • Hi PH,

      I guess I don’t get here very often and didn’t see your reply until just now. I live on the west side of the state, where all the illegals live. Unfortunately our financial situation precludes our moving. So I watch from near Lake Michigan at how far our state has gone to cater to the Muslims. And yes, I do know Brigitte Gabriel. She is an awesome speaker. I heard her once at a summit in Washington, DC.

      Please let me know when your paper is done if you can.

      Like

      Comment by Chris J | January 27, 2016 | Reply

  28. PH, I agree with Spence completely, as well as your most excellant article,

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/the-invasion-of-arizona-the-remedy-when-the-federal-government-refuses-to-do-its-duty/

    It is hogwash. Now I understand it’s 24/25 states. As I have been stating to friends for quite some time now. Most recently regarding an article in Briebart London on the invasion of refugees into Europe, specifically Greece.

    “Having someone “protect” you is a falacy. You and you alone are responsible for protecting yourself and your family by being aware of dangers that surround you. The only time Law Enforcement or anyone else in the larger sense of it, states, communities etc.are legally required to protect you are when you are arrested or otherwise taken into custody, thereby removing from you the ability to protect yourself. Governmentas are not to protect you, they are merely responsible to provide an environment that is resonably safe from outside dangers, invasion of a common or foreign enemy, whatever they may be, for you to live in as a citizen, and this applies to all forms of government, not just the Constitutional Republic in which we supposedly live.”

    I firmly believe it’s about time the states started recovering their rightful duties from the dictates of the Federal Government and acting like the sovereign states they are. I also believe it’s time for the states to start encouraging local militia’s, which in turn, I believe, give individuals a better sense of community and some investment in all things local, which in turn will extend out to the state, and then to the nation as a whole. Your thoughts are alawys most appreciated. Either my thinking is for the most part correct or my head is just full of used soap….. Thank you always for your excellant work and undying effort.
    NS

    Like

    Comment by N S | November 17, 2015 | Reply

    • Thank you for your kind comments, NS.

      The “Militia” described at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution, is the armed force for each State. If you check your STATE Constitution, I expect you will find provisions for your State’s Militia.

      THAT is the body James Madison contemplated in Federalist No. 46 where he spoke of the Militia defending the States from the federal government.

      Edwin Vieira has written much on this – here are his archives: http://edwinvieira.com/ I have great respect for Dr. Vieira – read and outline his papers on the State Militia and you will gain much useful information.

      Instead of obsessing over the worthless candidates for the R nomination for President, Americans need to focus on electing State Governors who have the wisdom and spine to REVITALIZE THEIR STATE’S MILITIA! And we need to focus on our State Legislatures and local offices – especially County Sheriff. Sheriff Richard Mack’s idea seems to be that if the State Governors aren’t man enough to do it, we must elect County Sheriffs who will defend us.

      Civil war is coming. May God protect us and guide us and light the path we should take.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 18, 2015 | Reply

  29. agreed

    Like

    Comment by ron vrooman | November 17, 2015 | Reply

  30. Hi PH, its being reported that the 17 governors don’t have the lawful authority to stop the Syrian refugees from settling in their respective states. Since the states retained sovereignty, I say that is baloney. What say you?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | November 16, 2015 | Reply

    • You make your Mama proud, Son. I wrote this 5 years ago – think I’ll dust it off and republish it. The same Principles apply. obama means to destroy us – and Congress is too cowardly to stop him. So the States are going to have to man up and fight this – it will come to bloodshed if obama keeps importing these terrorists.

      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/the-invasion-of-arizona-the-remedy-when-the-federal-government-refuses-to-do-its-duty/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 16, 2015 | Reply

      • That’s very true PH, the federal govt has let us down, when one considers the primary job of the federal is to protect us, its obvious they are abject failures. The only vetting these so-called Syrian refugees have received is from the U.N. and the U.N. certainly can’t be trusted. Everyone around the world knows terrorist muslims are being planted in the countries taking in the refugees, and yes, treasonous Obama knows it too!.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | November 17, 2015 | Reply

        • This was always his long term plan, and your very astute comment is right on the barrel head. Good call.

          Like

          Comment by Eric R. | January 2, 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 1,589 other followers

%d bloggers like this: