Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

4,761 Comments »

  1. Dear Dr. Huldah, I desperately need your articles on the 25th Amendment. Claims are circulating that Biden might resign before the end of his & Harris will become president for 10 years. I thought the VP could serve as president just until the end of his term. Need clarification and would greatly appreciate your input, especially since sites on search engine have all been revised in April 2023- just in time for these dubious claims. We’re all terrified of this. Please help! Thank you. There is no other authority I trust. marlene PS: I can’t find your email. I’ve got over 10,000 folders, each holding up to 5,000 articles & am lost in the plethora of events taking place every day under this rogue administration. I appreciate your input and am praying to God I hear from you.

    Like

    Comment by marlene | April 28, 2023 | Reply

    • I have a “Juris Doctor” degree; but we don’t call ourselves, “Dr.” a J.D. is a professional degree; not an academic degree – that’s why.

      Much rubbish is written about our Constitution by people who don’t know what they are talking about. If Biden resigns, Harris would become president and would serve out the rest of his term. But at the end of that term, she’d have to run for election in order to remain as president. As a practical matter, it doesn’t matter whether biden is president or she is president. He is senile and she is as dumb as a rock; and the same people who manage biden would manage her.

      All this happened because the last federal election was stolen – and the Republicans didn’t have the guts to stand up to it. I think of the Republican legislatures in those 6 battleground states: Rudy Giuliani held meetings with them and what he told them was true – but those week-sissies didn’t have the guts to do as Giuliani suggested. That woman trump nominated as Supreme Court Justice stabbed him in the back – her vote would have gotten SCOTUS to expedite review of the Pennsylvania case, but she refused: that idiot claimed she wasn’t familiar with the case and so recused herself. I wrote 6 or so papers on this election and on how SCOTUS, the Department of Justice, that despicable Bill Barr, Congress, Pence, Trump, and the Legislators in those 6 battleground states ALL FAILED IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES. They were all cowards. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/federal-election-of-2020/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 28, 2023 | Reply

  2. Hi PH,
    After reviewing your paper; “WHEN may courts lawfully strike down, under the “supremacy clause”, State laws and provisions in State Constitutions?” I have come to the conclusion that a recently enacted Illinois gun ban law has violated the supremacy clause because the Illinois gun ban provision runs contrary to the US Constitution, specifically that of Article I, §8, clauses 15 and 16 ; which could and would interfere with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia. I have read the 1792 militia act and it seems obvious to me the Illinois gun ban violates the constitution. The Illinois gun ban law bans the purchase of many semi-automatic guns and larger capacity magazines. The types of arms needed to defend our state and country. The state legislature leans on the fact that the Illinois state constitution’s Bill of Rights contains this clause:

    ARTICLE 1, SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
    Subject only to the police power, the right of the
    individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
    infringed.~ (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

    The Illinois state govt believes they have the lawful authority to ban some semi-automatic guns and large magazines because of the “police power “ clause in Section 22. What say you?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | February 19, 2023 | Reply

    • I think your analysis is correct 100% .

      also, the “police power” in Article 1, Sec. 22, doesn’t permit the Ill. Legislature to ban specific types of arms. It permits them to say you can’t take your arms into a State Prison, or a State Courthouse, or an insane asylum, and such like places; but it doesn’t permit them to ban types of arms altogether.

      I wouldn’t ask the prominent gun “rights” organizations for help – but there are lawyers who handle this kind of case. Is there a strong gun rights organization in Illinois which does this type of litigation? If not, I have a friend here in Tennessee who does this kind of litigation and ask him if he knows of someone in Illinois who could handle a case. Some of these organizations are funded by donations – few private people could afford to pay for the litigation themselves.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2023 | Reply

      • thank you, thats a question i sent to you awhile back. its was about illinois article 1 sec 22

        Like

        Comment by hippie49 | February 19, 2023 | Reply

      • Thanks PH, there are already 6 lawsuits that I know about over the gun ban, so far Illinois county judges have granted 3 TRO’s, One denied the TRO, and one federal judge denied the request. One of the lawyers has asked for all the lawsuits to be combined to go before the state supreme court, which I find problematic. I don’t believe we will receive satisfaction from the Illinois state supreme court, only judicial tyranny. The good news is there are several thousand plaintiffs. In my opinion this issue will end up in the US Supreme Court before its resolved, problem is I have seen a couple of the lawsuits and think they are facile. But that is just my unprofessional opinion. I would be interested in to know your friend’s opinion concerning what Illinois attorney to use on this gun rights issue.

        “On Jan. 10, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker enacted the ban on more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and magazines of more than 10 rounds for rifles and more than 15 rounds for handguns. The law also requires firearms already in possession that fit under the definition of “assault weapons” to be registered with Illinois State Police by Jan. 1, 2024.” Just like the Nazi Germany, gun registration from the democrat controlled Marxist Illinois general assembly.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | February 19, 2023 | Reply

        • I couldn’t ask my TN friend to comment on litigation in Illinois. All he could do is do what I did plus, he might know of a law firm in Ill which does this kind of litigation. But law suits are already in progress!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2023 | Reply

          • I see, well thanks for your help, its appreciated more than you know. ~ Spense

            Like

            Comment by Spense | February 19, 2023

          • keep me informed of the litigation – and when there is a Judgment in the trial court let me know. our side is beginning to win these lawsuits.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2023

        • the bruen case opens it all up to a new arguement going back to the founders intentions historically

          Like

          Comment by hippie49 | February 19, 2023 | Reply

  3. If only State legislatures would unilaterally restore illegally held federal lands within their respective territories, we’d be flush with oil. But that would nullify Brandon’s destructive go-green idiocy. Alas, we all know the States have been complicit in their own transformation from sovereign States to willing vassals of their federal Lord & Master. $$$$ Can’t wait for Texas to withdraw. In anticipation, I’ve already bought some acreage there. For me it’s all about safeguarding our right to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness–NOT simply a geographic area which bears little resemblance to a functional constitutional republic.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | January 31, 2023 | Reply

    • Jim,
      While Texas does need more critical thinkers like you, it is not the bastion of constitutional literates advertised, any more than other “fly over” states.
      Texas joyfully receives 30-40% of her annual income in federal funds. And Greg “Grab-it” “TEXAS PLAN “ (so titled) is a masterpiece of stupidity.
      I fear there is no place to “hide” from what’s coming.

      Blessings,
      Mark

      Like

      Comment by Mark | February 1, 2023 | Reply

  4. Ph, you just knew this question would be asked in light of McCarthy’s flirting with the idea of “expunging” Trump’s impeachments. My initial reaction was that since the basis for those impeachments wasn’t criminal violations expungement wouldn’t apply. My thought is that since impeachment is a House matter, conviction being in the hands of the Senate, that the House could, with a simple majority, “resolve” that both impeachments were Constitutionally improper, reckless, heedless of the Founders’ guidance in the matter of impeachment. In that case, it would seem that the Senate would play no role since Art I Sec 5 provides that each chamber “may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. So, why not a simple House resolution and be done with it. Though these horrendously inappropriate impeachments will remain a matter of public record, if historians in the future are still able to examine history objectively, then those impeachments will surely be rendered a permanent stain on the Democrat Party, not on DJT. Of course, the Dems are shameless Marxists, so it wouldn’t really matter to them. What’s your take? Thanks.

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | January 14, 2023 | Reply

    • I have no idea. The law has disappeared – it’s now a free for all – and we are in a free fall to collapse. There would be no point in my delving into this – there are no Principles left to apply or enforce.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 17, 2023 | Reply

  5. I had hoped that the House would somehow be able to legally and unilaterally withhold funding for those invasive 87,000 IRS agents. But the more I read, the more I am disappointed. As far as I can see, withholding funds already passed by Congress would require the Senate and our putative Pres. to chop off, not at all likely. So, what, if anything, can the House do to effectively deny funding for these latest stormtrooper additions to the federal government? Or what can the House do to effectively hobble IRS capabilities in that regard? Many thanks!

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | January 8, 2023 | Reply

    • Oh, Jim, they could stop it in a heartbeat if they wanted to. But they are all allied against us. And the new House Speaker appears to be one of Klaus Schwab’s “Young Leaders” who have infiltrated the Western “Democracies”. No one has the guts to stand up to them.

      Here is this from Kelleigh Nelson:

      This article came out late last night, but I’m sending it around anyway because it contains important info despite McCarthy achieving his desires.
      https://newswithviews.com/the-dc-district-of-corruption/

      Tell me again how Kevin’s [McCarthy] promises on paper are worthy of more than spit? He’s owned and controlled and in it for the money. The House is now run by another tyrannical entity; no change has really happened. And who in the House will hold his feet to the fire? No one. They fear him, and that’s how he controls. And with 12 Repubs voting for the marriage act and 18 voting for the 1.7 trillion bill, tell me how having a republican in charge makes any difference whatsoever…NONE!

      https://valiantnews.com/2023/01/kevin-mccarthy-had-dinner-with-klaus-schwab-spoke-at-wef-with-mcconnells-wife/

      And here’s a warning from former Congressman Madison Cawthorn:

      “I really want to push back on this idea that the Republican agenda is really going to stall out. The Republican agenda is not going to take hold if we don’t have a conservative Speaker… What is going on now with these 20 right now is they are facing extreme pressure. Keep them in your prayers. Because make no mistake, there are incredible threats being levied at them. Ones that might be removed from committees. Others that they might be ruining their personal lives. They might be going after family members and their workplace. This is a very serious task that they are undertaking and it should not be taken lightly… I’m telling you, we know that Kevin McCarthy worked in secret to oust a lot of Republicans and conservatives from Congress who were running in the 2022 cycle which is why we have such a narrow majority. And so if he’s willing to do that politically, imagine what he’s willing to do with policy.”
      Don’t forget that McCarthy voted against the building of Trump’s border war and the repeal of Obamunist Care. He is a major investor in CCP-controlled Sequoia Capital and beholden to Big Pharma.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2023 | Reply

      • Fully understood and appreciated; however, my question goes to whether or not the House can Constitutionally–and unilaterally–withhold funds already legally committed by legislation already enacted. A constitutional procedure question. If within the House’s authority to do so, how exactly would that work? Thanks!

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | January 8, 2023 | Reply

        • One way is to repeal the previous legislation. But in these days, no one in the federal gov’t cares whether what Congress does is constitutional or not – who even considers the constitutionality of an action or legislation? The people with the power do what they want and the media and the fools go along with it. And besides, aren’t you spinning your wheels over this? Who in Congress would even think of bucking the powers that be? We couldn’t even get Republicans to stop McCarthy’s nomination! And you want to talk about whether the House, now under the control of Klaus Schwab thru his puppet Kevin McCarthy, can stop funding for a police state program? Schwab wants an American STASI. And Congress gave it to him. And no one in Congress will do a thing about it. They are too corrupt, or stupid, or cowardly.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2023 | Reply

          • I’m as frustrated as you. I don’t honestly see a Constitutional remedy to the mess we brought upon ourselves. Honestly believe that the foundations of our republic have been so thoroughly shattered as to be irreparable. No Pollyanna I. Which is why I am a fervent member of the TNM and other such 10th Amendment remedies. I asked the question only because Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, no WEF disciple to my knowledge, assured us that the first order of business would be to withhold funding for the 87,000 IRS heel clickers. Lovely sentiments, but as you have made it clear it can’t happen unless a bill to defund those payroll patriots passes muster in the House, Senate and White House. Which begs the question, to convince People to act, just what “red line” must be crossed? The govt has breached a litany of crimson red lines already with little more than occasional verbal thrashings being unleashed against it. Have been suggesting a 10-Million patriot march on and sit-in in DC. No serious takers so far, and I don’t expect any takers in the future either. I gather the People will continue to foolishly rely on relentless, useless whimpering and collective wringing of hands to reverse the tyranny. Well,I am NOT going down with a sinking ship, a union which has clearly outlived its usefulness and relevance.

            Like

            Comment by jim delaney | January 8, 2023

          • I do honestly believe that the time has come for you to hunker down, prepare to live an 18th century lifestyle, gather your Family and organize your neighbors, get books on how to do stuff such as grow a garden, can/dry food, make soap, smoke meat, collect rainwater, get a wood stove, etc.; and repent of your sins.

            Meanwhile, the Q people are telling us to “trust the plan”: Trump is really in charge – after all, he plays 5D chess!!!! And the Trump who sold us out to the New World Order with his USMCA “Trade Agreement, who supports red flag gun confiscations, the JAB, etc. isn’t the real Trump, but is a double.

            I asked, “Where is the real Trump and why is he allowing his image to be so smeared”; but I didn’t get a clear answer.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2023

          • https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-astrazeneca-pfizer-johnson-johnson-shares-filing-1661668

            I don’t know whether she does or doesn’t own stock in the “vaccine” companies.
            I assure you that I don’t own such stock.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2023

  6. Hi PH, “President Joe Biden announced Dec. 8 the federal government will use nearly $36 billion to stabilize failing Teamsters union pension plans nationwide, preventing severe benefits cuts for more than 350,000 union workers.” Could you point me to the article and section of the US Constitution that grants Biden the authority to steal $36 billion dollars from the taxpayers to benefit union pensions?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | December 15, 2022 | Reply

    • No, I can’t!

      The plan is to collapse the federal reserve system so that The People will clamor to be moved into the new global economic & monetary system. And by signing & passing the USMCA “Trade Agreement”, Trump and Congress endorsed our move into the global economic & monetary system. Fake “conservative” sites, such as “Conservative Tree House” refused – refused – to permit links to my papers on this to remain on his site. In fact, he even suspended someone who re-posted the links to my papers after “Conservative” Tree House removed them. See this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/so-you-think-trump-wants-to-get-rid-of-the-fed/

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 15, 2022 | Reply

      • PH, I completely agree with your conclusion, the one world govt tyrants are slamming us with their tyrannical and communist dream, we know who the elites will be in the one world govt. US states will become their plantations. The federal govt has become my enemy……

        Like

        Comment by Spense | December 16, 2022 | Reply

        • it has been very corrupt for a very long time…

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 16, 2022 | Reply

          • Trump has done good but he has picked some fools and is ignorant in certain respects… pray for the right people to advise our real President and officials…

            Like

            Comment by Madelyn Thide | December 17, 2022

  7. Hi PH, thank you, thank you for your “Model Right to Keep and Bear Arms Resolution” Here in corrupt Illinois the democrat controlled state legislature is pushing another gun ban ( https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp DocNum=5855&GAID=16&GA=102&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=141830&SessionID=110 ) on so called assault rifles and on magazine capacity. Also making the legal age of buying and owning guns 21 instead of 18, only at age 21+ could we buy a FOID card and our privilege to buy and own guns and ammo. Yes in Illinois we have to buy our right to keep and bear arms. Even though every law-abiding Illinois citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

    I added a whereas to your resolution concerning who is the militia as defined in the Illinois constitution.
    ( https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con12.htm ) That section states: “SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP
    The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law.” Its my thought that would help eliminate the age change for a FOID Card, after all an 18 year old can vote and be drafted into the military…. how can it be argued 18 year olds aren’t able bodied. Again thank you for your selfless giving of your time and knowledge. You are a jewel saint

    Like

    Comment by Spense | December 8, 2022 | Reply

    • where is this “model keep and bear arms resolution”

      Like

      Comment by hippie49 | December 8, 2022 | Reply

      • Here it is: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/01/28/model-second-amendment-resolution-for-counties-or-state-legislatures/

        It’s really very important as I lay out the relevant legal Principles respecting the federal government’s TOTAL LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to restrict arms over the Country at Large. And the State & local gov’ts cannot ever lawfully violate the US Constitution.

        See also this for the applicable Constitutional Principles: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/from-duty-to-be-armed-to-permission-to-carry/

        Anyone, no matter how “conservative” he pretends to be, who seeks to restrict our arms is evil in himself or is a damned Fool.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2022 | Reply

      • Hippie49, I recommend you read the note section too. Good information in it.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | December 8, 2022 | Reply

        • Yes. It is imperative that all red-blooded Americans understand this. Under no circumstances should we surrender our arms. We are doomed when we give them up. That we are armed is the only hope we have [other than Divine Intervention]. And why should God intervene to help such a wicked People as we have become?

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2022 | Reply

          • PH, I just saw law breaker Senator Dick Durbin on the news telling everyone how important the federal gun ban is

            Like

            Comment by Spense | December 8, 2022

          • Yes, People are either incredibly evil or incredibly stupid – sometimes they are both! My hero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, has this to say about Stupidity: https://sproutsschools.com/bonhoeffers-theory-of-stupidity/

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2022

    • would article 6 cl. 3 also apply to state who try to regulate the second amendment ?

      Like

      Comment by hippie49 | December 8, 2022 | Reply

      • I don’t know what you mean by “regulate the second amendment”; since no one can “regulate” it. The duty of the federal gov’t is to obey it- to the letter.
        The 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the States. However: State governments are restricted by their own State Constitutions; and they may not do anything which would interfere with the Duty of the federal gov’t – laid out in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 – to provide for the arming & organizing of the Militia. And remember, in the Militia Act of 1792, Congress defined the “Militia” as all able-bodied free men between the ages of 18 and 45.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2022 | Reply

        • by the aricle 6 question is per oath the would be obligated to uphold the second amendment..

          Like

          Comment by hippie49 | December 8, 2022 | Reply

          • 1. When the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified, it was intended to restrict ONLY the federal gov’t. There is no doubt whatsoever about this – and we even have an Opinion authored by SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall saying this.

            It wasn’t until the 1920s that SCOTUS started saying that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporated” various provisions of the “Bill of Rights” so as to apply them to the States. This was a huge usurpation of power by SCOTUS – because once they claimed that the Bill of Rights applied to the States, THEY – SCOTUS seized power to decide when anyone in State or local government (and when any private person on government property) violated the Bill of Rights!. In this paper, I document how SCOTUS seized the power to stop prayer in the public schools all over our Country – banning displays of The Ten Commandments – demanding that Christian Crosses be removed, etc., etc. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/

            2. So properly speaking, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t restrict the power of the States. What does restrict the power of the States respecting Arms is: (1) their own State Constitution; & (2) Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution (which direct that Congress is to provide for organizing and arming the Militia [States can’t do anything which interferes with the exercise of this constitutional power by Congress.]) Furthermore, the “due process” and “privileges & immunities” clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibit States from exercising “red flag” gun confiscation laws. We have an “immunity” from government interference with our God given right to self-defense; and no property may be lawfully taken from any person without “due process of law” – which means: pursuant to the Judgment of his peers after a Fair Trial!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2022

          • ok , be nice here and correct me in my thinking.. in order to create a more perfect union the states created the U.S. Constitution and article 6 cl 3 says : The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States .
            states are to create a state constitution thats pretty close to the U.S. Constitution. so my question would be this because our founders wanted to make sure our rights to firearms were protected . so , article 6 state they are bound by oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd amendment would always because of an oath be protected.. the police powers reply you gave me makes all the sense in the world to me (my illinois question) and any infringement like bump stops , ar or ak’s, the number of rounds in a clip to even having a f.o.i.d. card or license would be an infringement but it seems the states because of the supreme court said states can regulate the second amendment. so where am i getting lost?

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | December 8, 2022

          • Nothing in the US Constitution says that State Constitutions must be pretty close to the US Constitution. To the contrary, see what James Madison said in Federalist No. 45 about State power: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/chart-showing-federal-structure-with-meme-april-2019.pdf

            The Framers did want to see that our [God-given] right to self-defense was protected: and they provided for this by (1) NOT making gun control an enumerated power; (2) by prohibiting the federal gov’t from infringing that right (2nd Amdt), and by (3) providing for the Militia of the several States (Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16). States may not interfere with Congress’ power to organize and provide for the arming of the Militia by prohibiting people within their States from owning & bearing arms. Do read the Militia Act of 1792! In that Act, Congress REQUIRED able-bodied free males between the ages of 18 & 45 to procure a rifle, ammo pouch, bayonet, etc. and report to their local Militia Unit for training! States may not interfere with this Congressional power by forbidding citizens from keeping & bearing arms.

            Study my paper on how SCOTUS perverted the First Amendment to ban Christian speech in the public square to see why it is suicidal to claim that the Second Amendment applies to the States. By making that [false] claim, one is wrongly conceding that the federal courts have jurisdiction to dictate how States must apply that amendment within their own State. I am aware that SCOTUS has already claimed (using the 2nd Amendment) to have such power over the States – and they were wrong. Federal Judges – like most other people – are often unable to think outside of the box.

            Most of what we hear – most of what “everybody says” is WRONG!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2022

          • so the militia are the ones who constitutionally (in the federal govt) have the right and authority to be armed and we the common people are subject to the state constitutions… SO OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ARMS IS DEPENDENT ON THE RESIDENTS OF OUR STATE????????? THAT HAS GOT TO CHANGE IT IS NOT RIGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO SOME FOOL WHO DOESNT LIKE GUNS AND JEOPARDIZES OUR INDIVIDUAL SAFETY…

            Like

            Comment by madelyn thide | December 9, 2022

          • All I can suggest is that you lay aside what you think you know and read what I have posted with an open mind. I know you didn’t have time to read and ponder what I’ve been writing before you wrote this last post.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2022

          • i like the way scalia said it about the constitution, it says what it says , so i guess im an originalist and i like the founders constitution as it starts from the beginning including this from the rights of the colonists…. Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. God first , then WE the PEOPLE then government in that order . so the right to bear arms in a natural right and i do not believe even the people of a state can remove our natural rights when i comes to the natural right to bear arms. ok , i said what i think , let me have it. i believe our founders put a lot of safe guards for us against a tyrannical government whether state or federal

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | December 9, 2022

          • I can not force feed knowledge into peoples’ heads. All I can do is present the Truth. We must not let false preconceptions which took up residence in our heads [and they were able to take up residence because we uncritically believed what “everybody says”] blind us to the Truth.

            What I have said contradicts “what everybody says” – that’s why people stumble over it. But it’s time to lay aside false preconceptions and read & ponder what I have so plainly said.

            I’ll say it one more time.

            Here’s the Truth:

            1. Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution; & the privileges & immunities and due process clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, prohibit the States from interfering with the People’s God-given right to self-defense. See also your own State Constitution: it may recognize this God-given right of self-defense. But if it doesn’t, any provision in a State Constitution which contradicts the foregoing provisions of the US Constitution would be unconstitutional and would fail under the “supremacy clause” (Art. VI, clause 2, US Constitution).

            2. Beware of letting federal courts decide what rights you have and the scope & extent of those rights. When you say that the 2nd Amendment applies to restrict the powers of the States, you are implicitly conceding that federal courts have jurisdiction over this issue: Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1, US Constitution, provides that federal courts have “judicial power” over all cases “arising under this Constitution”. The 2nd Amendment “arises under this Constitution”. Therefore, you would be conceding that the federal courts have the right to determine the scope and extent of our rights to keep & bear arms.

            OK! That’s all I’m going to say. All of us have preconceptions in our minds which prevent the Truth from getting in. We must lay aside those preconceptions and read what is actually said before we can see Truth.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2022

          • its all about asking questions and getting the right answers to learn . thanks for doing that

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | December 9, 2022

          • Yes, but people must take the necessary time to absorb new information – especially when the new information contradicts what one has always “known”.
            So when I warn people that the so-called “Bill of Rights” has been “flipped” and become the weapon SCOTUS uses against us – they simply can’t grasp what I’m talking about because they have been conditioned to believe that our rights come from the “Bill of Rights”. See one of my warnings on this issue here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/03/21/when-the-feds-violate-the-constitution-should-we-blame-the-constitution/
            under the subheading: 4. Amendments to “prevent federal abuse” can backfire!

            There is a lot of information put into that one little subheading. It requires time and thought to assimilate.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2022

          • i agree , thats where the abuse of setting precedence in a court can get us into trouble, once they do it THEY think its how its supposed to be.

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | December 10, 2022

          • The States and local gov’ts always have the right to refuse to submit to unconstitutional Opinions of the federal courts – including those of SCOTUS. When, during 1962, SCOTUS purported to ban Christian prayers in the public schools, the State should have manned up and refused to submit. I have clearly shown that the 1962 Opinion of SCOTUS was unconstitutional.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 11, 2022

          • theres the problem , the states not doing their duty to the people and because of two reasons , 1. they dont know what they job is and 2. they want to destroy this country and know what they are doing to do it. thats why in federalist 16 it says the people are the natural guardians of the constitution.

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | December 11, 2022

          • The People can’t become the natural guardians of the Constitution unless & until they learn it like the backs of their hands. Fortunately, learning it isn’t difficult. However, learning it is greatly impeded by all the misinformation out there. We are told things – “everybody says” this or that; and so we believe what we hear – what “everybody says”. And that misinformation becomes the standard by which we Judge the Truth (if we are ever fortunate to come across Truth). And since the misinformation contradicts the Truth, people reject Truth. But one’s Duty is to reconsider what one thinks he knows. I myself am learning a totally new subject. My mind is changing at a fast rate as I revise the contents of my mind to keep up with what I am learning. And since I am learning from experts – I take their word over my own beliefs when what they say is different from my own understanding.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 13, 2022

          • i thought if something is not addressed in the Federal Government then the states have jurisdiction BUT THEN THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS ADDRESSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT yet the states dictate their own “opinion”… Individual rights to keep and bear arms is being denied to citizens yet our politicians either have their own guns or have armed guards… where is justice and how do we get it back as a nation? We have the God inspired right to be armed or we dont but since we do… it is not honored as it most certainly should be…

            Like

            Comment by Madelyn Thide | December 8, 2022

          • Do study this Chart – it really does answer your question as to what the fed gov’t has jurisdiction over and what the States have jurisdiction over: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/chart-showing-federal-structure-with-meme-april-2019.pdf

            As to the 2nd Amendment, do study my recent comments on this thread.

            State Legislatures pass laws restricting the rights of The People to keep and bear arms because the State Legislators generally don’t understand these issues – the People don’t understand these issues – and so those with the legislative power do what they want. And I expect some State & federal legislators have evil intent and want us disarmed for the same reason Hitler wanted the Jews disarmed.

            Of course powerful politicians have armed guards! They are hypocrites.

            Our People perish for lack of knowledge.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2022

    • Hi PH, I meant to say Jeweled saint

      Like

      Comment by Spense | December 8, 2022 | Reply

  8. Dearest PH,
    I preface my questions by confessing to be a continual student of your work and those of our Framers, (though perhaps not the top of my class) I am thus, keenly aware that SCOTUS decisions are properly an expression of mere JUDGEMENT, rather than FORCE or WILL. Further, that such JUDGEMENT finds no lodging in the Supremacy Clause. Nevertheless, it occasionally serves my instruction to trudge through the reasoning (aka “intellectual dishonesty”) of certain cases as I analyze current events to identify and separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Of immediate note and included merely for context, is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) which I stumbled upon while analyzing the current entanglements of Colorado’s Lorie Smith of 303 Creative LLC. with the LGBTQ activists by and through a complicit State Legislature, arrayed against Colorado’s business sector.
    My question is: What authority or weight, if any, are “dissenting” opinions of SCOTUS afforded. It appears, more and more frequently, that the “dissents”- more so than majority Opinions, conform to our Constitution and founding principles. Logic and reason dictates that the dissents are published for a legitimate PURPOSE, yet as not constituting a majority, and thus apparently having no sway in the final determinations, it eludes me as to their significance. Are dissents merely a self-defense mechanism to protect upright justices from impeachment? Surely there is some higher purpose for their inclusion.
    Further, I hazard to presume that dissenting opinions are reviewable by the majority PRIOR to publication. If this be the case, and in view of the caliber of reason and constitutional conformity occasionally evident in dissents, it would seem that majority opinion authors disposed to exercise WILL rather than JUDGEMENT, risk their agendas being exposed by the dissents and their judgment betrayed by arrogant opposition to conform to “the STANDARD which We have formed”. Per chance, might THIS therefore, be the purpose for including dissents in published opinions? And if so, are not the House Members equally betrayed given their reluctance to avail the “sole power of impeachment” in such cases?

    Blessings,
    Mark

    Like

    Comment by Mark | December 7, 2022 | Reply

    • Dissenting opinions are educational! And when a dissenting Justice disagrees with the majority Opinion, he should say so and explain why! And lawyers seeking to get SCOTUS to reverse a previous Opinion find dissenting opinions in that previous Majority Opinion to be helpful.

      Also, I forgot to say that dissenting Opinions are circulated among the other Justices. Who knows? One of the Justices who had sided with the Majority could change his mind and come to dissent after reading a well-reasoned dissent written by another Justice.

      On moral and important issues, when we disagree with the majority, we should generally say so and explain why. We cannot remain silent when the majority is planning to do something which is wrong. And a SCOTUS Justice should NEVER remain silent when he disagrees with the majority.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 7, 2022 | Reply

      • Then I presume it is possible, [though not likely], that IF more than one of the justices that sided with the Majority changed their minds, an opposite outcome could result; that is the dissent could be transformed into a majority.
        Have you tried publishing anything on Epoch Times? The readers could sure use some Publius Huldah/Madison/Hamilton wisdom. Or is that even worth your time to pursue?
        Thank You once again for your insight.

        Blessings,
        Mark

        Like

        Comment by Mark | December 8, 2022 | Reply

        • Epoch Times refuses to publish my work. They are aggressive pushers of an Article V Convention – they publish the shallow propaganda written by Rob Natelson [you can read his papers and see why he was denied Emeritus status when he left the Law School where he taught]; and they hosted at least one on-line pro Article V Convention event – but they won’t touch my work. Yet they claim to oppose censorship! Epoch Times gives a whole new meaning to the word, “hypocrisy”. I wrote this in response to a paper of Natelson’s which was filled with false statements (but published by Epoch Times), and sent it to Epoch Times (twice); but they refused to publish it: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/03/21/when-the-feds-violate-the-constitution-should-we-blame-the-constitution/

          As to dissenting Opinions written by SCOTUS Justices: When one Justice opposes the majority, it is his Duty as a human being and judge to say why – in a written Opinion (regardless of whether any other Justice changes his mind). We always must speak out when we think wrong is being done. That’s the main point! Can you imagine sitting on the Court when the Majority decided Roe v. Wade during 1973? Would you have kept your mouth shut? Or would you have written a scathing dissenting Opinion?

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2022 | Reply

          • Is that a trick question? I’m not of a silent nature when truth is darkened and tyranny is afoot. A scathing dissent to be certain.

            I’m well aware of Natelson’s unfortunate presence on Epoch. I have rebuked him on multiple occasions, for what good it did. I’m wise enough to know I cannot sway the pied-piper, but apparently just naive enough to hope I can enlighten some of the lemmings. Sometimes I awaken a few open-minded readers, but those advocates are a stiff-necked lot, too invested in their own pride and prejudice to consider that perhaps the fallacious contentions they thoughtlessly espouse may actually manifest in their ultimate demise. As Mark Twain once opined; ” Tis easier to fool a person, than to convince them they were fooled.” The ONLY bright spot of his association is that, much to my chagrin, few readers show much interest in our founding principles. Thus, I take comfort that often his articles have single digit comment counts. Modern Americans seek out articles that evoke emotion and passion rather than substantive understanding. Bread and Circuses !!

            Bleffings, ( too much Blackstone’s Commentaries)
            Mark

            Like

            Comment by Mark | December 9, 2022

          • Oh yes, I have noticed that Conservative Americans are hooked on “hopium” – if something sounds good, they forward it to their lists – they do not see that what is being said in the hopium is idiotic. And many people on my lists forward this rubbish to me. It is discouraging to see how easily they are deceived by rubbish if it sounds good.

            I caution conservative Americans: Consider the source before you get all excited and forward stuff!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2022

  9. Publius Huldah, per the 25th Amendment, Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Regardless of personal feelings or thoughts about Donald Trump, was the use of the 25th Amendment abused from that standpoint to try to get him removed from office?

    Like

    Comment by ragnarsbhut | December 2, 2022 | Reply

    • As one of our Framers said (I’m paraphrasing), our Constitution is fit only for a religious and moral people – it is totally unsuitable for any other.

      That provision in the Constitution was intended to be used for Presidents who are “unable to discharge the powers and duties of office” – it was not intended to be used to get rid of Presidents the majority of people in Congress didn’t like. Many people in Congress hated Trump and they wanted to remove him – one way or the other. But he was as fit as any other President we have had for the last 200 years to hold that office. So it would be an abuse of power to invoke that provision to remove Trump.

      But any honest and thinking person can see that the current inhabitant of the White House is unfit to hold office due to his advanced mental decline. He should be removed – but then we’d get that dimwit Kamala in the White House.

      We pay a heavy price when we are too cowardly and lazy to set up an election system where fraud is not possible. I remember when the push for “extended voting days”, mail-in voting, etc., started – the Republicans” were too stupid to see the danger and too cowardly to prohibit it. The result is a senile & viciously corrupt old man & a brainless slut no ones likes got “elected”.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 3, 2022 | Reply

      • This is true. I really think that Mike Pence really screwed us over in this regard.

        Like

        Comment by ragnarsbhut | December 3, 2022 | Reply

        • Mike Pence is a bad man. But Trump selected him to be VP! Why???

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 3, 2022 | Reply

          • Probably to appeal to the evangelical voter base.

            Like

            Comment by ragnarsbhut | December 3, 2022

          • Perhaps so! Modern day American “Christians” are so lacking in discernment that they are easily deceived by those who flaunt their “Christianity.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 4, 2022

  10. Publius Huldah, per the 1st Amendment’s right to free speech, are Facebook and Twitter violating the right of people to post opinions as an expression of free speech on their platforms with arbitrary censorship?

    Like

    Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 28, 2022 | Reply

    • 1. The First Amendment is NOT the source of our right to Freedom of Speech – our Declaration of Independence recognizes that our rights come from God. The First Amendment prohibits CONGRESS from making laws which abridge that God-given right.

      2. The federal gov’t may not restrict our Freedom of Speech. Non-governmental private persons and organizations may restrict free speech.

      3. But when a private organization, in collaboration with the fed gov’t, censors speech at the request of the fed gov’t, then the Law recognizes that the “private” organization has divested itself of its “private” statues and has become the enforcer for the fed gov’t. THAT is unconstitutional and is actionable. For example, a citizen who has had his right to Free Speech taken from him by Facebook or Twitter, has a cause of action against the censors for violation of his civil rights (42 USC Section 1983).

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 29, 2022 | Reply

      • section 230 protects social media

        Like

        Comment by hippie49 | November 29, 2022 | Reply

        • I assume you are referring to 47 USC Section 230? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
          Several points:

          1. Any “law” made by Congress which is outside the scope of the enumerated powers [as 47 USC 230 certainly is] or which contradicts the First Amendment [which 47 USC 230 certainly does] is unconstitutional.

          2. State governments have traditionally “restricted” speech by making slander, defamation, fraudulent misrepresentations, etc., actionable; by prohibiting speech which is incitement to violence, falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater; etc.

          3. Newspaper Editors (Newspapers used to be private businesses) traditionally edited Letters to Editor to delete foul language, etc.

          Thank you! I hadn’t read 47 USC 230 before now.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 29, 2022 | Reply

      • Publius Huldah, that makes sense.

        Like

        Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 29, 2022 | Reply

      • And in the wake of the release of the so-called “Twitter Files” by Elon Musk and Matt Taibbi it appears that federal gov’t collaboration may have been PRECISELY what occurred. As a result, James Woods, whose unflattering post of Hunter Biden was blocked, plans to file suit against the DNC.

        Is your traffic count up? I’ve been desperately trying to encourage commenters to learn the truths of our founding and stop participating in the usurpation through ignorance. To that end, I’ve been posting links to your essays.

        Blessings,
        Mark

        Like

        Comment by Mark | December 4, 2022 | Reply

        • I expect James Woods would have a civil rights claim under 42 USC Section 1983 against social media as well as against the government agents with whom the censorship was orchestrated.

          During the holiday period, traffic to the intelligent places slows down. Even I have been watching cooking videos!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 4, 2022 | Reply

          • off topic here but illinois is trying to ban certain “assault” weapons…. when are people in these states wake up and understand that any infringement on the second amendment is unconstitutional..oh i cant wait for democrats say the supreme court ruled that states can regulate the second amendment… whats the best way to argue this ?

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | December 5, 2022

          • The applicable Principles are laid out here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/from-duty-to-be-armed-to-permission-to-carry/
            and here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/01/28/model-second-amendment-resolution-for-counties-or-state-legislatures/

            The Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to change or re-write the Constitution! The Supreme Court was CREATED by Article III, Section 1, US Constitution. So it is merely the “creature” of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. The Supreme Court may NOT re-write the Document under which it holds its existence.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 5, 2022

          • i knew you’d come through as usual

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | December 5, 2022

          • Thank James Madison for the last paragraph in my reply! He said it first. I sit on the shoulders of giants.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 6, 2022

          • also , this state has in the bill of rights sec 22 that says , subject to police power , the right of the people shall not be infringed. police powers is not defined anywhere in the statutes codes etc… so i would take police powers was things they kept in order, jails , police station , court houses. would i be correct? and in illinois , Illinois case law provides support for the proposition that most reasonable firearms regulations are valid under art. I § 22. source is here , https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/state-right-to-bear-arms-in-illinois/#:~:text=Article%201%2C%20section%2022%20of,regulations%20are%20valid%20under%20art.

            Like

            Comment by hippie49 | December 5, 2022

          • “Police powers” is a legal “term of art”. Here is a pretty good discussion of “police powers”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)

            State & local governments have police powers; but the federal gov’t doesn’t have any police powers over the Country at large. The fed gov’t has only the enumerated powers over the Country at Large.

            Under their “police powers”, a State which honored its Citizens’ God-given right to self-defense and the US Constitution, could properly make laws which prohibit Citizens from carrying guns into State prisons, mental institutions, and into courthouses. These would be proper exercises of the State’s “police powers”.

            Just as a State has the power, under it’s police powers, to make laws criminalizing drunk driving, establishing building codes, fire codes, etc. So a State can properly make laws which prohibit the carrying of firearms in those places.

            So “police powers”, when properly exercised, are a benefit to Citizens and help secure our God-given rights to life, liberty, property, etc.,

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 6, 2022

  11. Publius Huldah, per the 16th Amendment, government s given the authority to impose a personal income tax. Regarding this proposed wealth tax from the democrats, is that not double-taxation and by default Unconstitutonal?

    Like

    Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 18, 2022 | Reply

    • The Constitution is specific as to the kinds of taxes the federal gov’t has authority to impose. I list and discuss those specific kinds of taxes here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/the-plot-to-impose-a-national-sales-tax-or-value-added-tax/

      In addition, the 16th Amendment authorizes the federal gov’t to impose a tax on “incomes”.

      I haven’t read any proposed legislation which would impose a tax on “wealth” – but if the tax is not one of the constitutionally authorized kinds of taxes, any such “wealth tax” would be unconstitutional. But Democrats don’t care about such things. Neither do Republicans. Nor do most Americans – they want what they want and the Constitution be damned.

      Sorry for the delay in responding.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 22, 2022 | Reply

      • I understand. By the way, I am enjoying your blog.

        Like

        Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 22, 2022 | Reply

        • I am so glad! thank you!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 23, 2022 | Reply

          • Publius Huldah, I understand that your blog talks about things that are related to the Constitution. If I ask you as to your thoughts on various aspect of the Constitutionality of certain laws, a generic answer is good enough.

            Like

            Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 23, 2022

          • What’s a “generic answer”?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 23, 2022

          • More broad but still confined to the parameters of what your blog talks about.

            Like

            Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 23, 2022

          • I’m now a Teacher and my answers are for all who read this website – not just for the Person who asked the Question! So I always strive to give a Good Answer!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 24, 2022

          • Publius Huldah, I understand.

            Like

            Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 24, 2022

          • For a while, I have wondered whether you are a human – your posts are “generic”. Are you human?

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 24, 2022

          • I am and my name is Ragnar Snedeker.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 24, 2022

          • P.H., I hope you have a very happy Thanksgiving! God bless you!

            Like

            Comment by Mike Foil | November 24, 2022

          • Thank you, Mike! I have had a good day – a simple, sweet day. Stayed home and didn’t drive for hours to go somewhere else. When all I want to do is…. stay home!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 24, 2022

  12. Dear Publius, I am trying to understand about the number of Representatives to people should there be in the U.S. House of Representatives. Article 1 Section 2 states 1 to 30,000. Could you please explain? Obviously, the ratio is like 1 to 750,000 her in NC. I am confused on why there is such a big difference. Thanks!

    Like

    Comment by Russell | November 15, 2022 | Reply

    • Russell,
      According to the US Census Bureau, The US population at last census (2020) was 331,449,281. At a ratio of 30,000:1 that would require 11,048 US Representatives. Logistically the Hall of Congress could not hold them all (Though if you’ve ever watched congressional sessions on C-Span, very few representatives are typically present and fewer still are paying attention)
      I will defer to PH on the Constitutionality of the Reapportionment Act of 1929, but it is my understanding that it was this act which limited the House to 435 representatives regardless of population. My understanding is that an Amendment, debated publically and ratified by the People should have PRECEDED the Act being passed by Congress. Thus, in this regard I would say the Act was unconstitutional.
      What I will say however is, that notwithstanding the mathematical representation discrepancy and the absence of an apportionment amendment, the real issue is what powers the Congress is exercising without delegated power to do so. In other words, if we actually had the 11,048 representatives, but they were still legislating on unauthorized powers such as education, energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry, jobsite safety, retirement schemes and subsidized immorality, etc in contradiction to the enumerated powers, we would still be traveling the Autobahn of tyranny or perhaps worse. We can’t get one-tenth of Congress to obey the Constitution as written, understood (in 1789) and ratified. It would be unlikely, if not impossible to keep 11,048 constitutionally illiterate fools within their constitutional lane.

      https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/POP010220
      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-congress/

      Blessings,
      Mark

      Like

      Comment by Mark | November 17, 2022 | Reply

      • RE-read Article I, Sec.2, clause 3, U.S. Constitution: What does it actually say about the number of Representatives?

        I’ll get back with you guys on this later in more detail. sorry for the delay.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | November 17, 2022 | Reply

        • Ah Hah !! “…The NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,…” The number of representatives are limited rather than the population. In other words they cannot have TWO representatives in a district that has a population of 30,000 or less. In which case, no amendment would be necessary. How many times have I skimmed through that clause without catching that distinction? Answer: countless times ! Thank you PH !!

          Blessings,
          Mark

          Like

          Comment by Mark | November 17, 2022 | Reply

          • Right! Congress can’t provide for more than 1 Representative for every 30,000 of population; but Congress is free to provide for 1 Representative for every 100,000 of population, and so forth.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 17, 2022

    • Thank you for this excellent question, Russell. I apologize for the delay in answering.

      1. Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3 is the applicable constitutional provision. That clause provides for the Census – from which the apportionment of Representatives [and direct taxes assessed on the States] will be computed. It also caps the number of Representatives at no more than ONE Representative for 30,000 people.

      2. The key Federalist Papers on this issue are No. 55 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed55.asp
      and No. 58 (next to last para) http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed58.htm
      The gist of what they say is this: That if the Representatives are too few – that is not a good thing. But if the Representatives are too many, that is also a bad thing – b/c the larger the number of Representatives [after the optimal number], the more easily swayed by emotion and passion the Representatives would be. Also, the larger the number, the greater the likelihood that weak-minded people would be elected. [We have some colossally STUPID people in the House.]
      These Papers warn us not to think that the greater the number, the better – b/c a large body is easily manipulated by demagogues. Also, they point out that the influence of the larger States increases the more numerous the number of Representatives.

      So our Framers would NOT agree that the House should be much larger.

      Congress has the lawful authority to fix by law the number of Representatives (subject to the cap at Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3). [The source of that Authority is Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3, and the “necessary & proper” clause at Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause.] During the 1920s or so, Congress fixed the total number of Representatives at 435.

      Congress could lawfully increase the number of Representatives above the current cap of 435 (up to no more than 1 for every 30,000); but our Framers say that would NOT be a good idea. And remember that the Representatives are controlled by their party leadership. It’s all about getting campaign funds and committee memberships and chairmanships.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 22, 2022 | Reply

      • Dear Publius, thank you for your clear and simple explanation. I was wondering about if there were any Federalist Papers about the topic. Were there any Non Federalist Papers? I interpreted the clause to read not to exceed a 1:30,000 ratio. I just find it odd that they chose 30,000. Like once a state got to 30,001 citizens they had to add a representative. But, the 30,000 number seems to me that the intent was to have the House proportioned that would promote a more personal relationship between the people and representatives. I live in Johnston County and 2/3 of the voters in Johnston County voted against the candidate that won our district this past election. But, because we are tied to a portion of Wake County and the urban sprawl of Raleigh the Johnston County voters got cancelled out. But, the Federalist Papers plainly state that the framers were concerned about corruption on both ends of the spectrum. Thanks again for you explanation. God Bless!!

        P.S. I have the KJ Bible in a Word document along with the Federal Constitution, just wondering if you know of a source that has the Federalist and Non-Federalist papers in a Word Document that would be searchable?

        Like

        Comment by Russell | November 23, 2022 | Reply

        • This edition of The Federalist Papers is searchable: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
          I use that feature of that website all the time!!!!! Now my secret is out!

          When the first page of the searches comes up, you have to scroll down a bit to get to the search results from The Federalist Papers. As you probably already know, those damned people who control the search engines always put the rubbish they want people to see at the top of the pages, and put what is actually searched for at the bottom.

          The Antifederalist Papers were written by those who opposed our Constitution of 1787. I don’t spend time on them, since I don’t think they have much value. The Federalist Papers discuss the Constitution we have; and they address (and refute) the arguments of the Antifederalists.

          Yes, I am sick about the recent election results in Tennessee (as elsewhere). The powers that be – our evil governor, and Legislative Leadership – managed to get rid of some of our best Legislators.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 23, 2022 | Reply

  13. Publius Huldah, per the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the General Welfare Clause, is there any legality to the proposal of Medicare For All?

    Like

    Comment by ragnarsbhut | October 29, 2022 | Reply

  14. Dear PH, Thanks for your efforts and have a great Constitution Day!!. One question if I may, with so many supposed pundits out there on the “conservative” side do you regard the work of the CATO Institute and the scholars at George Mason University to be generally trustworthy on most issues? Regards

    Like

    Comment by Carlos | September 16, 2022 | Reply

    • i wouldn’t trust the Cato Institute to give me the correct time of day if I were to ask them.
      Always check the funding.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 21, 2022 | Reply

    • Thanks for insight, believe it or not, I was directed to Cato by a general query “Art V COS” and search engine returned – “An Article V Constitutional Convention? Wrong Idea, Wrong Time” JANUARY 12, 2016.- by Walter Olsen. I guess Cato benefits in this instance by virtue of being a stopped watch. Along with PH, then I will stick with Thomas More and JBS, or any trusted recommendation !?.

      Like

      Comment by Carlos | September 30, 2022 | Reply

      • Walter Olson is a good man! Has The Thomas More Society spoken on the issue of an Article V convention? https://thomasmoresociety.org/about/

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | September 30, 2022 | Reply

        • The Thomas More society was very active in challenging the vote fraud issue in Wiconsin, of course M Gableman did a super job exposing ERIC, WEC, CTCL, Obama Foundation fellow T Epps Johnson, David Becker CEIR, who with Soros money founded ERIC, and CTCL lawyer M Spitzer Rubinstein’s ursupation of the clerks office in Green Bay, a suit was filed by Eric Kaardal of the same organization, they (TMS) now employ Gableman. I do not know that they have an institutioal opinion re. COS, however while I belive Gableman is a patriot I am suspicious of Kaardal who has advocated for a new constitution “The Rebirth Constitution”. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Rebirth_Constitution/4iZwngEACAAJ?hl=en
          I guess with any of these groups there is found some good and some bad, when it comes to COS I believe any good must be unwrought with advocacy for a Constitutinal Convention. I was so disappointed for instance to find that one JE, Trumps Council during the election debacle and a self proclaimed Christian is very much stumping for Meckler, and worse her complaint of media bias while also stunningly ignoring the obvious “cons”. For Pete’s sake Meckler’s association with L Lessing that lefty Harvard puke should be enough to give pause, Meckler apparently courted Joan Blades from Soros Moveon.org to his cause, there is a nice photo of them arm in arm floating around, but mums the word! Thanks again and sorry for legnth of this. If I may make one suggestion, these landscape is indeed complex, I have for instance run and rerun your presentation outling the dangers os COS with a notebook handy to more properly review and digest the matter, I am not a lawyer or historian. Is it possible that a text may be created which oulines the material with bullet points for the purpose of concise communication (the dummy’s version) and redistribution? Of course this is no substitute for doing your homework but may help get the message out in the climate of click and paste so prevalent and generate interest for more in depth public debate and research. Thanks!

          Like

          Comment by Carlos | September 30, 2022 | Reply

          • We have shattered all of the pro-conventions arguments. I will do as you suggest and write an out line with bullet points and links to the proof. Good suggestion, Carlos!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 30, 2022

  15. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    I hope you have a wonderful holiday weekend. Also, thank you for all you do for us. Can you give us your opinion on our President’s speech that he gave in Philadelphia at Independence Hall? I grew up in Philadelphia in a very patriotic middle class family, and we are all insulted and upset. But it seems there is nothing we can do but to just accept it. Please help and I’ll let my family know your wise truthful words. Thank you so much.
    Donna Roesch

    Like

    Comment by donna0804 | September 3, 2022 | Reply

    • I was horrified. Substitute the word, “Jews” for “MAGA Republicans” and it would be a speech Hitler would make. Here’s what the excellent blog, Legal Insurrection, said about that evil speech: https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/09/joe-biden-delivers-one-of-the-most-menacing-bitter-angry-and-divisive-speeches-in-modern-us-political-history/

      Are you still in Pennsylvania?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 3, 2022 | Reply

      • Hello Ms. Huldah,
        Thank you for your opinion and the link. It’s sad that there a lot of people who agreed with the President because you could hear cheering and clapping in the audience. I no longer live in Pennsylvania. I relocated to Ohio due to a job transfer. My parents live there and I have a brother, sister and many nieces and nephews who live in Bucks County. I will read your opinion and the link to my parents. Thank you.

        Like

        Comment by donna0804 | September 3, 2022 | Reply

        • Actually, Donna, there really weren’t that many people at Biden’s nasty rant.

          I’ve been to Ohio several times to speak to groups; and to Ohio Legislative Committees.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 5, 2022 | Reply

          • Hello Ms. Huldah,
            I did see you in West Chester for the Article V debate. I think it was in April 2015. Can’t believe it was that long ago. Gosh, I’m so glad I went. After hearing you, I couldn’t believe how much I had been fooled by the proponents of the COS leaders. Thank you so much.

            Like

            Comment by donna0804 | September 7, 2022

          • Should I put you on my Ohio List – in case I go there again? I testified before an Ohio Senate Committee on May 24 of this year.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 7, 2022

  16. Hi PH, re: Biden forgiving student loan debt. Something just occurred to me, All the student loans are contractual agreements;

    Since no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed by either federal and state governments.

    Would Biden’s executive order be considered ex post facto?? As you know, Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

    In Federalist 44, Madison wrote: 1. “No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex-post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.”

    1828 Webster’s says ex post facto is : after the fact : RETROACTIVELY

    Oh what a tangled web the federal govt weaves when at first they deceive by thinking they were granted the authority to finance student loans. I dug around on the net and found differing definitions for ex post facto, one stated it was just for criminal law and another included relationships. I assume that means contract, etc…. what say you?

    Like

    Comment by Spense | August 25, 2022 | Reply

    • Spence,

      The following is a direct quote from one of PH’s papers dealing with ex post facto laws.

      “An ‘ex post facto’ law RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when it was done.

      Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to retroactively criminalize barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.”
      Please see the complete paper here:
      https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/ex-post-facto-laws/

      Do you see why forgiveness of debt is not an ex-post-facto law prohibited by our constitution?

      Forgiving debt does not make something criminal which, when committed was not a crime. What it is however, is an election year ploy to garner voter support by bribing immoral and unscrupulous voters who foolishly spent money they don’t have, on an indoctrination they don’t need. That debt doesn’t simply vanish. It must be absorbed somewhere- typically to taxpayers and other borrowers. It’s entirely immoral and equally unconstitutional as lending is not an enumerated power granted to Congress nor the President.

      Blessings,
      Mark

      Like

      Comment by Mark | August 27, 2022 | Reply

      • Thanks Mark….

        Like

        Comment by Spense | August 28, 2022 | Reply

    • For background information, here’s a short article on student loans written by my friend, Attorney Hal Rounds: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/hal-rounds-student-loans.pdf

      The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to make student loans! And the Pretended President has no authority to “forgive” loans. So we have an unconstitutional act piled on top of other unconstitutional acts.

      In criminal law, we always used the term, “ex post facto law” as Hamilton used it in Federalist No. 84

      “…the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.

      So the Pretended President’s forgiving of students loans issued by the fed gov’t is not an ex post facto law.

      The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to forgive debts owed to Banks and private lenders.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 28, 2022 | Reply

      • PH, disregard my last comment. My coffee just kicked in. Since it is not an enumerated power the federal govt can’t lawfully enact Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | August 28, 2022 | Reply

        • ha ha! I don’t write or speak BEFORE my coffee kicks in. Yes, you got it right in your comment just above!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 28, 2022 | Reply

  17. Ma’am,

    I was curious what you thought of Lysander Spooner and others who posit that the US Constitution was and is an an enabler of tyranny. They say that, because it gave more power to the Federal gov’t than the Articles of Confederation, that it enabled the long term acquisition of power by the Feds. Others say that, thanks to the 16th and 17th Amendments; thanks to Lincoln’s imperial conduct; that there no longer remained adequate checks on Federal power. Prior to the Civil War, it was possible for a state to secede from the union; afterwards, thanks to Lincoln, that became a pipe dream. You can see a condensed version of the arguments against the COTUS here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/david-gordon/rothbard-the-constitution-was-a-coup-detat/

    I can see both sides of this issue. One one hand, the Articles of Confederation left the Federal gov’t sufficiently weak to prevent it from acquiring power; the AoC restrained the Federal gov’t. On the other hand, I can see how the COTUS, in its original form, provided the states sufficient power to restrain the Feds; thanks to the Civil War and the passage of the 16 and 17A, much more power was given to the Federal gov’t. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you!

    Like

    Comment by MarkyMark | August 13, 2022 | Reply

    • Lysander Spooner is not one of the Great Minds of our Country. Always compare what people write WITH the actual text of the Constitution. When readers fail to do this, and rely instead on their own understanding, they can be deceived by writers who are fools or charlatans or demagogues.

      1. Here are the powers delegated to the federal gov’t over the Country at Large: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/chart-showing-federal-structure-with-meme-april-2019.pdf

      That’s all the federal gov’t has constitutional authority over.

      2. Beware of adopting the terminology of the subversives. With our Constitution, the States & The People delegated certain enumerated powers to the federal gov’t. The States & The People retained all other powers. The Constitution doesn’t “give” rights to States or to the People. Rights come from God alone; and all powers not delegated by the States & The People to the fed gov’t were retained by the States and The People.

      The War for Southern Secession didn’t give any powers to the fed gov’t. The federal gov’t usurped powers over the States and the People. Which is not surprising, since some of the Union Generals were Communists: https://newswithviews.com/the-great-reset-is-communisms-final-solution/

      3. Three of the Greatest Minds of our Framing Era advised nullification of unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense-1.pdf

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 13, 2022 | Reply

  18. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    I wanted to ask about the drone strike that killed Ayman al-Zawahri. A lot of us are programmed to cheer when a terrorist is killed. But I just heard a different angle on the situation from from Judge Andrew Napolitano. He said that al-Zawahri could have been arrested. As a side note, I’m not sure of your professional opinion of Judge Napolitano and that would be appreciated to let me know. But back to the drone strike. Judge Napolitano said in a nutshell, that it’s like a President has a loaded gun in his desk drawer and can use it to kill at any time and that Congress won’t interfere with the Presidents decision. He also went on to say that other countries can also use drone strikes to kill us. As an example, Judge Napolitano said that he could be sitting at a cafe and be killed by a drone strike if someone from another country didn’t like something he said. We’ve been killing terrorist for a long time. Is this not following the constitution?

    Like

    Comment by Donna Roesch | August 3, 2022 | Reply

    • My professional opinion of him is that he is stupid (or evil) and a jerk. If the allegations of his hitting on younger males is true [as alleged in the lawsuit https://thehill.com/homenews/media/566006-andrew-napolitano-out-at-fox-news-amid-allegations-of-harassment/ ], then he is a jerk and is contemptible. Young women litigation attorneys have been often “hit on” by older male (and married) trial court judges – and that is very awkward for a young woman litigator who has to try cases before that judge. I don’t know what I would have done if I had been hit on by an older woman judge.

      As to his being stupid: He has been pushing for an Article V Convention from the beginning of this current push [some 10 or more years ago] for an Article V Convention. Anyone who believes that the solution when the federal gov’t, state and local governments, businesses, educational institutions, hospitals, the arts, and all the other institutions in our Country – PLUS THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES – all ignore the Constitution – is to have a Convention to amend the Constitution, is stupid. [I use the term, “stupid” in the same sense as Dietrich Bonhoeffer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc

      When lawyers push for an Article V Convention on these grounds, then I can only conclude that they are mindless non-thinkers who repeat what they have heard, OR they have an evil intent: A desire for an Article V Convention so that a new Constitution (which ushers in the New World Order) can be imposed on us.

      Re your question as to the President of the US – or anyone else – ordering hits on “terrorists”: I admit that I think it would have been a good thing for “someone” to have assassinated Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc., earlier on in their hellish careers. But I don’t see where anyone in the United States has constitutional – or moral – authority to order such hits on foreigners or on Citizens (and non-citizens) who are in the United States.

      As to “arresting” the person you named: What gives the United States criminal jurisdiction over foreigners who aren’t in the United States and don’t commit their crimes on territories under the lawful jurisdiction of the United States? If a terrorist enters an overseas US Military Base or US Embassy and commits a crime, arguably the US Gov’t would have criminal jurisdiction over them [just as if you go to France and commit a violation of their criminal laws while you are in France, France would have criminal jurisdiction over you.] But if you aren’t in France (or in a French embassy in some other Country), then France has NO criminal jurisdiction over you.

      It’s a problem! We firmly believe the World would be a better place if people like Hitler & Stalin had been killed earlier on – but who has lawful and moral authority to kill them? The people of their own Country would have authority to try them (in a fair trial) and convict them and impose the death penalty; but they would have Jurisdiction over them. The United States has no lawful criminal jurisdiction over such persons as the one whom you named unless he entered a US embassy or an overseas US military base and committed a crime there.

      ALSO, don’t forget: Didn’t the US Department of Justice identify Moms who speak out at School Board meetings against mask mandates, the teaching of critical race theory, and porn in the public schools, as “domestic terrorists”?

      So we must oppose assassinations of “terrorists” – particularly since the federal gov’t is redefining the term to include Patriots, concerned Moms, those who read the US Constitution, Christians, etc. as “terrorists”.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 5, 2022 | Reply

      • PH, our federal govt has become a law breaking organization. Just yesterday, US Senator Tammy Duckworth, told me congress has the authority to define marriage and enact a marriage law just because they feel its needed. Not her exact words, but that’s what she said. She doesn’t believe constitutionally granted authority is needed. Congress, is in my opinion, nothing but organized crime. They violate the law (constitution) at will, without question we are under tyrannical rule. Speaker Pelosi’ trip to Taiwan, bringing proposed abortion and marriage bills to the house floor for votes, all contrary to the US Constitution. Like I said, tyranny….. I weep for the country we are leaving our children. Our children have been so dumbed down most actually believe the federal can lawfully do what “they” think is best for the country.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | August 5, 2022 | Reply

        • Americans no longer reason [think and analyze] from First Principles. Instead, they repeat what they have heard. Duckworth was merely repeating what she has heard. I see this all the time. It’s almost universal among Americans of today. They are not willing to study to find out The Truth – they are unaware that such a thing as Objective Truth exists. One can get a law degree, a Ph.D. degree, a Medical Degree, and be totally incapable of independent analysis. That isn’t required. All one has to do is repeat what the Professors tell him. Yes, Americans were conditioned while in the public schools to do this.

          Congress is lawless – in that they all ignore the Constitution. Many of them are traitors. But I wouldn’t equate them with organized crime – there are material differences between the two. And bad analogies can confuse thinking.

          Yes, I think we are witnessing God’s Judgment on America.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 6, 2022 | Reply

          • PH, your point about organized crime is taken, but they are certainly law breakers and function outside constitutional law; I believe willfully so. Considering the large number of lawyers in congress, someone has be able to figure out many of their acts are of a constitution violating tyrannical nature. I think they are centralizing more and more power within the federal govt on purpose; I remember when it was reported that then president Obama told Putin (Russia) the US constitution is about dead, I think they know exactly what they are doing. Their reason has to do with a one world govt. It’s unfortunate members of congress can’t be removed for violating their oath of office to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. I think if a few were “kicked out”, there would be a sudden learning of the US Constitution by congress. Most in congress lust for power and wouldn’t risk being removed. I know what you are going to say; if only the voters would learn the Constitution and vote them out. The problem is exactly what John Adams stated: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He is so right!

            Like

            Comment by Spense | August 6, 2022

  19. Art I, Sec 6, cl 2 in essence states that members of Congress shall not hold OTHER civil offices, and no civil officer shall serve in Congress.

    An Ambassador is a “civil officer” appointed by the President, by and with consent of the Senate. (Art II, Sec 2, cl 2)

    The above not withstanding we have the Speaker of the House motorcading through Taiwan as though she were the US President. (Or at least an appointed Ambassador).

    “Our Congressional Delegation’s visit to Taiwan honors America’s unwavering commitment to supporting Taiwan’s vibrant democracy,” Pelosi said upon arriving.

    “America’s solidarity with the 23 million people of Taiwan is more important today than ever, as the world faces a choice between autocracy and democracy.”
    (Epoch Times)

    Correct me if I’m wrong but international diplomacy is, in our constitution, an EXECUTIVE Power. Not a legislative power and CERTAINLY NOT the SPEAKER’s power.

    If I were a member of Congress I would be calling for a vote to expel the Speaker under Art I, Sec 5, cl 2. for flagrant violation of the Constitution in usurping power granted to the Executive branch.

    Did I miss something? Did Biden and Harris pass and Pelosi is now the defacto President?

    Secondly, I find no reference to “congressional delegations” (especially of a diplomatic character) in founding documents and accordingly presume them unconstitutional. Am I in left field here or is this a blatant and absurd usurpation?

    Blessings
    Mark

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Mark | August 2, 2022 | Reply

    • Read Article I, Sec. 6, clause 2 carefully without inserting any words into the text.

      Members of Congress are not “civil officers of the United States“. They are the elected representative of their geographical district “back home”. They represent their district, not the United States.

      If my recollection is correct, Congressional trips abroad used to be called “fact-finding” missions. Members of Congress have been getting free trips abroad at public expense for many years. And while such trips are probably usually (if not always) unconstitutional; considering all that is going on in the federal gov’t today, these trips are not our biggest problem.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 3, 2022 | Reply

      • Hi PH, this topic is of interest to me, I’m currently working on a piece which shows congress is little more than organized crime, so I dug a little deeper. At this .gov website https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Speaker-of-the-House/ I found this, “The Speaker is the political and parliamentary leader of the House. The Constitution mandates the office, but the House and Speakers have defined its contours over time. Some Speakers have aggressively pursued a policy agenda for the House while others have, in the words of Speaker Schuyler Colfax of Indiana, “come to this chair to administer [the] rules, but not as a partisan.” Regardless, the Speaker, who has always been (but is not required to be) a House Member and has the same duties to his or her local constituents like the other 434 Members is at the levers of power. The Speaker is simultaneously the House’s presiding officer, party leader, and the institution’s administrative head, among other duties.

        Like

        Comment by Spense | August 3, 2022 | Reply

        • Well, modern constitutionally illiterate & indifferent man has certainly expanded the role of the Speaker of the House! “Party leader”? Yikes. We should have listened to George Washington – I agree with him – a pox on political parties.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 5, 2022 | Reply

      • PH, Art One, Section 6 the last clause states “and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.’ the reference to ” any Office under the United States” means holding a presidentially appointed office, is that correct?

        Like

        Comment by Spense | August 3, 2022 | Reply

        • It’s broader that only presidentially appointed offices. It’s any office in the federal gov’t described in Article II, Section 2, clause 2 [and includes those officers appointed by federal judges, or heads of federal departments].

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 3, 2022 | Reply

      • Yes. I understood that congressional members are not civil officers. I could have worded it better.
        As to it being a low priority; I agree. However I hold that if more of us examined government actions through the lens of constitutionality rather than policy, our country would be in a much better position. The chatter regarding such articles is to argue the policy (regarding Taiwan/China/US relations for example) yet they all miss the fact that the Speaker is for the most part merely an elected representative of her district. Therefore, since she was not elected by the people at large, she has no moral (or legal) authority to speak to dignitaries on our behalf. THAT’S AN EXECUTIVE PREROGATIVE.
        Arguably, this is why the framers stated that the President shall “receive Ambassadors…” and “shall appoint Ambassadors…”. An executive elected by citizens of all 50 states – Not some overindulged narcissist from one lone district.

        Blessings,
        Mark

        Like

        Comment by Mark | August 5, 2022 | Reply

        • Also, the judiciary cannot tell the legislature to pass laws. And no branch issues marriage licenses,medical licenses, law licenses or real estate licenses.

          Like

          Comment by Bob Montgomery | August 6, 2022 | Reply

          • True! Marriage, Medicine, practicing Law, and selling real estate are all matters reserved to the States or the People. the federal gov’t has NO authority over those issues for the Country at Large.

            Oops! I just now realized (thanks to you) that this is a tricky issue: Today, lawyers must get a licence in order to be allowed to practice law. So if I want to practice in the State Courts of a particular State, I must get a licence for that State and I must be admitted to the State Bar. Traditionally, Bar Associations in States have been private organizations. However, when I was practicing, it was the State Supreme Court alone (a government agency) which had the power to disbar an attorney for misconduct.

            Likewise, if I want to practice in the federal Courts, I must be admitted to the federal Bar for that particular federal court; and it is that federal court which has the power to disbar (from their court) a lawyer.

            So, because of the existence of federal courts [and we have them on 3 different levels: 94 federal district courts; 13 geographical Circuit Courts of Appeal; and 1 Supreme Court]; the Judicial Branch of the federal gov’t has power to prevent specific lawyers from practicing in “their” courts – since they can disbar them for “misconduct”. Not surprisingly, “misconduct” is now being re-defined to include bringing cases the federal judge objects to: e.g., asserting that Obama wasn’t eligible to be president because he isn’t a natural born citizen; lawyers making certain arguments on behalf of tax protesters; asserting that the federal election of 2020 was stolen; etc.

            I DON’T KNOW when governments started requiring licenses for attorneys. The excuse given for requiring them was doubtless that it would protect the public from unqualified lawyers [yeah, right – if so, it failed – there are many incompetent lawyers out there]. But what it actually did was to give state and federal gov’t control over who is permitted to practice in “their” courts and who isn’t.

            I expect that when our Constitution was drafted and ratified, Lawyers were not required to be licensed and didn’t have to be members of a Bar Association in order to be permitted to practice law.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 6, 2022

          • Every time I think about that US District Court Judge who jailed that KYcounty clerk for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, it aggravates me. She violated no KY law and no federal official has jurisdiction over marriage licenses. It doesn’t matterwhat Obergfell said. As far as a civil rights issue, homosexual couples were not a “protected class” at the time. I don’t knowwhether they are now or not, but here again,SCOTUS cannot force
            either the KY legislature or the US Congress to pass a law just because they think it’s a good idea.
            I think… 🙂

            Like

            Comment by Bob Montgomery | August 6, 2022

          • Amen!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 7, 2022

          • And further, PH, tell me if it was a fault or a feature that the Constitution endowed the Congress with the power to configure the federal judiciary, outside of the Supreme Court? Why are there 864 federal judges, almost exactly double the membership of the House of Representatives? Is two against one fair? And why there are almost as many federal judges – district, circuit and Supreme – with jurisdiction in the state of Indiana as there are state senators in the legislature (50)? And why the most inferior judge in the whole system, even the most recent, can and often does, it seems like to me, issue an injunction that affects not only the district in which he/she reigns, but across the entire country, or even invades federal executive authority?

            Like

            Comment by Bob Montgomery | August 7, 2022

          • 1. Re the question: Why do Article I, Sec. 8, clause 9, and Article III, Sec. 1, US Constitution, grant to Congress the power to create courts subordinate to SCOTUS?

            And here’s the answer: It’s a brilliant illustration of The Principles of “Separation of Powers” and “Checks and Balances”. Congress has the power to create Federal District Courts and US Circuit Courts of Appeal – and Congress has the power to dissolve those “inferior” courts.

            2. Congress has made so many unconstitutional laws – i.e., laws outside the scope of powers granted to Congress in our Constitution – that more & more federal judges are needed to handle the Litigation! and the more unconstitutional laws Congress passes, the more federal judges are needed to handle the litigation. The way to reduce the number of federal judges is for Congress to repeal the unconstitutional laws they have passed. e.g, here’s just one example: Bob Dole was so proud of his totally unconstitutional federal “Americans with Disabilities Act” – but how much litigation has that unconstitutional Act generated in the federal Courts?

            3. I don’t think there is any particular mystical or symbolic, etc., significance if there are about twice as many federal judges as members of Congress; etc. And remember, Congress created all those judicial positions.

            4. Temporary rulings by Federal District Court Judges affect the entire Country because Americans do not understand the constitutional limits of federal judicial power. Trump was one of the worst Presidents ever respecting his total failure to understand that the federal courts have no power to control his office.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 8, 2022

  20. Donna,
    Not sure of Senate rules or who called the hearings but they were scheduled to “ consider the impact” of the Dobbs case. Most likely the Dems instituted the hearings.
    What’s going on is politics. The left is trying to turn the Dobbs opinion into political capital in hopes of motivating voter turn out in November midterms.

    “Biden and top Democrats have been urging people to turn out to vote in November to elect pro-abortion rights candidates and have been warning that Republicans intend to enact a federal abortion ban.” (NBC News)

    Since the House passed two bills on 7/15 in an attempt to defy SCOTUS and codify the right to murder unborn humans, they needed to create the illusion of public support (because they forgot we were a Constitutional Republic) by holding hearings and listening to idiots like UC Berkeley’s K. Bridges.

    It’s all politics.

    Constitutionally speaking, Abortion (or any other murder), marriage, etc. are the legislative province of the State legislatures and the US Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to legislate either way on the matter. There is but ONE Constitution and ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS are bound to obey it IRRESPECTIVE of their party affiliations. Thus for Dems to claim the Republicans in Congress want to enact a nationwide ban is nonsense as it would be JUST AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL as Roe v Wade was. Unless and until the citizens amend the constitution granting power over murder to the federal government, ANY federal law regarding abortion is unconstitutional.
    So yes. The Senate is wasting time and money hearing and debating issues which they have absolutely no constitutional power to affect. But that’s nothing new. They also hold hearings on anabolic steroid use in pro sports, the environmental affects of fracking fossil fuels, etc. none of which are found in the enumerated powers of Art 1,Sec 8.

    Blessings,
    Mark

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Mark | July 20, 2022 | Reply

    • Exception for federal enclaves. Oops.

      Like

      Comment by Mark | July 20, 2022 | Reply

      • Mark- By your comment, were you mocking or semi-serious? IMHO, the operators of, or directors of, or even overseers of, federal enclaves, have no more right to dedicate time, money or effort or statement of purpose to those issues not delegated to them by the Constitution than does SCOTUS. And I read that in what Scalito wrote.
        Therefore, Biden or Secdef, or anybody else stating in an official capacity that they are considering setting up abortion clinics on federal property is a non-starter. Congress is the overseer of not only executive actions (keyword: executive) but also those of Department and Agency heads and their underlings. Nothing authorizes the executive branch to act on issues that the Congress itself cannot act on and the judiciary cannot rule on, with the exeption of acts of war, either by us or against us, and even then,those powers are limited and finite.
        I think that during the Obama years, Congress could have gone into the DOL and ripped down those posters the Secretary put up about unions, communists and whatever. I think Cruz was right to cast aside the barricade so veterans could get into national sites during the budget impasse. I think they could fire the mayor of Washington,DC and order the National Park service to go in there and wipe off the graffiti on the streets of our nations capital.
        Except of course, if tens and tens of millions of citizens burn down courthouses and retail establishments, threaten Supreme Court justices,etc, demanding abortion clinics be set up on military bases. then it would obviously be a case of democracyi n actionor,in the words of that one guy “A democracy, madam, if you can keep it.” (did I get that right?)

        Like

        Comment by Bob Montgomery | July 21, 2022 | Reply

        • Oops! I meant Alito.

          Like

          Comment by Bob Montgomery | July 21, 2022 | Reply

        • No.

          Congress has “exclusive Legislation” over the federal enclaves (Article I, Sec. 8, next to last clause). In those federal enclaves, Congress is not restricted by the enumerated powers. Though it is restricted in its governance of those geographical areas, by certain of the amendments. E.g., Congress may exercise general “police powers” in the federal enclaves; but the First Amendment shows that Congress may not, e.g., prohibit the free exercise of religion in those areas.

          This article shows what “police powers” are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)

          Congress clearly has constitutional authority to ban abortion in the federal enclaves, military bases, etc. – and it is Article I, Sec. 8, next to last clause (and for military bases also Article I, Sec. 8, clause 14) which grants this power to Congress:
          https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/federal-enclaves/

          and I can’t say that Congress doesn’t also have constitutional authority to permit abortion in the federal enclaves and in the military hospitals. Do study this: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/abortion-flyer.pdf

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2022 | Reply

  21. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    OK, so the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. Why then, is there hearings in the Senate about it now? Are our Senators wasting time and money questioning the Law Professor, Khiara Bridges? I think a lot of us have our heads spinning as the Law Professor kept referring to pregnancy as “people with the capacity for pregnancies.” What is going on in the Senate?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Donna Roesch | July 20, 2022 | Reply

    • The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) was right to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s about time! This flyer explains why: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/abortion-flyer.pdf

      As the flyer shows, no one in the federal gov’t has constitutional authority (over the Country at Large) over abortion. Congress doesn’t have authority – just as SCOTUS has no authority.

      So for Congress to act on this issue is just as unconstitutional as for SCOTUS to act on this issue.

      Likewise, “Marriage” is not an enumerated power delegated to the fed gov’t. That’s why Obergefell is unconstitutional: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/searching-for-marriage-in-the-fourteenth-amendment/

      “Homosexual sodomy” is also not an enumerated power. So SCOTUS’ decidion in Lawrence v. Texas is also unconstitutional for the same reason.

      There is no right to marriage, homosexual sodomy, or abortion in the US Constitution. And they aren’t enumerated powers. Thus, the federal gov’t has no constitutional authority (over the Country at Large) over these issues.

      So why is Congress pretending to act on this issue by legalizing abortion? Because Congress is filled with evil people who are also idiots.

      And that Law Professor you are referring to is a mindless group-thinking moron. As she proves, one can get a Ph.D. or a law degree and be totally incapable of rational independent thinking.

      We are in a state of free-fall collapse.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 20, 2022 | Reply

  22. PH, to your knowledge, has Congress ever granted the Chief Executive “emergency authority” to deny States the right to drill on either State or federal properties? And in the off-chance they did grant such authority, would that be in any way constitutional in either instance? My sense is that States must carefully review the history of federal lands in their respective State territories to determine 1) if the State legislature approved those real estate transfers to the feds, and 2) if they did, and those lands have not been used for the specific purposes cited in Art I Sec 8, that the legislature vote to immediately reassert its sovereignty over any ill-begotten or inappropriately held fed lands. (Yes, I know States have become vassals and are virtually spineless but, in theory anyway, where would my proposal fail the Constitutional test?)

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | July 5, 2022 | Reply

    • I don’t know whether Congress has ever purported to grant such “emergency authority” to the President.

      Neither Congress nor the President have constitutional authority to tell States when drilling may or may not be conducted on lands subject to the jurisdiction of the State.

      I haven’t researched this; but if you do, you may find that when the federal gov’t carved out parcels of land within the Territories to the various western States; the federal gov’t reserved for themselves, certain parts within the lands ceded to the States. I expect that most of the lands are being used for unconstitutional purposes. The fed gov’t has no constitutional authority to own national forests, national parks, grazing lands, etc.

      The Constitution grants specific enumerated powers to Congress; and specific enumerated powers to the President. None of those powers include a power to declare “emergencies” and to act according to however Congress or the President deem best in response to the “emergency”. Congress & the President have no lawful authority to act outside of the enumerated powers.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2022 | Reply

  23. PH,
    Am I looking a gift horse in the mouth?
    I finally finished reading the Dobbs decision. While I could comment immensely on various points raised in both the decision and the dissent I will instead focus on one point; that is, it seems the opinion hinges on whether or not there exists a constitutional protection of the “right”(so called) to abort another life. (We’ve known of this absurdity for some time)
    Yes, the decision of the court correctly placed the issue back where it belongs; with the States and their respective citizens. The basis for deciding to do the right thing however seems to be on the wrong ( or at least weaker) premise.
    Unless I missed something, the abandonment of Roe pivots on..
    (1) whether such right actually present in the Constitution (specifically the 14th Am);

    And;

    (2) whether the court usurped legislative authority in making policy rather than merely adjudicating the facts and interpreting the law.

    To state in clear and unequivocal language the two simple facts that DO ACTUALLY nullify Roe would have been preferable; namely, (1) that neither healthcare, medical treatment, nor reproductive choices are an enumerated power of ANY BRANCH of the federal government, And is accordingly reserved to the States or the People; and (2) that Roe does not meet the Article 3 “particularly specified” cases which federal courts may here.

    Instead, the basis of an alleged right, and whether the Roe court exercised “policy making” authority reserved to legislatures perpetuates confusion regarding the principal of federalism, and permits debate by dissenters which further divide the electorate. It also shines a laser rather than a floodlight on court decisions generally.

    Is my preference too bold? Is there any logical reason why stating the simple truth (as you do in every paper) would lead to some detrimental national calamity?

    Federal Court opinions annoy me as they tend to be based on fluid “precedent” rather than the firm fixed Constitutional text and the original source documents of our founding. Every finding seems to be tied to some arbitrary “test” that the court is somehow bound to indulge.

    Here’s the only “test” that matters…what does the Constitution actually say and what did the Federalists/founders say on the matter?

    Anyway, I’m glad the atrocity of Roe is part of the ash heap. I only wish it rested upon a sturdier foundation. But perhaps I’m just being too critical or expecting too much.

    Blessings,
    Mark

    Like

    Comment by Mark | June 29, 2022 | Reply

    • I haven’t had time to read the Opinion – just the syllabus. And I am overjoyed. The ramifications are huge. The same principles apply to the SCOTUS decisions which held that homosexual sodomy is a “liberty right” under Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt (and thus state statutes criminalizing such practices are unconstitutional); and that the “equal protection” clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt prohibits States from restricting marriage to one male & one female. Homosexuality & marriage are also issues reserved to the States and the People to decide!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 29, 2022 | Reply

      • Well. I didn’t read the briefs submitted so based on the opinion I assume the issues of Art 3 jurisdiction or section 8 enumerated powers were not raised. Perhaps SCOTUS isn’t prepared for such arguments.

        I too am joyous at the decision to overturn Roe and all that it implicates.

        To hear the murderous progressives whine in the sound bites one would conclude that SCOTUS banned abortion nationwide. It would be humorous we’re it not so pitiful and disgusting.

        Mark

        Like

        Comment by Mark | June 29, 2022 | Reply

  24. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    Thank you so much for all you do for us. I read your paper on abortion and Roe v. Wade. So to sum up what you wrote, is it true then, that the SCOTUS did not even have the authority to take the case Roe v. Wade in 1973? If that is true, was it ever challenged before now as being unconstitutional? Now that Roe v. Wade was overturned and is now up to the citizens of each state as it should have been all along, why is there so much uproar that the ruling is an assault on women. Also, what will happen if Biden declares a public health emergency? Do you think the situation will get a lot worse?

    Like

    Comment by Donna Roesch | June 26, 2022 | Reply

    • Right! SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear the Roe v. Wade case during 1973. But now, with the SCOTUS decision released THIS LAST FRIDAY, SCOTUS agreed it had no jurisdiction over abortion! And SCOTUS said this issue is for the States and The People to decide! I don’t know of any challenges before mine that SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear Roe v. Wade. Americans don’t think out of the box. They believe what they are told – no matter how absurd what they are told is.

      Why are the pro-abortion forces so furious about Roe v. Wade being overturned and abortion being returned to the States and the People for decision? I BELIEVE [this is not here a legal analysis, but a statement of belief] that the pro-abortion people are demonically possessed. Women can use birth control or take their babies to Safe Havens. So there is a clear alternative to abortion. That they are demanding that their babies BE KILLED is demonic.

      I don’t know what the pretended president’s handlers will have him do. What will happen if the pretended president calls a “public health” emergency depends on the American People. Let us hope that they will laugh and jeer at whatever that senile diaper pooping usurper does. Oh yes, I think things will get much worse here. I expect the grid will go down and people will die of thirst and starvation – by the Millions. THIS IS WHAT THE GLOBALIST ELITE WANT. TO CLEAN THE EARTH OF THE EXTRA PEOPLE.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2022 | Reply

  25. Hello PH :

    In your previous works, you’ve repeatedly referred to God’s laws and the Christian values that the Western world used to derive from the Bible. Those were traditional Western values upon which the Western civilization, including America, was built.

    Obviously, we agree that many of America’s woes today are consequences of the abandonment of those traditional Western values.

    And to a large degree, there’s one highly-ranking foreign official who also agrees with that analysis. And strangely enough, that man is… a Chinese Communist !

    His name is Wang Huning, and he spent six months as a foreign student in the US in the late 1980s.

    His analysis? The US today is not based on any fundamental values at all. None! Individual liberties protected by the US Constitution have been taken to the extreme, to mean the liberty to do as any individual wants to.

    Under this view, society has no power to restrain immoral or asocial behavior, because the individual’s egoistic desires trump everything else.

    And so, Americans, free from any moral constraints, engage in immoral behaviors that are now leading to societal breakdown.

    Most notorious, according to Wang, is the breakdown of the family. In the West, as in China, for millennia, the traditional “cell” of society has been the family. Now, in the US, it’s the individual. It’s “ME! ME! ME! I want! I want! I want!”

    Like

    Comment by Zbigniew Mazurak | June 26, 2022 | Reply

    • 1. Yes. Here is an illustration of the radical change in mindset of the American People:

      Justice has been personified as a beautiful woman wearing a blindfold and carrying a pair of scales in one hand and a sword in the other. The blindfold signified that she doesn’t know or care whether you are highborn or lowborn, male or female, rich or poor [this is a Biblical requirement for Judges to follow]. The scales signify that she weighs the Facts. The sword illustrates her power to issue Judgment.

      But in 1970, one of my law professors said that Judges decide on the result they want and then write an opinion to justify it.

      And that IS what they have been doing (for the most part).

      But this wicked behavior isn’t restricted to Judges. Americans as a People decide on the result they want; and then say whatever they need to say to get their way. The old belief that one must do whatever Right and Duty dictate is long gone. Now, Americans consult their feelings – or whims – or personal agenda and do and say whatever advances their personal agenda.

      I have been writing on this moral problem for years – starting with https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/how-progressive-education-and-bad-philosophy-corrupted-the-people-undermined-the-constitution-of-the-united-states/

      But “doing what you feel like doing” and “not doing what you don’t feel like doing” is an alluring poison; and it seems impossible to get people who are immersed in this principle of living and acting to repent. “Principles” and “standards” get in their way! They want what they want and they like what they like and “right” and “wrong” aren’t even considered. And they don’t want to hear about it.

      2. But the Chinese Communist you named doesn’t understand the US Constitution: Our Constitution was designed to create a federal gov’t which, by means of exercising the enumerated powers delegated to it, would be enabled to secure (in the ways appropriate to the national government of a federation), the RIGHTS God gave us. See: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/how-our-federal-constitution-secures-our-god-given-rights/

      It was the corrupt US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) which re-defined the word, “Liberty”, which appears in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, to mean that you can do whatever you feel like doing – and you have a “constitutional right” to do it if 5 Justices on SCOTUS agree: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/searching-for-marriage-in-the-fourteenth-amendment/

      All that’s required, under this view, is for SCOTUS to agree that you have a “liberty right” to do what you are doing. E.g., if 5 of them agree you have a “liberty right” to have sex with little children, then pedophilia becomes a “constitutional right”!

      For the true meaning of of the phrase within Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”, see this https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/08/24/defeat-covid-mandates-by-restoring-the-genuine-meaning-of-the-privileges-and-immunities-and-due-process-clauses/

      Even after the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery, southern States were still denying to the newly freed slaves the Rights GOD gave them. So (Section 1) of the 14th Amendment was ratified to provide constitutional authority for the federal civil rights act of 1866 which required the States to respect in the newly freed slaves the same rights to “life, liberty & property” which white people enjoyed.

      3. Oh yes, the domestic enemies of the American People deliberately destroyed the Family: This is a long story, and I haven’t yet written on it. I’ll just give 3 illustrations:

      I remember when Black people in America had actual traditional families, with the Husband and Father present in the home and caring for his Family. But along came the federal program of “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” and gave money to mothers who had no husband living in the home. That seems to have been responsible for the breakup of Black families. This has had devastating consequences for children raised in homes with NO FATHER; and it has had devastating consequences for our Country as a whole.

      In the early 1930s, the US federal gov’t, with its “social security” program, relieved adult children of the biblical responsibility of caring for their aging parents. Money was transferred from workers (in the form of “social security taxes”) to the federal gov’t in exchange for the fed gov’t becoming the provider for old people.

      Abortion was another family-destroying weapon. Americans have been killing their own children – their own family members – because they don’t want to be bothered by them!

      The World desperately needs young people like you to learn these Principles. Perhaps you can turn on the lights for Poland!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2022 | Reply

  26. HI, PH. Hope you’re able to look into this. As you know, Build Back Better toady, AG Garland, and woke Gen. Austin are intending to circumvent the R v W decision, meaning, I gather, that they will permit abortions in federal facilities throughout the country. They also note that such is not unlawful and that such does not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act. I read the Act and it’s a tad murky for the likes of me. What’ s your analysis. Would this action be unlawful? Many thanks!

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 25, 2022 | Reply

    • As I show in this paper, the federal gov’t has jurisdiction over abortion ONLY in the federal enclaves, military bases and military hospitals. So yes, the federal gov’t has constitutional authority to permit abortions in those specific geographical areas.

      But outside of the federal enclaves, the power over abortion is reserved to the States and The People.

      I laid all this out in this paper: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/06/30/how-states-can-man-up-and-stop-abortion/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 25, 2022 | Reply

  27. PH, Art 1 Sec 6… it says “..They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”…

    What does “breach of the peace” mean? can’t seem to find anything on this.
    Thanks for your knowledge and understanding.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Blake | June 18, 2022 | Reply

    • I don’t really know what the meaning of “breach of the peace” was when the Constitution was drafted & ratified. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary doesn’t define it. Neither do the Federalist Papers. So I then consulted Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. [All American lawyers of our Founding Era knew Blackstone’s.]

      Blackstone’s addresses breach of the peace in Book 4, ch. 11 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch11.asp But much of what Blackstone writes there doesn’t seem applicable to Article I, Sec. 6, cl. 1, US Constitution.

      IF I had time and access to legal research (either computer research or an actual physical law library) I’d search the US Code and see whether, during the early years of our Republic under our Constitution of 1787, Congress drafted any implementing legislation specifically defining “breach of the peace”.

      There is much on line setting forth modern conceptions of what “breach of the peace is”, but I don’t trust any of that to reflect the understanding of the term when our Constitution was drafted & ratified.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 22, 2022 | Reply

      • Law of Nations refers to “breach of the peace treaty”. Seems to make some sense in the context of the use?

        Like

        Comment by Robert Sioa | June 22, 2022 | Reply

  28. How would you respond to the position that unconstitutional laws should not be knowingly and willfully obeyed by a citizen. (My words, by the way.) I believe Hamilton in #78 asserted that judicial opinions and, I believe, legislative acts which do not clearly comport with the original meaning of the Constitution are “not law”, the implication being that it should not be obeyed by a citizen,, the “final arbiter” and, I gather, ignored by the States as “no law at all”. What am I missing? It seems to me that to successfully disobey or non-comply with an unconstitutional law or judicial opinion–or local ordinance– would require extraordinary courage and steadfastness. So to the risk-averse (LOL), which I hope is never me, to successfully disobey–or not comply–would require I be part of an organized resistance, since individual resistance would be futile. So, one would need to obey the unjust law until one could successfully bring suit against the perpetrators, something which could be costly in money and time to a lonely patriotic citizen. Myself, I would rather go to jail than to comply. And I don’t think a young law school student grad as my public defender, un sympathetic to my cause and not grounded in First Principles, would provide an effective defense of my position. So, I accept jail or comply? (Aside from Hamilton, how do other founders/framers address this?) Thanks!!!!

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | June 18, 2022 | Reply

    • any laws therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid…. one problem… we are unarmed and they arent

      Like

      Comment by hippie49 | June 20, 2022 | Reply

      • I expect some people are unarmed. Perhaps they are relying on the kindness of strangers.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | June 22, 2022 | Reply

        • I truly believe this country has lost it’s courage, character and honor. There is hardly any manly-men anymore. I’m 75 year and will do what I have to if needed. There are some men here in easrern Tennessee where I live. Surprisely isn’t it.

          Like

          Comment by james brecht | June 22, 2022 | Reply

          • Hey! we are almost neighbors! Eastern TN is BEAUTIFUL! I’m in Middle TN.

            About the scarcity of manly men: I’ve been wondering about this for a long time. Did BIG FOOD put something in their manufactured “foods” to unman the men? Don’t eat their “food”! Grow your own or buy organic or local. Don’t take their drugs! Encourage your children to get their children out of the public schools.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 23, 2022

    • Jim,

      You are not alone in your sentiment and concern. Lone patriots are easily bullied by tyrants. Look at the January 6th prisoners for example. I am however reminded of two instances regarding such a stand against tyranny and injustice; first the pledge of “…lives, fortunes and sacred honor.” By our founders to lay the foundation for this once “shining city on a hill” and secondly, Rosa Parks who, as you know refused to comply with unjust segregation laws (though that was a state law she was protesting)

      In federalist #46 (7th para) Madison describes the remedies our founders envisioned and fully expected …

      “On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” (Federalist 46, 7th para)

      It was understood that within the principle of “Federalism” , the STATES would intercede on behalf of their particular constituents and thwart federal attempts of usurpation. Thus lone patriots would be afforded protection from overzealous federal agents.(most of which should not even exist under our constitution) This is not the only passage in the Federalist Papers to state this fact and such sentiment is clearly manifested in the 10th Am.

      Unfortunately, the states have willingly permitted bribery and acquiescence to undermine their sovereignty and roll of interceding on our behalf.
      You are correct that We the People are the ultimate arbiters of Constitutional governance. Political power flows FROM God- to the people- to the states- and finally the Feds. They were INTENTIONALLY placed at the bottom by our founders for good reason and sound experience. The dilemma of course is that if the People are the ultimate arbiters, then it is incumbent upon us/them to UNDERSTAND our system of government as our founders understood it. But morality and sound doctrine are no longer tolerable to those tasked with this responsibility.

      What we suffer is a moral/spiritual deficit. The political consequences of this are merely symptoms. Until we cure this cancer we are merely treating (or suffering) symptoms.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Mark | June 21, 2022 | Reply

    • There are thousands of thousands of unconstitutional federal statutes, executive agency “rules”, presidential executive orders, and SCOTUS opinions in existence.

      1. BUT only a relatively few affect any one particular American. So that is one’s field of operations. So I’ll raise some hypothetical questions to consider in one’s own mind: What should one do if any branch of the federal gov’t orders one to take the JAB? Orders one to turn in any arms one may have? Orders one to answer surveys where the federal gov’t asks questions they have no constitutional authority to ask and even orders one to provide personal information about other people?

      What if an agent of the federal gov’t orders one to shoot an innocent person in the head and says “If you don’t do it, I’ll shoot you”?

      In such situations one must decide whether to obey God or obey man.

      2. Consider non-violent non-participation in unconstitutional and illegal acts [if it’s unconstitutional, it’s illegal): The Truth of the matter is that Americans sold their retained powers when they signed up for federal programs: Federal farm programs. Federal school loans. Americans LOVE social security & Medicare. The money was taken out of our paychecks without our consent – but we didn’t have to depend on these unconstitutional programs for our survival, and we don’t have to sign up for the “benefits”. In fact, one of the reasons for the rabid depopulation agenda being pushed by western governments all over the World is to get rid of the old people because there is no money to pay their pensions, medical bills, and social security. So the obvious “solution” is to kill them off. Which is what the JAB and planned forced incarcerations of those who don’t take the JAB is partially about.

      3. “With federal funds come federal strings”. Yep! That’s how the fed gov’t was able to take over education, hospitals, farms, etc., etc., etc.

      4. Filing a lawsuit and asking a federal judge if one must comply with an unconstitutional federal dictate is not something our Framers ever dreamed that an AMERICAN would do.

      5. My very first paper on nullification is my favorite: James Madison told us in no uncertain terms what to do when the fed gov’t usurps powers. Don’t cooperate! Obstruct! Impede! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/what-should-states-do-when-the-federal-government-usurps-power/ A great many unconstitutional federal dictates require the cooperation of the States, or local gov’ts, or The People, to be be effective. So don’t cooperate!

      If the fed gov’t decides they are going to round up and imprison Jews, or Christians, or “vaccine deniers”, etc.; and knocks on your door wanting your help to locate their targets, why would one cooperate with the gov’t agents?

      Think to yourself about which of the federal dictates affect you personally. Focus on those and one won’t feel so overwhelmed.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 22, 2022 | Reply

      • Joshua 24:16-“But as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord”

        Matthew 10:28- “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

        Recently a family member suggested that I file for Social Security benefits. After my vehemently adamant rebuke, I am confident the topic is summarily quashed.

        “Unconstitutional, illegal”, and I would add “immoral”.

        No jab!! EVER!!
        And any parent who willingly allows their child/infant to be jabbed ought to be brought up on abuse charges.

        From my cold dead hands!!! (Guess I’m one of those ‘kindness of strangers’ folks upon which others will be relying.)

        Blessings,
        Mark

        P.S. I “like” many posts on this thread but my browser doesn’t support the “like” function. Just wanted y’all to know I’m not heartless. 😊

        Like

        Comment by Mark | June 22, 2022 | Reply

        • So now I know two people who didn’t sign up for their unconstitutional & immoral ss & medicare programs. The Bible is clear that children are to care for their aging parents. But the federal gov’t relieved adult children of this Biblicaly imposed duty; thus furthering the decline of The Family. Now, old people die in nursing homes. The Family is so fractured that old people must now sell their homes when they are no longer able to care for their property, and move into “assisted living” etc.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 23, 2022 | Reply

  29. PH, perhaps it’s time for one of your fine papers tp explain the difference between a republic and a democracy. What say you? My thought is most of these people blowing wind on the media have no clue that there is a difference… or they do, and they are purposefully trying to deceive those less educated. Thanks for all you do.

    Like

    Comment by Blake | June 11, 2022 | Reply

  30. Article 1. Section. 5. “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,…”

    What does it mean “shall be the judge of…”???? Excuse my ignorance. Just trying to understand the wording here and what it truly means. Thanks for your insight.

    Like

    Comment by Blake | June 6, 2022 | Reply

    • It’s an excellent question! There’s not much on it in the Federalist Papers – see next to last para in Federalist No. 53 https://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed53.htm

      Each House of Congress has the sole authority to make the ruling on whether its Members are qualified to hold office and whether their election was honest. Federal and State courts have no jurisdiction! Only the Houses of Congress can make the ruling. And that includes qualifications to hold office. It appears, e.g., that fake conservative Ted Cruz doesn’t meet the qualifications, set forth at Article I, Sec. 3, clause 3, US Constitution, to be a US Senator. Apparently, he didn’t even renounce his Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014 https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/cruz-canadian-renunciation-letter.pdf yet no one in the US Senate cared. Same goes for some of those moronic women in the House! Are they even US Citizens?

      I have to say this: Ted Cruz supporters sent me more hate mail and hate comments over my 12 minute video showing why neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are qualified to be US President (they are not “natural born citizens”), than I have ever received on any other issue. Is Ted Cruz a US Citizen now? I haven’t seen any citizenship papers for him.

      “Dr. Oz” (Pennsylvania) isn’t qualified to be a US Senator, yet neither Trump (who endorsed Oz) or Trump’s adoring followers, give a hoot. Article I, Sec. 3, clause 3, US Constitution, sets forth the qualifications to be a United States Senator: among other things, one must have been for 9 years a Citizen of the US. A Citizen of the United States doesn’t vote in Turkish elections. There appears to be no dispute that Oz voted in the 2018 Turkish election. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2022/05/05/dr-oz-photo-n2606800

      So your question goes right to the heart of the rot in our Country. Most Americans don’t care what the Constitution says. They want what they want and the Constitution be *amned.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2022 | Reply

      • As you may have guessed, but there are tons of authoritative-sounding sources online which opine that dual citizens can legally serve in Congress. I has always believed that dual loyalties at any level of the federal government was of great concern to our founders–esp. at the Pres and VP levels. If Oz officially foreswears his Turkish citizenship before he is sworn in, would that resolve the issue? Or does nine Years a US Citizen mean ONLY US citizenship?

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | June 6, 2022 | Reply

        • Our Constitution, the Federalist Papers, etc., etc., etc., don’t recognize the bastard concept of “dual citizenship”. They weren’t globalists.

          “Dual citizenship” is a modern invention and is connected with the destruction of the sovereignty of nations. It’s subversive and is designed to admit foreigners into the governments within the United States.

          Of course the 9 years at Article I, Sec. 3, clause 3 means only US Citizenship! Our Framers didn’t recognize the absurdity of “dual citizenship”!

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2022 | Reply

          • As always PH you are 100% correct. That is how I understand it as well. It has something to do with citizenship following the fathers citizenship, (I think it was Vittel-{can’t remember} writing that). And you are correct in that Americans are spoiled, and want what they want, except accountability for their actions.
            Thank you for your crystal clear explanations.

            Like

            Comment by NS | June 7, 2022

        • On which document will Oz swear fealty to US Constitution?
          Koran should be disallowed.
          Bob

          Like

          Comment by Robert Sioa | June 7, 2022 | Reply

          • It is sickening that Trump endorsed OZ. Oh, who knows what the Senate will permit Oz to take the Oath on? I’m telling you, it’s better for the Democrat to win than Oz. Oz isn’t even eligible!

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 7, 2022

  31. Would you please clarify this for me. Somewhere I read that the Supreme Court, at some point during the 1920’s or 30’s, opined that Art I Sec 8 Cl 1 which was orginally intended by the framers to be prefatory, constitutes one of the enumerated powers in that section. To me, however, there are 17 enumerated powers–not 18, the latter number which would erroneously include CL 1. What’s your take on this? Not earth-shattering, but just hoping you can clarify this for me. When you have a moment. Thanks!

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | May 27, 2022 | Reply

    • Article I, Sec. 8, clause 1 is both!:

      1) It contains grants of specific powers: to lay & collect taxes and to pay the debts of the United States.

      2) But it also sets forth “general terms” (provide for the common Defense and general Welfare) which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars” the “general phrase”.

      Madison said this in the last 4 paras of Federalist No. 41: https://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed41.htm

      Thank you, Jim!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 6, 2022 | Reply

  32. Publius, “Dormant Commerce Clause” doctrine. Robert Owens of John Birch Society “Constitution Corner” was expounding on this issue in reference to States attempting to influence the action of other States with reference to abortion and issues of commerce. Then the feds could step in to negate this influence with the “Dormant Commerce Clause” doctrine. It was all very technical. Perhaps I did not understand the concept. Never heard of this legal interpretation of DCC. Your thoughts?

    Like

    Comment by Christopher Magiera, MD | May 25, 2022 | Reply

    • What? I never heard of the “dormant commerce clause” doctrine. The Federalist Papers don’t mention it. They say that the genuine meaning of the interstate commerce clause is to prevent States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of commerce as they are transported thru the States for purposes of buying and selling: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/82/

      There is nothing immoral or illegal or unconstitutional for one State to attempt to influence another State with respect to the position the State should take on an issue.

      I will ask Robert Owen about this!

      I can’t keep track of all that I am doing, so remind me if you don’t hear back.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 25, 2022 | Reply

  33. Hello Publius. I get so irritated about the current affairs of our nation brought on by the one in the White House. No need for individual statements but with citizens going hungry, cost of living going out of sight, lives being ruined by an elected President operating as a tyrannous dictator, being aided and abetted by at least half of congress and totally unworthy to be Head of a civilized nation. Honestly it reflects back when the original forefathers had the gumption to form this country and why.

    I have searched and can’t see or find a remedy in our constitution to validate our elite legal scholars to stand up and take action. Other than by impeachment and then stop and consider the options. Our constitution experts, lawyers and even the supreme judicial body don’t appear to have the authority to curtail all the negative things happening in our nation.

    I guarantee if a CEO of a company was destroying the company the board would fire him or her. It’s like watching one’s home burn and unable to do anything. The oath our leaders took doesn’t mean a thing to them. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness of a nation whose government derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Means nothing to our leaders.

    I’m 80 years old and really worry about the kind of country my grandchildren will inherit. It’s sad to see just how little our leaders care for our nation. Psalm 34:16 seems to apply as it appears our leaders are unrighteous.

    What’s the answer? Is there really one. No one seems to want to stand up for what’s right for the people. Thank you,

    Jack

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Jack Adams | May 23, 2022 | Reply

    • There is no remedy in our Constitution for what ails us. There is no political solution to our problems.

      The pretended President isn’t the cause of our problems.

      Our problems are due to the moral, spiritual, and intellectual collapse of the American People. This degeneration has been going on for a very long time. https://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/2007/bezmenov.htm

      When Bezmenov (former KGB) speaks of the “demoralization” of the American People, he doesn’t mean that they are “depressed” and “unhappy”; he means that they have been stripped of their morals. And that is true.

      The Poison began to be introduced into our land during the late 1700s when the Unitarians rejected the Biblical Teaching that man is fallen and needs a saviour. They claimed that sin is in the environment; and that we must fix the environment. So that’s how the sin of blame-shifting was introduced into this Country. As long as a People blame something in the “environment” for their own sins, there is no possibility that they can Repent. That cuts us off from the Remedy described at 2 Chronicles 7:14.

      And the gov’t is in the best position to “fix the environment” – so that’s how the desire for big gov’t began.

      The only solution is the moral, spiritual, and intellectual REGENERATION of the American People. But I don’t see that they are willing to give up their evasions of Truth, and their constant lying and blame-shifting. If they were willing to repent and turn back to God, He would heal our land.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 25, 2022 | Reply

      • Bingo! You are correct as always. Our issues presently have evolved because we have lost our moral compass. Whats worse, is we continually refuse to look for it. Following the easier, more “convenient” path. Considering all the problems, including the increase in antagonism between everyone, mass shootings, and on down the line, what happened between now and 20-40-100 years ago? Morals were put on the shelf. You do not do wrong or evil things, because they are simply wrong. You do things that are right and honorable because they are simply the right things to do, everyone knows this instinctively, but refuse to follow what they instinctively know.
        We have no leaders presently in the entire country to get behind and support to change our direction, abolish and institute new govt. Our present is far too corrupt to salvage. We’ve already got a viable Constitution, all we need is the gumption to follow it. Who is John Gault? John Gault is each and every one of us. Long Live Our Republic.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by N S | May 25, 2022 | Reply

        • I WISH John Gault were each and every one of us. But most of us just want what we want and don’t want to hear about transcendent moral standards and Principles. I have been fighting People for years on this issue. But they don’t care about Right and Wrong. They just want to feel good and do what they want.

          the Only Reason I fight is because of Ezekiel chapters 2 & 3. I don’t want the blood of those idiots on my hands.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 25, 2022 | Reply

      • I surely thank you Publius for your reply. It only confirms to me that unless enough patriotic people get elected in November and overturn lots of the communistic decisions by the current regime our country is lost. As far as our country being at its level of depravity, we can only blame ourselves. Abortion, homosexualism rampant, God haters in our congress (elected by the people), congress officials acting as good Catholics pounding for abortion rights, homosexuals officiating as faith leaders and on it goes. Truly as a commenter said, “who is John Galt”. Apparently with no one and nothing in our constitution to enable the carnage happening in our government be stopped we’re left to ponder how much more should our people endure in hoping the midterm elections give us some ” John Galt’s “.

        I thank you again, Jack Adams

        Like

        Comment by Jack Adams | May 26, 2022 | Reply

  34. Where in your numerous essays is the subject of “secession” specifically addressed and analyzed. My understanding is that the founders understood that secession was an inherent right and that without that understanding and acknowledgement the Constitutional Convention would have most likely failed. I also understand that how the individual States viewed the meaning of the Constitution presented to them by the Federalists was pretty much the way the Constitution should be construed. Otherwise, the States would not have ratified the Constitution. I also understand that Rhode Island’s, New York’s and Virginia’s inclusion of secession in their respective State Constitutions plus the fact that none of the founders voiced an objection to secession would indicate agreement on the issue among the founders. Can you help me with this? Thanks, PH. (P. S. As the republic continues to unravel, I suspect secession will attract many more adherents. It may prove to be liberty-loivng patriots most efficacious and least painful recourse.)

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | May 22, 2022 | Reply

    • Jim,
      Howdy!
      Regarding your PostScript; nullification is a superior activity to secession. State Officials who resist nullification but allegedly support secession are likely fools or charlatans. The same principals of sovereignty, pre-existing rights, and the natural right of self defense apply to both causes.
      Therefore, State politician support for secession is window dressing and theatrics designed to lull support for candidate/party and nothing more. Nullification is simple, appropriate, readily available and much SAFER than secession.

      See this paper by PH;

      “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers”

      Like

      Comment by Mark | May 23, 2022 | Reply

    • I haven’t written a paper on secession; but have addressed it in the comments. If you type “secession” in the search box, you’ll find what has been said before in the comments.

      Yes, our Framers and the State ratifying conventions understood that the States have the right to withdraw from the Union.

      The Federalist Papers were seen as the most authoritative writings on the genuine meaning of the US Constitution. See: https://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=2006_04/uvaGenText/tei/bov_18250304.xml&query=true

      Until States and local governments, the institutions, the businesses, and The People STOP taking federal funds for unconstitutional federal programs, there is no hope for this Country. They are not innocent victims of the federal gov’t.

      Sorry for the delay in responding. Had to go to Ohio to fight!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 25, 2022 | Reply

      • And I’m betting you put them thru the wringer! Am always buoyed by your tough-mindedness, Christian compass and your dearly held belief in our founding principles. I am indebted for your clear-headed and always reliable guidance. Bod bless, PH!

        Like

        Comment by jim delaney | May 27, 2022 | Reply

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

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Carlos | April 30, 2022 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Spense | April 27, 2022 | Reply

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 27, 2022 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Spense | April 27, 2022 | Reply

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2022 | Reply

  37. Thank you

    Like

    Comment by Georgina | April 18, 2022 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | April 17, 2022 | Reply

    • I haven’t had time to look into this issue – I can only repeat what I said before in my comment posted February 17, 2022 here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/ask-questions/comment-page-26/#comment-155868

      and add the following brief comments:

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

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

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

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

      5. You asked, is Brandon relying on the commerce clause? I expect Brandon is too busy feeling up naked underage girls to worry about banning oil exploration & drilling on “federal” lands. https://ncrenegade.com/rumint-lets-go-brandon/ Filthy pervert.

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 18, 2022 | Reply

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

        Like

        Comment by Mark | April 20, 2022 | Reply

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 20, 2022 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by Georgia | April 16, 2022 | Reply

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

    Like

    Comment by jim delaney | April 5, 2022 | Reply

    • Yes, it really IS that simple.

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

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2022 | Reply

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

    Please share.

    DonS

    Like

    Comment by dons2017 | April 3, 2022 | Reply

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

      I strongly oppose the current version, for several reasons:

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

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

      We ought to be pledging our allegiance to the fixed transcendent Principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence – and the Constitution which implements those fixed and transcendent Principles. https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/chart-showing-federal-structure-with-meme-april-2019.pdf

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

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2022 | Reply

      • Amen !!

        Like

        Comment by Mark | April 4, 2022 | Reply

        • https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

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

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2022 | Reply

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

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

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

            Blessings,
            Mark

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Mark | April 4, 2022

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

          Like

          Comment by John Noble | April 4, 2022 | Reply

          • check the definitions of “federation” and “confederation” in Webster’s 1828 dictionary: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/confederation

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2022

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

    Like

    Comment by Carlos | March 23, 2022 | Reply

    • Ever since, some 50 years ago, the Ford Foundation produced the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm ,
      it has been the hard left which has been pushing for an Article V convention [which they need to get their new Constitution imposed.]

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

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2022 | Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

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

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: