Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

4,919 Comments »

Publius Huldah, per the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution where it say that no person is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, would it not be reasonable to challenge vaccine mandates as a violation of all 3?

LikeLike

Comment by ragnarsbhut | March 23, 2022 | Reply
- Defeat “COVID” Mandates by restoring the Genuine Meaning of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2022 | Reply
  - Publius Huldah, thank you for recommending the appropriate link.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by ragnarsbhut | March 23, 2022 | Reply
- The better argument is that nowhere in Article 1 did We the People delegate ANY authority over healthcare. Thus there can be no legal mandate. Secondly, since article 1 vests ALL legislative power in the Congress, any executive order which pretends to usurp legislative power from another branch is also null and void.
  The federal government has been wiping their feet on the Bill of Rights for decades. 1040 filers are testifying against themselves, for example,in violation of the 5th Am. Yet those who have made such arguments are summarily dismissed by courts.
  Whereas you are probably correct that mandates violate the due process clause, the stronger argument is found in the absence of legislative power over healthcare and presidential restriction from usurping congressional legislative authority. Then throw the 5th argument on top as icing.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Mark | March 23, 2022 | Reply
  - what you say about Covid Mandates not being an enumerated power is, of course, Correct. But the due process clause and the privileges & immunities clause prohibit the fed gov’t – and the State governments – from imposing “vaccine” mandates.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2022 | Reply
    - Understood. Thanks for the correction. “Prohibition” is superior to “Not Empowered”.
      
      I tend to side with the Federalists on the Amendments. I regret their ratification for the same reasons Hamilton stated, but also because too many Americans focus on the Amendments and completely ignore the Constitutional body which precede them. I should be bald for all the times I’ve pulled hair out over the 2nd Am for example, being lauded as the “source” of a right in contradiction to the Declaration and with total disregard for the Enumerated Powers. And of course the courts’ perversion of the 14th Am.
      However, your point is taken that I should view the Amendments (with notable exceptions of the 16th & 17th Am.) as they were intended rather than despise them for the misconstruction, abuse, and excessive reliance by others. I shan’t discard the baby with the bathwater any longer.
      
      Blessings,
      Mark
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Mark | March 23, 2022 | Reply
      - Make both arguments:
        
        1) “Health care”/Medical treatments is not an enumerated powers delegated to the fed gov’t over the Country at Large AND;
        
        (2) The JAB mandates over the country at large and in the Military violate the Privileges and immunities clause and the due process clause.
        
        One must make both arguments: The federal gov’t has authority to operate military hospitals and provide medical care to wounded military personnel; BUT the federal gov’t can’t lawfully require Military personnel or federal officers and employees to take the JAB because such violates the privileges and immunities to which US Citizens are entitled; and it violates the due process clause.
        
        All federal gun control laws are unconstitutional because (1) gun control is not an enumerated power over the Country at Large AND (2) it violates the 2nd amendment.
        
        LikeLiked by 1 person
        
        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2022 | Reply
  - Mark, I agree.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by ragnarsbhut | March 23, 2022 | Reply
PH, have you ever thought about putting together a downloadable tests that people can take to ensure that they understand the constitution?
Just food for thought.

LikeLike

Comment by Blake | March 21, 2022 | Reply
- I never thought of that – it’s a great idea! during Legislative Season, I don’t have time to sleep or eat – but when it’s over, I’ll see what I can do!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2022 | Reply
  - And to get those running for office to take them before they can file? 😏🙄😄
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by imtryingwolfy | March 21, 2022 | Reply
    - Yes, that would be a good idea. Legislators and others holding public office haven’t studied Civics, and so know nothing about it. So they are guided by “what seems right in their own eyes” – which in practice means: they follow their party leadership; or the demands of lobbyists; or of smooth-talking subversives who present them with harmful legislation and smooth-talk them into sponsoring and carrying it. They provide the Legislation and the talking points – and when needed “expert” testimony to get the legislation thru Committee. And since the Legislators are acting way out of their areas of competence (and they never studied Civics), they fall for it.
      
      Actually, Citizens could vet candidates and REFUSE to support any Candidates who don’t pass a Civics test.
      
      It’s really a disgrace: Citizens refuse to study Civics; and so they can’t tell the difference between Candidates who know the Constitution (all 2 of them) and Candidates who don’t know. So the Citizens fall for the Candidates who tell them what they want to hear.
      
      I can spot these phonies in a few seconds – but the “conservatives” who never troubled their precious selves to learn our Declaration of Independence and Constitution fall for the smooth-talking fakes.
      
      Citizens should have Candidate Forums where they question Candidates on their knowledge.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2022 | Reply
PH,
I pray you and yours are faring well.

I just heard about something called “The RegionSmart Tri-State Compact Initiative” wherein TN,MS, and AR legislatures are being influenced to create a tri-state “compact” with a “Committee” of unelected bureaucrats to funnel federal funds (American Recovery Act among others) to local mayors for transportation infrastructure. It is being reported (Blaze TV) that this “committee” will have eminent domain power normally exercised by the State.

The RegionSmart page http://www.regionsmart.org/overview is falsely claiming multi state compacts are constitutional and allude to Art 1, Sec 10, cl 3. though there are no citations listed in their “overview”
RegionSmart is headquartered in Memphis and apparently the bill is making its way through the aforementioned State Legislatures.

I thought I’d give you a heads up on this. If you are already aware, feel free to delete this post.

I really wish the People would wise up to the Constitution as an Armor against Tyranny and The Rule of Men. I’m weary of watching Americans fund their own demise.

Blessings,
Mark

LikeLike

Comment by Mark | March 10, 2022 | Reply
- Thank you. I read it and it is as bad as you warn.
  
  Here is a link from the Mississippi Freedom Caucus in their Press Release of today saying that the RegionSmart Compact is DEAD in all 3 States. https://www.freedomcaucus.ms/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=regionsmart_compact_bill_is_dead&utm_term=2022-03-11
  
  I just now wrote the Sponsor in the Tennessee Senate and asked him to confirm – and told him I sure hope it is DEAD in Tennessee.
  
  The Communists who draft such poison use such fine-sounding Words – promise all kinds of money – while they scheme to transfer power from Citizens to themselves.
  
  Love of Money IS the Root of all evil.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 11, 2022 | Reply
Several politicians I have heard seem to be buying into crypto currency. Some are promoting it as an alternative currency in my state, even going so far as to contemplate its use for state tax payments.

My question is since, Art 1, Sec 10, cl 1 states in relevant part : “No State shall…make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;…” wouldn’t State legislation making crypto a legal tender be a direct violation of this constitutional prohibition?.

Given that we haven’t technically had such honest currency in our economy for decades, I first contend that fiat FRNs are unconstitutional for the same reason, and second, that any attempt to render crypto a legal tender for state tax payments, or commerce generally would violate the aforementioned clause. Am I overlooking something?

I do recall Dr. Edwin Vierra once suggested a “parallel” currency to compete with fiat currency, although he meant Gold and Silver in that instance.

Blessings,
Mark

LikeLike

Comment by Mark | February 25, 2022 | Reply
- Right, it would be unconstitutional for a State to make crypto currency legal tender.
  
  And what Dr. Vieira says about States setting up an alternative currency based on gold & silver is right! Too bad States didn’t listen to him in time. But governments no longer listen to the wise ones – the listen only to the fools and criminals and psychopaths.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 25, 2022 | Reply
Good Morning PH,

In studying I have been searching for the original (or earliest) Act which prescribes a majority decision in SCOTUS cases. The Constitution is silent on this topic so my presumption is that it was legislatively decided (just as the Number of Justices and Quorum rules of 28 USC) This information must exist, yet its discovery has proven illusive to me. Can you steer me in the proper direction?

Secondly, It strikes me as peculiar, that in a jury trial the jurists must be UNANIMOUS for a conclusive disposition of the case, yet a majority of one is sufficient in SCOTUS decisions. In cases regarding constitutionality of legislation, would it be imprudent to contend that a SCOTUS decision ought to be unanimous (as in a jury trial)? since such a ruling would ostensibly be considered of greater import as affecting a greater portion of society?

My apologies if this question wanders too far into philosophical realms for this board.

Kindest regards,
Mark

PS. It was “Irish” not “French” LOL

LikeLike

Comment by Mark | February 25, 2022 | Reply
- I can save you some time! These are not issues. We borrowed a whole lot from 1000 years of English Jurisprudence. Much of what goes on in American Courts is derived from customs from English jurisprudence. When there are 3 or more Judges sitting on a case – as there are on appeals, it’s always been majority rule. I doubt you’d find any act of Congress addressing this – this is the province of the Courts.
  
  There is a world of difference between a Jury trial in criminal cases and the opinions of appellate courts. If you are a defendant in a criminal case, would you ask the Court to rule than a majority of votes of the Jurors will be sufficient to convict you – so that it will be consistent with the practice followed in appellate courts? You’d be nuts if you did! In fact, if you did, your lawyer would probably move to have you declared mentally incompetent to stand trial (unless he was pretty sure you’d be acquitted).
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 25, 2022 | Reply
  - “If you are a defendant in a criminal case, would you ask the Court to rule than a majority of votes of the Jurors will be sufficient to convict you – so that it will be consistent with the practice followed in appellate courts?”
    
    Goodness no. Quite the opposite in fact. I’m suggesting that unanimous decision is a higher standard and thus curious as to why a mere majority of one is sufficient in SCOTUS rulings. But I take your point on it being a non-issue. as well as the proportionately vital requisites which must precede denial of life, liberty, or property.
    
    Its a higher priority that SCOTUS return to the rule of law and the supremacy clause as written “in pursuance thereof”. I just like thorough understanding which is what prompted my questions.
    
    Blessings,
    Mark
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Mark | February 25, 2022 | Reply
    - Litigation attorneys never expect Judges to agree! That’s why we provide for appeals.
      
      We initiate litigation (usually) with a Trial Court Judge. Whichever side loses at trial can appeal to an appellate court if he thinks the trial Judge was wrong. At the appellate court, he needs a majority of judges to reverse the trial court Judge. And whoever loses at the first appellate court can sometime appeal to the Supreme Court – where again, no one ever expects an unanimous opinion.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 25, 2022 | Reply
I know you will have the answer for this one. Reading several articles discussing whether Biden’s shutting down the Keystone Pipeline was constitutional. My understanding is that about 30 State AG’s sued, saying the Congress can do so, but not Biden thru an imperious EO. But, there seems to be no clear legal consensus. The pipeline originates in Canada, so it may not simply be an interstate issue. ??? Lost. Thanks. PH.

LikeLike

Comment by Jim Delaney | February 15, 2022 | Reply
- Alas! I don’t have the definitive answer for this. And can’t now take the time to unravel this Question. However, here is a correct preliminary analysis:
  
  1. Read Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 3, US Constitution. This paper explains the extent of Congress’ power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/read-the-commerce-clause-in-the-light-cast-by-the-other-parts-of-our-constitution/
  
  2. So Congress may by Treaty provide for a gas pipeline from Canada to here. But I haven’t read the Treaty so don’t what what it says. I don’t know whether Congress was so sufficiently silly as to provide in the Treaty that the President of the US may terminate the pipeline whenever he wants! But they are pretty stupid, so who knows? But you might be able to find out by reading the briefs of the State Attorneys General objecting to senile Joe’s “executive order”.
  
  I think Louisiana has the best AG in the Country: Louisiana is one of the States suing over the Keystone Pipeline: I expect you could take his arguments to the bank: http://www.ag.state.la.us/Article/10876
  
  You could contact his office and ask them to send you a link to the Complaint and any memos of Law Louisiana has filed in this lawsuit!
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 17, 2022 | Reply
  - Perfect. Will follow through. Thanks very much.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by jim delaney | February 17, 2022 | Reply
Dear PH,

1. With the invasion along the southern border and the entirety of the federal govt to ignore Their duty to defend the borders, the question arises as to whether or not illegal aliens are entitled to claim the due process protection under the constitution.

”We the people of the United States, in order to…secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves..” (preamble) suggests citizens and lawful residents are contemplated.

2. “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states” (Art IV, sec 2) similarly suggests citizens as the recipients of constitutional protection.

3. The 4th Am refers to “the right of the people” which suggests those same “people” described in the preceding clauses and thus citizens or lawful residents.

4. The 5th Am uses the term “person”, the singular of people, again suggesting citizens

5. The 6th Am refers to “the accused” only but provided for s “jury” which I have always understood to be a jury of “peers”. Since illegal aliens don’t meet the requisite of a “peer” it would follow that the Framers are again contemplating citizens and lawful residents.

6. Since Treatises cannot broaden the scope of delegated authority it would be illogical to suppose a treaty would afford constitutional protections to illegal aliens. Though I may be mistaken.

7. Further, since naturalization laws contemplate lawful applicants it would seem imprudent to carve out a statutory provision of constitutional protections for illegal aliens.

8. If I understand them correctly, Cannons of construction, would render legislative provision, even in our fundamental law, for those persons NOT subject to our jurisdiction too infinite to be contemplated.

9. Finally, since the Federalists surely presumed our government would faithfully execute their power over immigration, or be replaced by more faithful administrators, it doesn’t appear that the essays address any constitutional protections for illegal aliens.

10. I have been unsuccessful in locating an answer to this point in your papers. Any guidance would be most appreciated.

Blessings
Mark

LikeLiked by 2 people

Comment by Mark | February 4, 2022 | Reply
- Dear PH: To follow up on Mark’s question, doesn’t all of that suggest “immigration courts” themselves are illegal? Even “refugees” from war-torn countries don’t have a right under our Constitution to have a case heard,do they?
  And of course add to the logic that US citizens aren’t even allowed their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms if they don’t follow a process.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Bob Montgomery | February 4, 2022 | Reply
  - Hi Bob,
    I had never heard of “immigration courts” so you inspired me to research the matter. If I understand correctly, these “courts” (so-called) are NOT ART III courts duly ordained and established pursuant to Art 1, sec 8, cl 9; and Art III, sec 1..
    These are “administrative” courts (APA) under the DOJ which is the executive branch. The hearings are held by ALJs-Administrative Law Judges (loosely) who are appointed by heads of departments. (Not the President pursuant Art II, sec 2.
    Because of the separation of power doctrine, and the absence of Art III Authority, these ALJs may not (in my personal experience) independently rule on matters of law but merely “express the agencies ‘position’ “. Essentially a dog & pony show to create an illusion of due process.
    Legal? Perhaps, in the context that their tenure is the result of legislation. Constitutional? Not even close !! At least not in the Art III context.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Mark | February 4, 2022 | Reply
- You asked so many questions, I had to add numbers to your post to simplify & shorten my response:
  
  1, 2, 4, 5, 7, etc.: As always, one must begin with the Declaration of Independence: RIGHTS come from God – they do not come from Constitutions. And the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us. Every person on the face of this Earth has the same Rights God gave every other person. So yes, even illegal aliens have the same God-given Rights that you do.
  
  And one must distinguish between RIGHTS (which come from God) and PRIVILEGES (which are benefits of citizenship; qualifications to do this or that, etc.). In a nutshell: The “due process” rights in the 5th Amdt & in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt apply to everyone (all “persons”); but the “Privileges & Immunities” of Article IV, Sec. 2 & Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt, apply only to Citizens.
  
  If you look in my categories under “Due Process” you’ll find the genuine meaning of that clause. It has a meaning which goes back to the Magna Charta: No person can be deprived of his God-given Rights except after a fair trial before a Jury of his peers. Both of these constitutional provisions specifically apply to “persons”. That includes illegal aliens, and properly so: We are not to abuse the alien among us; and we can not deprive them of Rights GOD gave them. So when an illegal alien is accused of a crime, of course he is entitled [under God’s Law & under the US Constitution] to a fair trial with the due process rights!
  
  Read carefully the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798: Jefferson & Madison railed against the “Alien & Sedition Acts” which pretended to authorize the President to exercise tyrannical powers over Aliens.
  
  We can not properly equate “person” with Citizens! They are different concepts: Slaves were not “Citizens” – but they were “persons” – see Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3: “persons” clearly refers to the Slaves.
  
  The original intent of The “Bill of Rights” is that it applied ONLY to the federal gov’t – it did NOT apply to the States. So under the 5th Amendment, when a Slave was tried in federal court, he was entitled to the “due process” protections of the 5th Amendment – the 5th Amdt applies to “all persons” – and Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3 informs us that Slaves were Persons.
  
  “Privileges & Immunities” apply only to Citizens. When Article IV was drafted & ratified, it didn’t protect the Slaves! But when Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt was ratified making the former Slaves Citizens; the federal gov’t was now required to extend the Privileges & Immunities to the former Slaves.
  And Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt, requires the STATES to recognize in the former Slaves the same Privileges & Immunities which the white Citizens had long enjoyed.
  
  3. The 4th Amendment describes Rights given by God to all persons! It is True that the Constitution begins, “We The People”; and the 4th Amdt also uses the term “People” – but they are used in different senses. All “people” have the God given rights protected by the 4th Amdt; but only the People of the United States established & ordained our Constitution. The Border Patrol may NOT properly strip search a beautiful young female who is here illegally m just because they want to see her naked! They must first have “probably cause” and the search must be conducted by a female outside the presence of any males. GOD gave her Rights in the sanctity of her own Person – and this may not be improperly violated whether she is here legally or not.
  
  6. Right, the federal gov’t has no lawful authority to enter into “treaties” which violate our Constitution.
  
  9. The federal gov’t has no obligation to permit illegal aliens to remain here. The fed gov’t can and should deport them. But the fed govt has long wanted them to come here and has encouraged this invasion: We know this because of the lure of the extremely lucrative welfare benefits.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2022 | Reply
  - God bless you PH!!
    
    Thank you for correcting me. It’s always so instructive to read your replies. My apologies for creating extra work for you. It started out as a simple wuestion in my mind.
    
    And I should have trusted my instincts and your previous instruction. God-given rights were gnawing at me the whole time I was searching and writing.
    
    Kindest regards to the world’s greatest instructor.
    
    Mark
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    
    Comment by Mark | February 4, 2022 | Reply
    - When interpreting the Bible, the best sources of info are the [Bible – since our Constitution was based on God’s Model of civil gov’t]; The Declaration of Independence; and Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.
      
      Up until the early 1900s, American Lawyers knew Blackstone’s Commentaries. Our Framers used various concepts from Blackstone’s, such as “Privileges & Immunities”. I didn’t know the original intent of those words until I found it in Blackstones! See my paper under the Category “Privileges and Immunities”.
      
      thank you for your encouraging words!
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2022 | Reply
      - tá fáilte romhat
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Mark | February 4, 2022 | Reply
        
        я не говорю по французски !
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2022 | Reply
  - If I’m reading this correctly, it is summed up quite nicely in our Declaration, stating; “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable “Rights” –
    I’m understanding that means every man, women, child, black, white, red, blue, purple, green, avocado, democommie, republitard, Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, illegal, citizen, country origin and affiliation is not relevant, etc. even us dirt people. IE: everyone deserves to be treated as a human under our civil laws. Our Constitution and amendments spell out how and who our specific laws apply to. But then I could be wrong. Thanks PH for the explanation.
    NS
    Self taught and Always a student in all things. The more I learn the more I realize how little I know.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by N S | February 5, 2022 | Reply
    - Yes, God gave the same Rights to ALL people.
      
      However, you inserted a different Principle: You said, “Everyone deserves to be treated as a human under our civil laws.” Precisely what does that mean? That is a new standard for which everybody would have their own opinion.
      
      This is why we must not translate God’s Word into our own interpretations!
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2022 | Reply
  - PH:
    
    I believe the US Supreme Court got it right in Ting V US, (1893) when it said this:
    
    Re requiring aliens… “…who are entitled to remain in the United States,” to apply within a year to a collector of internal revenue for a certificate of residence, and providing that anyone who does not do so, or is afterwards found in the United States without such a certificate, “shall be deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully in the United States,” and may be arrested by any officer of the customs, or collector of internal revenue, or marshal, or deputy of either, and taken before a United States judge, who shall order him to be deported from the United States to his own country unless he shall clearly establish to the satisfaction of the judge that, by reason of accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, he was unable to procure his certificate, and “by at least one credible white witness” that he was a resident of the United States at the time of the passage of the act, is constitutional and valid.”
    
    That solves the illegal alien problem quickly and efficiently.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by jerrynelson1676 | February 11, 2022 | Reply
    - I assume that Congress had made such a law and the Supreme Court was quoting from the Law Congress made?
      
      And YES! Congress has constitutional authority to make such a law (Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1). It’s a shame those procedures aren’t followed now. But it has been deliberate policy of the US federal gov’t to flood our Country with 3rd world people – this started with “wrong-turn” Teddy’s Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (I think that was the year) – when the Floodgates to the 3rd world were opened. And the US gov’t has been luring them here for DECADES with generous “welfare” handouts.
      
      Wrong-turn Teddy was a traitor (as well as a serial adulterer and murderer). Our Country was taken over a long time ago.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2022 | Reply
Hi, PH. Read your analysis of Art I Sec 4. Outstandingly clear and concise, as usual. But I need a little more help from you on this. How did the framers understand the meaning of “Manner” in Art 1 Sec 4? Does it encompass mail-in ballots, whether those ballots are of the no-excuse or properly justified variety? And in this mail-in ballot craziness the country is being subjected to, does original meaning of “manner” suggest that Congress “may at any time by law make or alter such Regulations” by unilaterally requiring the use of mail-in ballots in the States? Thanks very much.

LikeLike

Comment by jim delaney | January 30, 2022 | Reply
- Good day Jim.
  Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines the term “manner” as; way; method; mode; form.
  Thus the manner to which you inquire is the method of casting one’s vote. Options could include a show of hands, vice voce ( in the living voice) or by ballot. Each of these would constitute a “manner” in which one would make a political choice.
  Were a state for example, to enact an election law that called for a show of hands, the US Congress could challenge such a law on the premise that such a system was not “traceable” or wouldn’t lend itself to audit procedures. To such an extent, Art 1, Sec 4 comes into play.
  As to the “means” of casting a ballot (eg- mail in, in person, by electronic ballot printers, etc) Article 1, Sec 4 is silent.
  Additionally, there is a distinction between a “mail-in” ballot and an “absentee” ballot. The latter is allowed in every state, so far as I am aware, for servicemen and those state citizens outside of their state on official, legitimate and unavoidable business. This is quite different from a “mail-in” ballot for those unable or unwilling to leave home to exercise their civic duty.
  While Art 1, Sec 8 would be useful if State legislation enacted a feeble, suspicious or unverifiable “manner” of voting, it does not go so far as to permit the US Congress to supersede in the “means” by which such ballots are cast. That is determined by State legislatures and it is up to the state citizens to replace unfaithful representatives who support suspicious “means” such as “mail-in” ballots.
  
  Best Regards
  Mark
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
  
  Comment by Mark | February 1, 2022 | Reply
- I am so sorry I forgot to answer your question. I went into an exhaustive discussion of this precise issue some years ago here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/arizonas-proposition-200-what-the-constitution-really-says-about-voter-qualifications-exposing-the-elections-clause-argument/ – my gosh, it was some 12 years ago that I wrote it.
  
  for future reference on finding things: I typed in “manner of holding elections” in the search box and it came right up.
  
  slap my hand!
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2022 | Reply
  - I will be working thru those papers forthwith. Thanks so much, PH. Don’t know what I’d do without you. No kidding.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    
    Comment by jim delaney | February 1, 2022 | Reply
- I actually have a series of papers where I discuss the “manner of holding elections”. They all come up using the search term, “manner of holding elections”.
  
  I know the papers are complicated – I need to go thru all those papers and organize them into one simplified paper which would actually be useful to people. But I had to read so much to learn this topic.
  
  And then I wrote a series of papers while the disaster of the federal election of 2020 was taking place – I saw it coming when a federal district court in Tennessee entered a judgment permitting voters & election officials to violate a state statute which required people who had registered by mail to vote in person and show up at the polls with ID. The Judge said they could vote by mail (because of “COVID” – they feared for their lives if they had to go to the polls!). And then I learned this was going on all over the Country!
  
  So I knew during September 2020 that they intended to steal the presidential election – which they did: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/09/20/mail-in-voting-a-political-question-which-only-state-legislatures-and-congress-may-decide/
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2022 | Reply
  - Dear PH, i so enjoy reading your opinions. I read in a few places where a judge… hmm… not we the people but some judge…chose to stop the investigation of voter fraud. Probably NOT “voter” fraud but “fraudulent voting…” Sounds like major criminal activity and imo all prisons need to release its prisoners if there is really no honest investigation. How can we the people DEMAND a full investigation … Thank you. History would have been really interesting if I had teachers like you.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Madelyn Thide | February 1, 2022 | Reply
Good Day PH
Is there EVER a situation wherein an appropriation of federal funds to any state(s) would be constitutional? I’ve been browsing the Constitution and find only two very remote possibilities; perhaps in an Art III, sec 2 “controversy between two or more states” if there were a ruling awarding payment, though it appears an order or judgement of payment directly between the involved states seems more likely. And second, perhaps regarding payment of Militia members, though it seems a direct payment to the members ( if called into actual service) would be more likely. Perhaps if the federal government borrowed money from a State, though I don’t see that happening.

Is there some other delegated power which I am overlooking?

Blessings,
Mark

LikeLike

Comment by Mark | January 22, 2022 | Reply
- I can not see any situation where an appropriation of federal funds to States would be appropriate.
  
  I’ve written much on the Militia – the constitutional Militia provided for at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16. The Militiamen were paid by their State gov’ts; except when called into federal service for one of the enumerated purposes set forth at Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 15. Then, it would be appropriate for the fed gov’t to pay the Militiamen directly.
  
  But the constitutional Militia was dissolved by the unconstitutional federal Dick Act of 1903 (1902?), which federalized the Militia of the several States and transformed them into the “National Guard”, which is an adjunct of the federal military (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 12).
  
  The State governments went along with the Dick Act because they were ignorant and short-sighted; besides, the Dick Act provided for federal appropriations to the states for the “National Guard”.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | January 23, 2022 | Reply
  - Thank you PH,
    
    Once again we are in agreement. The militia principle incorporated by our framers was brilliant. Pity more Americans no longer possess the profound appreciation for our fundamental law.
    It all boils down to a singular and simple choice; the Rule Of Law or the Rule Of Men. America’s adversaries made their decision long ago.
    “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”-Thomas Jefferson
    
    God Bless and keep you !
    Mark
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Mark | January 23, 2022 | Reply
The Filibuster – During the 1st year of Biden’s Administration I see no benefit or advantage to having a Filibuster ruke in the Senate. The Dems were still able to destroy our country.

LikeLike

Comment by stevenlopez8479 | January 20, 2022 | Reply
- The Republicans, thru their cowardice and ignorance, permitted the Dems to do what they are doing. I’ve been warning about the procedures for federal elections for years: See just this series of articles on the federal election of 2020: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/federal-election-of-2020/
  
  The Republicans didn’t do anything about it. A friend of mine is a State Legislator. She wanted to cut down “early voting” from over a month or so to one week. Her Republican colleagues were horrified – “we can’t do that!” They were afraid of negative press and the handful of Dems in their legislature.
  
  Re the Filibuster: Don’t be so quick to opine on Parliamentary Procedures until you become an expert in how the Legislative process actually works. Somewhere is a Manual Thomas Jefferson wrote on Parliamentary Rules. Check it out.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | January 21, 2022 | Reply
Hi PH, is it fair to say the 14th amendment, section 2 is the reason every state constitution has the qualification of must be a US citizen. even thought the 14th amendment doesn’t mandate it?

LikeLike

Comment by Spense | January 15, 2022 | Reply
- I don’t understand your question.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2022 | Reply
The internet is abuzz with today’s SCOTUS order blocking the OSHA mandate. The comment sections of news sites are riddled with giddy fools claiming a victory and praising the court. And yet, I hang my head in disgust that the train of imprudent decisions of this court hurls our republic down the tracks of despotism to an inevitable and destructive conclusion. Has the American mind become so feeble and inept, that it can applaud a result with no discernment of the MEANS and METHODOLOGY by which it was rendered?

In their order the justices state;

“The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not.”

“ Administrative Agencies are CREATURES of [the] statute. They accordingly possess ONLY THE AUTHORITY that Congress has provided.” [emphasis added]

First, it is impossible not to notice the uncanny parallel of these phrases to those of the Federalists with regard to the Federal Government being a CREATURE of the Constitution. It is entirely implausible to contend that the court has the cognizance to recognize the correlation between a statute and its intending regulation, while simultaneously denying and ignoring the same requisite correlation between the Constitutionally delegated authority (or lack thereof) and Congress’ establishment of the agency in the first place.

Second, what is even more frightening is the implication, if not blatant instructions that if the agency corrects the deficiency noted by the court, that is, if they cherry pick those occupations with the greatest degree of transmission, (e.g. medics and meat packers); and the alternate instruction to Congress, that if they enact legislation authorizing such broad mandates, that in either instance, such regulations would not be offensive to the court.

How is it possible, that in the Concurrence, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito can acknowledge what Madison and Hamilton plainly explain in Federalist Nos. 33 and 45 et.al., yet ignore those same explanations in stating their concurrence? Have these Justices incorporated a mild flavor of abstention regarding political questions into their decision?

The concurrence states, among other things;

“The federal government’s POWERS,.. are NOT GENERAL BUT LIMITED and divided… the federal government [must] properly INVOKE A CONSTITUTIONALLY ENUMERATED SOURCE of authority to regulate in this area or any other.”[emphasis added]

“Why does the major questions doctrine matter? It ensures that the national government’s power to make the laws that govern us remains where Article I of the Constitution says it belongs—with the people’s elected representatives.”

This latter phrase clearly references Art 1, Sec 1 yet entirely ignores the enumerated powers in Art 1, Sec 8 as a vital link within the chain of political power in our republic.

One can only deduce that this is a judicial reprimand to the People for electing illiterate fools to represent them. It’s as if the Justices are saying; “You elected these schmucks, now suffer the consequences.” And to this extent, they are correct. Nonetheless, the duty invoked by their sacred oath to support the Constitution is inviolate.

I fully expected the dissenter’s illogical response and even perhaps Roberts’. I am gravely disappointed in the Concurrent members however. They have left me with a question which I cannot answer, which is; “What am I missing?”

LikeLiked by 1 person

Comment by Mark Ford | January 14, 2022 | Reply
- Yes, I know. Ayn Rand always said, “check your premises”. But Americans of today don’t do that. They don’t consult First Principles – our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of 1787 – and ask, “What Article, Section, and Clause authorizes any Branch of the federal gov’t to meddle with “occupational safety”? Where is the Constitutional Authority for OSHA to even exist? What Article, Section, and Clause grant to the federal gov’t authority over the Country at Large over the “Health” of the people? What constitutional provision authorizes ANY Branch of the federal gov’t to mandate injections [which we now know have nothing to do with protecting our health – but have malignantly evil purposes.]
  
  Instead, the starting point of Americans’ analyses [such as they are] is always, “what everybody says”. THAT is where they start.
  
  As to health workers in facilities which receive federal funding: When I was 18, I understood that “with federal money comes federal control.” But the recipients of those federal funds don’t care that the feds take control over them – they just want the money.
  
  So we are really & truly are a morally corrupt people. Like Aldrich Ames, Americans will do anything for money. And like Esau, Americans sold their Birthright for a bowl of soup. And God hated Esau.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | January 14, 2022 | Reply
  - And it’s the fruit of our labors.
    I pray Ma every day.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by imtryingwolfy | January 14, 2022 | Reply
    - How lovely to hear from you! I trust you are well. Yes, I expect we have hard times ahead. God help us.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 14, 2022 | Reply
PH,

I found my answer within your paper “The States Determine Qualifications for Voting and Procedures for Registration.

“IF Scalia understood that the NVRA was unconstitutional, it was his DUTY to say so even though Counsel for the State of Arizona apparently failed to raise the issue. ”

Thanks And Blessings
Mark

LikeLiked by 1 person

Comment by Mark | January 4, 2022 | Reply
- Yes, Scalia wasn’t the brains “conservatives” think he was. And he didn’t have the spine to buck the system on other than a superficial level. That said, he was a lot better that those disgusting excuses for human beings, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. But Trump was soooo proud that he got his recommendations for judges from fake conservatives, “The Federalist Society”. Check their Annual Reports – they are puppets of the Koch Brothers.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | January 4, 2022 | Reply
Good day PH,

Is SCOTUS or any federal court required or permitted to consider or render a decision based upon arguments which neither party raises?
(eg. Arguing that vaccine mandates exceed OSHAs authority. When the PROPER argument is the unconstitutionality of OSHA as beyond the limits of enumerated power)
I preface this question by stating I believe it is PREFERABLE for states to avoid court altogether and simply NULLIFY OSHA jurisdiction within their respective States. If state legislatures/voters find merit in an occupational safety agency, and nothing in their STATE CONSTITUTION forbids it, let them establish the same within their State.

Blessings
Mark

LikeLike

Comment by Mark | January 4, 2022 | Reply
PH, Have you an opinion on the content of this link: http://www.reclaimingtherepublic.org? It appears to address a method of state nullification of unConstitutional federal policies in a very methodical way.

Happy New Year and many thanks for your shared expertise.

LikeLike

Comment by jerrynelson1676 | January 1, 2022 | Reply
- Yikes! The guy who wrote that has made something simple convoluted and complex. It gives me a headache to read it; and his “cure” would be another roadblock.
  
  James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton always said that when the federal gov’t oversteps its constitutional limitations, the solution is for States and the People to refuse to submit. It’s really that simple. I wrote my first paper on this almost 12 years ago: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/what-should-states-do-when-the-federal-government-usurps-power/
  
  See how simple it is? and one State can nullify unconstitutional federal acts within in the borders of that State. No special rigamarole – just don’t cooperate! Impede!
  
  Throughout the last 12 years, I’ve written and spoken many times on this issue. Recently, I put together a simple Flyer: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense.pdf
  
  It’s 7 pages because I set forth quotes and links. But the message is clear and simple: Man up! Don’t comply – don’t submit.
  
  Now, let me tell you why Republican State Legislatures aren’t nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t every day: THEY DON’T WANT TO LOSE ANY FEDERAL FUNDING. Yep! It’s the States and local gov’ts and The People who sold our retained powers to the fed gov’t. Like Aldrich Ames, they did it for the money.
  
  So in order to provide “cover” for not nullifying clearly unconstitutional acts, Republican Legislatures want to set up a complicated review process with Committees, etc., etc., etc., etc., and create such a complicated procedure for nullifying that no one wants to jump thru the hoops.
  
  Also – and this is very bad: Americans have become permission seekers. They don’t have the guts to stand up on their own and say, “hell no, I won’t comply”. So they want someone else – a “committee” or some such – to make the decision.
  
  So when people make the simple complicated, watch out!
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | January 1, 2022 | Reply
  - Exactly my reaction, PH. Why do some folks feel the need to invent remedies when remedies already exist. Like you say, just say NO–and mean it! No need for a dizzyingly convoluted action plan to stop federal tyranny. The Founders already explained what must be done.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by jim delaney | January 1, 2022 | Reply
    - Jim! I thought you died and went to Heaven. Really, when I don’t hear from People for a while, I start to worry. I think I have some kind of foresight – Just last night, I was thinking about how I hadn’t heard from you for a while.
      
      And you said it well: “there is no need to invent remedies when remedies already exist”. I’ll use that!
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 1, 2022 | Reply
  - Perhaps it’s just me, but I have always been of the mind that simple is better. Probably why I don’t fit well into our high tech world. The acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) always comes to mind. And yet here we are complicating everything imaginable from kitchen appliances that talk to you and a stupid microwave reminding you that your fridge is short 8 oz. of butter. This is not progress but a complication of Life, hiding the real purpose & essence of Life. Life was not designed to be complicated, but lived.
    The Power of NO, the most powerful single word ever devised, applies to everything in your life. And the most useful are, Please, Excuse me, & Thank You.
    Thank you PH for your guidance and wisdom – Happy New Year!
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    
    Comment by N S | January 1, 2022 | Reply
    - Yes! Yes! Yes! Everything in our lives is so complicated these days that I would join an Amish Community if they allowed indoor plumbing. I could learn to live without electricity. But I hope we never have to resort to using ….buckets.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 2, 2022 | Reply
      - PH, thanks for the response, and thanks to the others who posted their opinions as well. My thought about the proposal was that it seemed to be aimed at those who incorrectly think a Convention of States is a good way to deal with oppressive and unConstitutional federal policies since it took such great pains numerous times to insist that any state following its ‘guidelines’ must first recind its application to Congress for a CoS. In my observation, those proposing a CoS believe only a significant grouping of states banding together could have any power to right what they believe is wrong with the the federal government and/or the Constitution, and this lengthy and boringly complicated substitute proposal might be designed to draw them in the proper direction of individual state nullification.
        
        Thanks again for all opinions.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by jerrynelson1676 | January 2, 2022 | Reply
  - Howdy PH !
    
    Your response to jerrynelson is like deja vue. Just today I commented on an article in Epoch Times in which gov. Greg Abbott And TX AG Paxton were bragging how they “halted another illegal fed vax & mask mandate.”
    
    The argument was whether HHS had authority to mandate the mask and vax mandates within the Head Start Program
    
    After reading all the accolades from foolish Americans. I shook my head in disgust and posted my own review.
    
    I Pointed out that HHS and the “Head Start Program” implementing the mandate were both unconstitutional as outside of constitutionally delegated authorities at Art 1,Sec 8.
    Paxton’s ridiculous argument is comparable to arguing how much of the property in one’s home a thief is authorized to keep.
    Excerpts from my comments:
    
    —Herein lies the heart of the problem; STATES RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS.
    Thus, rather than courageous intercessors upholding their oaths to defend, protect, and preserve the Constitution, THEREBY
    TRULY PROTECTING THEIR CITIZENS, these hucksters PARTAKE in the USURPATION and we applaud them for it!!!!
    
    [Quote from Federalist 45]
    I concluded:
    I do not view the situation as a victory, but as evidence that usurpation will persist until we either “wise up” or succumb to collectivism and tyranny.
    
    I am in awe and admiration of your tenacity and stamina in dealing with foolish parrots. It is an exhausting exercise in futility most days. Especially the COS crowd. My word but they are a reprobate lot. But every so often I see the light come on in some strange soul and hope returns.
    
    God Bless you and keep you.
    Mark
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Mark | January 1, 2022 | Reply
PH, I admire your patriotism, knowledge of the Constitution, and will pray that you stay safe as you continue to attack those that are trying to overthrow our precious God given liberties. God bless you and Jesus protect you.

LikeLike

Comment by stevenlopez8479 | December 5, 2021 | Reply
- Thank you!!!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | December 5, 2021 | Reply
I’m a healthcare sales rep that was deemed Essential worker during covid. Now, certain hospitals are telling me that no vaccine, no entry. Get someone else to fill in. I’ve asked if I could be let in like any other guest to their hospital or be granted the same privileges as their employees excemptions and they also said no. IS there any recourse to being allowed to do my job?

LikeLike

Comment by Jeff Ledel | November 24, 2021 | Reply
- Under NO circumstances would I take the JAB.
  
  Much is going on right now in the way of litigation.
  You could file your own lawsuit, but such might not be necessary in view of the other litigation already going on. So you could just tighten your belt and stall….
  
  I assume you travel around the Country and various hospitals are attempting to impose this JAB on you?
  
  However, I do think you probably have a claim against the hospitals under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USC Section 1983: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
  
  I believe that your case would fall within 42 USC Section 1983, because the Hospitals are acting “under color of law”: Look at this link: https://www.triadconservative.com/2021/11/hospital-systems-get-paid-more-by-the-federal-government-if-their-employees-are-vaccinated.html
  
  The federal government is paying hospitals to require people to get JABBED. The hospitals are doing the government’s bidding by requiring that their employees (and others) be JABBED. So the hospitals are acting as agents for the federal gov’t and are being paid for it. THAT is what makes what the hospitals are doing “state action” and “under the color of law” within the meaning of 42 USC Sec. 1983.
  
  Caution: I did not practice in the area of federal civil rights litigation; but as a former litigation attorney of many decades of experience, I know enough to know when I am not an expert on a subject. So you would want to get a really good civil rights lawyer who has experience in 42 USC Sec. 1983 litigation.
  
  It can not now be denied, by any honest person with a brain, that the purpose of the JAB is to kill off large numbers of the World’s populations. And they are doing it – hospital morgues filled with stillborn babies…….
  
  https://ncrenegade.com/latest-devastating-news-on-the-vaccine/
  
  Apparently, Australia is right now – as I write – deliberately and with military force genociding the Aboriginals of Australia by forcing them to be JABBED.
  
  I’m also going to email you and send you an attachment with advice from Frontline doctors.
  
  and if you have children in the government schools, Get them out ASAP. Government schools are now JABBING children without parental consent.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | November 24, 2021 | Reply
  - PH, to back up what you wrote. I heard that hospitals cannot get Medicare and Medicaid money from the government if they do not require employee vaccinations. They cannot stay open without these funds. Another form of blackmail by big brother.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Mike Foil | November 24, 2021 | Reply
    - That is so corrupt! Hospitals are now acting as employees of the federal gov’t! And they did it for the money!
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 24, 2021 | Reply
      - Oh, dear, Dear PH. This thread encapsulates a lot. My question will come later but thank you for once again providing legal, in addition to Constitutional, references to hopeful solutions to….the thing. The big thing.
        After this China flu thing went on for a while and the two week to slow the spread turned into a month and then a year and then the ‘mandates’ began, I started asking myself “How can all of these so-called conservative legislators sit back and let this go on?” When you call something a “mandate” it usually means it’s mandatory, but as this thread points out, it’s only mandatory in matters like these….if you take the money. If pressed , in a fair judicial proceeding it would have to be admitted that it’s conditional, not mandatory. The money is conditional upon accepting the terms imposed, and in this case imposed after the fact. And the terms are imposed by the Executive “under the color of law”, as you say.
        But of course the legislators, whom you rightly note the public should rise up and boot out, are so Constitutionally ignorant that they, egged on by the complicit media and the shadow communists, bobblehead the “mandate” thing as if this flu thing is of course going to carry “mandates” with it.
        The other problem is with far too many of your colleagues who continually harp on “settled law”, the “thing decided” and all that. Justice Roberts went so far as to bring the Supreme Court into it by wrongfully attributing an unConstitutional “mandate” as a tax. He colored the law, alright.
        The law is never “settled” any more than the science that the envirowhackos and their politician helpers is “settled”. If somebody kills somebody, it maybe murder and it may not. But even if there is a law saying you can’t shoot someone until he has raised his gun and pointed it directly at you and put pressure on the trigger, even if someone has been convicted of breaking that law, it is not settled. It can be changed.
        And as you also tirelessly work to enliighten people, even our hallowed Constitution can be changed, or amended, without having an “Article V convention”.which by the pushers purports to solve individual problems like the budget by staging an entire “Constitutional Convention”, which anybody should know, even attorneys like Levin and other “scholars”, should be used only to change the constitution, not amend it. If there are not enough intelligent and honest legislators to pass an amendment and send it on to the states, again we have the same problem.
        So now it becomes more evident that in the end, the solution to the problems falls back on the people, hopefully with the assistance of what few originalist and textualist and honest legislators, scholars, lawyers and educators there are left. The people…..and/or the States.
        So when we talk about the Executive using the Department of Education and the Department of Health, noting that neither health nor education is the province of the federal government because ” to the States, or the People, respectively”, even other Departments for the purpose of this and other “mandates”, my questions to you are two-fold. First, although I know many, including you, are not the biggest fans of Donald Trump. He is not a strict interpretationist or originalist in the scholarly sense, and yes he is a greedy capitalist and yes, he has been married three times. Yes, he was not a knowledgeable politician and yes he made some bad appointments. Although I would argue that when you have all of the scholars and media-ites and career pols touting the virtues of these nominees, good grief.
        
        So my question is, Donald Trump was qualified to be elected President of the United States under our Constitution.
        In the final (but “unsettled :-)” ) analysis, did it take a rough, uncouth, flawed Patriot to wake enough people up to begin to return to some sense of Constitutional order?
        And my second question is, this Chinavirus thing, as worrisome and bothersome and hurtfulsome and often sorrowfulsome as it was, did it take something like that to further instill in enough the public a sense that resistance was still possible without resorting to armed resistance?
        Or, one final question, is…..the thing……so vast and established and longstanding and perpetuated and ….miscolored…..that it is too late and we will probably just have to hobble along as best we can until the last ember dies out?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Bob Montgomery | November 26, 2021 | Reply
PH:

I have read your blog I think, for at least a decade. I love it.
The problem I once brought up to you is that there is no way to limit Congressional power and bribe taking from lobbyists and corporate America without term limits. The elite own us. WE know Congress is not the slightest bit interested in limiting their power and will, never, ever vote for a term limits bill. The only way to bring that about is through a convention of states.

There fore why can’t we can’t we have a convention wherein we protect or sequester the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those items will not be considered for any type of change- we are simply seeking additive amendments to stop this eternal trough feeding of people like Kennedy, Leahy, and Pelosi. There is simply no other way, short of outlawing lobbying completely, to stop this nonsense.

So I get your fears about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ok, so let’s pull the baby out and throw out the bath water. Love to hear your suggestions about limiting the unbelievable power held by these seemingly eternal legislators. Brian McNary

LikeLike

Comment by Brian McNary | November 15, 2021 | Reply
- With all due respect: You do not understand what the problem is & who caused it; and you don’t understand the Danger of an Article V Convention. If one reads (with an open mind) what I have already written and said; the solution is obvious. I used to talk to Juries – I know what lay people are capable of understanding. I suggest to you that any layperson with an open mind who listens to my videos and reads the EXhibits can understand this. Here is my most recent video https://rumble.com/vp3ltn-joanna-martin-article-v.html
  
  and here is the Exhibit List: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/exhibits-to-presentations-in-south-carolina-during-november-2021..pdf
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | November 16, 2021 | Reply
  - I participated in a discussion on Parler over the notion that a Convention of States is a safe and effective way to get unworthy politicians out of office and discovered that most people promoting that agenda simply are unwilling to absorb your arguments against it in their frustration. It is too much of an emotional issue for them apparently to allow an open minded assessment of the idea, especially by ignoring what happened the only other time such a ‘convention’ was created. My own final argument was and is, term limits still exist, we simply must exercise them by voting out of office those we don’t want seated every time an election comes around. It means working at least as hard to accomplish that as working for a CoS and expose us to its dangers.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Jerry Nelson | November 17, 2021 | Reply
    - thank you, Jerry. What you describe illustrates the moral collapse of our Country: Too many people are unwilling to look at evidence which contradicts what they already believe. They thus set their own beliefs above objective Truth. And the irony is that they have been conditioned to hold the beliefs they hold. So they are tools – useful idiots.
      But still, some Americans are honest and will listen!
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 17, 2021 | Reply
PH, do you have a list of ALL the unconstitutional (or constitutional) departments (agencies) of the federal government?

LikeLike

Comment by Blake | November 5, 2021 | Reply
- No, it would take too much time to list the unconstitutional agencies. However, let me show you how easy it is to do this for yourself:
  
  If you want to know whether a federal agency is constitutionally authorized to exist: Look at the enumerated powers delegated to the federal gov’t in the Constitution: Is the work the agency does on the list of delegated powers?
  
  to illustrate: We know the US patent and copyright office is constitutionally authorized to exist because of Article I, Section 8, clause 8. We know the US Mint is constitutionally authorized to exist because of Article I, Sec. 8, clause 5
  
  So can YOU tell me whether the federal Departments of Education, Energy, HUD, Agriculture, Labor, etc., etc., are constitutionally authorized to exist?
  
  Here’s a convenient Chart which all should learn by heart: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/chart-showing-federal-structure-with-meme-april-2019.pdf
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | November 5, 2021 | Reply
  - And so to follow up, PH, does the Constitution allow the federal government to bribe the states into complying with the federal government’s …..wishes…….in those areas where they have NOT been delegated authority?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Bob Montgomery | November 7, 2021 | Reply
    - No, the Constitution doesn’t “allow” the fed gov’t to bribe the States to participate in unconstitutional fed programs. But the remedy when the federal gov’t offers such bribes is for the States and local governments to man up and refuse to take the money. Just as if you offer me lots of money to do something wrong; I’ll tell you, in no uncertain terms, to keep your money. I’ll also call a press conference and tell the world about your bribe.
      
      The good news is that the Tenth Amendment Center reports that some local govt’s are refusing fed money: See this post:
      https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/11/05/texas-towns-avoid-some-federal-mandates-by-rejecting-federal-money/
      
      WE need to tell our State and local govt’s to stop taking the money. The state and local governments are the real villains here: THEY TOOK THE MONEY TO IMPLEMENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS – they are the ones who sold our retained powers to the federal gov’t.
      
      And WE kept re-electing these bribe takers to our State and local govt’s.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 7, 2021 | Reply
Hi PH, just FYI “Progressives in Congress have put forward H.R. 4, a new bill that would require states to get approval from the federal government before they implement even the most commonsense changes to their voting practices.” The democrats are attempting to usurp more power from the states after their freedom to vote act failed. Talk about dictatorial!

LikeLike

Comment by Spense | October 28, 2021 | Reply
Hello Publius-Huldah, Back on October 11 I asked what can We The People do to STAND UP when even our supposedly president is openly disregarding our Constitution and you of course outlined perfectly what to do. Then I stated in so many words if everyone had a 6 months savings for emergencies that could happen in a lot of cases. People don’t. Some now are but only a few it seems. I know the rest of the story.
Now about the southern border as news people like Fox refer to it as Biden’s border. It’s OUR border. The southern states California’s border, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas with Mexico is almost wide open. Obvious Biden doesn’t care enough to enforce Art. 4, Section 4. of our Constitution. Texas is doing something at least. Years ago Jan Brewer of Arizona tried and was sued I believe. My question is: Given Art. 1, Sect. 10, Clause 3, why does the states keep doing their nothingness and form a compact or an agreement and bring in several thousand National Guard Troops to shut down the border? The governors don’t need Congress’ consent and if Biden objects then sue him and his administration for dereliction of duty.
One more question: Art. 1, Sect. 2, Clause 5, gives the House sole Power of impeachment. Even though the GOP is in the minority they could still impeach Biden? Yes, I know then we’d have Harris. Give her a chance. if she fails her oath impeach her.
After the impeachments are done until November 2022 perhaps a new Congress with the GOP installed and Trump is voted in as Speaker of the House and the house of cards fall. Granted there must be convictions.
I’m like most others am fed up with We the People must stand up when we for the most part can’t afford to. When will those in power stand up for our country. We voted them in to do our bidding for us. Useless most are. My apologies for being so wordy. Thank you, Jack

LikeLike

Comment by Jack Adams | October 26, 2021 | Reply
Publius, with all the recent using happenings of our school teachers using CRT to undermine a Godly platform and parents objecting and being called Domestic Terrorists and Biden’s Attorney General using his Justice department to treat them as offenders of speech what is the best way for us WE The People to stand up and request our rights under the constitution be adhered to. We The People must stand up. I hear it all the time. When we do then we’re treated like criminals.

It’s obvious the entire Biden administration needs to be impeached but the GOP won’t do anything. What’s the answer? 2022 may not be. Thank you,

Jack

LikeLike

Comment by Jack Adams | October 11, 2021 | Reply
- We do not “request” that our [God-given] Rights be adhered to. Instead, we REFUSE to submit to violations of our God-given Rights. Read the first 6 paras of this paper: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/08/24/defeat-covid-mandates-by-restoring-the-genuine-meaning-of-the-privileges-and-immunities-and-due-process-clauses/
  
  It’s up to us to enforce our Rights by refusing to surrender them. The federal courts are not on our side. The only Judges on SCOTUS who are decent are Alito, Thomas, & Gorsuch [though I wish they would be BOLD. This is no time to be timid – and you can’t have a “collegial” relationship with the Devil]. The other Justices are a disgrace to the Bench – John Roberts is also a disgrace to the human race. Congress & the Executive Branch are also our enemies – they are controlled by money-grubbing globalists who intend to kill off great numbers of us.
  
  The way to defeat those pushing CRT is for parents to abandon the public schools. Parents and others must continue to expose CRT as a deliberately subversive & hateful & divisive agenda. And let US promote peace and friendship among Americans of different skin colors.
  
  Refuse the JAB. Make them fire you. Or better yet, organize a walk out as the civilian airline pilots are finally doing. Employees have the power to destroy the businesses which employ them by walking out, going on strike, etc. Military officers should resign their commissions and leave the service before taking the JAB – their precious pensions be damned. And our enlisted personnel should seek an administrative discharge or make the military brass discharge them before taking the JAB – the threatened “dishonorable discharge” can become a merit badge showing Courage & Spine! I’d salute someone who got a dishonorable discharge for refusing the JAB just as I salute someone who has been awarded the Medal of Honor. Then, we need to organize another Military – revitalize the State Militias – for some 15 years, Dr. Edwin Vieira has been advising States to revitalize their State Militia.
  
  Don’t shop at woke stores. Drive Amazon out of business by refusing to buy from them. Shop at Mom & Pop stores. Don’t buy at Walgreens or that other woke pharmacy. Grow your own food if you can – buy storage food from Patriots. Buy fresh produce from Farmers Markets when you can. Or if there are Farmers near you, see if you can buy directly from them.
  
  Stop eating junk food – BIG FOOD is as evil as BIG PHARMA. They have poisoned the American People with their unhealthy MANUFACTURED food: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k
  
  The People must stop obeying unconstitutional dictates of each branch of the federal gov’t. Start having organized prayers in public places. Don’t obey federal judges who violate our God-given Rights. Stop taking federal money: when I was 18, people were saying, “with federal money comes federal control”. But now, we are willing to sell our God-given rights for federal funds.
  
  In other words, Americans must man up and say, “No! I won’t comply”.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2021 | Reply
  - Thank you. I know there are answers just not easy. If for instance every working American had about a 6 months money reserve for emergencies then just join a movement to not go to work. I told my wife the nation needs to boycott the stores and use home grown food where ever one can. Change one’s eating habits some.
    
    She shops Sam’s Club mostly and buys frozen vege’s and fresh fruits. We still cheat and use Kroger’s and Walmart as well but not much. Like I stated it’s hard for working people or retired folks to “stand up” when most are surviving and excess financial funds are minimized. It’s sad as well that our local leaders seemingly don’t act like they know what to do. A local leader well known in the area well versed in constitutional law could organize groups to represent on a level where each pays some and not a lot to contest or dissent the tyranny.
    
    After reading Dr. Vieira’ book on the unorganized militia and found it to be extremely interesting and thinking how our congress is, it seems like a dream to expect the congress to fund the states to organize the militia. I know it’s well documented in the constitution. Getting it done would be the battle in itself.
    
    Again thank you for all you do. Jack
    
    Sent from Mail for Windows
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Jack Adams | October 11, 2021 | Reply
  - EXACTLY! Thank you PH for stating it so clearly. Grow a spine America, Just Say NO! American have always had the power given them by the Founders, they have our the years since, forgotten how to use it. They still have the power, if they would quit giving it away.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    
    Comment by N S | October 12, 2021 | Reply
  - PH; As usual very well said, short, all inclusive, straight to the point, and in a compassionate, respectful manner. I am more inclined to act as I believe, and history has proven, in the manner of the founders. Were they alive today this circus would have been over with already. I have trouble understanding why heads aren’t adorning pikes with muskets smoking. I know me though, so I’ll stay out of it till absolutely necessary, working as grey man in the background. I do adore throwing wrenches. When the time comes, you’ll find me front and center.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    
    Comment by N S | October 29, 2021 | Reply
    - well, read “That Hideous Strength” by C.S. Lewis. He wrote it close to 80 years ago – yet he describes what we see going on today. Humans controlled by demons are seeking to eliminate organic life. Not just humans and cows – oh no! I hear they also want to kill the Trees. Do read that book.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 29, 2021 | Reply
With respect to interstate travel and the prospective requirement for vaccine passports to freely and unencumbered do so, is the Railroad Co. v Husen (1877) opinion in violation of the Constitution? Read opinions of a number of constitutional professors and, of course, there is no consensus. Lots of hedging. I figured you’d have a clean, clear-cut view on the subject. Thanks.

LikeLike

Comment by Jim Delaney | September 23, 2021 | Reply
Hi PH, where can I find your comment on the distinction between a God given right and that of a voting right? I hope you are doing well.

LikeLike

Comment by Spense | August 25, 2021 | Reply
- I don’t have time to search the comments for it. But here’s the short answer: In this Country, voting was not seen as a “right” to which one is automatically entitled by virtue of being a human created in the Image of God.
  
  Instead, voting was seen as a privilege for which one had to qualify before he could exercise that privilege. See the papers here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/voter-qualifications/
  
  In my most recent paper, https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/08/24/defeat-covid-mandates-by-restoring-the-genuine-meaning-of-the-privileges-and-immunities-and-due-process-clauses/ I discuss and link to the discussion of “privileges” and “immunities” in Blackstone’s Commentaries. Click on the link to Blackstone’s and go to page 128 [of the facsimile book] and scroll down to *129] and you will see a brief definition of “privileges”. Voting was seen as a “privilege” as contrasted to “immunities” [from government regulation] which all people, by virtue of being creatures of God, are entitled.
  
  American lawyers once knew Blackstone’s like the backs of their hands. But he was taken away from us and we got Progressivism!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | August 25, 2021 | Reply
  - Thanks PH, I am putting together an argument against the left’s reasoning that the 15th amendment grants a right to vote. The clause: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State” makes the some on the left think voting is more than a privilege. Yes, they of course don’t give equal weight to all the words in the clause, they act as though the words “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–” don’t exist.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Spense | August 25, 2021 | Reply
    - Correct: Those 4 ‘voting amendments’ didn’t grant a right to vote: they merely said that the right to vote can’t be denied on account of one of those 4 conditions. Black citizens, female citizens, etc., can still be denied the “right” to vote if they have been convicted of a felony.
      
      I recognize that the 4 amendments use the word “right” – but it is a conditional “right”: You don’t have the “right” to vote unless you meet the qualifications for voting set forth in the Constitution of the State in which one has his domicile.
      
      So voting is a “privilege” which is granted to those who meet the qualifications.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 25, 2021 | Reply
Morning Publius. I wish to ask and perhaps make a statement more so on our current supposedly president Joe Biden and his desire to stomp on our 2nd Amendment. Accordingly all federal firearm restrictions are unconstitutional. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, wrote in the Federalist Papers that being armed is an advantage we Americans possess over people of almost every other nation.

And, Samuel Adams in Massachusetts, said a Bill of Rights should include a guarantee that the ” Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress – to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

Obviously Congress for the most part and certainly the President don’t give a gnats gluteus maximus about the Constitution. So realizing all of what the democrats want to do with or about the 2nd Amendment and the peoples constitutional rights why doesn’t the good ole folks of each state tell DC their all wrong?

The part ” shall not be infringed” doesn’t require a senator or congress representative to have a doctorate degree to understand what it means.

If the state governments refuse to stand up it seems the people are going to have to?

Jack

LikeLike

Comment by Jack Adams | July 23, 2021 | Reply
- Some of us have been, for many years, showing people that the remedy our Framers actually advised, when the federal gov’t usurps powers not delegated, is NULLIFICATION. But people don’t seem to be willing to make the effort to learn about nullification – though it is easy to understand. Also, Americans have been demoralized and conditioned to obey gov’t and they have become too cowardly to say, “No way!”.
  
  Then too, some of those pushing for an Article V Convention have been disparaging Nullification, as well as smearing those who advocate it.
  
  State Legislators (who are typically as profoundly ignorant as the general public of our Constitution and The Federalist Papers) have been unwilling to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t because they don’t want to lose their federal funding. The Truth is that the federal gov’t bought off the States who willingly sold the reserved powers of the States and The People to the federal gov’t. E.g., the States and The People lost control over education because the federal gov’t gave the States lots of money to implement crazy federal education schemes. An education expert in Tennessee told me that the Tennessee State gov’t was paid $500 MILLION to adopt Common Core.
  
  So, once again we see that Love of Money IS the root of evil. And State governments would rather permit children to be corrupted than pass up “free” money.
  
  People are going to have to stand up and resist. I’d say, “elect more faithful representatives who have spines to your state Legislature”, except that we have lost control over our elections.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | July 25, 2021 | Reply
  - Publius, I surely thank you for your genuine reply. I used the terms stand up by the states in essence alluding to nullification and interposing but do the states understand? Given the XL pipeline for instance all the states allowed Biden issue an order that was unconstitutional and look at the damage. Trump had gotten all the permits. It was approved.
    
    Again thanks for your insight. Jack.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Jack Adams | July 25, 2021 | Reply
PH, please, please, please, put all your papers in a book.

LikeLike

Comment by John | July 18, 2021 | Reply
- John, thank you. I’ve been waiting for the world to stop so that I would have time. I don’t know how people find the time to write books! I do want to.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2021 | Reply
  - Publius Huldah. RE: Writing a book – Why not simply publish all of the Q&A in one book?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Jean MacAllister | July 19, 2021 | Reply
    - Well, the Q & A’s are scattered over 543 pages – I’d have to figure out how to organize them!
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2021 | Reply
      - Mark me down as a pre-order.
        
        LikeLiked by 1 person
        
        Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | July 21, 2021 | Reply
Hi PH, The constitution violating National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) notwithstanding; am I correct in saying the Congress has the constitutionally granted authority over places, now also the places choosing senators? Because the way senator are chosen has changed?

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

LikeLike

Comment by Spense | June 13, 2021 | Reply
- see this at subpoint 5: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/09/20/mail-in-voting-a-political-question-which-only-state-legislatures-and-congress-may-decide/
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | June 13, 2021 | Reply
  - Thanks PH, that answers my question clearly
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Spense | June 13, 2021 | Reply
Dear PH,
I find no listing on your website entitled “Secession”, but I know you have discussed it at some point. It seems to me that the question of whether it is authorized by the constitution depends on whether the U.S. Constitution is a FEDERATION or a CONFEDERATION. The Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that a federation is a perpetual system in which states have no right to secede because they have no state constitutions which give them the rights of sovereign, state and local self-government. A confederation is different and is not perpetual because the states do have sovereign, state and local self-government, thus the federal government may be held accountable based on the terms and conditions of the compact/agreement; therefore, as a last resort, if the federal government breaches the terms and conditions of the compact, the states may secede. America became a confederation of independent nation-states upon entering the Union. Furthermore, the Declaration itself was/is a secessionist document, e.g. “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, etc.” The original confederations which preceded the U.S. Constitution used the term “perpetual” but the new constitution of 1787 did not use the term. I believe it was because America was created as a confederation which specifically listed the limited powers granted by the states to the federal system. I also think that the confederation argument makes a much better case against what Abe Lincoln did when he invaded the South. He breached his authority under the compact and changed our form of government from a constitutional republic of confederated nation-states to an oligarchy. Our founding document did not grant any of the 3 federal branches morality police authority over the states. The constitution did not promote slavery, but it was a protected institution. He could have amended the constitution to eliminate slavery, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The South seceded and formed a separate confederacy which re-established the firewall between the states and federal government that our founders had created at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. So, the term “Confederacy” is a good word. Until America revisits the true motives for Northern aggression and quits using slavery as a pretext to justify the false narrative that it was a just war, our nation cannot heal. The critical race theory, BLM, and Antifa all carry the sword of Lincoln, and are using it the same way that he did. Victim-hood is a Marxist tool that is used by tyrants to divide and conquer.

Please tell me if I am correct in my understanding of the distinction between federations and confederations.
Thanks

LikeLike

Comment by John Noble | June 3, 2021 | Reply
- Yikes! The proper starting point for your inquiry is our Declaration of Independence. It is not an encyclopedia article used to shoehorn the rights of the People and the powers of the States into definitions someone else wrote!
  
  Ponder the 2nd para of the DOI: what are the 4 “self-evident Truths” (Founding Principles) on which our system is based? That is where you find the “natural right” of a State to withdraw from the Union.
  
  See also – and commit to your thinking – what our Framers said in this paper on Nullification: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense-1.pdf
  
  Those same “self-evident Truths” which authorize States to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t also authorize States to withdraw from the Union.
  
  In the History of mankind, there has never before been such a magnificent political Document as our Declaration of Independence. This is why the left hates our DOI with a virulent, seething, malignant hatred.
  
  In all matters of political inquiry, start with our DOI!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | June 4, 2021 | Reply
This is a copy of an email I sent you. The attachments described are in my email.
A group of us in Texas have sent our County and District Attorney’s certified letters requesting they petition the proper court for a writ of quo warranto on our behalf because the voting systems used to elect the seat holder’s we are contesting were not legally certified as required by Texas law. I have attached a copy below, it’s the file labeled (WQW Template). (We obviously changed out the items in red fonts to our representatives and counties). Some of the people in our group have began receiving responses (see attached QW1 & QW2). Clearly, these DA’s are not going to act. I was wondering if you can give me an idea on where to look for guidance on what options we have if none of them are willing to act. I’ll do the research if you will point me in any direction. Thank you for your time!

LikeLiked by 1 person

Comment by Lindsey Turney | May 21, 2021 | Reply
PH:

How does Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 impact the call for a Convention of States, if at all? Does it buttress the assumption that it is Congress alone which has all authority over rules and procedures such a convention might be obliged to follow?

LikeLike

Comment by jerrynelson1676 | April 26, 2021 | Reply
- Article I, Sec. 10, cl. 3, addresses different issues.
  
  Congress’ powers to call and set up an Article V Convention, as set forth at Article V and at Article I, Sec.8, last clause, are complete and cover the whole subject.
  
  There is no such thing as a “convention of states” called to address our federal constitution. The convention provided for at Article V is a federal convention, called by the federal gov’t, to address our federal Constitution. It is not a State function. The States have nothing to do with it except “apply” to Congress for Congress to call it. Once that’s done, the States are out of it altogether.
  
  So COS, with their “newspeak”, renamed the convention provided for at Art. V as a “convention of states”; and then redefined it as “a convention controlled by States”. But such a thing doesn’t exist – COS fabricated the whole thing!
  
  I addressed that here: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/rebuttal-to-senator-steve-halloran-final2red.pdf see part 4B
  
  On a personal note: Are you the Jerry Nelson I “met” years ago – if I recall correctly, you are a pastor? I wondered where you were and how you were doing!
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2021 | Reply
  - PH: Thanks for the response. You confirmed my own understanding of Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 as not applicable to the CoS and I appreciate it, as always.
    
    No, I’m sorry to say that I haven’t had the good fortune of meeting you except through your blog here, for which I am grateful nevertheless.
    
    God bless you for all you do for us.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by jerrynelson1676 | April 26, 2021 | Reply
    - Well, I never met Jerry Nelson in person – but you and I have not been in direct contact before? Are you a pastor?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2021 | Reply
      - PH, to my regret, we have never met nor had any contact outside of here on your blog. But I think we are friends and comrades in spirit nevertheless.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by jerrynelson1676 | April 27, 2021 | Reply
        
        and will meet in the next life!
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2021 | Reply
HI PH, our organized crime federal govt just crossed the line again, I still can’t believe it. “The United States Postal Service is apparently tracking social media posts as part of a clandestine program searching for “inflammatory” messages. The program, known as the Internet Covert Operations Program, or iCOP, has not previously been made public and involves analysts combing through social media sites looking for “inflammatory” postings and then sharing those posts with government agencies, according to a document obtained by Yahoo News.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/usps-spying-social-media-posts-reporting-to-government Someone needs to hang for this violation of the constitution, the P.O. scope of powers doesn’t include being a spy agency. I am so ashamed of this country

LikeLike

Comment by Spense | April 24, 2021 | Reply
- Yes – the stupid how holds the reigns of power. It is heartbreaking.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 24, 2021 | Reply
What limit is there on the power that is delegated to the United States Congress at Article 4, section 3 to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States?

Somewhere, I have heard the argument made that the power that is delegated to Congress over territories is limited to the objects that are delegated to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution of the United States.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Comment by Kenneth Lloyd | April 11, 2021 | Reply
- I join you in your question, and ask PH if, noting that Congress has exclusive legislative authority over forts and dockyards, etc, whether Portsmouth Naval Shipyard could petition Congress to become a state?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Bob Montgomery | April 15, 2021 | Reply
  - Conferring statehood on a fort or dockyard would be unconstitutional for the same reason that any law made by Congress which purports to confer statehood on the DC would be unconstitutional – BUT the people holding the power don’t care about such things. publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/congress-has-no-authority-to-confer-statehood-on-the-district-of-columbia/
    
    The Law has disappeared. the people holding the power do what they want – and the cowards go along with it.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Publius Huldah | April 15, 2021 | Reply
- sorry for the delay!
  
  No, it’s just the opposite: Over the territories, Congress had general legislative powers. See this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/
  
  under the subheading: Federal Enclaves & Territories
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 15, 2021 | Reply
Hi, PH. Quick question. Sed 4 stipulates that the times, places & mannerof holding elections for senators andd representatives shall be prescribed by State legislatures,, but that Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators. So, as horrendous as HR1 is, would it not be constitutional? Hope this isn’t a silly question? Thanks very much.

LikeLike

Comment by Jim Delaney | April 8, 2021 | Reply
- Any laws Congress makes must comply with the Constitution:
  
  As to the “times, places and manner’s clause” See my 3 papers on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. In those papers, I show what our Framers said “times”, “places” and “manner” means. Congress’ authority is limited to those 3 specific factors – it is NOT a carte blanche grant of power to Congress to control every aspect of federal elections.
  
  As to Article II, Sec.1, clause 2: Congress may not do anything to interfere with the Constitutional grant of power to State Legislatures to determine how Presidential electors will be chosen.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2021 | Reply
Dear PH,

I see that TN legislature has passed a so-called “constitutional carry” law. Similarly, TX is debating a “state sovereignty” bill (TX HB 1215).

While on the surface these types of legislation appear to be a step in the right direction. However, they also appear to be in preparation for federal suits. Much like the heartbeat law strategies taking root among the states.

According to the Framers straight up Nullification is the proper response to federal usurpation. You showed us the propriety of nullification in several of your papers. Courts are not the answer to usurpation, especially in light of their lack of jurisdiction, (The Enumerated Powers of Federal courts) as well as their complicity in decades of usurpation.

My question, therefore, is should we encourage and support such state legislation as justified interposition? Or; as bait for federal suits, are these merely wolves in sheep’s clothing?

Blessings.

Mark

LikeLike

Comment by Mark | March 30, 2021 | Reply
- Nullification IS the “rightful remedy” to federal usurpations of powers not delegated.
  
  But sometimes, States need to pass laws. The People of the States need a state Law to fall back on – this is one way a State can stand between the feds and the Citizens of their State.
  
  I updated my nullification Flyer: In a moment, I’ll post a link.
  
  wordpress (aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh) changed the formatting of this site to make it difficult to use – so It may take me a while to get a url made for my nullification flyer.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2021 | Reply
  - Click to access nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense.pdf
    
    see if this works and takes you to my nullification flyer.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Publius Huldah | April 8, 2021 | Reply
    - Your link works great. Thanks.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Mike F | April 8, 2021 | Reply
PH:

I’ve had a conversation with Rob Natelson re Convention of States, and I’ve used your analyses to rebut his positions several times. Here is a direct quote from him about you:

“One last point: I wouldn’t take Publius Huldah too seriously. A client gave me the assignment about three years ago of reading and assessing her writings. Although she has a law degree, she has not had a law license for many years and she never had any constitutional law expertise. Not only is her understanding of the Founding Era and the constitutional debates very superficial, she is ignorant even of basic stuff students learn in law school. I think the only reason she has a following is that because she has J.D. after her name, non-lawyers assume she knows what she’s talking about. But she doesn’t.”

I responded with a request for detailed explanation on his specific claims of instances where your constitutional analyses are mistaken or where you supposedly have inadequate knowledge as stated in this quote but have received no response.

I’ve also responded by saying that the Constitution is written in the English language and, in those instances where the meaning might be questionable, we should go to the advice of the Founders to adhere to the intent and not attempt to assume intentions not compatible with the words and THEIR meanings at the time of construction.

I also suggested to Mr. Natelson that having a law degree or accolades from others doesn’t necessarily make one an expert on the constitution, either, since it is the actual words and intent of the original construction of provisions which must be the guiding rule and not the ‘opinion’ of those who have come later, especially 200 plus years later. .

Do you have a response to this criticism?

LikeLiked by 2 people

Comment by jerrynelson1676 | March 28, 2021 | Reply
- I’m an elderly lady and retired from litigation some years ago! When I was practicing law – litigation (trial and appellate) – I worked 7 days a week from 10 to 20 hours a day, and it was ruining my health. I knew that I had to stop if I were to live. So I retired! And yes, my law license is inactive. So what?
  
  Natelson’s disparaging comments about me are “conclusory allegations” without any facts to back them up. As a lawyer himself, doesn’t he know that such comments carry no weight? [In a trial, we move to strike “conclusory allegations“, and the Judges do strike them.] So you were right to ask him to point out any errors in my work. My motto has always been, “SHOW ME WHERE I MADE A MISTAKE SO I CAN FIX IT”.
  
  And to the best of my knowledge, it is only others who are pushing for an Article V Convention who praise Natelson’s work. E.g., this past Tuesday at a legislative committee hearing in Kansas, Mark Meckler (after insulting the Legislators on the Committee and bragging about how HE [Meckler] is a “constitutional attorney”), he told the Committee that Rob Natelson is the “premier expert in the Country” on the Article V Convention issue. You can watch the hearing here – it was eyeopening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be3uVLEREf8
  
  That high opinion of Natelson was apparently not shared by his colleagues at the law school where he taught – since (according to reports on the internet) they denied him “Emeritus Status” when he left the Law School.
  
  When I was litigating, lawyers could be disciplined for misrepresenting the facts or the law to the Court or the Jury. But on the internet, that policing function must be served by other lawyers who analyze the faulty papers.
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 28, 2021 | Reply
  - PH:
    
    Thanks so much for your reply.
    
    Since I’ve turned to your blog for answers to my questions on the Constitution (and so much more!) for quite a few years now, and since I’ve often double-checked your opinions as far as my own feeble capabilities allow, and thus have confirmed for myself many times over that you give us the straight and true answers, I’m convinced once again that one need look no further most of the time to discover what is right/wrong on these important issues.
    
    Thanks again for all you do.
    
    (PS: I’m an elderly man myself and one who has come late to the Constitutional questions so important to our country and am so appreciative of having this sound source of accurate information to depend upon).
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by jerrynelson1676 | March 29, 2021 | Reply
    - Thank you, and thanks for checking my work. I always tell people to check out what they are told. Even though I don’t lie [you wouldn’t know that unless you check out what I say] – I do make mistakes! And kind readers have corrected my mistakes.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 29, 2021 | Reply
Hello Ms. Huldah,
I hope you are doing well. Thank you for all you do for us. I know you are busy, but I wanted to ask if you could take a look at the State of Pennsylvania proposed amendments to their Constitution which will be on their primary election in May. My sister lives in PA and would really appreciate your opinion. I took a quick look and the amendments are about disaster emergency declarations and equality of rights.

LikeLike

Comment by Donna M Roesch | March 23, 2021 | Reply
- I am sorry about the delay in responding. I don’t have time to find the proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution! Perhaps if you send me the links to the proposed amendments, I can look at them.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 28, 2021 | Reply
  - Hello Ms. Huldah,
    Here is the link to the proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania constitution. Sorry if I didn’t copy the hyperlink correctly. I tried a few times. This is the best I can do.
    https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/Pages/Joint-Resolution-2021-1.aspx
    Thank you
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Donna M Roesch | March 28, 2021 | Reply
Hi PH
Again, thanks for taking the time for me.
Do you think Trumps’ Globalist tendencies are because he is a true believer or has his time spent in NY corrupted his worldview?
I am from NY and indoctrination is difficult to see around.
I only knew all the details in the horrors of the trade agreement because I listen to you. So maybe his tendency to look at deep subjects superficially and bad advisors are to blame.
If he is elected 19th POTUS I will suggest that he hires you as a Constitutional advisor. There, fixed it,
DG

LikeLike

Comment by weathertiteconstruction | March 22, 2021 | Reply
Hi Publius
Can you discuss Executive Orders? How can they supercede the law? Why do people have to obey executive orders at both the federal and state level? Or do they?

LikeLike

Comment by Jennifer | March 21, 2021 | Reply
- Hello, Friend!
  
  I discussed presidential Executive Orders here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-presidents-enumerated-powers-rulemaking-by-executive-agencies-executive-orders/
  
  Presidents have no power to make Executive Orders directed to anybody outside of the Executive Branch of the federal government and outside active duty military personnel (for whom he is CINC).
  
  People in State government are bound by their Oath of Office to refuse to obey unconstitutional acts of the Executive Branch of the federal government – just as they are bound to disobey unconstitutional acts of Congress and of the federal courts. State governments are obligated to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal gov’t. Here are two of my most concise papers on Nullification:
  
  Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense
  
  and https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/what-should-states-do-when-the-federal-government-usurps-power/
  
  I’m at your service. Ask me whenever you have a Question about our federal Constitution. I’m here for you.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2021 | Reply
PH – How are our schools able to get away with this Critical Race Theory nonsense? Can this be defeated constitutionally?

LikeLiked by 1 person

Comment by Bob | March 18, 2021 | Reply
- Our Framers told us what to do! Nullify all unconstitutional federal edicts. As I trust you know, control of education is not delegated to the fed gov’t. This is a matter reserved by the States or The People. They can tell the feds to go take a hike. Yes, they may lose federal funds, so what? With federal funds comes federal control. If you don’t want the feds controlling it – THEN DON’T TAKE THE MONEY!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2021 | Reply
Good evening Publius. Short and to my point is a question pertaining to the Executive Orders our supposedly elected President Joe Biden is issuing or has. In the Constitutions Declaration of Independence the rights of all men are created equal having Gods unalienable among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Considering that Bidens EO’s impact all of our rights and most if not all are unconstitutional why can’t the states nullify the orders?

Furthermore given that certain states that supposedly were wrought with fraud and some are now taking steps to investigate and finding confirmation of fraud and assuming enough proof will come out proving Trump did indeed win in 2020 how would that outcome be handled?

Trusting to hear from you I remain an avid fan of your constitutional intellect.

Jack

LikeLike

Comment by Jack Adams | March 8, 2021 | Reply
- Jack,
  At the bottom of this page you will find links in blue text to Publius Huldah’s papers.
  Therein you will find one titled “Executive Orders” which discusses and explains the Constitutional powers delegated to the President.
  What is KEY to your question in that paper, is the differentiation PH shows between legitimate EOs and illegitimate EOs. (Not all Executive orders are usurpations-though many today are)
  What you will see is that Executive Orders Which are outside of presidential powers are not law, but mere usurpations which deserve to be treated as such. Accordingly, as PH shows, The State Legislatures would be entirely within their NATURAL RIGHTS to NULLIFY such usurpations. (The State’s CHECK on federal usurpation) However, we must contend with the fact that the states have been complicit in usurpation by accepting federal funding in exchange for administering unconstitutional programs. (See also “Nullification” in the links below.)
  
  Hope that helps. But please do read the paper titled “Executive Orders”.
  
  Mark
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Mark | March 12, 2021 | Reply
- Of course the States can nullify – ignore – the pretended president’s “executive orders”! Do read my paper on the enumerated powers of the President and on nullification.
  
  And Biden is not the “President” – he is in office only because (1) the State Legislators in the battleground States are brainless cowards; 2) former US Attorney General Bill Barr is a traitor; (3) Congress is filled with traitors; (4) the US Supreme Court betrayed their Mission and our Country; and (5) former President Trump failed to do his clear Duty.
  
  And I will go further and say that the fault is laid at the feet of Donald Trump: He is the one who appointed Barr to the office of US Attorney General, and he appointed the traitors & cowards Kavenaugh & Barrett to the US Supreme Court. Who then stabbed him & the American People in the back.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2021 | Reply
  - Tell us what you really think Jo…
    
    Trump was fighting a battle uphill nearly by himself it is true but do you think Barr was a bad pick from the beginning or did the swamp get to him as I think happened to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
    
    Do you think Trump applying to be President again is a good idea or better to play kingmaker? If Trump does get another turn in the saddle will he have enough backing to out-gun Xi?
    
    Your friend, David
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by weathertiteconstruction | March 21, 2021 | Reply
    - Trump implemented the globalists’ policies. He pushed the CFR’s USMCA. He advocated socialist policies.
      Barr has been a longtime swamp creature. loves gun control. Bad pick. Re red flag laws, Trump said, take the guns first, due process second. See the video link on my “connecting the dots paper” https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/usmca-trade-agreement-the-north-american-union-an-article-v-convention-and-red-flag-laws-connecting-the-dots/
      
      Kavenaugh, Roberts, & Barrett were darlings of the deep state globalist “The Federalist Society”. Yet Trump allowed them to pick his federal judge nominees.
      
      Gorsuch voted the right way on the Pennsylvania v. Brockvar case – he wanted SCOTUS to review it. read about the Pennsylvania lawsuit here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/01/03/article-iv-4-us-constitution-requires-congress-the-supreme-court-and-the-president-to-stop-the-steal/ Gorsuch was on the right side in that case. Barrett & Kavenaugh stabbed Trump in the back and sided with the evil 4 on the Court.
      
      Trump is too constitutionally illiterate and politically naive to be a good President. He was a weak President because he has no Political Principles – he went along with the globalists. He allowed them to separate him from our Country’s true friends. He turned him back on Gen. Michael Flynn because globalist Mike Pence and other vermin told him to. His globalist handlers in the White House didn’t want Trump meeting with Sidney Powell, so he obeyed his globalist white house handlers.
      
      He was a terrible President. but he DID win the last election.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 21, 2021 | Reply
      - I thank you for taking the time to answer, I’m glad Trump really won I just wish he could continue the MAGA (shortened because I am lazy) policies. What about his work with Isreal and moving their capital? Is that Globalist shenanigans?
        
        Any suggestions for escaping the Leviathan?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by weathertiteconstruction | March 21, 2021 | Reply
        
        I expect Trump has a good heart. But he is woefully ignorant of Statecraft and of our Founding Principles & Constitution, politically naive, and thus was easily deceived by the deep state globalists he appointed.
        
        I was glad he supported the move of Israel’s Capitol to Jerusalem; but that doesn’t undo the dreadful harm he caused to our Country by pushing USMCA “Trade Agreement” and by his poisonous appointments to the federal courts.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2021 | Reply
        
        No worries! Trump will return soon as our 19th President!!!
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Jim Baines | March 22, 2021
        
        see my comments on this page and on the comments on this page: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/03/21/when-the-feds-violate-the-constitution-should-we-blame-the-constitution/
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2021
      - I wonder if trump could be taught constitutional literacy? The WH Handlers may however be a formidable hurdle I fear. God how I wish we still had statesmen instead of politicians.
        Trump was a case that exemplifies people’s willingness to support usurpation because they glean benefit. Washington’s farewell address warned us about such.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Mark | March 21, 2021 | Reply
        
        Anyone can be taught constitutional literacy IF he has an open mind and will listen or read. The problem is always getting access to people – and there is no way I would have been able to spend a day with Trump educating him on the basics.
        
        Another problem – and this is serious – is that the internet is flooded with distractions, irrelevant “news”, and idiotic theories about the Constitution put out by ignorant idiots (if not black ops personnel). People who are constitutionally illiterate can not distinguish between the True and the False.
        
        Yes, if I were a school Teacher, Washington’s Farewell Address would be required reading.
        
        Constitutional illiterates run for office who chant “conservative” slogans and talking points – but the constitutionally illiterate “conservative” American People are unable to discern that these are fake “conservatives”.
        
        A friend told me of a candidate for office who claimed to support “the Constitution” and had a pocket copy in his shirt pocket. He supports an Art. V Convention. My friend asked him to read aloud the text of Article V, US Constitution. This fake “conservative” candidate could not locate Article V in his pocket copy of the Constitution.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 22, 2021 | Reply
Looking for an educated opinion on this proposal –
Please note they are demanding as a prerequisite that any state with a current Article 5 application must rescind the application to participate in the Republic Review.

http://www.reclaimingtherepublic.org/

LikeLike

Comment by Jeff Hill | March 4, 2021 | Reply
- Well, the States certainly need to man up and start obeying the Constitution whether the feds do or not. But I’m not sure I understand what the material at link is saying. I know people hate lawyers; but on some things, one really needs a lawyer skilled in Statecraft to steer one in the right direction.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2021 | Reply
PH,
As I read about the house passing HR1, I turn, as usual. To our constitution..

Art1,Section. 4.

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

The first half of the clause makes perfect sense. Then there is the about face in the latter portion. Perhaps I’m not understanding it correctly but it seems to be contradictory to state rights, and the principle of Federalism.

I understand that Senators were (and rightly so) elected by state legislators thus the specificity of the latter language.

I just can’t wrap my head around this exception. Am I mis-understanding this?

Mark

LikeLike

Comment by Mark | March 4, 2021 | Reply
- Mark, I’m glad you asked that question, for I’ve also wondered about that. So the Constitution gives the authority to the State Legislatures, but allows Congress at any time to change the Regulations by Law. Assuming the Regulations are the Times, Places, and Manner? The question in my mind also arises, the words “except as to the Places of causing Senators.” We know that up until 1913 State Legislatures selected the Senators, then the 17th Amendment changed that to a direct vote of the people. That would have meant a constitutional change of Places from State Legislatures to voting or polling places, or does the 17th Amendment also now allow Congress by Law to change the places of choosing Senators, or does the “except as to the Places of causing Senators” in Article I, Section 4, clause 1, still stand?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Brent Gauer | March 4, 2021 | Reply
  - see my reply to Mark!
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2021 | Reply
- I first wrote about the “elections clause” (Art. I, Sec.4, US Constit.) here https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/arizonas-proposition-200-what-the-constitution-really-says-about-voter-qualifications-exposing-the-elections-clause-argument/
  
  under the subheading: The Dishonest “Elections Clause” Argument. Hamilton gives a reason or two why Congress should have oversight over State laws made pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 4.
  
  Ten years ago, when I wrote that paper, I was castigating the 9th Circuit for enforcing the unconstitutional National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Under that Act, Congress usurped power over the registration and qualifications of voters.
  
  I have 3 papers on the NVRA, you can find them under the Category, “National Voter Registration Act”.
  
  But what has gone on since, as documented in my last 5 papers, boggles the mind. Our Republic was overthrown in the last election [since We The People no longer have the right to choose our Representatives]. And nobody did a thing to stop it: The State Legislatures; DOJ, Congress, SCOTUS, and President Trump.
  
  I don’t know where we go from here. There IS a way – but the people in our State Legislatures are (for the most part) too ignorant, lazy, and cowardly to do what needs to be done. In a nutshell, they should make the feds irrelevant by stop taking their $ and stop obeying their unconstitutional dictates.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2021 | Reply
  - Thank you PH!! Crystal clear now. Maybe I just have brain fatigue from arguing with Art v proponents all week.
    
    Blessings
    Mark
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Mark | March 4, 2021 | Reply
PH,
As you may be aware, Texas is again making a push for secession (though the promoters are rebranding it as “Texit” playing off Britains recent extrication battle)
Based upon studying YOUR work I believe every State has the NATURAL right to depart the Union. However, it is much more logical simple, (though not easy) to simply enforce our God given rights through nullification. It would be cowardly to leave the remaining states embroiled in tyranny whereas restoring our Constitution has the potential to restore liberty to 300M Americans as opposed to a mere 30M Texans.
In drafting letters to this effect, for my State reps and Senators.
To wit; I was wondering at what point the SCOTUS transformed into a rubber stamp for progressive agendas. Was there a key case or landmark decision that I can read and then identify to show precisely when the SCOTUS became complicit in the Usurpation?

Thank you and God Bless
Mark

LikeLike

Comment by Mark | February 18, 2021 | Reply
- Yes, the States have the obvious right to withdraw from the Union. I have never in the past advised it however, because the States are not innocent victims of federal tyranny – they willingly sold the reserved powers of the States and of their own Citizens to the federal gov’t in exchange for federal funds; federal funds which were used to implement unconstitutional federal programs. So the States ARE as guilty as the fed gov’t in creating the mess we are now in. Also, the States refused to take many steps which people like Dr. Edwin Vieira and me have been urging them to do. And the American People are so ignorant, corrupt, and degenerate that, among their other sins, they consistently, year & year, elected fools, ignoramuses, and moral degenerates to public office.
  
  so secession wouldn’t have solved the problem. It’s like a divorce – after the divorce the former spouses persist in the sins which caused the problems in their marriage!
  
  However, during the recent election, we saw every Branch of the federal government fail to do their Duty: Congress, the Department of Justice, the federal courts & the supreme Court, and even President Trump. My recent papers address these failures and derelictions of duty. As a result of their refusals to do their Duty, our Country is now in enemy hands.
  
  It now appears that the Chi coms have seized control of the federal gov’t; and the 3 Branches of the fed gov’t are just fine with that.
  
  They will want a new Constitution which legalizes their plans for us. I expect them to push for an Article V Convention to get this new Constitution. The States must not allow themselves to be put under the jurisdiction of the Chi Coms and the new government which will be created by the new Constitution.
  
  So I’m now thinking that all of the States [except for the soon to be new State of “the District of Columbia”] should secede from the Union. I say a pox on the federal courts and the Supreme Court except for Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. If they seek sanctuary in your State, by all means, let them in! I say a pox on the Executive Branch and everyone in it. I say a pox on Congress and 99% of the people in it.
  
  That said, the State Legislatures in the battleground States behaved as wickedly and disgustingly as the federal gov’t. We were telling those State Legislators – showing them – that they had the constitutional authority to ignore the fixed election and appoint a new slate of electors themselves. Not a single State legislature did – because they were too stupid or cowardly to do it.
  
  I’ll write up a road map for the States to follow which will get them out of the mess [though an attack upon them by the chi-com army is likely] – even though I expect the State Legislatures are too short-sighted, ignorant, and cowardly to do what needs to be done: Man up and tell the feds to get lost and keep their borrowed FRN’s.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 18, 2021 | Reply
  - “A republic; if you can keep it.”
    And;
    2 Timothy 4, (2-4)
    
    These two keep me up nights.
    
    I was avid during the TPN days. However I soon realized that even those who professed to be on the side of truth and demanded constitutionality, refused to surrender pride and their clutch on immoral programs.
    Its easier to fool someone, than to convince them they’ve been fooled.
    It doesn’t appear that we have enough Hamiltons, Madisons, or Jeffersons left to mount a worthy defense. Critical thinking has been eradicated. The time has come when they will not endure sound doctrine.
    The Tytler cycle is almost complete. I surmise we are between dependence and bondage. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my prayers that we would go back to the ways of yesteryear.
    
    I’m not certain that secession would necessarily restore liberty in light of the aforementioned facts. TX has an executive and AG who keep running to federal district courts rather than instructing legislators to Nullify. They claim to stand for State rights yet as recent as last week requested fed funds for disaster relief. In such light I do not feel assured that Texas independence would restore much liberty at all. Not to mention that a new (or existing) state constitution forming a centralized government would carry enough “checks” to insure liberty.
    
    God bless you and yours!!
    Mark
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Mark | February 19, 2021 | Reply
    - Mark, I assume this is the Mark from ‘yesteryear’ on TPN. Good to hear from you again. Those were the days, my friend.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Mike Foil | February 19, 2021 | Reply
      - Yes, I was also thinking must be our Mark from the earlier days. I too wondered what happened to him. It is good to hear from him. It’s also good to hear from Mike!
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2021 | Reply
      - Yep. I’m still on this side of the sod.
        While it may have never made a difference in the grand scheme of things I sometimes regret that I didn’t stay more active in promoting, explaining, and disseminating the truths of our founding on a public scale.
        
        To the point of numerous or unanimous secession of States; my question is this; if there is support for secession, why can’t such support be harnessed and steered in the infinitely superior direction of constitutional restoration? Doing so solves EVERY SINGLE ISSUE for which the public clamors. It solves election fraud, removes incentive for career politicians, reduces federal expenditures, restores freedoms contemplated in the Bill of Rights, strengthens our economy, etc, etc.
        If these are truly the ailments (and aside from the staunchest progressives, I believe they are) then we have the most effective cure in PHs papers and the Federalists explanations.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Mark | February 19, 2021 | Reply
- It was during the New Deal that SCOTUS became the lap dog for FDR. In the beginning, SCOTUS ruled against New Deal programs; but then when FDR threatened to “pack the court”, one Justice flipped to the New Deal side of the Court.
  The miserable little coward.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2021 | Reply
  - 10-4. I found those cases. Just wanted to be sure there was not a prior case that could be identified as the turning point in Federal jurisprudence.
    Now I need to go reread your explanation of the proper applications and venue of natural law and common (aka case) law.
    
    Much thanks!!
    Blessings,
    Mark
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Mark | February 19, 2021 | Reply
    - well, there were some bad decisions very early – the worst was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) where SCOTUS held that Congress had constitutional authority to Charter a national Bank!
      but I think the turning point was the new deal SCOTUS.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 19, 2021 | Reply
Hello Ms. Huldah,
I hope you are doing well. What are your thoughts on the impeachment trial now that it has been going on for a few days? For many weeks we have heard from republican senators that the impeachment will be dead on arrival to the senate because it is unconstitutional. Well, the vote was taken and the majority voted that the impeachment is constitutional. That has me really concerned. Is it like you talked about in the movie you saw, the law disappeared?

LikeLike

Comment by Donna M Roesch | February 11, 2021 | Reply
- Yes, the Law has disappeared.
  I have a proposal; but the weakness of my proposal is that it requires State Legislators of Spine & Integrity to carry it out.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 11, 2021 | Reply
PH, so where do we go from here? I vote we find 50 people, one from each state that is willing to spend the next year learning the constitution from you and then who is willing to run for house of reps on a constitutional platform. What say you?

LikeLike

Comment by Blake | February 7, 2021 | Reply
- Well, I have a very different proposal.
  
  The real power is in the State Legislatures. The State Legislatures can control their Governors and their State Judges.
  The State Legislatures can make the federal government totally irrelevant. S%$&W Congress! S%$&W federal judges! S%$&W the Executive Branch!
  
  but we have been electing ignorant and weak people to our State Legislatures. Some are corrupt. Few have a spine. And that, of course, is our fault because we elected these spineless ignoramuses (some of whom take bribes) to the State Legislatures (except when their election was stolen. But people have been warning for decades that the voting machines were being tampered with in state elections; and they were brushed off).
  
  So we have to figure out the mechanics of how we replace the unprincipled & weak ignoramuses in our State Legislatures with People of Moral Integrity who learn the Constitution and enforce it.
  
  Actually, our Declaration of Independence & Constitution are not difficult to learn. When I started writing for the Public some 12 years ago, I didn’t know those two documents. [We didn’t have them in law school.] The key to learning them is to read them over & over. I always make outlines. and polish my outlines. then one day, I realize that the outline is now in my head. and from there, I keep adding.
  
  We in this house are computer challenged. But I’m studying Russian on line – and my Russian teacher is on-line. So I’m thinking of figuring out how to do on-line lessons on the Constitution. But I have to wait until legislative season is over because all I have time for now is stopping an Article V Convention.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2021 | Reply
  - If I remember right, Hillsdale College (may be the only one) has an online Constitution course. And I also believe they “require” for graduation in anyones chosen field, everyone must take a course in the Constitution. And they take no fed money.
    And thank you PH for the reminder. I used to read my pocket edition of the Declaration and Constitution daily (I got distracted with other things it seems), one page per day every day, then repeat, right after my daily reading of the Bible.
    Thank you PH for your continued wisdom and guidance.
    Long Live Our Republic
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by N S | February 8, 2021 | Reply
    - Well, I am increasingly suspicious of Hillsdale. I know they never took federal money – but we need to find out who is funding them. It is the BIG MONEY (Kochs, Mercers, etc.) who have been funding the push for an Article V convention – and I suspect that this Big Money may be now funding Hillsdale. I haven’t had time to look into this.
      
      Re the Constitution: Get the Big Picture first. What does Article I do? What does Article II do? and so on.
      then go back and gradually fill in more of the details. and each time you go over it again, fill in more details. I always made charts.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 11, 2021 | Reply
  - PH,
    Hope you are all well!
    
    Isn’t it amazing that patriots can read hundreds of snaps, tweets, blurbs and posts daily, yet a document of profound importance and critical to the proper function and survival of our republic is too much effort to read?
    I too have thought an online tutorial might actually spark interest in the crucial words of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. Without their insight, too many well meaning yet Constitutionally illiterate patriots fall for the hoaxes and distortions which are designed to cause confusion to would be students.
    With the plethora of political concerns the single solution to them ALL is original intent, enumerated powers, and the proper understanding and application of federalism.
    
    Mark
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Mark | February 12, 2021 | Reply
  - Thank you, Blake.
    I am seeing various arguments I have been making being used more & more by others on the internet.
    But our is a “Cliff Notes” culture. People don’t want to LEARN; they just want something to say so that they “sound smart”.
    
    And 90% of the State Legislators! Well, I never thought people like that existed. The “conservative” ones are the worst: they walk around with a pocket Constitution in their shirt pocket – but they can’t even find where Article V is in their copy of the Constitution – even though they support an Article V convention! How does one cure such hypocrisy? I carry one around – mine is battered, frayed, and has been re-stapled umpteen times.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2021 | Reply
PH,
Any comment on the first 13th amendment, proposed in the early 1800’s, the titles of nobility amendment. From what I’ve read, at that time thirteen states needed to ratify it of the seventeen that comprised the union at the time and it got twelve. Apparently, things were moving right along until the Civil War and then it just seemed to disappear. It seems that a good number of states up until the 1860s or so still printed it in their official copies of the US Constitution indicating that the original thirteenth amendment actually may have been ratified. So, since at the time it was proposed there was no time limit for adoption, as there is now, couldn’t it be taken up again and finished?

LikeLike

Comment by Klaus Lindner | February 3, 2021 | Reply
- It may well be that as some States ratified the proposed amendment you are talking about that they put it in their own State Code books – but that, of course would not mean that it was part of the official US Constitution.
  
  I’m sure you are already aware that Article I, sections 9 & 10, US Constitution, prohibit the federal gov’t and the States from issuing titles of nobility.
  
  It’s been a while since I looked as the supposed “real” 13th Amendment; but wasn’t it some drivel about how Lawyers are aristocrats and we shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office? It seems that some idiots have concluded that the term, “Esquire”, is a “title of nobility”.
  
  In any event, that is the least of our problems today, don’t you think?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2021 | Reply
Can you address the so called Act of 1871? There’s a lot of conspiracy artcles floating around about it. This three part article came my way this morning and it seems like it might be reliable. I highly regard your insight. Thank you for all you do.

Misinformation About the Act of 1871 is an Ongoing Problem — Part 2

LikeLike

Comment by Deb Whitacre | January 27, 2021 | Reply
- “Anna von Reitz” can’t be a “Judge” and she can’t be a lawyer. No lawyer, and certainly no judge, would write the way she writes. The little I have read of what she has written is like a compilation of every moronic patriot myth which has been foisted on the gullible and profoundly ignorant American People – some of whom, no doubt, have been deceived by her claim of the Title of “Judge”.
  
  I have no medical training. What would you think if I claimed to be an “M.D.” and began giving medical advice? Would that be immoral? Yes it would.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2021 | Reply
Are there any “publius-huldah” zoom lessons coming soon? I would love to learn more directly from the source… YOU!

LikeLiked by 1 person

Comment by Blake | January 24, 2021 | Reply
- Thank you, Gary! I needed that lift. Are you referring to the two I did for the Oklahoma organization?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | January 24, 2021 | Reply
  - No thank you, your work is what gives me (us) hope. I was unaware of the Oklahoma video’s. I would love to find them, are they currently on line?
    I was more so talking about any future plans you may have to do video conferencing or just plan teaching about the constitution.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Blake | January 24, 2021 | Reply
Why does the Speech and Debate Clause prevent senators and congressman from being held liable for lies they commit in debates? One recent instance, amongst many, is of Adam Schiff who lied in his many false claims against Trump regarding Russia collusion.

Thank you!

Pam

LikeLike

Comment by Pam | January 16, 2021 | Reply
- Because in certain situations, such as legislative bodies, people must be allowed to speak freely.
  
  Schiff is a disgusting POS, but the remedy for his lying words is for his House to expel him, or for the People to refuse to reelect him.
  
  But neither of those remedies will be used because our Members of Congress are corrupt or pathetically weak; and for a long time, we haven’t had honest elections – that’s how these POS’s [I never thought I’d be talking that way in public] keep getting re-elected.
  
  The Truth is that Laws can’t fix immorality. And it is true that Our Constitution works ONLY for a religious & virtuous People. And the Americans are neither religious or moral. What’s actually needed is a moral and spiritual REGENERATION of the American People.
  
  But with spineless, cowardly, hirelings in our pulpits, I don’t see a moral Regeneration ahead. However, when God brings Judgment on a People – as I believe He is doing now – some of them actually turn back to Him.
  
  Be of Good cheer – God is on the Throne. I think we are being spanked right now – and we do deserve it!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2021 | Reply
  - Thank you Publius Huldah for your input! I so enjoy reading your comments and learning more about the intent of those who drew up our Constitution and how it’s laws are to be applied in the various scenarios we see playing out in our government. I too have also found myself using words to describe these swamp rats and traitors, even more so over this past year, that I never thought I would. Your words are actually more mild than mine have been! I agree with everything you have stated. As a Christian I cannot agree more that we are under God’s judgment. The lack of courage and moral failure in the leadership in our country has continued to deteriorate over the years leading us to the point we are at today. You are absolutely correct about the pulpits caving to the culture and political correctness rather than standing for truth which has been the biggest contributor to the mess we find ourselves in to date. I pray that there will be a turning to the Lord in repentance, as you have stated, as without that we have no hope of things turning around. Thank you so much for the work that you are doing. There are not many who can be relied upon to present the truth as you do in a way that does not rely on agenda or the judicial
    activism that has become the norm. You also break it down in a very understandable way.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Pam | January 17, 2021 | Reply
    - Thank you!
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 17, 2021 | Reply
Hi PH, I don’t have a question, just a link to a article of interest “DuPage County Clerk signed anti-transparency contract with Dominion Voting Systems – Dominion encouraged County to resist disclosure of information” https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2021/01/dupage-county-clerk-signed-anti-transparency-contract-with-dominion-voting-systems-dominion-encouraged-county-to-resist-disclosure-of-information/

“Considering this software deals with the people’s voting results, this contract prohibits the County to analyze the software. If there was any type of vote tally concerns it appears the County is prohibited to analyze the Software. Analyzing the software would be one of the first steps to determine or identify if there was or was not a problem in the vote tally. The most concerning issue, in light of all that national attention regarding Dominion and our elections, is the reference of modifying the software. The county is prohibited from altering or modifying the software. While I agree nothing should be altered modified, such a prohibition appears to indicate the software can in fact be altered or modified.”

LikeLike

Comment by Spense | January 15, 2021 | Reply
- I think that every word Lin Wood said about the Governor of Georgia and the Georgia Secretary of State are true. And don’t forget, that disgusting republican woman who was running for a US Senate seat from Georgia is said to have bought stock in Dominion at the time the State of Georgia signed the Contract with Dominion. She too is a disgusting POS.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | January 16, 2021 | Reply

Leave a reply to Jim Delaney Cancel reply

Search for:
Meta
Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:
Thank you for subscribing! You should get a confirmation email. If you don't, check your spam file!