Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!


  1. Watching Tucker Carlson tonight he did a segment on NATO’s newest and 29th member Montenegro, and article 5 of NATO which says that an attack on one is an attack on all. Now just to be clear, Art. I, sec. 8, the taxing clause states that congress can tax for three purposes, and they are to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, it doesn’t include defending any other country. Art. V lists two ways to amend the Constitution and neither one says by treaty and since the Constitution can’t be amended by treaty how can we be tied to NATO and the defense of all its members?


    Comment by Klaus P Lindner | July 18, 2018 | Reply

    • The key to understanding the “taxing clause” is Federalist Paper No. 41 (last 4 paras). There Madison explains that Article I, Section 8, clause 1, US Constitution, is a general statement which is immediately followed by a statement of particulars which explain and qualify the general statement.

      So! Congress may not levy taxes so that they may carry out their personal conceptions of what constitutes the “general welfare”; rather, the “general welfare” is best served with a federal government which possesses only a handful of enumerated powers such as those itemized in our federal Constitution.

      And right, Congress is supposed to defend THIS Country! Not foreign countries. In George Washington’s magnificent Farewell Address, he warned us to beware of “foreign entanglements”.

      I am not an expert in foreign relations or military strategy. But in the nuclear age, there may be something to be said for our having military bases here and there throughout the world. There may be something to be said for not allowing such & such a Country to go Communist or Muslim because that would give our enemy a geographical advantage where they can better launch an attack against us. All such military questions are totally outside my area of competence. We need military experts who ALSO know the Constitution and our Founding Principles and Documents to advise on where the proper limits of our military involvement are.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2018 | Reply

      • I served on active duty in a nuclear unit, as did my father. IF we have a ratified treaty, THEN tax money properly legislated may be spent in support of that.


        Comment by Manfred | July 19, 2018 | Reply

        • Thank you for your service! Were you on a submarine?

          but I think Klaus’ point was that treaties which obligate us to defend, e.g., NATO countries, are unconstitutional because Congress’ duty is to defend THIS Country, not NATO
          countries. [A treaty is unconstitutional if the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to act on the subject. ]

          and my point was that I am ignorant of military matters and don’t know whether our national defense depends on the safety of the various NATO countries.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2018 | Reply

  2. If there is no constitutional authority for the general governments involvement in intrastate commerce why all the talk about e-verify at the federal level?


    Comment by Klaus P Lindner | July 11, 2018 | Reply

    • Because the federal government wants to know where EVERYBODY is working. They are using illegal aliens as the excuse, pretending they don’t want US employers to hire illegals. But it’s really a ploy to find out who is working where. it’s all about Surveillance.

      Of course, the real solution is for the federal gov’t to (1) control the borders and keep the illegals out; (2) round up and deport those who are already here; and (3) cut off ALL welfare benefits to illegals.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2018 | Reply

  3. I don’t find where the Constitution allows an executive order to supercede Supreme Court decisions.


    Comment by Randy Claywell | June 20, 2018 | Reply

    • Please study this:

      and this:

      and then you will see that it is the President’s DUTY to refuse to enforce opinions of the Supreme Court which are unconstitutional. Read the President’s Oath of office! It is to “preserve, protect and defend The Constitution of the United States” – it is NOT to obey the supreme Court.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 24, 2018 | Reply

      • do you have a section that talks about if illegal immigrants also have constitutionally protected rights like dues process rights and privileges as a citizen or resident of the united states ?


        Comment by steve brandt | June 24, 2018 | Reply

        • Illegal aliens in the United States have the right not to be murdered, raped, mugged, sold into slavery, tortured, and such like.

          But they have no right to be here.

          They are not entitled to any of the privileges and immunities to which Citizens are entitled (Article IV, Sec. 2).

          And they have no right to welfare [God NEVER gave us the right to live at other peoples’ expense]; they have no right to set up mosques and proselytize, no right to a drivers license, etc.,

          The power to control immigration (migration) as of 1808 was delegated to Congress at Article I, Section 9, clause 1.

          The Executive Branch should round them up and deport them.

          And when they have babies here, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does NOT make the babies US Citizens.

          Since at least as early as 1980, the federal government has refused to control our borders. That is because plans have been afoot for a long time to move us into one world government. The borders between Mexico & the US and Canada & the US are to be virtually erased. Remember George Bush, Sr. and his constant babbling about “the New World Order”?

          With “wrong-turn” Teddy’s Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the floodgates were opened to let in third world people.

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 25, 2018 | Reply

  4. PH: I know there is Constitutional protection against the ‘impairment of contracts’ in Article 1 Section 10, but is there equal protection for the individual citizen TO MAKE a contract? Or does that naturally fall under the same provision? The reason I ask results from the recent Supreme Court decision in the Colorado baker case, which in my thinking, hinged far more on the proposal of a contract between the same sex couple and Jack Phillips, the baker, which he refused to accept. While 1st Amendment rights also were a part, I think the contract aspect was ignored completely.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by nelsonaire1 | June 7, 2018 | Reply

    • Sorry for the delay. I didn’t remember the original intent of the “impairment of contracts” clause (Art. I, Sec. 10, clause 1). That’s because it isn’t really discussed in the Federalist Papers or in Madison’s Journal of the federal “amendments” convention of 1787. So I had to dig around for some original source writing to tell me the original intent. This seems to have been a hot issue of the time – everyone knew about it – so that’s why there was no need to discuss it in The Federalist Papers or at the Federal convention of 1787.

      In Federalist No. 7 (next to last para), Hamilton says:

      “Laws in violation of private contracts, as they amount to aggressions on the rights of those States whose citizens are injured by them, may be considered as another probable source of hostility. We are not authorized to expect that a more liberal or more equitable spirit would preside over the legislations of the individual States hereafter, if unrestrained by any additional checks, than we have heretofore seen in too many instances disgracing their several codes. We have observed the disposition to retaliation excited in Connecticut in consequence of the enormities perpetrated by the Legislature of Rhode Island; and we reasonably infer that, in similar cases, under other circumstances, a war, not of PARCHMENT, but of the sword, would chastise such atrocious breaches of moral obligation and social justice.”

      In Federalist No. 44, Madison says:

      “Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society. . .”

      See? They don’t tell US what the problem was.

      However, Madison gives us a hint as to what the problem was in his DRAFT Preface to the Debates of the Convention of 1787 (Vol 3, Farrand page 539). On page 548, Madison says:

      “In the internal administration of the States a violations of Contracts had become familiar in the form of depreciated paper made a legal tender, of property substituted for money, of Instalment laws, and of the occlusions of the Courts of Justice; although evident that all such interferences affected the rights of other States, relatively Creditor, as well as Citizens Creditors within the State…”

      So that gives us the general idea: Some States were impairing private contracts by allowing debtors to pay off with depreciated paper, etc.

      As to your question: We must NOT look to the federal Constitution for authority to make private contracts! Thus, the idea of invoking the “equal protection” clause or the First Amendment, or any other provision of the federal Constitution, as permission to make private contracts is a dangerous and pernicious idea.

      This is the proper way to look at it: Where does the federal Constitution authorize the federal government to force people to enter into contracts? It doesn’t. Therefore, the federal government has no authority to force people to enter into contracts.

      It was Almighty God who gave man the right to enter into contracts! Rights come from GOD – they don’t come from the Constitution.

      The contracts clause in the federal Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting the States from impairing private contracts.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 17, 2018 | Reply

      • PH: Thanks so much for the detailed outline of the issue from the federal standpoint. As I now understand it, individual states may regulate an individual’s or a business’s ability TO contract if their governments declare there exists some important state issue, such as protecting fair business or transactional environment, as an example, which seems to be one thing states actually do these days when considering cases like the cake baker’s; i.e.. defining rules of business conduct which are supposed to do that very thing. However, seems to me quite clear enough that US Constitutional rights (1st Amendment, et al) over-rule state regulations where applicable. Thanks again for your expertise, PH.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by nelsonaire1 | June 17, 2018 | Reply

        • No! what State governments may lawfully do is set forth in the State Constitution, as limited by the Declaration of Rights in the State Constitution, and as restricted by a few provisions in the federal Constitution such as Article I, Section 10.

          No! There is NO SUCH THING AS A “CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT”! Rights don’t come from the Constitution – they come from God.

          No! The original intent of the “bill of rights” is that they do NOT apply to the States. Even the Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) recognized that.

          In 1925, the US Supreme Court recognized that they could usurp power over the States if they started applying the “bill of rights” to the States. THAT’S HOW the Supreme Court took power over the States. I explain it here:

          You are getting your “information” about the Constitution from what “everybody says” and from your own ideas, and that is ALWAYS wrong.

          Look to the Founding Documents for the Truth – do NOT rely on your own understanding.

          Liked by 4 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | June 17, 2018 | Reply

          • Well I’m glad somebody is finally at least bringing up the topic. All of these cake bakers that have been sued have all said they sell off-the-shelf items to anybody. It’s the commissioning of a service – creating a unique product, i.e. entering into a contract, that should have been argued from the git-go. All of these painters and sculptors and playwrights and movie stars and broadway actors – can they be forced to create something, or to perform, to give of their talent? How about Gucci and Versace and all thedesigners?. How about the architects? etc, etc, etc, etc.
            The other thing I never hear argued is that as far as I know, there is no federal civil rights legislation that designates the homosexuals as a protected class. That is, ” Ya can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation.”
            There is no law that says that. And until there is, any Supreme Court ruling that purports to confer that protection is
            way over their pay grade. And when they do pass a law protecting “sexual orientation”, the lid will be blown clean off Pandora’s box.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by bobmontgomery | June 19, 2018

          • Right! Our Constitution does NOT delegate to Congress power to make laws protecting “sexual orientation”, or forcing The People to enter into contracts with anybody.

            Liked by 2 people

            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 19, 2018

  5. How goes the battle against the COSP?


    Comment by Blake | May 20, 2018 | Reply

  6. Hello Ms. Huldah,
    Just wondering – I haven’t seen anything on your blog for a few weeks. Is everything OK?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Donna Roesch | May 17, 2018 | Reply

    • thank you for asking, Donna. I am fine just have been very busy!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 2, 2018 | Reply

  7. Here are some more questions: 1: What are the thoughts of people here regarding the abolishing of the income tax? 2: Since the 14th Amendment provides equal protection under the law, what are the thoughts of people here regarding legal recognition of same-sex marriage?


    Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | April 22, 2018 | Reply

  8. PH
    Congress just passed a $1.3 trillion Omnibus spending bill. My question is, is it a bundle of individual approved and passed appropriation bills or is it a list of congressional spending priorities? I guess my question is does it comply with Art. I: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law”? And if not, is the President obligated to spend the funds or can he impound funds?
    I believe congress passed a law to stop Nixon from impounding funds, but those were funds appropriated by congress.


    Comment by Klaus P Lindner | March 24, 2018 | Reply

    • Everything the federal government does is so unconstitutional it’s hard to know where to begin.

      First step is this: Congress may only lawfully spend money to carry out the enumerated powers. So most of what Congress appropriates money for is for unconstitutional objects. Accordingly all such spending is unconstitutional.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 30, 2018 | Reply

      • PH, A couple of questions… if the constitution is the supreme “LAW” of the land in what way is this law broken? Does there have to be a direct application? By that i mean does the president sending in troops to a state without request from the state legislature or governor constitute a broken “law” for example? … OR … Can the law be broken indirectly by say congress passing a law that is outside their delegate powers? If both would be considered in a court of law an example of a broken law and punishable then why has no one “a lawyer” per say filed charges against congress or individual members of congress? Could this be done? I guess my final question is this, every member of congress that signed the 1.3 trillion dollar spending bill in my opinion broke the law, not only that but committed treason as money is allocated to nations deemed our enemies…directly giving them “AID” and in some cases comfort…

        Well those are my questions and thoughts.
        Look forward to your teachings.


        Comment by BLake | April 3, 2018 | Reply

        • Our Framers NEVER intended us to enforce the Constitution by filing lawsuits in federal courts and letting federal judges [the Judicial Branch of the federal gov’t] decide whether Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal gov’t] or the President [the Executive Branch of the federal gov’t] had violated the Constitution!

          That is the modern day mindset which Americans have been indoctrinated to believe – so scrub that idea out of your head!

          Remember “checks and balances”? the Oath of office? Everyone in the federal gov’t takes an Oath to support the Constitution [Article VI, clause 3]. That means when one Branch of the federal gov’t violates the Constitution, it is the sworn duty of the other two Branches to refuse to comply. see, e.g.,

          Each Branch of the federal government has a “check” on the other two Branches: e.g., Congress’ check on the Judicial & Executive Branches is impeachment. see,

          The President’s check on federal courts is to refuse to enforce Opinions of their’s which are unconstitutional. see Federalist Paper No. 78 (6th para).

          The State officials are likewise bound by oath to refuse to submit to unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t – see Oath at Article VI, clause 3.

          Thus, Nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t is a DUTY imposed by Oath of Office. See my numerous papers on Nullification.

          OUR PROBLEM IS THAT AMERICANS NO LONGER READ OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND OUR CONSTITUTION. Since they are totally IGNORANT, they elect to office people who are as IGNORANT as they are.

          The solution is for everyone to start reading and learning those two documents.

          And we also have to recover our Virtue. As a people, we can’t sink much lower. Lying, parasitism, gossip, envy, laziness, self-indulgent, conceited, frauds, sloppy, malicious, and our highest value is TO FEEL GOOD.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 4, 2018 | Reply

      • Ph,
        So what is a President to do since we are so far off the rails, veto this type of Omnibus bill or sign it and just refuse to spend on the unconstitutional objects?


        Comment by Klaus P Lindner | April 3, 2018 | Reply


          Listen to this short video from our Friends at the Tenth Amendment Center. James Madison was a Man!!!

          Appropriations bills in the early 1800s weren’t the multi subject monstrosities of today.

          When an appropriations bill of today provides for both constitutional and unconstitutional spending, I suppose a President could let the bill become law without his signature and then spend the money on the constitutional objects and not spend it on the unconstitutional objects. Or perhaps he could properly sign it and then refuse to spend on the unconstitutional objects. Some objects MUST be funded.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2018 | Reply

        • where can i find where you explain about the constitutional qualification to be able to be president . if im not mistaken it was said that upon the founding the person running for president had to be natural born in the united states and the father too but later the mother was added and a supreme court ruled that either parent mother or father could be natural born us citizen and not both. did i read that right ?


          Comment by steve brandt | April 13, 2018 | Reply

          • I have many posts on this – look under the Category “Natural Born citizen”.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | April 17, 2018

          • found it , thank you. another question.. does the 11th amendment stop a state citizen from suing a state employee like a judge or state attorney etc..?


            Comment by steve brandt | April 17, 2018

  9. PH….today, 03/19/18, an article by Edwin Vieira, Jr. appeared at in which he justifies the president’s potential use of the militia to address the above with some very questionable claims by his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, IMO. Rather than attempting to quote his entire argument, he uses (misuses?) as his supporting points the following:

    1. Article 2 Section 3: “the president is sworn to take care that the laws be faithfully executed…” but he refers to US Code often rather than properly crafted and Constitutionally appropriate laws by Congress under its delegated powers.

    2. Article 1 Sections 15 and 16, Congressional power to call forth the Militia and discipline them, etc., but Vieira says schools shootings are ‘domestic violence’ which falls under the ‘common defense’ duty of the federal government, although C 15 only mentions the VALID laws of the union, insurrections and invasions, not domestic violence.

    3. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes, claiming such money appropriated for the common defense may be used by the president to address this ‘domestic violence’.

    These are the main Constitutional provisions he believes support his contention that Trump could lawfully provide security for the schools and Vieira goes to much greater lengths to explain his contentions.

    I disagree in every instance but wonder if my own understanding of these Constitutional provisions is as solid as I think it is. Have you time to comment?


    Comment by nelsonaire1 | March 19, 2018 | Reply

  10. PH, good news finally. Re ratifiers’ understanding of Art I Sec 9 Clause 1. Doc `5, Debate in NC Ratifying Convention, 26 July 1788, Elliot 4:100-102. Mr. Iredell clearly explained his understanding of this provision. The term “migration” was throwing me, but his explanation finally clarified the meaning for me. To wit, “The committee will observe the distinction between the two words migration and importation. The first part of the clause will extend to persons who come into this country as free people, or are brought as slaves. But the last part extends to slaves only. The word migration refers to free persons; but the word importation refers to slaves, because free people cannot be said to be imported. The tax, therefore, is only to be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who migrate.” At last. Gotta’ do a lot of back peddling now.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by jim delaney | March 19, 2018 | Reply

  11. PH- my question is in regards to protecting the borders. Is this a job left to the states? because as i read it short of repelling an invasion and calling forth the militia and military (army and navy) i can’t see any where the federal government has that authority. Am i missing something?


    Comment by Gary | March 17, 2018 | Reply

    • The federal government does have the constitutional authority to control the borders. The power to control immigration was delegated to Congress as of January 1808 (Article I, Section 9, clause 1); and Article IV, Section 4 imposes on the federal government the DUTY to protect the States from Invasion. Article I, Section 8, clause 15 delegates to Congress the power to call forth the Militia of the Several States to “repel Invasions”.

      [see my posts under the Category “Militia”. The National Guard we have now is NOT the “Militia” contemplated at Art. I, sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16.]

      As to the powers of States to defend themselves, see The Invasion of Arizona – The Remedy When The Federal Government Refuses To Do Its Duty

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2018 | Reply

  12. Dearest Publius, the recent threats of gun control, the NICS and the Fix NICS and banning bumpstocks, then the idea to ban and or restrict the AR 15… and these evil and or ignorant legislators who more than likely know little to nothing about our foundings… then i spoke with the NRA and they told me these “gun laws” are constitutional because of the changes over the years to our “founding laws”… i dont think so but i dont believe it… What changes to our original Constitution… have been made and how are they supposedly justified today with all these ‘threats’. I share your links on FB in particular about establishing the State Militias according to the Constitution. thank you Mama.


    Comment by madelyn thide | March 14, 2018 | Reply

    • NRA isn’t on our side. It’s run by unprincipled fools.

      Gun Owners of America is better although they too need lessons in the Constitution. Their support for a FEDERAL concealed carry reciprocity bill is totally wrong and misguided. The federal government has no constitutional authority to make such a law!

      Our federal Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to make ANY restrictions on arms over the Country at large.

      President Trump needs to learn our Constitution!

      But that is the Problem of our Time: People have abandoned external transcendent Standards – such as our Constitution. Instead, they go by their own opinions on what should and should not be done.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 14, 2018 | Reply

      • but the states can regulate the second amendment anyway they want according to justice alito … thats exactly what an illinois politician said about the illinois hb 1465 in which they are telling 18-20 year old they cant have assault rigles and they MUST turn them in


        Comment by steve brandt | March 14, 2018 | Reply

        • State Legislatures are restricted by two Documents respecting what they may lawfully do respecting regulation of firearms:

          1. Their own State Constitutions. The ones I have looked at prohibit the state governments from significantly restricting arms.

          2. State governments may make no law which would interfere with the federal government’s power, granted by Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, to organize and train the Militia of the Several States.

          See this which sets it forth succinctly and accurately: From Duty to be Armed to Permission to Carry which is here:

          3. Dr. Alan Keyes also recently wrote about this issue: Congress: Do your duty and revive the militias which is here:

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 14, 2018 | Reply

          • PH – I believe there are currently 6 States with no Constitutional restraints upon their State governments in the area of the R2K&BA: California, Maryland, NY, NJ, Minnesota & Iowa.

            Iowa has a vague reference to self protection, but doesn’t mention the right to keep & bear arms specifically. I saw legislation earlier this year that proposes to change their Constitution to provide a restraint on their governments. (For whatever good that’ll do)

            I know of NO State that has NOT violated their Constitution on the issue of the RtK&BA. Including my own State of Arizona.

            Regards, Pete


            Comment by cgdustdevil | March 14, 2018

          • R2K&BA?


            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2018

        • Proposed HB 1465 violates the U.S. Constitution and is an illegitimate bill. The state legislature majority doesn’t seem to care about the supreme law of the America. They operate like third world banana republic dictators, only their opinion, their worldview matters not the law. Even though they swore an oath to uphold the constitutions. Article one, section eight, clauses fifteen and sixteen of the U.S. Constitution which pertain to the state militias prevents states from banning guns to those under 21 years olds…. 18, 19 20 year olds must have access to semi-automatic weapons the corrupt state legislature is trying to ban. The US Constitution and the 10th amendment grants Congress the power over state militias. Per clause sixteen, the states are reserved only the authority to appoint officers and train their respective state militia in a discipline prescribed by congress. . It is article one, section eight, clauses fifteen and sixteen of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the states from banning arms and disarming the militias (citizens). The tenth amendment states the powers not delegated to the federal gov’t by the U.S. Constitution or prohibited by the U.S. constitution to the states are reserved to the states respectively. It’s obvious the states are prohibited by the U.S, constitution from the authority to disarm the militias and or infringe the right to keep and bear arms since the constitution explicitly grants congress authority over state militias with the only exceptions being the appointment of officers and training.

          “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” – George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution 1788

          No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia.” As Justice Scalia ably articulated in Heller, the Second Amendment was designed to protect what Blackstone called “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” Without access to the weapons in common use in our time, the law-abiding citizen will grow increasingly and intolerably vulnerable to the lawless. Thus, to properly defend life and liberty, access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines isn’t a luxury; it’s a necessity.

          NOWHERE in the US Constitution did we delegate to the government any right to impose ANY restrictions on guns, ammo, etc.
          I simply don’t see how state govt thinks it has the lawful authority to override federal and US constitutional law. The 10th amendment in the US constitution spells it out, state laws are subservient to federal law. The Illinois general assembly cannot lawfully raise the age to 21 for the purchase of semi-automatic weapons. No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia.” The states of Connecticut and Maryland both found that out, when their respective gun bans were deemed unconstitutional by the federal courts. It’s rule of law, not rule by corrupt state legislature. The states cannot ban semi-auto guns to 18, 19, 20 year olds…. They are part of the militia and must be afforded ALL constitutional protections.

          Steve, Most of my comment comes directly from PH’s writings for which I am very greatful. The sad thing is there are over a dozen lawyers in the Illinois state legislature, but not one has raised the issue of the ban violating the US Constitution.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Spense | March 14, 2018 | Reply

          • spence , i agree totally but as i said , this politician up in chicago cited alito’s opinion. she became upset when i told her his opinion isnt law nor is the supreme court given final say. of course she came at me with this ” the constitution is a old outdated document ” i told her age doesnt change the fact she is a public servant and is still limited because right and wrong never changes and the forefather were a hell of a lot smarter than anyone today because they put safety triggers because they knew politicians in time would manipulate and become corrupt . i know your busy but ive been trying to get with you about this stuff going on here in illinois and was hoping that we could work together and grow the knowledge to spread out to people . we have to get the truth out in order to start being able to hold these corrupt politicians in check


            Comment by steve brandt | March 14, 2018

  13. PH
    AG Sessions took action against CA in District Court regarding their immigrations actions. My copy of the Constitution says in Art. III, sec. 2 that “in all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Is filing in District Court just a modern day delaying tactic? Isn’t there a copy of the Constitution somewhere in the DOJ?


    Comment by Klaus P Lindner | March 8, 2018 | Reply

    • Don’t you know? Lawyers don’t go by the Constitution! They go by what the Supreme Court says and what Congress does.

      Yes, the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) requires the federal government to file its lawsuit against California in the US Supreme Court.

      But a while ago, Congress passed a statute saying such actions would be filed in federal district Court. And everyone went along with it – go with the flow, don’t you know?

      I wrote about it here ; and Dr. Alan Keyes wrote a kind and supportive article about it.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2018 | Reply

  14. Regarding your COS Dog & Pony Show posting, this comment from a friend: “I’ve read that article. I’ve observed the simulation. A good friend and Representative of my district was there. We have talked about it at length. I found it enlightening. The first paragraph of the article is misleading. A Convention of States is not a Constitutional Convention. It’s sole purpose is to put forth amendments as congress itself has done 27 times and must be ratified by 38 states (3/4) in order to become law. That in itself is a powerful safeguard along with one vote per state. The question I have is why would the Framers put such a provision in the Constitution if it was not to be considered. I think it was placed there as a “safety valve” and last ditch effort to avoid an armed conflict or another armed revolution. Seems reasonable. Why would we not use every tool in the tool box. Some folks seem to want to use a hammer when a wrench would do the job. BTW, the “Constitution for the Newstates of America” referred to in the article was put together in 1964 the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, an offshoot of the Ford Foundation was debunked a long time ago and has nothing I can find to have a connection to COS. The innuendos are strong in the article, but lack any convincing facts.”

    What your response, so I can share it with him. Thanks.


    Comment by Jim Delaney | March 7, 2018 | Reply

    • I’ve addressed all those spurious objections in various of my recent papers. Can’t you respond to it?

      And surely you know that when someone makes an assertion, the burden is on him to prove it – e.g., where is the Proof that the Constitution for the Newstates of America was “debunked”.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 17, 2018 | Reply

  15. Publius Hulda, here are a few questions for you: 1: What are your thoughts on tax policy? 2: Politically, in your opinion, who has the better argument for limiting the power of government-conservatives or libertarians? 3: On the matter of marriage, should it have any legal recognition or should government stay out of the matter? 4: Despite the damages associated with both matters, what is worse-drug use or the drug war?


    Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | February 17, 2018 | Reply

    • Jeffrey! You ask the wrong questions!

      First of all, “my thoughts” are generally irrelevant. The relevant question is “what does our Constitution say?”

      Congress may levy the taxes authorized by our Constitution – but Congress may levy taxes ONLY to carry out the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

      Everything I have heard the so-called “conservatives” and “libertarians” say is (at best) silly and incoherent.

      The federal government has no constitutional authority [over the Country at large] to address “marriage”. That is an issue reserved to the States and The People. It is up to them to handle that issue – not me. Or you. However, as a Christian, I point out that under God’s law, Marriage is a Family Matter – homosexuality is a crime – and that God’s Law has much to say about who may marry whom.

      The federal government has no constitutional authority [over the Country at large] to address “drugs”. That is an issue reserved to the States and The people. It is up to them to decide that issue, not me. Or you. However, as a former criminal defense attorney, I point out that the Bible doesn’t criminalize such things as drunkenness, gluttony, and such like. Those are matters of individual self-government. The concept of Personal Responsibility has disappeared in our corrupt degenerate Country – Americans want to claim “victim status” and blame-shift for their own failings.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 17, 2018 | Reply

      • Publius Huldah, you say that I ask the wrong questions. When I inquired at to your thoughts, I was asking on the basis as to your views on government overreach into areas that it has no place in. Yes, our Constitution has the say in matters like this. Insofar as I know, that was not actively denied on my part. As far as your point about victim status is concerned, those on the Left of the political aisle are guilty of encouraging a victim status and mentality.

        Here are more questions for you and other readers: 1: Assuming that the war on drugs has any legitimate basis, what are your thoughts (and those of other people here) on the hypocrisy of politicians who admit to their use and yet want to punish other people who do the same thing? 2: Despite the distaste that some people have for prostitution, do you think it should be legal to engage in if there is consent or do you think it should remain illegal? 3: What are your thoughts on home school or private school as alternatives to public school? 4: In your opinion, who has better arguments over the issue of the minimum wage-Democrats or Republicans?


        Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | February 18, 2018 | Reply

        • Well, obviously, the federal gov’t acts wrongly when it meddles in areas over which it has no constitutional authority. There are remedies for such usurpations; but as a People, we are so ignorant we don’t know about the remedies, and are too cowardly to employ the remedies even when told about them.

          1. The federal gov’t has no lawful authority to meddle in drugs for the Country at Large. That is an issue reserved to the States and the People.

          2. The fed gov’t has no lawful authority over “prostitution” for the Country at large. That is an issue reserved to the States or the People. As one of those rare Christians who actually reads the Bible, I can tell you that God’s law does NOT criminalize prostitution.

          Of course, that doesn’t mean that pimps & pornographers should be permitted by State governments to exploit children and women for the sex trade.

          3. Minimum wage? Can you cite Article, Section and Clause of the federal Constitution which authorizes the federal gov’t to meddle in wages (over the Country at Large)?

          I’m hoping to get you to think in terms of First Principles – and get your focus off what the different factions are saying.

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2018 | Reply

          • Publius Huldah, actually, I am. Personally, there are things I find distasteful, however, I just choose not to engage in them.


            Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | February 19, 2018

          • You have a long way to go before you can think in terms of being governed by external transcendent Standards.
            You are very much in love with your own opinions on all these matters of polity.
            Read the US Constitution. Highlight all the enumerated powers. That’s what the federal government may address.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2018

          • Publius Huldah, I am not trying to be a pest or anything with my curiosities. Just making conversation.


            Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | February 19, 2018

          • This is a forum for discussion of our federal Constitution – not a survey of peoples’ personal opinions!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 25, 2018

          • Publius Huldah, that part I get. My primary purpose for the specified curiosities is if you thought that government was getting too involved in areas outside of its Constitutional and legal authority.


            Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | February 25, 2018

          • Then why did you ask what we thought about it?

            Just look at the list of enumerated powers.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 25, 2018

  16. My question has to do with Impoundment of duly appropriated funds by a president. Jefferson evidently began this practice, which continued through Nixon. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 put the brakes on the practice as I understand it.

    The CFA’s BBA passed (pre-ratified) here in Arizona codifies the practice in Section 4, and ratification would obviously delegate that power to the President as a result.

    So it is my understanding that impoundment of appropriated funds is NOT currently a delegated power of the president. Am I correct in that construction? It seems to me that the president is already provided with the power of being a ‘check’ on the House’s (and optionally, the Senate’s) appropriations via his or her signature, which is required for enactment. Hence, the delegation of the power to impound appropriations would make the president a concurrent part of the spending process rather than a check on the appropriation process.

    That would seem (to me) to create the very scenario that the 1974 legislation sought to restrain!

    Do I have this right?

    Thank you as always!
    Regards, Pete


    Comment by cgdustdevil | February 15, 2018 | Reply

    • 1. Say we had a President who knows and obeys the Constitution.
      Congress passes a law appropriating money to do something unconstitutional.
      The President vetoes it.
      Congress overrides the veto.
      the President should still refuse to enforce the law because it is unconstitutional! So the appropriated funds remain unspent. That is a power which naturally flows from his obligation to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. What does the Oath mean if not that he must refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws?

      2. I haven’t read the “impoundment control act of 1974”. But Congress can’t lawfully make a law which contradicts the obligation placed by the Constitution on the President to “protect and defend the Constitution”!

      3. Section 4 of CFA’s “BBA” [really a new taxes amendment] says whenever the national debt exceeds 98% of “the debt limit set by Section 2”, the President shall “impound” sufficient expenditures so that the national debt won’t exceed the “authorized debt”. And if the President doesn’t do this, Congress may impeach him! Section 6 defines “impoundment” as “a proposal not to spend all or part of a sum of money appropriated by Congress”. But who thinks Congress will impeach the President for failing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress?

      Also, the President already has the power – derived from the obligation placed on him by his Oath of Office – to refuse to spend money appropriated for unconstitutional programs.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 15, 2018 | Reply

  17. PH, your blog is fountain of clear-headed analysis. I’ve decided to devote 30 minutes a day (more, if possible) to simply read the commentary on the “Ask Questions”. Always find valuable nuggets of info. Have been viewing your YouTube presentations and I’m blown away. SO clear, concise, well-organized, understandable. Thank you.(P.S. Still have lingering–and honest–problems with your interpretation of Art I Sec 9. Still working on that. Never seen so much divergent opinion on the meaning of this Section among “originalists”. Thanks again. You’re an inspiration.


    Comment by jim delaney | January 22, 2018 | Reply

    • Thank you!

      I wouldn’t dare “interpret” the Constitution! That would be wicked. All I do is set forth what the Framers said. Madison and Jefferson were two of the brightest lights who ever lived. Where they have spoken, I wouldn’t contradict.

      I spend all my time trying to stop an Article V convention – I’ve got all my research on immigration in a stack. For now, start with Jefferson’s draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

      The confusion on the immigration issue was started by the Libertarians. THEY believe in open borders – they think that anyone who wants to come here should be allowed to do so. They convinced Patriots that the federal government has no power to control migration into this Country – and the Patriots can’t get that silly idea of out their heads!

      But our Framers [and of course, I], say that one of the most important things a government can do is….. KEEP OUT THE RIFF-RAFF! See Federalist No. 2 (5th para) John Jay.

      All that crap in Emma Lazarus’s stupid poem about giving us the world’s huddled masses, etc., is progressive poison designed to destroy our Country. But people got conditioned to believe that rubbish! I think we should scrub that rubbish off of the statue of liberty and replace it with something like, “OK, what do YOU have to offer this Country?”

      Our Framers wanted only people who would contribute value to our Country.

      Liked by 3 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 22, 2018 | Reply

      • As one who is quite involved with (and in many cases, sympathetic to) the so-called “Patriot & Liberty Movements”, I have to say that you’re exactly right about the origins of the “open borders” business! I see the ‘immigration as a State issue & naturalization as a National issue’ arguments broadcast all the time! It’s a frustrating phenomenon to deal with.

        Thanks to your splendid work, there IS a little good news. I’ve been able to successfully challenge and change views of some of those well-intended people on the proper role of the general government in the business of migration! I take a lot of flak along with those bits of success, but as they say: “If you aren’t taking fire, then you aren’t over the target.”

        I see a LOT of flailing going on in the “Patriot & Liberty” movements. It reminds me of the old Marlon Brando classic from 1953 (The Wild One) where Mary Murphy’s character asks Brando’s character (a rebellious biker) what he was rebelling against. Brando’s character doesn’t miss a beat – He replies “Whatcha got?” It’s human nature I guess, and it’s understandable with the sheer volume of problems there are to deal with. People are often well intended, but impatient and anxious to ‘do something’! So they take up the views of others (which too often have no legitimate foundation) as their cause in an effort to be a part of some perceived ‘solution’.

        Precisely the kinds of shepherding that the Framers/Founders knew would take place! Human nature hasn’t changed so much in all those years!

        Best regards, Pete


        Comment by cgdustdevil | January 23, 2018 | Reply

        • Pete! Please email me at

          I want to write you, but don’t have your correct email address.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 23, 2018 | Reply

          • As requested… You should have my email address!


            Comment by cgdustdevil | January 23, 2018

  18. Did the founders envision and authorize that district judges’ rulings should have the lawful weight of affecting a nationwide federal action? For example, theri rulings against Trump’s recision of Obama’s unconstitutional DACA executive order, or their nixing Trump’s decision to disallow LGBT enlistments, etc. To me, these judicial action appear to be examples of ideological obstructionism and judicial usurpation. What does the Constution say about all this?


    Comment by Jim Delaney | January 19, 2018 | Reply

  19. PH, on what Constitutional grounds may the feds arrest sanctuary city or state officials for flaunting federal execution of immigration laws. I believe the anti-commandeering doctrine permits the States not to “cooperate” with fed officials, but on what specific grounds can their non-cooperation be rendered as violations of federal law? Dovetailing with this query is the withholding of federal funds to sanctuary cities, counties, states. How can that be lawfully done? Thanks very much.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Jim Delaney | January 19, 2018 | Reply

    • Jim, this issues was discussed a while ago in the comments. On my admin page, I have a “search comments” box. I typed in “sanctuary cities” and the previous discussions came up.

      I don’t know what my website looks like to other people. Is there a “search comments” box available to you?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 19, 2018 | Reply

      • I typed in “sanctuary cities” in the upper right field followed by the word “search”, but nothing came up.


        Comment by Jim Delaney | January 19, 2018 | Reply

        • Go to the “Ask Questions” page;
          scroll down to the very bottom to “older comments”;
          when they come up, type “sanctuary” in your browser’s “find” thingy and you should find the word highlighted.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 19, 2018 | Reply

          • Still can’t find the info. NOW THIS QUESTION TOO: California has announced its intention to permit automatic registration of illegal aliens to vote in elections. Where in the Constituition does it prohibit States from permitting illegal aliens to vote in federal elections. I gather that voting in local–even State elections?– is permitted by the Constitituion, but not sure where in the Constitution. Thanks.


            Comment by jim delaney | January 22, 2018

          • California has already permitted illegals to get registered to vote in any election. – go to the link, watch the video and look at the linked documents where I have the two pieces of legislation passed in Calif to bring this about.

            Article I, Sec. 2, clause 1, US Constitution. The States retained the power to determine the qualifications of voters. And don’t forget, under our original Constitution, the only federal office The People voted for were election to the House of Representatives in Congress.

            The 4 voting amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th) addresses voting by Citizens in the federal elections. This is clear evidence that only Citizens are eligible to vote in federal elections.

            Voting in local and statewide elections would be properly addressed in each State’s Constitution.

            About finding the other info: I could drop what I’m doing and go to the 2nd page of the comments on the “Ask Questions” page, scan it, and then copy and paste it for you – or you could do it!

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 22, 2018

          • if the federal government has the delegated power to control immigration and illegal how can a person in the states being here illegally get the privilege to vote ?


            Comment by steve brandt | January 22, 2018

          • Because we allowed our Country to be overrun with illegals to whom Democrats gave the power to vote. NONE of our Presidents, including Ronald Regan whom the republicans love so much, had the guts and wisdom to step up to the plate and stop the invasion of illegals.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 22, 2018

          • so can those law makers be arrested for conspiring to over throw the federal government or be arrested by a citizen ?


            Comment by steve brandt | January 22, 2018

          • For too long, we have been looking at our problems the wrong way. Our problems aren’t caused by bad lawmakers – and they can’t be solved by “arresting” them.
            BTW: Do not try a “citizens’ arrest”.

            Our problems are caused by an indifferent & corrupt & ignorant people who elected to office candidates who told them what they wanted to hear.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 23, 2018

          • Thank, PH. Found it. Item 32.


            Comment by jim delaney | January 22, 2018

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


    Comment by Spense | January 16, 2018 | Reply

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2018 | Reply

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

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

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

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


        Comment by cgdustdevil | January 16, 2018 | Reply

        • Thanks for the information, cgdustdevil!

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

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2018 | Reply

          • P.H. I am no fan of Judge Navarro, but I have to believe that she went up against some pretty strong political and ‘deep state’ headwinds over this dismissal. Whether or not she can (or is willing to) extend her proper judicial responsibility to Tier 2 remains to be seen. Unfortunately, Trump will not be any help, as he’s already demonstrated that he’s as hamstrung by US Judges as every other recent president has allowed themselves to be. I think the President had a golden opportunity to push back against the stranglehold that the US Judiciary has had on the two principal branches of the general government & the several States by executing his immigration Executive Order in defiance of their seemingly unfettered power of judicial review. But instead deferred to the whims of cherry-picked Judges.

            Trump was also not very favorable to the grievances of western ranchers (or the Constitution) in some of his pre-election campaign Q&A sessions. (e.g. his Field & Stream interview at the L.V. Shot show in early 2016 where he stated that federal lands need to remain in federal hands) Sadly, I fear the Bundys, Hammonds and the other ranchers who’ve been wronged are on their own. We pray that Navarro sees the mischief being done and finds the will to take action.

            No Ma’am… I am most certainly not a vacuum cleaner! (Although some might argue the point!) Just an old retired Oil/Gas/Power Generation guy who’s been going to the Publius Hulda & Edwin Vieira schools of Constitutional construction for a good number of years! The “Dustdevil” moniker comes from a clear-weather turbulence phenomenon (sustained, well formed whirlwind) that we experience out here in the Arizona desert! The “CG” are the initials of a nearby town!

            Thank you for all you do for us!!
            Regards, Pete


            Comment by cgdustdevil | January 17, 2018

          • Thank you, cgdustdevil! For the info about the Bundy case, your kind words, and for your name. I live in a remote hilly area with glens and thriving vegetation, much of which is poison ivy or kudzu. You can plant Kudzu in Arizona and in a year, you will have no more dust!

            I was a criminal defense lawyer for a while. There is no greater sin than for the prosecutor to withhold exculpatory evidence. No Judge with 1/2 of a proper conscience would let a prosecutor get away with that. So I also thank the Judge for doing the right thing.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 17, 2018

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

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Robert | January 16, 2018 | Reply

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


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2018 | Reply

        • The so-called “Tier 2” defendants have had their charges dismissed with prejudice today. (Tier 2 = Mel & Dave Bundy, Joe O’Shaugnessy and Jason Woods) So the Bunkerville chaos appears to be about over except some lingering early charges that may or may not go anywhere. Joe O’Shaugnessy still has some trouble with Oregon over Malheur, but we’ll see how that pans out. He may get ‘time served’…

          Now the unsettling news – There is scuttlebutt going around that the prosecution is looking to have Judge Navarro’s dismissal reversed and to re-try Cliven, Ammon, Ryan Bundy and Ryan Payne. I can’t imagine that Sessions isn’t in on that caper.

          Regards, Pete


          Comment by cgdustdevil | February 7, 2018 | Reply

          • Well, it’s been a while since I was criminal defense attorney, and I haven’t kept up with “the law”; but my initial reaction is that when the Judge dismissed the cases “with prejudice”, the cases are over and the Court loses jurisdiction to re institute the charges.

            But who knows in these days of injustice and tyranny?

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2018

      • Thanks PH, I learned something today

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Spense | January 16, 2018 | Reply

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2018 | Reply

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

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


    Comment by Tim Devore | January 14, 2018 | Reply

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


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

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


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 10, 2018 | Reply

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

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by steve brandt | January 10, 2018 | Reply

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


    Comment by Bruce | January 10, 2018 | Reply

  24. Hello PH

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

    He included a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

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

    And this quote from John Adams:

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

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

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

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

    After talking about the Federalist Papers, he concludes with:

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

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

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


    Comment by Chuck | January 9, 2018 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

      So Jeff Schweitzer is as wrong as can be.

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

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


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 10, 2018 | Reply

  25. PH

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

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



    Comment by Bob | January 9, 2018 | Reply

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

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


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 9, 2018 | Reply

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


    Comment by CWB | January 8, 2018 | Reply

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


    Comment by ronvrooman38 | January 7, 2018 | Reply

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


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2018 | Reply

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


        Comment by ronvrooman38 | January 8, 2018 | Reply

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


    Comment by Bob | January 7, 2018 | Reply

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

      A statute could set a mandatory minimum punishment.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2018 | Reply

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


      Comment by Con Mah | January 7, 2018 | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

        Oregon constitution; Article one, Section 3.

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

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

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


        Comment by Spense | January 7, 2018 | Reply

        • Wow, Spence! Applause! Applause!


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2018 | Reply

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


            Comment by Spense | January 7, 2018

          • You make me proud, Son!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2018

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


            Comment by bobmontgomery | January 8, 2018

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

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

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

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


            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2018

        • Well said. I applaud you.


          Comment by IMO | January 8, 2018 | Reply

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


    Comment by Bob | December 30, 2017 | Reply

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 31, 2017 | Reply

  30. Dear Publius Hulda,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you!
    Regards, Pete …


    Comment by cgdustdevil | December 26, 2017 | Reply

    • I wrote this paper some years ago

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

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

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

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 26, 2017 | Reply

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

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Mike Travis | December 27, 2017 | Reply

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

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

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

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 27, 2017 | Reply

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


            Comment by steve brandt | December 27, 2017

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

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 27, 2017

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

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

          Curious, no?

          Regards, Pete


          Comment by cgdustdevil | December 27, 2017 | Reply

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

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

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

        Thanks again!!



        Comment by cgdustdevil | December 27, 2017 | Reply

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

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 27, 2017 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: