Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!


  1. Hello Publius:

    Thanks for all you’re doing.

    One question I have that I have not been able to find a solid answer is:

    How do we hold our representatives and government officers accountable for violating their oaths of office and what law(s) apply criminal or civil penalties therefor?

    If this info is already on your site, I apologize. I just recently found it and have been reading as much as I can when I can.

    Thanks again,



    Comment by Diamondback | March 20, 2015 | Reply

    • Dear Diamondback,
      I am unaware of any federal statutes which permit criminal prosecution of elected or appointed federal government officials for failing to abide by their oath to “support” the federal Constitution (Article VI, clause 3).

      Nor should there be such a criminal prosecution: We move into dangerous territory when we criminalize political actions – We do NOT want a system where a person can be criminally prosecuted for a position he took on this legislation or that legislation or for an opinion he wrote. Think of the dreadful ramifications: Say you are in the federal government and write a memo or recommendation or vote a certain way – and the next administration criminally prosecutes you for your political action.

      The criminal jurisdiction of the federal government is extremely LIMITED – and it must remain limited. I explain it here: We NEVER want them to prosecute “political” offenses.

      So what are we to do about elected officials who violate their Oaths of Office? James Madison told us:

      Elect faithful representatives! At the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 20, 1788, James Madison said our Constitution depends on the people having the “virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom” to office.

      In Federalist No. 44 [12th para from end], Madison says when Congress usurps powers, and the executive and judiciary departments go along with it,

      “…a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…”

      But we keep electing politicians who know nothing about our Constitution. We are shallow: Someone “cool” says something we like and we instantly want him for President! We make no inquiry into his knowledge of the Constitution. We put blind faith in people just b/c they catch our fancy. Organizations which evaluate their voting records tell us they are “conservative”, and we accept it even thou the word, “conservative”, lost all meaning long ago.

      In short, Hamilton expected the People to be the “natural guardians of the Constitution” (Federalist No. 16, next to last para). We are supposed to enforce it via our VOTES. WE are the ones who dropped the ball.

      But we can man up and start taking responsibility: Learn our Declaration of Independence and Constitution; grill candidates on them; and elect only people who know those two documents.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2015 | Reply

      • That’s exactly what I thought.

        So why do we require them to take the oaths to start with?

        Seems a waste of time to me.

        No response expected.

        Thanks a billion! (cause a million ain’t shiot anymore).



        Comment by Diamondback | March 23, 2015 | Reply

        • People used to generally honor their oaths: marriage vows, etc. Now they don’t – it’s just words meaningless words….. But that is an aspect of the moral corruption of our time and the moral blindness of the modern day Americans.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2015 | Reply

  2. PH,

    it appears that the Dick and National Defense Acts have the power to call forth the militia from congress to the president. Has anyone contested this transfer of delegated power?


    Comment by John Hindery | March 13, 2015 | Reply

    • Note that Article I, Sec. 8, clause 15, delegates to Congress the power to “provide for calling forth the militia ….” So Congress does have the lawful authority to provide that the President – who is CINC of the regular military – will be the one to actually do the calling forth.

      So, pursuant to clause 15, Congress provided as early as the Militia Act of February 28, 1795 that the President would be the one to call forth the Militia. Here is the 1795 Act:

      BTW: read the Militia Act: Note how short it is; it has one subject only; and is easy to understand. THEY knew how to draft legislation!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 14, 2015 | Reply

      • It seems that the NDAA (I don’t remember the date or number of the bill but we call it the National Destruction of America Act) where congress gave the President power to throw someone in prison forever without a trial has some consititutional issues. Maybe not specifically about calling forth the militia but it seems that this could be seriously abused. It seems that the constitution gaurantees a person a speedy trial. I wrote to our drooping doggy eared Senator (Orrin Hatch) and begged him not to vote for that bill. He said it was a good bill and that he voted for it and that President Obama has promised he would never use this power against US Citizens. I wrote back and told him that should tell him all he needs to know. All any president has to do to get rid of his opponents is to declare them terrorists and voila, they would magically disappear. Obama has promised that he would reward his friends and punish his enemies. (Sorry this is not well written. I am running on very little sleep. But I think you can see my point.)


        Comment by IMO | March 16, 2015 | Reply

        • The power to throw people in prison forever w/o a trial is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the fed gov’t. So, of course, it is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

          The shame and disgrace, however, lies on the heads of the voters who keep re-electing that senile and phony ignoramus to the US Senate.

          People are so easily manipulated: The sham “two-party” system – where we are told there is a material difference between R’s and D’s has fooled Americans for a long time.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 16, 2015 | Reply

          • It’s really quite embarrassing that we call ourselves (Utah) a conservative state. Some of the bills our state legislature passed this year would make both Lenin and Hitler proud. And they hated each other.


            Comment by IMO | March 16, 2015

          • The word, “conservative” has no meaning – people either obey the Constitution or they don’t. So-called “conservatives” don’t obey the Constitution any more than the Marxists. The Marxists are more honest than the phonies like Hatch.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 16, 2015

  3. Hello PH: I have a question about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. I read where this was unconstitutional given Article II, Section 3 and I wondered if you had a thought. Here is what I read:

    Thanks for your work! Hope all is well. Regards, David


    Comment by David Yamarick | March 4, 2015 | Reply

    • Hi, David.

      I think Ramsey’s article is nit-picking, shallow, and reflects a failure to think things through. Congress has the power to declare War; and the Senate has the power to ratify or reject treaties negotiated by the Executive Branch. In order to make wise decisions, Congress and the Senate need Information. They are not required to limit their “information” to that provided by the Executive Branch. Is Congress required to act ONLY on the basis of information provided to them by the Executive Branch? NO! Congress would be unable to act as a “check” on the Executive Branch if it were allowed to act only on the basis of the lies told by the Executive Branch. A good way for Congress to get the info it needs to make wise decisions on such matters is to hear what other world leaders have to say.

      The President is to “receive” foreign ministers – he is to be their host: invite them to dinners and such. But he is not the only person who may speak with foreign ministers! Or invite them to speak.

      Honestly, I think all the so-called “conservative” organizations have been taken over by Progressives. The effect of Ramsey’s article is to increase Executive Power AT THE EXPENSE OF the Legislative Branch.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2015 | Reply

  4. Hi PH, please disregard my earlier question. I did some digging around with my search engine and found the answer to my question. Sorry to be a bother.


    Comment by Spense | February 27, 2015 | Reply

    • Son, you are never a bother – I love to see your name on a post.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 27, 2015 | Reply

  5. Although there is, by the Constitution, a separation of “Church from State” – it would be best to replace “Church” with “Religion” which would, I thing (I’m not sure) would deprive any legislator or President from supporting any religion or group of a religion or a special law, like “Sharia”. The Truth of the the Jihadists in the middle East, ie: ISIS – they are actually maintaining their belief as provided by the Koran (Quoran) regardless of what anyone has said… they are true to their faith…


    Comment by Alan (Joseph) Stanford (Thaddeus) | February 26, 2015 | Reply

  6. Abouna Gregori referred me to your website/blog. I am amazed. I am concerned though about a couple of states who have ALLOWED SHARIA LAW to come about in those states, I believe one is florida AND the other is MICHIGAN. How can they get away with that ???? You may contact me by e-mail: (208) 459-2901. You are blessed and a blessing…


    Comment by Alan (Joseph) Stanford (Thaddeus) | February 26, 2015 | Reply

  7. I am a new homeschooling parent. I have recently been attempting to enlighten myself on the issues surrounding the parental rights amendment, and that is how I found you. Everything you have said speaking out against the parental rights amendment makes sense to me! However, the 4th point Mr. Farris makes in his 2013 rebuttal of your analysis does concern me and prompted me to reach out to you. Practically speaking, should there be any type of amendment or law (perhaps not federal, but on state level, and without any vague language!) to help protect our God given right as parents against infringements? Everything I have read from you makes sense “in a perfect world” but my fear is that in reality parental rights are in danger and that asserting that they are inalienable God-given rights, and supporting the reduction/elimination of existing state regulations as a means for retaining those rights will not be enough. Is there a middle ground here, or not? Also, most of what I could find was dated back in 2013. If you have published or know of any relevant, up to date information, I would be interested in further reading. Thank you so much for taking the time to consider my question as it comes from a sincere and concerned Mommy!


    Comment by Aimee Hubmann | February 26, 2015 | Reply

    • Actually, the ONLY way to protect parental rights is to do as Justice Scalia suggested: Get State laws which meddle in the family repealed.

      As soon as “parental rights” becomes part of State or federal constitutions, it then becomes fodder for the courts. Look, e.g., at how the US Supreme court perverted the 1st amendment: All the amendment does is list 5 areas where CONGRESS may NOT make any restrictive laws. Yet the US Supreme Court used the 1st amendment to ban prayers in the public schools.

      We would have been better off without the 1st amendment – as Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 84 (around the 10th para) where he said:

      “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”

      What Hamilton warned about came to pass. My paper here shows how the Supreme Court used the 1st Amendment to ban prayer in the public schools

      My video here shows how the Supreme Court interprets items in the “bill of rights” b/c of the grant of judicial power to them at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 over all matters “arising under this Constitution”:

      So if you have any “right” which you cherish, you don’t want an amendment “protecting” it – b/c once it is part of the Constitution, the federal courts have jurisdiction over it to determine its scope and extent.

      The “parental rights” amendment is a monstrous trick which does the opposite of what Farris claims.

      My answer here is hasty b/c I am leaving in a few minutes to go out of State to give a speech, but after you see the referenced materials contact me and we’ll chat further.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 26, 2015 | Reply

  8. PH,

    USC A III, S 2, says ” … In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. …” Why didn’t the 26 State’s suit against the POTUS Executive Orders on immigration go directly to SCOTUS?


    Comment by John Hindery | February 25, 2015 | Reply

  9. Good evening mam’,
    My question is how can one believe that we are to pay taxes for things we do not agree with. Abortion is murder. …period. And if we don’t believe we are to “give to Ceasars, what is Ceasars ” we are sinning.
    Our founding fathers of this country , many who gave their lives, believed this tyranny was to be delt with. Many a firm believer on Christian principles. And they fought their tyrannical government. How is this government different?
    How can we bind our leaders to their Oath of Office?
    Thank you PH for fighting, and Godspeed!


    Comment by Mark Wolfe | February 23, 2015 | Reply

    • 1. I did not litigate in this area so am not an expert. But my colleagues who were criminal defense tax lawyers tell me the original intent of “income” in the 16th amendment did NOT include “wages” and “fees” for services rendered. “Income” was restricted to such things as rents.
      Read under the subheading (AND THE FOOTNOTE) Levin’s amendment “to limit federal taxing” (p 75) in this paper:

      2. Render to God what is God’s – render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. The obvious question is: Who decides what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar? Obviously, God does. So then, see this:
      Under God’s Model of civil government, taxation is very limited b/c the functions of civil government are limited and defined. Exodus 30 or thereabouts provided for the head tax which was to be paid by all adult males. The amount was the same for all – it was small enough so that the poorer males could pay it.

      3. Madison said in his address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 that our system depends on The People having the Wisdom & virtue to elect men of virtue and Wisdom to office. WE Failed to vet candidates. Look at the phony politicians Americans on “our side” are so excited about: These people do one thing the American People like, and Americans want him for president – based on one act or saying: Ben Carson (who favors federal gun control); etc.
      If Americans had a working knowledge of our Constitution, they could see that people like Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Allen West, etc. are ignorant phonies. The other day, someone “on our side” saw Carly Fiona’s (sp?) interview on TV and wants her as President. He is not concerned about whether she knows the Constitution and would obey it. He “liked” what he saw & heard and that’s all that matters to him.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 23, 2015 | Reply

  10. Where and when will you be speaking?


    Comment by CharlieSeattle | February 21, 2015 | Reply

    • I have events coming up in NC, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. What State are you in?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 21, 2015 | Reply

  11. CORRECTION : Hi Ph, I was just reading about the Washington state flower shop owner who refused to do the arrangements for a same-sex wedding because it violated her religious faith. Well a state judge found her guilty of violating the state’s civil rights law. That law is a state statute, it is NOT contained within the state constitution. ( Since the shop owner’s religious freedom is absolute as stated by the Washington state constitution (per the Declaration of Rights) How is it that a state judge could find her guilty of violating state statutes, when her religious freedom is secured by the state constitution? Aren’t state constitutions supreme in relationship to state statutes. If I am correct about that, then why isn’t there an outcry in Washington state about that judge’s judicial tyranny. It appears to me that judge is ignorant of Law 101


    Comment by Spense | February 20, 2015 | Reply

    • I expect your analysis is correct, Spense.
      The “law” is evaporating right now throughout this Country.
      The idea that a person has a “civil right” to demand that other private people cater to whatever practice a person chooses to indulge, is a perversion of the law.
      But we the People elect the politicians who make these laws and appoint these judges.
      There is a heavy price to pay for stupidity and apathy and laziness.

      The People would rather eat and watch “Snookie”.

      Apparently, the trial judge entered summary judgment against the flower shop owner. I trust she will appeal. Summary Judgments are often reversed on appeal. I would love to handle the case on appeal!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 20, 2015 | Reply

      • Thanks Mom, it is despicable how the state is punishing that 70 year old woman because she stands on her right of religious freedom. In my opinion, this is fascism!


        Comment by Spense | February 20, 2015 | Reply

  12. Are you back on FB?


    Comment by Mark Wolfe | February 20, 2015 | Reply

    • Yes, I am now a “public figure” since FB won’t let me be a private person.
      But I haven’t figured out how to use the page – it’s very different – so it will take a while to get it set up. Thank you!
      See you on March 2 in Wabash? Or March 3 in Columbia City?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 20, 2015 | Reply

      • Yes you will! March 2nd, Lord willing. I have a question, shall I post it here?


        Comment by Mark Wolfe | February 20, 2015 | Reply

        • Yes! Post it here.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 20, 2015 | Reply

  13. PH,

    I am greatly disappointed by your short response to my post of 02/10/15: “You don’t know what you are talking about.” What I posted was an analysis of the 14th Amendment by Jon Roland which is contrary to yours in that, where you insist that it imposes no obligations upon State governments nor removes their authority or power in any way, he proves (to my satisfaction thus far) that it actually does that and in the same way that Article 1 Section 10 limits State regulation and control over specific issues. It seems irrefutable to me that an Amendment to the Constitution would NOT impose directives to be followed, which you apparently insist here, when in actuality it formally alters the Constitution itself, and its supporters clearly insist that the intent IS to prohibit actions by State government as Sen Jacob Howard stated.

    Your constant exhortation to the public here is to learn and understand our Constitution; yet, when I attempt to point out another study and analysis of the 14th Amendment which contradicts yours, you reply that I, and not Mr. Roland, don’t know what I am talking about. It would be very helpful, to me at least, if you could illustrate exactly where he is wrong and you are right, especially where the validity of application of the restraints placed upon State governments as written in the 14th and in Article 1 Section 10 are concerned appear identical, and why your conclusions differ on them. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then frankly one must wonder about your other conclusions where the full and correct analyses and meanings of Constitutional provisions are concerned.

    If Mr. Roland is obviously incorrect on the 14th Amendment and if his proofs of analysis as partly derived from the debate processes during the construction of the wording of the 14th Amendment are faulty or contrived, surely it must be worthwhile to illustrate that rather simply to say that I don’t know what I am talking about?

    As I offered in the beginning, I am relatively new to delving into the Constitution deeply, and am seeking all of the responsible input toward more complete understanding of it that I can find. Your short dismissal of what appears to me to be an analysis of this issue superior to yours certainly isn’t helpful without a reasonable explanation from you as to why it is not, in my opinion. But of course, that is your right. In any case, thank you for at least reading the post.


    Comment by nelsonaire1 | February 11, 2015 | Reply

    • Do you hear yourself? You said,

      “…I am relatively new to delving into the Constitution deeply…”

      and yet you repeat what you have heard and insist that you know enough to judge the work of someone who has delved into this stuff for almost half a century – not as a dilettante – but by means of formal study and professional work fighting in the trenches!

      The ignorant conceit thus demonstrated is astounding. It does seem that the less people know, the more they think they know.

      Have a look at: 1 Timothy 1:6-7:

      “Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying, or the things about which they make assertions.”

      Some things never change.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 11, 2015 | Reply

      • PH,

        Again, you have failed to answer my question re the 14th amendment, which is: Why does it not impose upon State governments the same prohibitions as those of Congress to act where the first 8 Amendments to the US Constitution are concerned? …..


        Comment by nelsonaire1 | February 16, 2015 | Reply

        • Nelson: I do not argue with lay people about jurisprudence. It is a waste of time.

          I answer questions until a person shows he is an opinionated ignoramus. Then I say good-bye.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 16, 2015 | Reply

  14. I greatly appreciate your effort to educate many of us who were not given a proper education on “what is our government”? Now that you have defined what IT ISN’T, by showing a structure of at least 61 Service Corporations , and as well Members of Congress in the “well” have stated that ” We are here to serve the bankers” so if the US is not a “Maritime Foreign Corporation” for profit , What in God’s name is this beast that the Europeans, along with the help of some brilliant and unscrupulous kings, heads of state and the Vatican bank, What in god’s name are we?


    Comment by Milt Farrow | February 10, 2015 | Reply

    • My dear Milt,
      I have no idea what you are talking about.
      The Truth is simple: Our Constitution was a 5,000 year miracle but everyone has ignored it for 100 years and The People have no idea what it says or does.
      And so far, they have refused to learn.
      They prefer their own theories……


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 10, 2015 | Reply

  15. PH,

    You contend that the States are not obliged to honor the prohibitions upon governmental activity concerning the “rights” of individuals; that the US Constitution restricts only the Congress. You further contend that the 14th Amendment addresses only the issue of Black protections, leaving all else to the authority of the State governments.

    However, in his speech explaining the intent of the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard made particular reference to the first 8 Amendments to the Constitution as being as fully applicable to the States as to Congress. Doesn’t that mean that all States must in fact honor these rights and privileges as described in those first 8 Amendments, and as such, contradict your opinion on States’ rights over religion as well as the other rights covered by these 8 Amendments?


    Comment by nelsonaire1 | February 5, 2015 | Reply

    • No to almost everything you said.
      Do refrain from rephrasing what I have actually said b/c you get it wrong.

      Somewhere in these comments are discussions where I show that the original intent of the first 10 amendments was that they restricted only the federal government. Remember! The States had their own constitutions! And while I don’t cite SCOTUS opinions as authority – the supreme Court acknowledged in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the first 10 amendments restrict only the federal gov’t – not the States.

      Few laymen are able to understand the horrific ramifications of the position that the first 10 amendments also restrict the States. I’ll tell you in a few sentences: The supreme Court has “judicial power” over all cases arising under this Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1). THAT MEANS that the supreme Court has judicial power over the first 10 amendments as far as the States are concerned. THAT is how the States came under control of the fed. gov’t in all matters covered by the first 10.

      I’m in a rush now and will be until this legislative session is over. But perhaps if you search for Barron v. Baltimore in these comments, you can find the discussions.

      I mean to write a paper on this – just haven’t gotten around to it.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2015 | Reply

      • PH,

        Thank you for the reply. At almost 80 years of age, I come late to studying the details and importance of our Constitution, one reason being the current officeholder in the White House and his administration.

        But to continue….I have already read Barron v Baltimore and agreed with the Court’s decision in that the Constitution specifies the powers and prohibitions placed upon the federal system and very limited directives concerning the Stats. What troubles me is this.

        The Declaration of Independence speaks of the rights of man under the Laws of Nature. The Constitution itself, in the Bill of Rights, specifically names many of them and prohibits or limits the authority of Congress where they are concerned. The powers of the States/People are nearly unlimited.

        However, the 14th Amendment changed the Constitution in that it prohibited the States from acting in the very same ways that Congress itself was restrained where the Bill of Rights is concerned. Isn’t that exactly what Sen. Jacob M. Howard said in his speech? If the rights in the Bill of Rights are man’s by Nature and/or the Creator, how can it be that the States have authority to violate them? Is it only because the issue was “overlooked” in the federal contract until the 14th Amendment was passed? And if that amendment corrected this flaw (if it is a flaw), why aren’t the States thus prohibited in the same degree as Congress?

        My puzzlement surrounds the point that, if the 14th Amendment’s sole intent was to rectify the lack of rights status among the Black population in comparison to Constitutional rights heretofore enjoyed by Whites, which is how I understand your analysis, why would Sen. Howard declare the intent was to prohibit the States in the same way Congress is prohibited from acting where the specifics of the first 8 Amendments to the Constitution are concerned? And, why wouldn’t his statements of intent carry important weight?

        And finally, since the Constitutional method of amending itself was followed where the 14th Amendment is concerned, why doesn’t this actually “amend” the Constitution so that the States are required to honor the Bill of Rights, too? Isn’t this what amending the Constitution means; that the Constitution itself has been changed?

        I can’t seem to get my head around what seems to me to be such a glaring inconsistency.

        If you have time and the inclination, I’d sure like to have this issue cleared up for me, by you or through another source you might recommend.

        Note: I discovered your blog only recently. Wish I had come upon it a long time ago!


        Comment by nelsonaire1 | February 5, 2015 | Reply

        • It is clear.

          And the test of the accuracy of a SCOTUS opinion is NEVER NEVER whether we “agree” with it! We are not the standard of what is right or wrong – the Constitution is.

          You must look at the original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendmt. It was to extend citizenship to freed black slaves and protect them from southern black codes which denied them basic God-given rights.

          The definitive work on this is Raoul Berger’s book on the 14th amendment. I have a paper on it. Since I wrote the paper the website which carried Berger’s book redesigned their site and so messed up all my hyperlinks and I have not had time to find the new links. Perhaps you can find them – the book is very logically organized.

          Read the paper with an open mind.

          If you will read this paper, you will see that it was not until 1925 that SCOTUS “discovered” that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt. “incorporated” the 1st Amendment so as to give fed courts judicial power over the States with respect to those activities listed in the 1st Amdt. It was a monstrous usurpation of judicial power over the States which resulted in the supreme Court’s eradicating the Christian Religion from the public square.

          It would be a terrible error in Logic to jump to the conclusion, from my statement of the fact that the bill of Rights restricted only the feds, that the States may infringe God-given rights with impunity! THE STATES HAD THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONS!

          There is no inconsistency – you just need to rethink this – b/c you took a wrong turn………. But what I say above lays it out correctly.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2015 | Reply

          • PH,

            Thank you for your comments.

            I cannot help conclude that your analysis of the 14th Amendment is incorrect in that, contrary to your opinion, the 14th does impose upon State governments the prohibition to act against our Bill of Rights equal to that of Congress.

            I would refer you to the analysis of Jon Roland for a more complete description of the debates when the 14th Amendment’s provisions were discussed and adopted. I would also suggest that Section 1 is not exclusive to African Americans (doesn’t mention them specifically) but to all citizens of whatever race or ethnicity. And the prohibition that “No State shall make or enforce ANY LAW which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of CITIZENS of the United States” must be as fully effective in the 14th Amendment as are prohibitions placed upon States in Article 1 Section 10 Sections 1 through 3.

            The remaining question which might be debated concerns the definition of privileges and immunities, and I think that is also answered in the discussions conducted on record before the 14th was adopted. Numerous times the privileges and immunities phrase has been referred to as encompassing the
            basic rights or fundamental rights of the people of the United States. What could be more basic or fundamental than those enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

            My conclusion is, while the Articles of the US Constitution clearly address powers given to Congress along with certain prohibitions and obligations placed upon the States, the amendments adopted are also enforceable parts of the Constitution, the first 10 being the Bill of Rights. It seems only rational, then, that the amendments following the initial ten also are equally enforceable since they were adopted as lawful changes to the Constitution itself. Hence, the 14th Amendment changed what was previously “on the books” regarding the States with respect to the details within it and made Constitutional the same prohibitional effects as did Article 1 Section 10.

            Finally, I do accept your Constitutional analyses on the other issues which I’ve investigated thus far, such as your insistence that nothing here the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, authority to interpret things in such a way as to create new individual rights or to expand clearly defined Constitutional provisions, word or phrase meanings beyond original intent. The “incorporation process” clearly is flawed as it leaves to the SC an unfounded power to fundamentally alter the Constitutional meaning and intent.

            How am I doing so far?


            Comment by nelsonaire1 | February 10, 2015

          • You don’t know what you are talking about.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 10, 2015

    • Every time this question comes up, I go back to the Constitution and reread the First Amendment to see if there is something in there about the States, and every time I do, nothing has changed. It always reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. And every time this question comes up, I go back and see if it has been inserted that “Public schools shall not allow prayer”. And every time it is not there. And every time this question comes up, I go back and see if it says “State legislatures shall not allow prayer containing the words ‘Jesus Christ’ to open their sessions.” And every time it is not there. And every time this question comes up, I go back and see if it says “Tablets containing the words of the Ten Commandments shall not be erected on the courthouse square of any county in any state in the United States.” And every time it is not there. And every time this question comes up, in addition to going back to see if the Constitution has changed, I go back to see if what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. And I read those inscriptions on the walls and in the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States and I bristle that there are so many that think that my fellow Americans and I are stupid.


      Comment by bobmontgomery | February 5, 2015 | Reply

  16. Would it be possible for you to list no more than 10 succinct qualities or beliefs/convictions of a constitutional presidential candidate for the 2016 election? Example: 1. Understands and is committed to the original meaning and application of the U.S. Constitution as defined by our founders in the Federalist Papers. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful response.


    Comment by Bob Waterbury | February 4, 2015 | Reply

    • Well, I will start a list now and perhaps amend it later:
      1. What you said is the first one I thought of also.
      2. He must be a good administrator – a good executive. e.g., I understand the Constitution like the back of my hand, but am a poor manager.
      3. He must be faithful to his spouse! A man who lies to his wife will lie to us.
      4. He must have a good moral character.
      5. He must be strong – able to listen to advice from WISE people (not from movie stars) – weigh it and make decisions. He must always be open to advice from the Wise.
      6. He must be an excellent judge of character – so he can select good advisers and federal judges.
      7. He must have humility and remember that he is a SERVANT – not our lord, master, and ruler.
      8. He must be a hard worker.
      9. He must be emotionally stable! No neurotics! No narcissists!
      10. He must prefer a private life to a public life – but enter the public arena only because he is called to do so. Anyone who wants the job for the glory is morally unfit for it!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2015 | Reply

      • Great comments. I will certainly consider them as I put together some additional thoughts on the subject. Thanks again for the prompt and thoughtful reply. Bob W.


        Comment by | February 4, 2015 | Reply

      • What do you think the response would be if one were to circulate a “Wanted” poster such as this throughout the internet for 2016? WANTED (Alive Only) One presidential candidate who: 1. Understands and is committed to the original meaning and application of the U.S. Constitution as defined by our founders in the Federalist Papers. 2. Is strongly committed to restoring the rights of the States defined as all other rights not specifically delegated to the U.S. Federal Government. 3. Upholds the Constitutional rights of “We The People” to protest, recall, and dismantle any federal government or agency that tramples the Constitutional rights of its citizens. 4. Is committed to reduce the reach, authority, and financial burden of the federal government upon its citizens so that they can do more for themselves. 5. Is a fair and honest administrator as well as a strong chief executive that listens to the wise and godly counsel of knowledgeable advisors. 6. Is of good moral character –not deceitful — and faithful to spouse and family. 7. Remembers that he is a servant to the people—not lord, master, or king. 8. Prefers private life to public life and simply serves because he feels the calling to restore America and American values to a great nation. 9. Is a keen judge of character and able to appoint wise, intelligent advisors and judges to help keep and administer the law –regardless of sex, race, or religion. 10. Considers himself no higher than a common, ordinary citizen with no desire to be elevated above or beyond the law, and governs at the will of “ We the People” accordingly. If you consider yourself the candidate according to the principles outlined above, then please stand up and declare yourself to the citizens of the United States of America. As of yet, we have not met you. But we welcome the opportunity to get to know you better._ Respectfully, Bob W. (And thanks again for your thoughts)


        Comment by | February 4, 2015 | Reply

        • Excellent except that:
          ++ Our Founding Principles are listed in our Declaration and our Constitution implements those Principles.

          ++ There is no such thing as a “constitutional right”. Rights pre-exists the Constitution. The Constitution is not the source of our rights – instead, it is
          the document by means of which WE The People CREATED the fed. gov’t.

          ++We want a President to shrink the fed. gov’t all the way back to its enumerated powers.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2015 | Reply

          • I am going to be short. I been reading Harvard Classics, the Five Foot Shelf of Books no.34, 1889 on Thomas Hobbes, you might have read his writings on the Laws of Nature. Been reading the meaning on Sovereignty history, You can agree that a Fed. government is sovereignty over our State government. But the “States” refers to commonwealth, also “communities, in their political capacities,” Number 16. You see the United States only sovereignty power over our State is making of the Laws. “the Fabric of American empire to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of National power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original foundation of all legitimate authority:’ No 22. Has the laws of Nature comes from God, the law of the Land comes from the People in this Congress. We people only give the Constitution, and the consent of the Reps. but not the Consent of the Constitution, it is done by our Citizens of authority in making laws. “the United States shall guarantee to State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” Constitution of the United States, Article IV section 4 refers to the consent of the Laws makers in this Union the right to Laws makers of a State to having a Sovereignty Government. The Constitution of the United States, of the bill of rights Number 10 the powers goes to and from the Laws makers in each States and this Union.


            Comment by David Santacroce | February 22, 2015

          • Our Constitution created a federal government: An association of Sovereign States united under a national government ONLY for those few & defined purposes enumerated in the Constitution.

            Depending on how you count, we delegated only 18-21 powers to the fed gov’t over the Country at large: If you will look at this chart, you will see our federal structure depicted and you will see a list of the enumerated powers We delegated to the federal government:

            It is very simple!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 22, 2015

  17. The example just mentioned re the constitutionality of the ACA: Politician A follows the court ruling and politician B follows his Oath (totally imaginary, of course) and therefore a conflict. Currently you might say the B simply has no standing so he might as well just sit down and shut up. We want the Constitution to rule but it to has no standing and no appeal.

    I don’t believe any of the administrative ‘law’ is constitutional. If you hire a lawyer, for example, to preform certain enumerated items, it would not be either legal or right for him to subcontract that work to a third party and go on vacation. Unfortunately, deep in the penumbra of the contract were some unbreakable terms that not only tied you in legal knots but obligated your family and progeny forever.

    Turns out that the small firm you hired showed little concern or interest for few things for which you hired them to do. When you did managed to get their attention to question their outrageous billings, they condescended to inform you that for various and very complex reasons, The Firm needed to vastly expand the its authority and, of course, all that meant significantly increasing your billings. Unavoidably taking note of the huge, new and ostentatious surroundings the small firm you hired now calls home, you are assured that they have consulted their legal department and you either keep pay or end up in jail. There is some consolation in the fact that the symbiotic relationship between parasite and host is seldom fatal.


    Comment by llotter2013 | February 4, 2015 | Reply

    • Dear one, you are making it unnecessarily complicated!

      1. It is simple. A state legislator files a bill to nullify obamacare. some legislators vote for it – others vote against it. then you add up the votes.

      2. Re EPA regs: Environmental protection is not an enumerated power. Art. 1, Sec. 1 says all legislative powers granted by the Constitution are vested in Congress. So a State legislator files a bill to nullify all EPA regs in his State. Some vote for it – others vote against it. Add up the votes.

      3. NOTHING in the Constitution binds us inexorably to unconstitutional acts of the fed gov’t! Our Framers told us to nullify all such unconstitutional acts.

      Don’t lose sight of the relationship between The People and the federal gov’t: The People created the federal gov’t. The federal gov’t is merely the “creature“.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2015 | Reply

  18. I wish I could be there as well, PH. I certainly like your response but how then do you avoid the issue of each politician establishing his own interpretation and then how is the issue settled without the courts?


    Comment by llotter2013 | February 3, 2015 | Reply

    • “each politician establishing his own interpretation” – give me an illustration of what you mean by this:

      E.g., are EPA rules constitutional? Give me all the different interpretations.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2015 | Reply

  19. Now, PH, when the court says that Obamacare is constitutional, what is a politician to do if they want to be faithful to their Oath. Is he supposed to stand up and say, “Oh no it isn’t”?


    Comment by llotter2013 | February 3, 2015 | Reply

    • Yes he is supposed to say, “Hell no, it isn’t constitutional!”. Madison said the federal courts are NOT the final word – he well understood that federal courts might connive with Congress to usurp powers. That’s why Madison said the STATES – as the creators of the federal government – were the final authority.

      I’ve written about this in my nullification papers. I have to re do some of my hyperlinks b/c the source I was using changed the format – so I had to get another source.

      I’ve giving a speech on this next week in Georgia. Wish you could be there.

      So federal legislators are supposed to impede implementation by stopping spending, etc. State politicians are supposed to impede implementation by NULLIFICATION.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2015 | Reply

  20. There is such a huge disconnect between what the Constitution says and what the politician does that the citizen is left to question his own mind. ‘Surely’, Mr. Citizen might say, ‘Surely, if government isn’t supposed to be doing 70% of what it’s doing, surely some leaders would be screaming bloody murder. But the silence just makes me think it’s just too complex for me to understand. I don’t really have any choice but to go to work and pay my taxes.’

    When our ‘leaders’ fail with such unanimity, to recognize the plain truth, it is hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. If we can’t successfully point out the truth about the blatant illegality of most federal activity, upon what basis can hope gain a footing? The only thing to do is call every Representative and inform them that ‘healthcare’ is not a listed power and that they need to think about their Oath, not the courts.


    Comment by llotter2013 | February 3, 2015 | Reply

  21. I really don’t think a candidate needs a lawyers understanding of our founding documents, All that’s needed today is someone who understands the inseparability of limited government and freedom and the limits can be learned in about 10 minutes. The puzzle is why there is not even one Republican or Democrat who speaks of the illegality of all the redistribution/entitlement programs when nothing could be any more clear.


    Comment by llotter2013 | February 3, 2015 | Reply

    • YOU are absolutely right! Any 8th grader can learn the list of enumerated powers delegated to the federal government over the Country at large! And that when a government is so strictly in what it may do, FREEDOM is the result. And since no one has his hand in anyone else’s pocket, we will not be at each other’s throats!
      The reason politicians don’t speak of these illegalities is they don’t know or don’t care – and The People are so willfully ignorant that THEY don’t know.
      They better undergo a crash course in these Principles PDQ or there will be hell to pay here.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2015 | Reply

  22. PH,

    As we enter this new Presidential election cycle there are many perspective candidates. Three of the most conservative would be Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio. I have read your discussion on natural born citizenship and it would appear that none of these qualifies. Where does the Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent updates or modifications fit into the equation? Does not the Naturalization Act of 1790 define a natural born citizen?


    Comment by David | February 2, 2015 | Reply

    • 1. I don’t know the facts of Jindal’s birth – but it is true that neither Rubio nor Cruz are natural born citizens.

      2. In my paper under the Category “natural born citizen”, I proved the original understanding of “natural born citizen” – the definition at the time our Constitution was drafted and ratified – by quoting and linking to 3 different sources from that era:

      Vattel’s Laws of Nations;

      David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship; and

      the Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by the first Congress.

      3. The Naturalization Act of 1790 is cited to show that The first Congress shared the same definition of “natural born citizen” as did Vattel and Ramsay. It is not cited to show that Congress has the power to define and redefine from time to time words in the Constitution!!!! Obviously, if Congress has the power to define and re-define and re-define again the words in our Constitution, THEN our Constitution would be built on shifting sands where Congress could amend it whenever they wished simply be redefining the words.


      Next point: We are TOLD that Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are “conservative”.
      Are they really? I have seen them chant “conservative” boilerplate language – and then say things or take actions which reveal a statist mindset. Talk is cheap. But where do they actually ACT on it?

      Here is a paper I wrote on Marco Rubio which got me kicked off Canada Free Press: Criticism of Rubio is NOT ALLOWED there:

      Cruz isn’t any better – we must look at where they put their money. NOT at what they say. They say what we want to hear so that we will support them.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2015 | Reply

      • Thank you for once again for putting me back on track.

        I would love to see a candidate run on strict adherence to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Actually, all candidates should be running on that platform. I doubt such a candidate would make it through the primary process but such a platform might wake up more people and show them how far from our Constitution and principles we have strayed as a nation. It would make the debates really interesting too.


        Comment by David | February 3, 2015 | Reply

        • David, judging from the reactions I get from my presentations, I think an articulate personable candidate could win on such a platform. The message resonates!

          We need younger people [younger than I, for sure!] who are willing to study and learn and replace their personal opinions with the Objective Standards set forth in our Declaration and Constitution, and then go out and sell this message to their would be constituents.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2015 | Reply

  23. Would you direct me to a jurisconsultas. I have a couple of questions and every JD crayfishes. I know it is complicated. The Oregon constitution states elected and appointed government persons must take an proper oath. Many Judges refuse. When I was arrested misdemeanor. The circuit court has made many errors. At the arraignment the PD and the judge gave the choices guilty, not guilty or nolo contendre. (sp). Demurr was not an option that equals lack of due process. At the pre trial conference the judge did not appear and the Deputy DA lied to me. I have witnesses. I had a writ of Review guaranteed by ORS131.735 to be heard next on the docket. Again an acting as circuit court judge in the Honorable Circuit Court of Washingon County , OR denied due process.Oregon legislature abolished Writ of Error and Quo warranto in 2014. I put in a Counter Claim to the circuit courts jurisdiction. Is the counter claim on jurisdiction in a court superior to the circuit court? I have yet to consent to the circuit court. I am in proria persona not pro se.I know the difference. I have moved one poor decision on Writ of Review to the Appealet Court. My Writ of Mandamus is ready and submitted to the counter claim court. I am ready to submit it to the Oregon Supreme Court if my counter claim court is not superior to the circuit court and if I cannot get it staffed. The sheriff is federalized and of no use to “we the People”.


    Comment by Ron Vrooman | January 30, 2015 | Reply

    • Ron, I sympathize with your difficulties. But it is difficult for me to follow what you are saying. What you are saying does reflect considerable confusion in your mind about criminal procedure. e.g., the pleas available to a defendant in a criminal case are “Guilty”, “Not Guilty” or “No Contest” (nolo contendre). Those 3 pleas cover it all.

      Someone once said, “A lawyer who represents himself in a trial has a fool for a client”. The meaning is that even lawyers don’t usually represent themselves! It is insanity for a lay person to represent himself.

      I don’t know the charge against you, or the ramifications of the conviction. But if it is important to you for any reason, then I advise you to get a lawyer. If you can’t afford a lawyer, then contact The Public Defender’s office and see if you qualify for representation. I have no reason to believe that you could not get a dedicated & competent lawyer from the Public Defender’s Office.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 30, 2015 | Reply

  24. Its interesting that God commanded Moses to wipe out nations in Palestine for practicing the very cultural and economic evils the US now engages in.

    Media labels justifiable outrage as mean spirited and primitive. The adversary smiles.

    Our approach to reigning in lawlessness is about as effective as petting dogs defecating on carpet. As smelly piles mount, intellectuals insist we keep petting.


    Comment by Dwain | January 20, 2015 | Reply

  25. Okay, what is the max penalty from those alternatives. Taking property under color of law should be criminal. Playing nice has only gotten us to where we are.


    Comment by Larry Lotter | January 19, 2015 | Reply

    • The problem is The People – who are so lazy that they REFUSE to read our Declaration and Constitution.
      Ignorant people vote for candidates who also know nothing about the Constitution and Declaration.
      So once the candidates get in office, they do whatever they want.
      The politicians are not the problem. They reflect the People who elected them. We have the politicians people want.
      No “law” can fix that.
      If The People are not willing to undergo a moral transformation and start taking responsibility, we are sunk. NOTHING can fix us.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 20, 2015 | Reply

  26. Should our leaders the ignore and violate their Oath be thrown in jail?


    Comment by llotter2013 | January 19, 2015 | Reply

    • Americans don’t want to hear this – they want to hear what they want to hear. However! The TRUTH – which everyone hates and despises – is that criminalizing political acts is a TERRIBLE idea. Think this through! Criminalizing political acts gives the usurper nothing to lose by killing his opposition. If violating his oath can lead to criminal prosecution – then why would you ever peacefully leave office? Heck! It’s best to kill everyone who can point the finger at you. What have you got to lose? Nothing!

      People must think things through and never be guided by anger and a desire to “get even”.

      Politicans [note you called them “leaders”!] who violate their oaths should be impeached, or expelled, or defeated in the next election. If they commit one of the standard criminal offenses (rape, murder, etc.), they can be criminally prosecuted for those – but for “political crimes”? NEVER.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 19, 2015 | Reply

      • PH, I don’t reject what you say, unfortunately, the facts are 1/2 of voting Americans are ignorant and immoral…. who knowingly elects unethical and immoral politicians. What angers many Americans is the lack of justice. when there are obvious and numerous reasons to impeach; but not the will from our immoral congress to do so. When loyalty to an immoral political party means more that right and wrong, there is no justice and we sink deeper into fascism. Not to mention, getting the whole unfiltered truth about politicians from much of the media is non-existent, we get mostly liberal political advertising. Nothing is unethical or immoral to these people as long as it achieves their goals. IMHO, the federal gov’t is little more than organized crime, in the same league with third world banana republic dictators. I certainly have no faith in the federal courts, so they are out as a remedy. But I keep thinking there has to be another way to put these people on a short lease, but I can’t think of one. I fear one of two things is going to happen, either anarchy or total subjugation; simply because we as a nation are too immoral and Godless to govern ourselves.


        Comment by Spense | January 19, 2015 | Reply

        • Oh, it’s worse than that, Spense. Even the people “on our side” are too lazy to read our Declaration and Constitution and enforce them by their votes. They are the ones who should be organizing events to vet candidates to test them on their knowledge of our Declaration and Constitution.
          They are too busy swooning over people whom they have been told are the ones to save us. These people on our side are so shallow, that all a Ben Carson or a Ted Cruz has to do is say one thing they like and they want him for president. Never mind that these two have on more than one occasion demonstrated their total ignorance of our Constitution….
          I see disaster ahead.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 20, 2015 | Reply

  27. Learn about nullification. Draft a non-compliance sheriffs proclamation/nullification letter. Send this to your country sheriff and persuade him to sign it. Take the letter to your state reps. With the sheriffs backing, there may be a chance you will get your oath breaking reps attention. If not, at least your newly enlightened sheriff might be willing to protect your liberty when SHTF. Don’t count on it though, feds are working hard to co-opt sheriffs.


    Comment by Dwain | January 15, 2015 | Reply

  28. What to believe?? Is there an original 13th amendment if so how was it replaced? What is the state of our government now? Is what I read about FDR and 1933 a reality? Are we under martial law and all of the constitutional stuff is color of law?
    I decided to find out what is really going on? Why is what we have so different from what I thought it should be? I started last August 2014. We agree on islam I love your video.. We disagree on common law and CLGJ. But, what can be done?? Our judicial system is usurped and corrupt. As is most of the rest.
    I appreciate your views.
    Thanks Ron


    Comment by Ron Vrooman | January 15, 2015 | Reply

  29. What meaning does the Oath of Office have when both the executive and the legislators always defer to the courts?


    Comment by llotter2013 | January 14, 2015 | Reply

  30. Dear PH:

    I know you are busy, but when you have some time would you give me your thoughts on the federal judiciary?

    What do you think about there being 874 federal judges? And only 535 members of Congress.

    For Indiana, there are 13 judges for the Northern District, 12 for the Southern District, 14 on the 7th Circuit and 9 SCOTUS, for a total of 48 federal judges with jurisdiction over part or all of Indiana. There are only 50 members of the Indiana State Senate, and only 10 US Congressmen. If I had an issue or a cause, either legitimate or a bleeding heart liberal crusade would I be more likely to get my State Senator to actually accomplish something, or one of those 48 judges available to me?

    I know you are a proponent of nullification of unconstitutional acts of Congress. Would you be a proponent of nullification of unconstitutional rulings by federal judges?

    Since any federal judge can issue an order for his district, and since higher courts are usually loathe to overturn unless there is a procedural or technical issue (am I right? Is there a difference between how the courts view civil versus criminal?) do we not have a system, with that many federal judges available to special interests and these special interests having resources to find judges amenable to their cause, where a judge or a handful of judges can set precedents or at a minimum start trends whereby the courts can alter the entire moral landscape of the country? I’m thinking of CA Prop 8 where the will of the people as expressed in a referendum was savaged by a federal judge who was a gay rights advocate, with the help of Ted Olson. I’m sure there are many other cases I don’t know about.

    Anyway…just wondering.

    Bob Montgomery


    Comment by bobmontgomery | January 6, 2015 | Reply

    • You ask important questions: I’ll answer each one briefly, b/c a long answer to each question would take a Long time.

      1) The powers of the federal courts are enumerated. They have “judicial power” to hear ONLY the categories of cases itemized at Art.III, Sec. 2, clause 1. See this:
      and read Federalist Paper No. 80.

      This is important: IF Congress limited its lawmaking powers to the enumerated powers, the workload of the federal judges would be drastically reduced. Consider all the federal laws Congress makes which it has no constitutional authority to make AND which give rise to criminal prosecutions and civil litigation:

      ALL federal laws for the Country at large restricting drugs, hate crimes, computer crimes, kidnapping, arson, etc., etc., etc. are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to Congress. Read this to see how extremely limited is the federal government’s jurisdiction over crimes: So most of the crimes prosecuted in federal courts would be eliminated if Congress obeyed the Constitution in this regard.

      Now consider all the civil causes of action provided by federal law which Congress has no constitutional authority to make: e.g., The Americans with Disability Act, etc. All such federal statutory schemes create causes of action (a right to sue), but the statutes are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

      So, with the simple expedient of returning Congress to its enumerated powers, we could lay off many of the existing federal judges and their staffs…..

      2) It depends of the nature of a problem as to whether one seeks redress in federal court or with an elected federal representative.

      3) The question isn’t whether I am a proponent of nullification of unconstitutional acts of federal judges – BUT what did our Framers say? I’ve written much on Nullification b/c THAT is the remedy our Framers advised when the federal government usurps power. And yes, our Framers agreed that the States, as the parties to the “compact” (constitution), have the right to judge whether the actions of their “creature” violate the compact (constitution).

      James Madison says in his Report to the Virginia Legislature of 1799-1800
      that the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, The Sovereign States, as The Parties to the Constitution, have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches: first two paras:

      “…the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another — by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

      Madison goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of their Creator. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as

      “…to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other department hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.”

      I have also spoken of how, if we had had manly men in our State legislatures, instead of cowards, wusses & wimps, our State legislatures would have nullified the grossly unconstitutional opinions of the supreme Court banning prayer and the Ten Commandments from the government schools; and they would have laughed at the grossly unconstitutional supreme Court opinions overturning State statutes criminalizing baby-killing and addressing homosexual acts and marriage – these matters not being within the powers delegated to the federal government.

      4) Higher courts may and should reverse decisions of lower courts when the lower court errs on issues of Law.

      The federal courts have no constitutional authority to hear many of the cases before them! WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE PROBLEM OF SPECIAL INTERESTS IF CONGRESS RESTRICTED THE LAWS IT MADE TO THE ENUMERATED POWERS!

      Yes, there is such a thing as forum shopping – in certain kinds of cases, plaintiff’s lawyer has a choice of whether to file the lawsuit in this federal district or that federal district – so the lawyer may look for a plaintiff who lives within the federal district where the lawyer thinks he will have the best shot in getting a friendly judge.

      Yes, that business with Ted Olsen and homosexual “marriage” was sickening. I addressed that issue here:

      In case this seems difficult: Remember that the jurisdiction of federal courts is the most difficult part of the Constitution – it requires some knowledge of litigation to fully understand. But you can get the basics and probably lots more.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 6, 2015 | Reply

      • Thanks, PH. I suppose I should not expect the Congress to restrict the size and scope of the judiciary, since they created it and since it will not restrict the size and scope of the legislation it passes. The justification obviously is since federal code is so extensive it takes such a bloated judiciary to hear all the cases it creates. I guess the lesson of all this is the remarkability of the wisdom and strength and durability of the Constitution, that it has been abled to hold up under the strain of all this unnecessary weight without collapsing. And I hope I haven’t spoken too soon.


        Comment by bobmontgomery | January 8, 2015 | Reply

        • The politicians The People keep electing to Congress won’t start repealing the unconstitutional laws they make; which would then allow Congress to restrict the size of the judiciary.

          The People have NO IDEA what our Constitution says. And they refuse to learn. They just want to jump on the bandwagon of some pied piper who promises them a quick fix.

          Congress is not the problem. The People are.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2015 | Reply

  31. Our country is in dire straits. How do we make the necessary corrections if not with a Convention of States? Do we push for nullifications through our state legislatures or work through our elected Congressmen in Washington?


    Comment by Marie Schade Wood | January 3, 2015 | Reply

    • The Constitution we have delegates only 18-21 powers to the federal government. This one page chart illustrates that:

      The problem is that everyone has ignored the Constitution for 100 years. Most of what the federal government has done for the last 100 years is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated.

      How do you fix THAT by amending the Constitution?

      Our Framers NEVER said that when the feds violate the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the document they violate.

      Our Framers told the States to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government. Read my papers under the Nullification Category where I have the quotes and hyperlinks. My proposed nullification resolutions for obamacare is the most fun to read and is the easiest to follow.

      But the States won’t nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government b/c the States don’t want to lose the federal funds they get for going along with unconstitutional acts of the fed. gov’t. In my State, someone filed a bill to nullify obamacare, but her bill was defeated b/c the fiscal note said that if we nullified obamacare, our State would lose $6 BILLION in federal funds. States agreed to Common Core b/c they got federal grant money for signing on to it!

      So if you think about it, and look at the FACTS, you will see that the claims of the convention supporters are totally irrational.

      So why are they REALLY pushing for a convention?

      Because they need a Convention in order to impose a new Constitution on us. As I have explained and shown over & over in my recent papers and speeches. A vicious hoax is being played on the American People. George Soros and Marxist law professors and others all over the Country want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020. But they need a Convention to get it done. The new constitution will have its own method of ratification. Once the convention is convened, there won’t be a thing we can do to stop them from doing whatever they want.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 3, 2015 | Reply

      • Thank you so much! This really makes things clear for me. May I post your reply on Facebook?


        Comment by Marie Schade Wood | January 3, 2015 | Reply

        • Of course, my dear. And any time you have a question, I am here.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 3, 2015 | Reply

          • Thank you again.


            Comment by Marie Schade Wood | January 3, 2015

          • It’s posted now on my Timeline. Great inoformation if people will act.


            Comment by Marie Schade Wood | January 4, 2015

  32. Just found you!! And, am so glad I did. Who is JWK associated with the blog Free Republic? I’m new and can’t find his full name on the blog at this time. Thank you.


    Comment by Marie Schade Wood | January 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Oh yes, that John WK is one smart man! Haven’t heard from him for a while. I’ll look him up and tell him you asked. Meanwhile, perhaps if you post a reply to his post or comment on Free Republic, he will see you.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 1, 2015 | Reply

  33. The Constitution of Tennessee: Article 1, Section 26. That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have the power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
    So, in other words the State of Tennessee cannot disarm Tennesseans, but can legislate the wearing of arms, if it is to prevent crimes. Is this correct?
    Does Tennessee still have a State Defense Force, commanded by Brigadier General Kenneth T. Takasaki? If so isn’t the Tennessee’s State Defense Force suppose to be armed? It use to be such. Which means, as I understand it, members provide their own weapons.


    Comment by James | December 17, 2014 | Reply

    • Tennessee’s State Constitution, ratified 1870, recognizes that TN citizens will be armed:,%20Tennessee.pdf

      Art. I, Sec. 26 recognizes that “the citizens of this state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”

      Art. VIII provides for a State Militia. Males who are members of pacifist churches may be exempted; but any other able-bodied male citizen who doesn’t want to show up for musters and training must pay a fine. Art. I, Sec. 28 says, “That no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law.”

      So TN State Constitution enshrines our understanding that it is so important to have an armed citizenry that those who weren’t willing to take up arms could be fined!

      I don’t know the original intent of the phrase, “but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” I need to dig into the old records and find out what they meant by it. Obviously, if you visit someone in a prison or mental institution for the criminally insane, you should check your arms at the door. But I need to research this.

      I’m not from TN – I retired here – I am sorry to say I don’t know the status of TN’s militia, if any. BUT we should be reforming it and getting ready for a civil war. Problem is, the people of TN keep electing trash to office – such as the Governor. Morally blind people elect scoundrels to office. Ignorant people elect ignorant people to office.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2014 | Reply

  34. Slavery is a loaded word used to undermine the servant connotation used throughout the bible.
    If slavery is such a horrid institution then why did God command it? The ancient lord servant system was as natural as today’s employer employee system.

    Radical egalitarianism was taken advantage of by Lincoln and his moralizing minions to justify war with the south. These villains jumped on the emotionally charged opportunity and hypocritically used it to enslave the south to its lawless dictates.

    Personably I don’t see the problem with a “servant system”. Heck, Sometimes I wonder if I wouldn’t mind signing a 7 year contract that bound me to a God fearing wealthy man. Being provided decent shelter, food and possibly a small allowance for honest work doesn’t seem so bad.

    Its so ironic that people become hysterical at the hint of the old servant master system but submit themselves to the worst form of servitude instituted by oppressive masters in Washington.


    Comment by Dwain | December 17, 2014 | Reply

    • Right, there is a form of voluntary servitude approved in the Bible. If a person is unable to maintain an independent existence – i.e., to be on his own – he may seek to attach himself to someone. E.g., if practicing law becomes too stressful, I can ask you if I can be your house maid. I will clean your house, you give me room and board and a small wage, and a cottage on your Country estate when I am too old to work. That is fine and is part of God’s welfare system. I can leave you at any time; and if I steal from you or cause trouble or don’t do my job, you may fire me. This was a brilliant system: I would give you my work – you give me protection and necessaries and a place to call home. And it’s productive useful work – servants aren’t parasites.

      The humanist system is for me to get welfare which YOU must help pay for while I don’t do a darn thing for you or anybody else.

      But the form of permanent hereditary slavery practiced in the South was unBiblical and unGodly. God NEVER provided for permanent heredity slavery. And I say a pox on the southern preachers who approved the form of slavery practiced in the South.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 17, 2014 | Reply

  35. Hi Publius Hulda,
    I greatly enjoy your instructive gift of teaching us about the constitution. You have a way of bringing it to life, making it simple for us to understand. What I want to present will be repugnant and shocking to some of your readers, but is something that needs to be said if we are to restore the constitution and federal system to the Jeffersonian model of a government which doesn’t trample our freedoms.

    You have covered this in your other writings, but I want to embellish what I consider to be the single most important reason why Lincoln’s war on the states inflicted a mortal wound to the separation of powers and converted the federal system into an oligarchy that is rapidly becoming an Islamo-communistic power. I want to get your take on a thorny (politically hot-button) issue that I believe is the root cause as to why the war of Northern aggression (America’s Civil War) was unconstitutional and has resulted in our runaway federal government.

    Forcible emancipation has long been taught as Lincoln’s noble cause, and that Ft. Sumter was a “rebellion” that justified the use of federal troops. It is my view that those two heresies set the stage for federal tyranny because, (a) Lincoln rejected the constitutional principle that the federal powers were NOT granted the authority to act as morality police over the states, and (b) Moral turpitude enforcement is NOT listed as an enumerated power! Even though the Declaration gives us a list of God-given rights, and even though most of them were codified in the constitution, decisions regarding the institution of slavery and all other practices concerning morality were left up to the states. Our wise founders recognized the right of sovereign nation-states to continue their 180 year history of local, autonomous self-government. We know that many of the founders were slave-owners yet were opposed to slavery; nevertheless, they allowed the institution to continue by recognizing it (3/5 clause, etc.) without endorsing it. That insight by the founders is the cornerstone that defines us as group of nation-states having a federal system with bottom-up authority, i.e. state & local control of moral behavior. The founders did NOT create a nationalist (top-down) government by which the feds wielded moral authority over the states. The 13 former British colonies had operated as independent colonial nation-states since 1607 without trying to enforce their lifestyle, norms & standards on the other colonies. They only agreed to join the Union with the proviso that article 1, section 8 would guarantee the continuation of the bottom-up sovereign authority of state & local state governments.

    BACKGROUND: Slavery has many forms which run the gamut including contractual agreements for re-payment of debt (indentured servitude), bond servants, and even totalitarian brutality. The bible provided lawful, humane guidelines for the treatment of slaves. The Apostle Paul ordered his dear friend Onesimus, a run-away slave, to return to his Roman master because Paul respected Roman law, even though he didn’t agree with it. My point is that all Lincoln did was to convert physical slavery into political repression. He inflicted a mortal wound to the federal system by his coup that has festered to this day. He united the Administrative and Judicial branches under the Executive branch, thus destroying the separation of powers that restricted federal authority to the boundaries of art. 1, sec 8, so today, there are no restrictions to powers over the states or individuals.

    BOTTOM LINE: There can be no healing of the wound inflicted by Lincoln until the American people acknowledge that Lincoln was wrong to create a feudal system in which the states now serve a federal social justice master. The 13th amendment was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and although I am not advocating re-instituting slavery, I don’t think it is consistent to say nullification of federal breach can put humpty dumpty back together when everyone believes Lincoln was a hero. People are too ignorant to appreciate strict constitutional constructionism and its defenders such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Judge Abel Upshur and others. The American people are too entitlement-minded to nullify their pets such as Medicare, Social Security, and other government intrusions into the free market. Yes, I think that we should keep trying to nullify federal breaches of the constitution, but it will take a lot of Publius Huldas, and there is only one of you, although I and I’m sure a lot of others have been singing in your choir. Keep up the good work.

    I understand that the PEOPLE are the ones who are ultimately responsible for their government! But, until folks understand and agree that Lincoln was no hero, the race-based entitlement mentality will continue, as will the demands for the feds to solve every other problem, and there will be no restoration of the separation of powers nor a return to state & local self-government.

    John Noble


    Comment by John Noble | December 17, 2014 | Reply

  36. I know in most if not all of the States’ Constitutions they deal with the ownership of firearms, but my question is: Can the States disarm their citizens legally without either violating the US Constitution or their respective States’ Constitution. I also know that it is a God-Given Right to defend your family and property with the weapons of the day and it is not a sword.


    Comment by James | December 17, 2014 | Reply

    • Excellent Question, James.

      1. The original intent of the 2nd amendment is that it applies only to the federal government. It prohibits the feds from infringing that right in ANY way.

      2. States have their own Constitutions. Most – if not all- of them have recognized the right to keep and bear arms. But many State Legislatures have passed laws restricting ownership of arms which are in violation of the State Constitution! The State Legislatures get away with it b/c the People of the State have no idea what their State Constitution says and they elect – and re-elect – to their State legislature people who violate the State Constitution (as well as the federal Constitution).

      Also, there is an ominous trend now: gun control groups are proposing amendments to State Constitutions which restrict gun ownership. They tell the stupid people that the amendment will better protect their rights, and the stupid people believe it. Read Gina Miller’s account of this in Alabama: I’m sorry to say that The People in Alabama are so STUPID that they voted for this. Before the amendment was approved, People in Alabama had open carry with no license. Something similar happened in Washington State this year.

      3. Can States legally disarm the Citizens of the State? NOT UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION: Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16 delegate to Congress the power to call forth, organize, arm, and discipline the MILITIA. The Militia is every able-bodied armed citizen. This was always the understanding: see, e.g., the Militia Act of 1792:

      Do read the Militia Act – THAT is the proper way to draft laws: short, simple, easy to understand, and one subject.

      So! If States disarmed their Citizens, they would eliminate The Militia (which is the armed adult male citizens), which would make it impossible for Congress to call them forth, etc.

      But the Progressives (Fabian socialists) who have taken over our federal and State governments, want The People disarmed.

      When a people are disarmed, democide is next.
      Americans must think about where they are going to finally draw the line…..


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 17, 2014 | Reply

      • Commonwealth of PA constitution states: “Right to Bear Arms
        Section 21.

        The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” Now that is short and unequivocal!


        Comment by Nelson | December 17, 2014 | Reply

        • Right! And don’t let anyone amend it.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 17, 2014 | Reply

  37. Now just hold your horses there, PH. If the Enumerated Powers aren’t intended to specifically limit the federal government then I’ll eat my hat. Now, I understand the basic purpose of the Constitution was to set up a governing scheme between the states as stated in the preamble but it never would have come close to ratification without those limits. Aren’t those limits the very heart of the Constitution with the rest supporting details?

    So what exactly did you mean when you said that limiting its power was not the purpose?


    Comment by Larry Lotter | December 15, 2014 | Reply

    • With the federal Constitution, we CREATED – CREATED – the federal government. It did not exist before the Constitution was ratified. It is our “creature” and is completely subject to our terms. It had no existence before we ratified the Constitution – therefore, there was nothing to “limit”.

      Now cast your mind back to the time of King John I of England: He claimed TOTAL ABSOLUTE POWER. The Magna Charta carved out some specified exceptions to that total absolute power he claimed. The Magna Charta “limited” his powers to the extent of the Rights carved out of his claim of total power.

      Do you see? This is THE fundamental issue of political philosophy. You must open your mind to grasp THIS fundamental Principle – this is what made us so unique in the history of man.

      Your comment reflects the European mindset that governments have TOTAL ABSOLUTE POWER except as “limited” by Charters or Constitutions.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 16, 2014 | Reply

      • Hi PH, I have to confess, yesterday I nearly took the position Larry has taken until I thought about it for a while. Then I thought… no, it’s “We the People” that limited the federal government. The power belongs to the people… Merry Christmas


        Comment by Spense | December 16, 2014 | Reply

        • Yes! I highly recommend the movie Robin Hood with Russel Crowe and Cate Blanchette – it clearly shows this European mindset. I’ve seen it at Wal-Mart in the $5.00 bin. THAT is the mindset our Framers rejected.

          Instead, The People are the original fountain of all legitimate political authority (Federalist No. 22, last para). So with our Constitution, we CREATED the fed gov’t and WE defined the powers WE delegated to it.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 16, 2014 | Reply

  38. Ms (or Mrs) Huldah, I have watched several of your videos and read many of your comments and I have something to say as well. First off I will say that I am impressed with your bravery. I also have to say that as well educated as you are, I think you may be overstating some things and understating others. Just a few things that I have read prompted me to write in your comment section. I have many thoughts and I hope I am completely wrong in my line of thinking regarding your thought in some areas.

    I’ll start off by saying that I think you are completely right about Mark Levine. He is a lawyer and THAT is the largest enemy of our country today. LAWYERS have completely destroyed our Constitution and everything we stand for. They have completely ruined our society and destroyed our economy with the largest wealth redistribution scheme in the history of the world…..mostly from us to them. Most people don’t even realize that they take oath not to financially harm each other and that is why we get the ludicrous suits and why judges (also ALL lawyers under the same oath) allow those harmful to society suits. That’s another letter. However, I digress back to the meat of the paragraph, Levine is all about money and his profession. Ie, he has done nothing to force the congress to investigate what is almost certainly a usurper in the office of president and not a legal sitting president. Lawyers are the scourge of the earth right behind muslims and one or the other WILL probably completely destroy civilization as we know it worldwide.

    In reading your comments and watching your videos I have noticed something that troubles me. It appears to me that you are of the opinion that the US Constitution was written to limit government from the federal level. I don’t think there is anything that could be further from the truth. I believe I can prove that and I hope I am wrong about your thoughts regarding same. I’ll tell you from the start that I am not a Phd nor have I attended a college based on “Constitutional law”. However one thing I DO know is that the founders meant for the people to be able to read and understand the US Constitution CLEARLY so they would NEVER need the assistance of lawyers to exercise their God given rights GUARANTEED by the Constitution. I CAN read and understand the English language and I believe I am completely correct in my understanding of the Constitution. I would like to convey some of my thinking on the subject. I will cover many things in the next lines. Please forgive my typing and grammatical errors, I am CERTAIN that Constitutional scholars ARE part of the problem because they have stopped using common sense and use their Phd’s to contort the document and their mission is to get others to believe them. I say there is NO ambiguity in the document and we should all live by it in every way.

    I believe the US Constitution should be taken literally because it says so. The Declaration of Independence shows clearly the state of mind when the Constitution was drafted and I do not believe in any way shape or form that the document is other than “absolute” as some would have us believe, most of which are college professors or politicians (aka traitors to their oaths and the people). I believe there is a way to read it to get the full meaning and that it is written in the wrong order. I think the preamble should be first but Article VI should be second. I’ll explain further.

    The preamble is a mission statement period. I do not understand how it could be taken as otherwise. Even the dictionary defines a preamble as a mission statement. IN the mission statement there are exactly 5 items mentioned as well as who wrote it and for what purpose. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” How could that be more clear? Every word has meaning and purpose. Am I crazy or does it not say one word about “limiting government (federal or other) to accomplish the following”? NOTHING in the MISSION statement mentions limiting government! Yet is DOES say that it IS written for the 5 items mentioned and they saved the best for last, “to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Also please notice it states that it was written to PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide for it. This is clear to me that the document is NOT a limiting document, it is a LIBERATING document. It DOES limit government but that is incidental to the mission. It says nothing about limits in the mission statement. It also limits the people in some fashion. Meaning that your neighbor cannot come to your home and tell you that you cannot live there because of your religion or because you keep and bear arms. So the fact that it DOES limit us is only incidental to the fact that it is written to secure our freedoms. The mission statement or preamble SHOULD be first to describe the REASON for the document. It is in your face accurate and should be taken in a literal sense just as the rest of the document.

    Then I believe article VI should be article I. It describes who it affects and how we should conduct ourselves, especially the government and our servants(politicians). All of article VI is important but phrase 2 is the meat of the article. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” I don’t understand how it could be made more clear. But what I would like to point out is that it states with ZERO ambiguity that as stated it is the SUPREME LAW of the land. That being said, it does NOT say a word about “this document is regarding the federal government only” or state of local or whatever. It is the SUPREME law and WE are ALL bound by it. Again I cite that your neighbor cannot infringe your God given, constitutionally protected rights. If one gets that then the rest of the document is easy to understand. I intend to address a couple key issues here. I think I have established the intent and who the Constitution affects.

    Regarding the 1st amendment, you seem to portray the Constitution as a FEDERALLY limiting document. I hope I am wrong about that and if I am I recommend you change your communication tactics. Some want us to believe the first amendment can be suspended by the state or local governments. I believe I can clearly disprove that. In Article IV section 4 it states CLEARLY “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,”. In a republican form of government there is ALWAYS a congress and at LEAST in every state in the US there is a congress. Not one word is mentioned in that statement does it limit the congress to the FEDERAL congress. The US Constitution contains NO ambiguity and if they had meant for the federal congress only to be the object of the statement they would have said so. So that means simply that NO congress may establish said laws. The states do NOT have the authority to establish a religion, limit free speech, limit the press, or the freedom to assemble or to take away our right to express to our government our grievances. Why have a Constitution that would allow that? Why wouldn’t all the states confer and just all of them take away those rights and we would effectively have the same tyrannical results? One other word about the 1st amendment, the freedom of the press is NOT to prevent the press from PRINTING what they want, it is to SECURE THE FREEDOM of the press to go where they want and watch the government and the people to make sure that if there WERE to be violations of our freedoms we would be able to address them as a people together. Remember, the DoI says with NO ambiguity that we have a RIGHT and a DUTY to throw off such a government and we could never throw off what we do not know about. The freedom of the press was designed into the Constitution to INFORM us of those violations.

    Regarding the second amendment and those who would take away our right to keep and bear arms, not guns or bowie knives. The founders were very smart people and some of them were inventors (Ben Franklin) and they had seen in their lifetimes the advances of arms and they KNEW there would be more. There were 3 reasons to keep and bear arms then and still today. 1. to feed one’s self and family, 2 to protect one’s property and 3 to prevent the government from becoming more powerful than the people. That is evident when you read the Declaration of Independence. The founders were definitely afraid of the kings soldiers and with good reason. They were fully aware that an unarmed citizenship were not citizens at all but rather serfs. That went against their line of thinking and they wanted to insure that could not happen in the United States where men were SUPPOSED to remain free from tyranny. Also listed in the second amendment is a militia. Ever wonder why? In article I section 8 the congress is authorized to “keep and maintain” a navy but NOT a standing army for a period of more than 2 years without further justification. The Navy was SUPPOSSED to protect our shore and IF the Navy were to be compromised then the congress had the authority to call UP the militia to support the defense of the nation. WE are the militia! ALL of us if called upon to defend our country. That would prevent the “king from ever having a standing army” of which there were deathly afraid of. Further proof can be made by changing the key words in the amendment. How about changing militia into libraries and arms to books. “Libraries, being necessary to security of a free state, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear BOOKS, shall not be infringed.” How could ANYONE possibly twist that into the you MUST belong to a library to keep and bear books? It’s just not possible. Progressives want us disarmed so badly that they’ll say and do anything to take away our only protection FROM the government.

    Abortion. I’m not sure I need to address this but I want to because in America we have murdered in excess of 60million innocent children since the evil scotus RULED (isn’t that what kings do?) in roe v wade. I am SLIGHTLY torn about when a life becomes viable and potentially not convinced it is at conception but it is CERTIANLY a viable life at heartbeat and UNQUESTIONABLY at brain function. DEFINITELY from that point on it is MURDER! Laws regarding murder ARE constitutional and so should they be. The 4th amendment GUARANTESS us the right to life. Are innocent children NOT citizens? The Declaration of Independence states clearly that we are ALL equal and we ALL have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. The scotus should have never had an opinion over something so wrong as they did that day. It is wrong and immoral and God may swat America for allowing that alone. I pray that he realizes that there ARE those of us that deplore abortion and have no choice in the matter. Beside the fact that our tax monies pay for the majority of abortion, it sickens me and disgusts me that women AND men can take part in moments of pleasure and kill the baby so they would not have to live with the consequences of their decisions. There were more than 31,000 innocent children that have committed no crime or sin murdered in just New York last year. Shame on us all for even thinking of allowing that to occur.

    I have more thoughts on other subjects like article I does NOT just grant authority and limit congress. It has other purposes and that is apparent but in the interest of time and to see where you stand on my comments I will refrain at this time. I am CERTAIN the US Constitution does NOT need scholars to interpret it and just by convincing the people that we do is a loss for all of us. I don’t think we NEED others to read what is written simply and easily read by the vast majority of the people. I look forward to your comment to mine. I hope and pray this finds you well and with an open mind. Trust me, Mark Levine and those like him have NOT convinced me. Have a wonderful day and Christmas. God Bless and forgive us all. Bob Redmond, Cody, Wyoming


    Comment by Flybob | December 14, 2014 | Reply

    • Oh my! You do read things in! I don’t have time now to respond to all your comments, just your first two points:

      1. No, lawyers did not destroy our Constitutional Republic. The People did. I repeatedly write and speak of how Hamilton said The People were to be the natural guardians of the Constitution and The People were supposed to be enlightened enough to distinguish between a lawful exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. I write often of how Madison said our system depends on the American People having the virtue and intelligence to elect men of virtue and wisdom to public office. The People failed to do their duty. They know all about Snooky and Kim Kardashian and that Angelina Jolie is married to Brad Pitt, but they can’t list 3 of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress.

      2. Never once in my life have I said the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government. The implications of such an ignorant statement are huge, and I am much too wise and informed in political philosophy to make such a wrong-headed statement.

      Do you know what I have actually said? Over & over & over & over again?

      Do not read your own interpretations into texts – then attribute your own misunderstandings to the author – and then chastise the author for saying things she never said! I hereby rap your knuckles with my virtual ruler: Rap! Rap! Rap!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 14, 2014 | Reply

      • Hello again mam! I DO concede that the people are ultimately at fault for not holding the governments feet to the proverbial fire, however it is lawyers that take advantage of that fault and without them we would have a much better world. Yes we do need some to prosecute crimes and help those of less capacity but it has gotten to the point that we are being taught unrightfully so that we can’t live without them and they have a monopoly on the system they are immune to. It is a huge travesty. For instance the president consults his lawyers before releasing getmo detainees when that is the sole authority of congress as listed in article I section 8. Lawyers should have nothing to do with the decision. Same with “torture”. Does the Constitution provide for the SUING of a president if he’s in violation of his oath or the law? NO it does not! The ONLY avenue of punishment is impeachment. Albeit that I am completely convinced this president is NOT eligible and therefore as a less than legitimate president he cannot be impeached……but he CAN be clapped in irons for usurping the office and treason to the American people.

        As to my thinking of your potential admission of the states having authority to disable constitutional law I would cite that I have seen you say things like “that’s in your state constitution” regarding the keeping and bearing of arms. When in fact article VI states clearly that any law or constitution in any state to the contrary notwithstanding”. So how can new york, Illinois, California and pretty much EVERY state limit gun rights in any way? How do we have a federal government that prevents us from buying a handgun in any state that you do not formally reside in? WHY are we limited to knives of a certain length or locking blades in many states? How does ANY government restrict keeping and bearing arms in a courtroom, a PLAVE of government? Does the second amendment mention age of any type? Felons? People of less than normal capacity? I don’t see it. You mentioned that in one statement in a video of yours and I really liked it. You said something about the length of a shotgun and you are totally right. Please don’t get me wrong, I only mean to query you in some of the comments I have read that cause me to ask. We ARE on the same side without question.

        One thing I want to make clear is that I agree with you on almost everything I have seen you claim. Probably the only thing I would have any reservation about is that some espouse that we need scholars to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and I say it is a simple enough document that we need NO representation to exercise our God given rights. It’s really a simple document and I believe it is easily understandable if you just open your mind and read ONLY what it says and stop trying to turn it into a weapon for the politicians to use when it suits them and trash when it does not. For instance jury sequestration. COMPLETELY unconstitutional in every way. Again it is because we have allowed lawyers to convince us that they are right and the US Constitution is not absolute. And I agree we let this happen but how do we fight against the machine that has the keys to your bank account and your freedom/life? THEY make the rules and they have the violent/economic power to pretty much destroy your life if not take it. If you cite constitutional law and tell a judge he is in violation of his oath if he does not conduct his court like it is written then he/she will simply hold you in contempt with no avenue to rectify. We have NO power to enforce and they do, right or wrong. They say it is precedential law on their side and that is directly tyranny, law of man/opinion and not written law.

        The one beef I DO have is people like Thomas E Woods claiming that without constitutional scholars we have no constitution. That is dead wrong and so is he on many things…..and he’s a “constitutional elite Harvard trained scholar”. He could NOT be more wrong in many areas. He DEFINITELY claims that states have the right to restrict free speech, press and gun rights are according to him, constitutional. As of right now there are people that believe that and the left/Marxist/communists are without a doubt winning. Even the racist thing many are claiming is a bunch of bunk. NO where does it say in the US Constitution that we cannot discriminate except for voting and slavery rights. In fact it forbids prohibiting discrimination in the preamble with the “to secure the blessing of liberty” statement. We are free to hate OR love and that is that. It’s all political and all a lie. I hope people like you wake America up enough to stop this madness before there’s nothing left to save. I look forward to further discussion with you. I have a pretty large following and I often write about this subject.

        No matter what, the final question is WHAT do we do about it now we are where we are? I say it is irreparable and the entire system has to collapse to get it back to right and that is seriously not likely. Either way it is very scary times. The vote is corrupt and the system depends on what the people can get from the rest of us workers. I don’t see a remedy.


        Comment by Flybob | December 14, 2014 | Reply

        • Oh Flybob!
          You are much too enamored of your own thoughts and interpretations and opinions and understandings – that is all your very long posts are about: The contents of YOUR head.
          Lay all that aside and read what I have written with an open mind. Look up my hyperlinks to the original source documents. Let what our FRAMERS said get into your head – as it is, they can’t get into your head b/c it is so filled with your own interpretations. You jump to [ill founded] conclusions with lightening speed.
          When learning a new subject, RESIST the temptation to form conclusions.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 15, 2014 | Reply

  39. I told you quite clearly I wasn’t going to make a popular statement about the separation of Church and State, so your reply is not needed, your entitled to you opinion as am I mine. The point of this is pretty simple, as one nation with every possible religion in the world under one roof, we are bound to have contentions over faith based issues, which would eventually lead to political differences that would divide this nation. Which would lead to a lot of civil disputes, which have happened from time to time on many issues, but faith based economies, such as ours is, always end up coming up short when it comes to delivering the services the people need, and the why of this is? is pretty simple too, it’s called greed. Even the most religious person can fall for this sin. Judas kissed Christ didn’t he?

    Faith is extremely personal, and should be respected as such, but when one mixes the State and politics and religion together, then we have built a system of Government based on Theology, which is a hot bed for disagreement, and when mixed together one finds an inquisitional form of Government, exactly like Sharia law is, it’s a witch hunt mentality. I like the separation of powers just fine thank you, and nowhere is it more important then when it comes down to the separation between the Church and State.

    Religion and politics just are a plain bad idea to use as the foundation for establishing a Nation, because that nation would be out of unity very quickly, and by unity I mean the word United comes to mind. So do you wish to live in a divided theological state? or do you want to live in a United State of Government? With equality for all, justice is a bit rare though no matter what kind of Government you choose.


    Comment by Rick001 | December 10, 2014 | Reply

    • Rick001,
      This is not an issue of opinion – it is an issue of Fact. It is a FACT that our Constitution was based on God’s model of civil government as set forth in the Bible. Read these two papers and you will understand this IF you are willing to open your mind:

      The KEY is that God’s model provides for a civil government of EXTREMELY LIMITED AND DEFINED POWERS.

      You have been robbed of this knowledge by people who have been lying to you all your life.

      Open you mind and you will see.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2014 | Reply

    • Being entitled to an opinion is American. THINKING you are entitled to your “own facts” is evil and destructive. The US Constitution was written so that ANY person that could read and understand the English language would be able to comprehend every word of it. You are one of those that take words out of context and read small excerpts and think that’s the law of the land. You might try reading the preamble first to get the mission statement, then read Article VI to see who it effects and then read the rest. If you do not understand any word I highly recommend you visit the Webster’s dictionary listed in this blog page and learn what the words meant. In article VI you will clearly see that the US Constitution and ALL laws MADE IN PURSUANCE of and all treaties MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the United States ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. That includes every single word including the preamble. And for your information, the preamble (mission statement) says NOTHING about limiting government to accomplish the following or anything similar. That’s part of the problem, everyone has been taught to believe the Constitution is a document that was designed to limit government. It is a document designed to LIBERATE PEOPLE and limiting government is incidental. It also limits your fellow citizens so THEY cannot take away your God given rights. One must also read the Declaration of Independence to get the real meaning. It is amazing that every single grievance listed in the DoI is now being perpetrated against the American people only much worse than the King of England was doing.


      Comment by Flybob | December 14, 2014 | Reply

  40. Sorry to say this, but here goes. If those here who post quotes and verses out of the Bible, your no better then the Islamist’s who demand Sharia Law be imposed here in the United States. If you can’t see why the first amendment was written the way it was, it was done to keep our political system free from religious content, because once one starts down that slippery slope, then there is no realistic way of stopping it from contaminating the whole of what ever political systems we put in place.

    Now for those who believe otherwise, you may believe what ever you want, as long as you keep your hands out Government, you are free to pray, spread the word, and write anything you want, just keep your hands off the Constitution and keep your religion out of the Government and we’ll do just fine. If we allow this kind of influence from your view point, then we must allow others the same chance to aggravate us, as they will to us. It’s a little thing called equality.


    Comment by Rick001 | December 9, 2014 | Reply

    • You are altogether wrong! For starters, read this carefully:


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2014 | Reply

    • All of our rights are “god given rights” from the Declaration of Independence confirmed in the Constitution (the first one) the Judea/Christian god of the bible. Not religion. Religious content as you stated is wrong.
      allah is the arabic name for their god that came over to islam from an earlier religion pagan I believe/ Bal?

      Your post sounded like an atheist bent on religion. Confusing islam and the geopolitical manifesto koran with anything conceived by the founders that based their whole being in “god” not religion, is a major error in your comprehension. Ignorance can be corrected by learning what you don’t know or you can continue and be considered stupid.


      Comment by ron vrooman | December 10, 2014 | Reply

    • Well here’s the problem with your theory, the first amendment says NOTHING about religion being in government. It ONLY states CLEARLY that congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of. So where exactly does it say that religion cannot be a part of government? That’s part of the problem if not all of it, you and those liberals like you that would bastardize the document and try to read into it something that is not there are what is depriving all of us the God given rights GUARANTEED by the US Constitution. You do not deserve to live in the freedom it helps to provide for ALL of us, unfortunately you as well. I recommend you get back to patriotism and earning your citizenship in America. At this point I don’t see it.


      Comment by Flybob | December 14, 2014 | Reply

    • One other quick thing, islam is an evil theocracy and not just a religion. Comparing islam to Christianity is insane and dangerous to our very existence.


      Comment by Flybob | December 14, 2014 | Reply

  41. I have been elected as Township Trustee (in Indiana). What are your thoughts on the responsibilities of that position as to protecting the natural rights of the people of the township and the authority invested in the position to do so?


    Comment by Clyde Coulter | December 1, 2014 | Reply

    • Wow! Congratulations!

      I just now posted on my Home page a short paper which shows how governments go about “securing” the rights God gave us. Note that He never gave us the right to live at other peoples’ expense or to require others to subsidize our interests, needs, etc.

      What are the duties of Township Trustee? I am not familiar with that office – we didn’t have that where I’m from. Once I know, I’ll be able to tell you more.

      I will be in Wabash Indiana on Feb 2 for a speech. Is that anywhere near you?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 1, 2014 | Reply

      • That is a couple of hours away from here. As far as the position, you can view the State Board of Accounts towship manual here:


        Comment by Clyde Coulter | December 2, 2014 | Reply

        • I am really busy – giving a speech in Georgia tomorrow. How about if you tell me in a nutshell what your elected position is about?


          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 2, 2014 | Reply

          • This is a partial list of duties:

            The trustee of the civil township has certain specific duties to perform. Space will not permit a
            listing of all of the specific duties of a township trustee. Some of the most important and most frequently
            performed duties are listed herein:

            1. Keep a written record of official proceedings (Township Form 14, General Record);

            2. Manage all township property interest;

            3. Keep township records open for public inspection;

            4. Attend all meetings of the township board;

            5. Receive and pay out township funds;

            6. Examine and settle all accounts and demands chargeable against the township;

            7. Administer township assistance;

            8. Perform the duties of fence viewer;

            9. Provide and maintain cemeteries;

            10. Provide fire protection;

            11. File an annual personnel report (Form 100R) with the State Board of Accounts;
            12. Provide and maintain township parks and community centers;

            13. Destroy detrimental plants, noxious weeds, and rank vegetation;

            14. Provide insulin to the poor, IC 36-6-4-3;

            15. Administer oaths when necessary in the discharge of official duties;

            16. Appoint an attorney to represent the township in any proceeding in which the township
            is interested;

            17. Enter into certain oil and gas leases of township property;

            18. Authority to perform notarial acts (notary public) without receiving a fee, IC 33-42-5-1;



            Comment by Clyde Coulter | December 2, 2014

          • Also, I don’t take office until January 2015. So, there’s no hurry. Thanks 🙂


            Comment by Clyde Coulter | December 2, 2014

  42. How do you reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ? One created an ethical system for psychopath’s and the other created an ethical system that supports us loving, respecting and even caring for each other – presumably because God love’s cares for, and respects all of us, all of his creation.

    I believe that all ideologies adhered to (left, right and central), lead to nihilism (The Communist on the left experience mass famine, twice, the Nazi’s on the right saw their nation conquered, divided and left in a smoldering ruin.). The problem is: ideologies try to answer a question before it has been asked. In essence adherence to an ideology eventually lead to the situation where they “had to destroy the village in order to save the village” – or where the pre-given answer is absurd in the face of a real and pressing question.

    In fact, Ayn Rand not only embraces the idea of ideological rule, she embraces the nihilism that spawns from ideology: in her book “The Fountainhead” the protagonist, the hero, after successfully raping one of the prime characters, goes on to burn down a village he designed, because his plans weren’t strictly adhered to. Ideological adherence is contrary to Common Law principles laid out by Oliver Wendell Holmes, where Common Law judges create law by providing narrow pragmatic answers to narrowly asked real questions – creating a civic system that is thoroughly pragmatic and non-ideologically bound: thank God. I don’t think one can embrace Rand and Christ as they appear to be polar opposites, but I think it is possible to embrace Christ and Holmes, though perhaps with a degree of discomfort.


    Comment by Tim Kane | December 1, 2014 | Reply

    • 1. Nihilism? On no, just the opposite. One can’t read her works and conclude that she was a nihilist. Just the opposite.
      Ayn Rand believed that the Laws of Physics, Chemistry, Logic, Civics, Morality, Economics, etc. were all woven into the fabric of reality and that it was the duty of man to learn and obey these laws.
      She derived these laws from Logic and the nature of man. You could call these the “natural laws”. I, a Christian theist, believe the same thing – except that I believe that God wrote the laws.

      2. The original understanding of “common law” is that it is God’s Law set forth in the Bible. Holmes perverted this original understanding by saying it is judge made law. THIS perversion is what has led to a judicial oligarchy. “Non-ideologically bound”? You don’t really believe that, do you? Under Holmes’ conception, it is the ideology of the judges which rules the Country.

      A little knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 1, 2014 | Reply

  43. I would like your opinion on this move.
    This was sent simultaneously to all federal judges in all 50 states and 3000 plus counties and 51 originals to all 9 Supreme Court Justices.


    Comment by Ron Vrooman | November 20, 2014 | Reply

    • It is pretentious and silly. And shows why people should not meddle in areas where they are not qualified.

      Would they perform brain surgery on a patient? So why do they think they are qualified to spout off about Quo Warranto?

      If they wanted to help, they would buckle down and learn our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and get others to do the same. And they would work to elect to office people who had learned those two Founding Documents.

      As it is, they are just showing off and making fools of themselves and spreading ignorance and misinformation…..


      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 21, 2014 | Reply

      • PH, if I may? This is a joke! They have NO standing. No filing fees have been paid. No certificate of service is provided. The signer of the document is not know. This is just another scam. Not a single one has been returned. It has been completely ignored.

        These people think they will have 4 volunteers in each county of the nation and they will direct the sheriffs and the courts you to arrest and who to prosecute. The want to pull the law out of their collective butts and set in judgement of all. Basically they want to overthrow the existing Republic and establish their own little dictatorship based on meetings in the back room of Denny’s. They believe they will get paid 64,000 in wages to take over the government if they will just send him money.

        Their great writ of mandamus was also completely ignored, all 1,800 of them. In Florida there is one guy now facing 14 felony charges for hi-jacking a grand jury. They have thrown him under the bus and abandoned their efforts in Florida.


        Comment by Douglas | November 21, 2014 | Reply

        • Douglas, your comments are most appropriate.

          I expect some of the followers of this movement are frustrated about the way things are going, but they lack the wisdom to know what to do about it. And they lack the discernment needed to distinguish the wise from the charlatans. And their conceit is great enough that they refuse to listen to someone who actually knows. It seems that the more ignorant a person is – the more opinionated by becomes.

          And it is a crying shame b/c there is a terrible shortage of workers on our side.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 21, 2014 | Reply

          • PH… I’ve been dealing with our local issues in bringing back our government to a constitutional one. Part of that has been attempting to contact the Grand Jury. We have done EVERYTHING in good faith to contact the GJ, a right we have according to the S.Ct., but they refuse, so a suit is what is left. They have stolen the GJ process and control it and keep the public from it except as they want. The CLGJ/ are attempting to bring pressure on the system. It most certainly is NOT a scam, as they are doing what they are according to the law. Is it any wonder that the enemy is ignoring them seeing that it is they themselves that are the criminals and stand to lose if they comply with the law? They ignore ALL we are doing, and even their own laws. This is our last ditch effort to avoid a civil war with these criminals across this Republic. Your work here is excellent, but please don’t castigate this or any other movement that seeks to stand for the Constitution and Rule of Common law when it is NOT something that harms our collective efforts. What other answer is there but to hold these guys accountable to the Constitution and will of the People?;;


            Comment by countyguard | December 8, 2014

          • Look, I understand that the hearts of many of those who have signed on to this are in the right place. But the fact is, the movement is based on fantasy and misunderstandings of how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. Someone with actual criminal law experience [yours truly] sees how silly the “common law grand jury” movement is. And I have found that it is a waste of time to try to explain it to those non-lawyers who have signed on to this. They think they know more than actual criminal lawyers. I can do NOTHING in the face of such ignorant conceit.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2014

          • Scalia is quoted from US v Williams from 1992 as the source of the NLA’s great inspiration. How do you explain this?

            Justice Antonin Scalia in his speech before the Federalist Society in 2009, “The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”

            On June 19, 1788, at the Virginia Ratifying Convention for the Constitution, George Mason “father of the Bill of Rights” indicated, “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” In fact we fought at least two major wars, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, to specifically reject the tenets of British feudalistic common law.

            You claim that NLA is working under the law. Please provide a citation to the law you refer to.


            Comment by Douglas | December 8, 2014

          • You misunderstand Scalia’s words. You don’t understand what the common law is.
            And you will refuse to listen – b/c you think you know.
            The conceit of the Uninformed is doing us in.
            Re your assertion: “You claim that NLA is working under the law. Please provide a citation to the law you refer to.” What are you talking about?


            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2014

          • Sorry PH, I was trying to respond the posting by Countryguard, not your comments.

            This is the comment I wanted Countryguard to respond to: “It most certainly is NOT a scam, as they are doing what they are according to the law.”

            The NLA refers to US v Williams all the time. You are absolutely correct that they don’t understand what Scaila meant in his opinion.

            I have tried to confirm the Scaila quote from the meeting of the Federalist Society in 2009 but can’t find it on-line. To your knowledge is the quote correct? “The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”

            Sorry for any confusion my post may have caused.


            Comment by Douglas | December 9, 2014

          • My bad for not seeing that you were responding to Countryguard.

            The “common law” was God’s Law as set forth in the Bible: fraud, negligence, restitution, murder, all this is in the Bible. In the Christian countries, the legal systems were built – more or less perfectly – on this common law. And yes – in the States – much of this common law was codified by state statutory law. E.g., ALL criminal laws must be codified by Statute law before they are enforceable – the idea is that people must know beforehand WHAT ACTS will be criminally prosecuted.

            The progressives re-defined “common law” as judge made law. Under this re-definition, the “common law” constantly evolves.

            The jurisdiction of the FEDERAL COURTS is enumerated at Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1. That is a complete list of the categories of cases federal courts are authorized to hear. Some of those cases might involve principles of “common law” – e.g., if you and I are in different States (“diversity jurisdiction”), and I sue you in federal court for negligence or breach of contract, I will invoke Principles of the “common law” on negligence or contracts in my lawsuit.

            The obsessive focus of groups such as the “common law grand jury” on the “common law” is totally misplaced. Their thinking is so screwed up that it is impossible to untangle. If they want to understand how the grand jury system is supposed to work, they need to wipe their minds clean of the rubbish which fills them and start over at the beginning. They are focused on a fringe issue and they do not understand the issue.

            The real issue is a federal government and State governments which REFUSE to obey the federal Constitution; and State governments which ignore our Founding Principle that the purpose of governments is to secure the Rights God gave us. I illustrate that in this one page chart:


            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2014

  44. I’m rather ashamed to admit that I just “found” you this week, and that reading/listening to some of your posts has totally changed my mind about the whole Convention of States discussion. Better late than never, I suppose.

    But now I have a question. I just listened to Michael Savage’s mini-rant (see the link to the audio at:

    Is Savage correct? Is his suggestion a viable (Constitutional) action plan for the next Congress?

    I eagerly look forward to reading your response, and thank you!


    Comment by Ted Hatfield | November 18, 2014 | Reply

    • I don’t know why you would be ashamed – I am old and expect to discover many new things in the days and years ahead. I would be terribly bored if I didn’t have (to look forward to) that huge rush I get when I see something I didna see before.

      Glad the lights came on about the convention! Now you must help others see.

      Re unconstitutional executive orders:

      The remedy our Framers advised when members of the executive [and judicial] branch usurp powers is impeachment, trial, conviction, and removal from office. See Federalist No. 66 (2nd para) and 77 (last para). See this short primer on Impeachment:

      But the American People refuse to elect to Congress people who have the knowledge & backbone to impeach usurpers in the Executive and Judicial Branches. It is the American People who have failed and who are REFUSING to man up and take responsibility. They are still blaming the people they elect – and re-elect.

      Trey Gowdy suggested the idiotic idea of suing the President for usurping powers: Here, in 2 minutes, is what I think of that silly idea:

      So Michael Savage has come up with another gimmick as a substitute for impeachment, trial, conviction and removal: repeal the underlying act. There is nothing wrong with that – except that it will be totally ineffective. obama doesn’t care whether there is an underlying act or not – he’ll do what he wants b/c he knows he can get away with it because the American People elect ignorant people & sissies & cowards to Congress.

      Americans are addicted to laziness and love nothing more than spouting off their own uninformed “opinions”. To get them to toss their worthless “opinions” that they are so proud of, and buckle down and do some actual learning about our two short & simple Founding Documents, seems to be impossible. Still, we must do what we can.

      This explains ALL about Presidential powers – people seem to really like this paper:

      Thank you for your note. It lifts my spirits!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 18, 2014 | Reply

      • You are too kind, young lady! I was merely surprised that I hadn’t heard of you prior to this month considering how long I’ve moved in conservative circles. Too many senior moments, perhaps …

        I devoured the information in the links you so kindly provided and also ran down several ‘peripheral’ links, and included them in a massive email to trusted family members, friends and a brother curmudgeon or two. That should engender some lively holiday discussions!

        Begging your advance forgiveness for further imposing on your good graces, the logical next question, considering the seemingly well-organized CoS movement, concerns strategic and tactical issues.

        Other than the obvious need for one-on-one or family/small group ‘encounters’, is there any (more or less) organized structure—tasked with ‘evangelism’—into which an Atlanta area resident could plug himself? Are there meetings or speaking engagements which could be publicized and attended, and for which assistance could be rendered? Or can the organizational seedlings be nurtured somehow?

        (And, by the way, you lift a lot of folks’ spirits!)


        Comment by Ted Hatfield | November 20, 2014 | Reply

        • YES! And I am coming to Marietta Ga on Dec. 3 to speak on the frightful dangers of an Article V convention.

          My host for the event is: North West Georgia 9/12 Project

          Richard Arena of that organization is my main contact person there. I’ll check to see if I may post his email address here. Otherwise, I’ll email it to you.
          Am I going to have the pleasure of meeting you???

          I hope to have a flyer for the event shortly.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 20, 2014 | Reply

          • How very cool! I’ve put 3 December on the calendar–thankfully, my phone is smarter than I am–and very much look forward to meeting you, absorbing your presentation, and getting plugged into a viable, local action plan. Do you have access to my email address (or, if not, is there a secure way that I could transmit it to you)? I’ll contact my ‘cadre’ and see if we can mount a respectable presence. Many thanks!


            Comment by Ted Hatfield | November 20, 2014

          • That is wonderful – that you will be there. My contact, Richard Arena, is working on an updated flyer for the Dec. 3 event. Here is his email address:
   He seems to have a GREAT group.

            Yes, I have your email address – it is hidden from the Public, but I can see it. My email is


            Comment by Publius Huldah | November 20, 2014


    The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


    Pretty big loopholes there. I guess it is alright to defend yourself but not your family is one problem. The other is someone, apparently the state, gets to decide what arms can be used for your self defense. If the state decides assault weapons are not appropriate for self defense then they can be made illegal. Or magazines with more than 6 rounds, or calibers greater than 22, and so on.

    I prefer “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”.


    Comment by Don Mellon | November 2, 2014 | Reply

    • No, Don! You are misreading Sec. 24. The State Constitution permits any arms. It recognizes the right as an individual right as opposed to a collective right which can be exercised only when one is in the organized State Militia. It need not say that one can also defend his family – the natural law has always recognized the right of a person to defend his family.

      All it prohibits is the maintaining of private armies – private posses. There is nothing wrong with Sec. 24!

      And I bet if we checked, we would find that businesses are allowed to hire armed watchmen in that State.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 2, 2014 | Reply

  46. Hi PH,
    I understand and fully concur that the founders agreed that the people have the right to nullify unconstitutional acts by the feds. But, in your article “The Biblical Foundation for Our Constitution” you point out Lex, Rex by Rutherford, and biblical passages in which the Old Testament prophets rebuked kings when they violated God’s law, but I saw no biblical passages that granted the people that type of authority. So, without biblical authority, it seems to me that the people’s opportunity to resist and eliminate evil leaders is limited to the election process. Even the prophets were not authorized by God to do more than rebuke the king. I agree that spiritual leaders (O.T. prophets and N.T. pastors) seem to have God’s authority to rebuke civil leaders, but I see no biblical authority for the people to do more than file an appeal or petition to the federal government. I see nothing that allows us to ever defy, disobey, or nullify unjust laws. Again, I fully agree that especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were tremendous spokesmen for nullification, and that it is fully constitutional, but, is it BIBLICAL?? I hope that it is, because I have been one of the strongest proponents of nullification, and a detester of Levin’s article 5, but PLEASE give me BIBLICAL citations that authorize civil disobedience for matters other than violations of conscience/faith. Daniel’s refusal to bow down to the golden statue was a personal matter, NOT a civic matter. I am just looking for answers.
    Thanks, and best regards,
    John Noble


    Comment by John Noble | November 2, 2014 | Reply

    • 1. I think you have not grasped the fundamental concept that Rights come first – THEN, governments to “secure” them. And when governments become destructive of the purposes for which they were created, it is the right and the duty of the people to alter, abolish, or throw off that government. THIS IS OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLE! IT IS THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH WE FOUGHT A REVOLUTION, and it is the principle on which our Constitution is based. This is also the Principle on which nullification is based: When the federal gov’t exercises powers not delegated, the States – as the creators of the federal government – have the NATURAL RIGHT to refuse to submit to the unconstitutional acts. James Madison goes on and on about this in his discussion under the Third Resolution in his Report of 1800 to the Virginia Legislature on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798. I quote him in my paper, “James Madison rebukes Nullification Deniers”.

      You are expressing the European mindset that governments come first, and the people have only the rights that governments or Constitutions say they have. I realize that due to the indoctrination to which we are constantly subjected, this has become the prevailing dogma of our time.

      I have been trying to restore the original understanding of our Founders & Framers – the understanding which made us the freest & best country in the history of mankind.

      2. You didn’t see this in my paper, “The Biblical Foundation of our Constitution”?

      6. The Peoples’ Obligation to obey the Civil Authorities is conditional upon the Civil Authorities obeying the Higher Law.

      The Bible: As shown by the Scripture at Principle 4, civil government is a covenant between God, the king, and the People. God makes the Laws; the king promises to obey and apply those Laws; and the people pledge themselves to the Covenant.

      Out of this relationship between God, the king and the people, arises the peoples’ obligation to protest lawlessness on the part of the king. If they don’t protest, God punishes the people because of the misdeeds of their kings – the people will suffer if they go along with the unlawful acts:

      God sent a 3 year famine because Saul put the Gibeonites to death (2 Sam 21).
      God sent a pestilence which killed 70,000 Israelites because David took the census (1 Chron 21 & 2 Sam 24).
      God (via Elijah) sent a famine because Ahab & his house forsook the commandments of the Lord (1 Kings 16:29-33, 17:1, 18:1, 18:17-19).
      God struck a heavy blow at Joram’s people because of Joram’s wickedness (2 Chron 21:1-14).
      God visited 4 dooms upon Jerusalem & the Southern Kingdom because of the sins of Manasseh (2 Kings 21:10-17 & Jer 15:3-4).

      The parallel in our Constitution is this: When Congress makes a law which is outside the scope of its enumerated powers, it is no “law” at all, but is void; and we have no obligation to comply. Alexander Hamilton says this over and over in The Federalist Papers. Here are a few examples:

      “…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify…” (Federalist No. 33, 5th para). [boldface added]

      “…acts of … [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers … will [not] become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such…” (Federalist No. 33, 6th para). [boldface added]

      “…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act …contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm … that men … may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” (Federalist No. 78, 10th para). [boldface added]

      Hamilton also tells us that Congress can’t usurp powers unless the People go along with it! In Federalist No.16 (next to last para), he points out that because judges may be “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”, the People, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, must be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”

      So! Hamilton applies the Biblical model of what WE are supposed to do when the federal government acts outside of the Constitution. We are to recognize that their acts are “void”, and We are to take whatever prudent measures are necessary to enforce the Constitution.”

      Do you see? I’ve addressed this elsewhere – one day, I need to get a proper index made… But this is the gist.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 2, 2014 | Reply

  47. Hi PH

    In Washington State we have two Initiatives on the ballot that appear to be opposite in nature. Initiative 594 wants more extensive background checks etc. while I-591 prohibits government agencies from confiscating firearms without due process.

    My concern is with the last part of I-591 where it says: …or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients unless a uniform national standard is required.

    It seems to me that whatever federal laws are made in this regard, unconstitutional or not, Washington State by its own law will automatically accept it.

    Since the federal government has no legitimate authority to require any national standard on our natural rights, is I-591 a Trojan Horse or am I making a mountain out of a mole hill and it amounts to nothing?



    BTW, I came across an article written back in 1982 by Don Bell titled, ‘What Happened To Our Constitution’ that is a gem.


    Comment by BTG | October 31, 2014 | Reply

    • You are absolutely correct, dear one.

      Note also that I-591 permits the confiscation of arms as long as a court decides that the disarmed person got “due process”. I would vote against it for that reason and also for the reason you gave.

      What does your State Constitution presently say about the right to be armed? Look at the Declaration of Rights part of your State Constitution.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 31, 2014 | Reply

      • Hi PH

        In the WA State Constitution, we have:


        No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.


        The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

        So does Section 24’s ‘shall not be impaired’ overrule Section 3’s ability to deprive property by due process when specifically dealing with firearms? or can WA State already legally confiscate an individual’s firearms through Section 3?

        I started researching some of the players behind I-591, that alone is also enough to vote against it. Perhaps just a coincidence that the two initiatives are on the same ballot but it smells like a reactionary trap. If people don’t vote for I-594, they are apt to run away from it into the waiting arms of I-591 to protect them. Which ever one passes, a win/win scenario for the degressives.



        Comment by BTG | November 1, 2014 | Reply

        • Sections 3 and 24 of your State’s Declaration of rights have separate spheres of operation:

          1. If you go to my Home page and click on the category “due process”, you will get two papers where I explain the original intent of “due process”. Here is a quote from the 2nd paper:

          1. a) In Ch. 11 of his book, Prof. Berger shows the true meaning of the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment:

          nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

          Due process of law” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! Specifically, that freed slaves could not be punished except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial where they could appear, cross-examine witnesses and put on a defense! “Life” meant “life” as opposed to being lynched; “liberty” meant being out of confinement instead of in confinement; & “property” meant the person’s possessions.

          Professor Berger points out [and I ask you to note it most carefully] that “due process of law” refers only to trials – to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It most manifestly does NOT involve judicial power to override Acts of a Legislature!”

          So Sec. 3 of your State Constitution addresses criminal trials only. It does not permit the State government to infringe the right of Citizens to have arms.

          2. The existing SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS of your Constitution is very GOOD and should not be changed:

          “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

          Under this existing provision, the State government has NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to impair individual citizens’ natural right to bear arms in defense of self or the State. The State government is prohibited from requiring ANY background checks as a condition precedent to owning arms.

          [However, you may not employ a private body of armed men. Remember the TV Westerns where the bad guy had his own army of thugs who terrorized the town? That is what Sec. 24 forbids.]

          3. The two sections are NOT opposite in nature. They are both vicious schemes to disarm the people of your State.
          I hope the people won’t fall for it.

          A similar plot is afoot in Alabama.

          Stop them, Blue Tail! You have the brains.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | November 2, 2014 | Reply

  48. “Here is the problem with jury nullification in criminal cases: Defense counsel are not permitted to tell the jury that the statute under which Defendant is being prosecuted is unconstitutional. If we try to tell them, we are held in contempt and removed from the Courtroom. ”

    Are you saying that defense attorneys cannot use nullification as a defense tactic? If so, people are so ignorant of the constitution that jury nullificaion would never work. I was hoping to be taken to court over obamacare but now I see that would be pointless because I couldn’t use their violation of the constitution as my defense. How sad.


    Comment by IMO | October 16, 2014 | Reply

    • No, I’m not saying defense counsel can’t use jury nullification as a defense tactic. I’m saying the Judge won’t let us use it openly. Defense counsel must find a way to get the idea in the juror’s minds [well, one mind on the Jury is all you need] without coming out and saying it directly.

      Visit the Fully Informed Jury Association website.

      And I don’t know that one actually has to sign up for it. I never signed up for benefits from those programs.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 16, 2014 | Reply

  49. Does Article IV, Sect.3, 2nd. Para, of the US. Constitution, give the federal government claims to all the land mass within our borders, if they so desire? If not how can they claim all the land out in the western States federal property? I also believe the Antiquities Act of 1906 is unconstitutional, am I wrong?


    Comment by James | October 15, 2014 | Reply

    • Article IV, Sec. 3, clause 2, addresses primarily what was then the “Western Territory” or “Northwestern territory”. See Federalist Paper No. 43 at 5.

      Here is a map of the NW Territory as it was during 1787 – the same year our Constitution was drafted.

      Note that Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2, CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES that the Territory would be broken up in to States – the federal government would “dispose of it”. When the federal government disposed of the land, its jurisdiction over the land would terminate [except for those few and defined enumerated powers delegated to the federal government for the country at large], and sovereignty would be transferred to the new State.

      As to the “other Property”: That would include the military bases, federal courthouses, federal buildings, and such, mentioned at Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause.

      The powers delegated to the federal government do NOT include, “forestry”, “oil wells”, “farmer”, “rancher”, “landlord”, etc. The federal government has no constitutional authority to hold all those lands.

      How did the feds get them? It appears that Congress conditioned the admission of the western states into the Union upon the new State’s agreeing that the feds could have these vast parcels of land. But that agreement was unconstitutional.

      Is the Antiquities Act of 1906 constitutional? Well, you tell me: Where does our Constitution delegate to the federal government power to “preserve antiquities” on “public” [yeah, right] land? Where does our Constitution delegate to the federal government power to set aside, for it to control, vast stretches of “public land”?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 16, 2014 | Reply

  50. PH,
    Thank you for allowing me to pursue this subject for I believe who decides the constitutionality of federal actions and what consequences are allowed to be the fundamental issue facing us today.

    First I will make my excuses for any idiotic statements I have made and will make. My field of training and experience is physics, the study and consequences of natural laws. My foray into trying to understand man-made laws and their consequences is of interest but lacks training. I certainly appreciate the efforts you have taken to help me fill this void. At any rate I assure you my thoughts are my own and are not derived from reading liberal propaganda on this or any subject.

    I am however not without some knowledge for I read and wrote summaries of each of the Federalist Paper for a Tea Party website. Understanding that a little knowledge can be dangerous I nevertheless believe I understand some of the arguments made in the papers as to why the states should have no fear that the federal government being established would usurp their sovereignty.

    In summary, Madison argued that no law could be passed without the concurrence of the state legislatures because they selected the senators. He also made the point that the rules for elections, who could vote, etc, were determined by each state and the states picked the delegates that voted for the president. Hamilton’s main point regarding state sovereignty seems to me to be that the states had the military advantage and would always have it because a federal standing army had to be re-authorized every two years by congressional law that could be blocked by the states. (Of course the states gave away all these safeguards by approving amendments to the Constitution.)

    My reason for the above paragraph is because it leads me to believe there was no need to give the states the power to decide the constitutionality of laws given they already had that power as discussed above. It is also the reason there is no mention in the Federalist Papers of the states having this power to determine the constitutionality of federal laws. Had it been an issue it would have been easily solved by adding a statement in the 10th amendment explicitly giving states that power but of course it was not included. Even when Hamilton in 78 told the states that it is the courts as intermediaries between the people and the legislature who are to decide the meaning of the Constitution, they did not object.

    But, using Madison’s arguing technique, lets assume such a power was granted and that an individual state could decide the constitutionality of federal acts and nullify in their state those they deemed unconstitutional. If true then nothing would prevent laws truly constitutional from being deemed unconstitutional and nullified by law in any state. That would result in a situation where the state laws would be superior to federal constitutional laws. Clearly the founders would not have approved of this result and thus that power could not have been granted.

    So my opinion that may be total nonsense is that this power was never granted or left to the individual states by the founders because the states acting collectively could prevent any attempted usurpation of their sovereignty. The states then gave the safeguards away. Now the states, never having the power to individually nullify federal laws they deem unconstitutional, have a serious problem.

    The only way I see that the states can decide constitutionality and nullify federal laws, in the eyes of the nation, is by returning to the original concept for maintaining their sovereignty, namely collective action where a majority of states agree that a law is unconstitutional and requires nullification. As an aside, when I first began thinking about this issue my solution was an amendment giving a majority of the states collectively the power to veto federal law just as the president can veto a law.


    Comment by Don Mellon | October 15, 2014 | Reply

    • 1. You have completely missed the fundamental principles of our Founding as set forth in our Declaration of Independence. Read the 2nd para, diagram it and ponder it. Our Constitution is based on those Principles. There are 4. What are they?
      2. It is not true that these are mere man-made laws and concepts – the principles on which our Declaration and Constitution are based come right out of the Bible. I have written on this. Right Principles of Polity are woven into the Fabric of Reality to the same extent as are the Laws of Physics.
      3. Here is a paper which addresses some of the common misconceptions about nullification: This is really an excellent paper for addressing some of the misconceptions.

      In a later paper, “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers”, I expanded the discussion of nullification.

      I must run – will be unavailable for a few days – but you have your homework assignment!

      So what kind of physics do you do? Alas, I never went beyond high school physics.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 16, 2014 | Reply

      • PH,
        I have finished my homework and I think I better understand from where our differences come.

        To start the discussion let me repeat a line from your paper on nullification. “Thus, nullification is both a Power retained by the States & The People as well as an Obligation imposed by Oath.” We both agree this is true.

        In statements like this however, I interpret the word “states” to mean the body of states or the states taken as a whole. That is if the states agree that a law is unconstitutional then they can nullify it at the national level. Many others, yourself included I think, take the word to mean the individual states. That is each state can decide a law is unconstitutional and nullify it in their state. I have looked and I have found no definitive justification for either interpretation. In fact you can read, for example, Madison’s 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolution with either interpretation in your mind and the same message is obtained.

        I know exactly where my interpretation came from. It was when I was reading Madison’s justification for the supremacy clause in Federalist 44. He makes the point that the state constitutions cannot be supreme to the Constitution for three reasons: it would leave the new congress impotent, it would have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution, and because every state Constitution is different any important treaty or national law would be honored in some states and not in others.

        It was this third point in particular that made me think about what our country would be like if every state could decide the constitutionality of federal laws and modify their constitutions or pass laws to nullify those they considered unconstitutional. Madison describes a government operating under his three criteria as “a monster in which the head was under the direction of the members”.

        I use two other facts to support my interpretation although they are not definitive. One, both the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were sent to the legislatures of the other states for their concurrence and support and when none concurred no action was taken and in fact Madison seemed quite insulted. This is not definitive because about that time the presidency changed and the law being questioned was no longer being enforced. But my point is why did they send the resolutions to the other states for concurrence and why did they not just nullify the law in Virginia and Kentucky?

        The second point is in Madison’s 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolution. He states ” If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself, as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it, there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the state constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.”

        Reading that, to me, he is saying that when the federal government oversteps their powers all the states should act together to “preserve the Constitution” and “arrest the progress of the evil” and to “provide for the safety of the parties to it”, and to protect “all the state constitutions”. Although not definitive, these are large goals that can not be accomplished by an individual state or a few states nullifying the federal action.

        Anyway that is what I believe, when the feds do something really dangerous to our sovereignty like Obamacare, then the the states acting together can and should nullify that law. This would be the most effective strategy and very difficult to challenge in court. Twenty six states were party to the SCOTUS law suit challenging the mandate in Obamacare. They lost but suppose they never appealed to the SC and had decided among themselves that none of them would follow any provisions in the law and they would do everything they could to arrest the progress of the evil. I believe either that law would no longer exist or would have been greatly modified.

        Unfortunately I believe, no one seems to be thinking along the lines of coordinated collective action nullifying federal unconstitutional laws.

        I have always supported state nullification by non-compliance, that is not allowing any state resource being use to help implement a law, for several reasons. It does not require wimpy state legislators to decide constitutionality and the courts can not object so it might actually happen. My hope would be that if enough states employ this technique on their own then that would accomplish the same result as if they coordinated their efforts.

        I studied solid-state physics and was employed in the defense industry. As a conservative I don’t think I could have survived in the academic world.


        Comment by Don Mellon | October 18, 2014 | Reply

        • I address below only some of the assertions you make. It is a waste of time to address all your assertions if we can’t get beyond these 4 points:

          1. The word, “States”, is used by our Framers in a variety of senses. I recollect that Madison discusses these various meanings in his Report of 1800 to the Virginia Legislature on the Virginia Resolutions of 1787. It is clear which meaning he is using in his Report. In my writings on nullification, I use the term in the same way that Madison uses it in his Report.

          2. The definitive justification for States nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government is clearly set forth in The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Hamilton’s writings in the Federalist Papers, and Madison’s Report of 1800. Lay your preconceptions aside and read only what these writers say. If we don’t lay our preconceptions aside, then they filter what we read, and what passes through the filter of our preconceptions is ONLY what we already believed. That is Not Good.

          3. Re Madison’s justification of the supremacy clause: You are making the same mistake – you are letting your preconceptions filter out that which contradicts what you already believe. Also, you must read everything an author writes in pari materia with everything else he wrote which touches on the same subject. Madison is only saying that to the extent state laws or a state Constitution conflict with the federal Constitution or with federal laws made “pursuant to the Constitution” or with Treaties “made under the authority of the United States”, does the State Constitution or State law fail.

          For example, a State law or constitutional clause which said that candidates for the office of Representative to Congress must be at least 30 years of age would be unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution.

          I have separate papers where I addressed the meaning of “in pursuance thereof” and, as to treaties, “under the authority of the United States”. A federal law which is NOT made “in pursuance of” the powers delegated by the Constitution would be unconstitutional. A treaty which is NOT made “under the authority of the United States would be unconstitutional. Such are appropriate objects for nullification.

          Open your mind and read what our Framers actually said – and don’t filter out what doesn’t fit your preconceptions!

          4. Re the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions: Do you not understand the distinction between a law which The People or the States can directly disobey by refusing to comply; and a law where The States and The People can only thwart, impede and subvert?

          The Alien and Sedition Laws were addressed to the powers of THE PRESIDENT! The States couldn’t refuse to obey – because the acts pretended to grant dictatorial powers to the president! I addressed this in my paper, “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers”. I am sure that it is written so that the Folks can understand it.

          It is NOT difficult to learn to read and while doing so, lay aide one’s preconceptions – i.e., what one thinks one already knows about the topic.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 20, 2014 | 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: