Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Get your State Militia revitalized before it’s too late!

In all questions respecting the Militia, Dr. Edwin Vieira is the authority.  In the 7 minute video below, Dr. Vieira  shows us the difference between the State Militia and the State national guard.

I’m going through Title 58 of the Tennessee Code now compiling “The Tennessee Military Code of 1970”. We don’t have an active Militia (within the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16 – and which James Madison described in Federalist Paper No. 46) here in Tennessee. All we have is the national guard which is an adjunct of the federal military (Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 12-14).

When the islamists the obama administration is importing as fast as they can start the civil war here, we better have our own State Militia organized and ready to defend us. But those are not my words. JAMES MADISON SAID IN FEDERALIST NO. 46 that the purpose of the Militia is to defend us from the federal government.

Alexander Hamilton also said that when the federal government acts against our interests, we must look to our States to defend us (Federalist No. 28 and 29).

I call upon retired military men all over the Country and of all the various branches to get together and look into your State Constitutions and State Statutes and find out the Status of your State Militia. It may be that we will have to go back to the State Militia laws which were in effect before the State Military forces were federalized as a result of the Dick Act of 1902.

We better un-federalize our State military forces before the trouble starts.  We can not depend on the US military to defend us. Obama is purging the US Military of good men. All that will be left will be his thugs & bullies – and of course, transgender people and such like.

Freedom isn’t free – as we will soon find out.

You can find Dr. Vieira’s articles here:

And no, News with Views is not an “attack site with malware”. Some people don’t want you reading the articles they publish.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

May 10, 2016 Posted by | Dick Act of 1903, Edwin Vieira, Federalist Paper No. 46, Islamization (Islamification), James Madison, Militia | , , , , | 25 Comments

Treason, Cowardice, and the Islamic Invasion: Why States Must Revitalize The Militia

By Publius Huldah

To All State Governors and State Legislators:

War is coming to America. Obama is importing young able-bodied males to make civilizational jihad on us; and Congress can’t summon up the moral courage to stop him.

To see what is ahead for us, watch this 20 minute video. It depicts the Islamic takeover which is right now going on throughout Europe as European countries are being repopulated by millions of young able-bodied Muslim males (euphemistically called “refugees”) who are explicit about their intention to breed the native Europeans out of existence, and replace the European cultures with Islamic culture.

And Obama is bringing it here.

This paper discusses the two courses of action set forth in Federalist Paper No. 46 for situations such as this: (1) The States must refuse to cooperate with the federal government; but if that doesn’t solve the problem, (2) The States must use their State Militia to defend their State and Citizens.

Invaders are not “Refugees” or “Immigrants”

Those pushing for an Islamic takeover of Europe and North America are referring to these able-bodied young Muslim males as “refugees”. The use of that term brings the Muslims who are brought into the United States within the federal Refugee Resettlement Act. And since the Constitution delegates power over immigration to Congress, and Congress re-delegated refugee policy to the President, the States must submit to Obama’s Will and accept the “refugees” he forces on them. Thus goes the specious argument recently made by Ian Millhiser.

But we will look at the Truth.

What does our Constitution say about Immigration and Naturalization?

Immigration (or migration) pertains to new people coming to this Country to live.1 Naturalization refers to the process by which an immigrant becomes a Citizen.

Our Constitution does delegate power over immigration and naturalization to Congress. Article I, §9, clause 1, delegates to Congress (commencing January 1808) power to control migration. 2 Article I, §8, clause 4, delegates to Congress power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

But what is going on now with the importation of large numbers of able-bodied young Muslim males is not “immigration” as contemplated by our Constitution. It is an act of war being committed against the People of the United States by their President. The plan is to overthrow our Constitutional Republic and set up an Islamic Caliphate over America. 3

That is Treason – it is Insurrection. It is not “immigration”, and it is not “refugee resettlement”.

The States must refuse to cooperate

Michael Boldin’s recent informative article explains how the federal resettlement program works: The federal government coordinates resettlement of “refugees” with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) located within the States, and thus circumvents state and local governments. Accordingly, the States should promptly stop all such NGO involvement; take control of the programs themselves; and then refuse to cooperate with the federal government.

James Madison, Father of our Constitution, spells this out in Federalist No. 46 (7th para). Respecting unpopular acts of the federal government:

“…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” [emphasis mine]

But if the federal government persists, then the States must move to the next Step.

Our Constitution Imposes the Duty on the Federal Government to protect us from Invasion

Article IV, §4, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…” [emphasis mine]

In Federalist No. 43 (3rd para under 6.), Madison says of this provision:

“A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it…” [emphasis mine]

Article I, §8, clause 15 delegates to Congress the power:

“to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

Article 1, §8, clause 16 delegates to Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. The States retain the power to appoint the Officers and conduct the training.

Article II, §2, clause 1 makes the President Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. [But remember: the federal government may call forth the Militia only for the three purposes listed in Art. I, §8, cl. 15].

But the federal government hasn’t called forth the Militia to protect the States from the Islamic invasion. To the contrary, the President is importing the invaders and foisting them on the States.

So! What are States and The People to do? Because the President is aligned with the invaders, and Congress filled with moral cowards, must we passively submit to having ourselves and our Christian and Jewish children killed, and then let our surviving burka dressed daughters and granddaughters be handed over to the clitoris cutters?

No! The People have the Natural Right of self-defense; and the States have the reserved Power to defend their Citizens. With the State Militia, The People and the States have the means to exercise this Natural Right and reserved Power.

The States must Revitalize their State Militia

What is the Militia? As Dr. Edwin Vieira’s excellent series 4 on the Militia and how it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms shows, the Militia has a long history in America. That history began with the English settlements in the early 1600s. Every free male was expected to be armed and prepared at all times to protect himself, his family, and his community. Laws in the Colonies gave effect to this requirement. So at the time of the drafting of our Constitution in 1787, everyone knew of this 150 year long history of free American males being required to be armed, trained, and ready at a moment’s notice to answer the call of Duty.

Accordingly, the above identified “militia clauses” were written into our Constitution of 1787.

In 1792, Congress implemented these militia clauses and passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”. This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to get a rifle, bayonet, ammunition and an ammunition pouch, and enroll in the local Unit of their State Militia for training.

As Section 1 of the Act shows, the adult able-bodied male Citizens of a State are The Members of their State Militia. So, continuing the long-standing colonial tradition, Members of Congress in 1792 thought it such a fine idea that all male citizens be armed and trained and members of their State Militia, they required it by federal law!

So! As Art. I, §8, cl. 15 shows, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into national service to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. But what if the federal government refuses to act?

Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the Citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7th & 12th paras); and that the States’ reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9th para).

And on the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13th para):

“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition…”

True, it was contemplated that the “United States” would be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN BY INVADERS, then the People have the natural right to defend themselves, and their States have the retained Power to employ the Militia to defend them from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.

The States are within their retained Sovereign Power to call up their State Militia to fend off invaders. Article I, §10, last clause, is an expression of this retained sovereign Power of States of self-Defense:

“No State shall … engage in War, unless actually invaded…”

Clearly, the States may use their State Militia to engage in War to defend the States from Invasion.5

James Madison spoke to the same effect as Hamilton respecting federal tyranny. In Federalist No. 46 (9th para), Madison speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:

“…Let a regular army … be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. … [To the regular army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. … Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms [an insurmountable] barrier against the enterprises of ambition…” [boldface mine]

Look to Your State Constitution for Provisions re Your State Militia

Article VIII of the Constitution for the State of Tennessee provides for Tennessee’s Militia. Consistent with the tradition which has existed in this Country since the early 1600s, all Tennessee Citizens are members of this Militia. Article I, §28, TN Constitution says:

“That no citizen of the state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law.”

Read your State Constitution. What does it say about the Militia? What do the implementing State Statutes say? Is your State Militia active? Why not? For information on revitalizing your State Militia, see Dr. Vieira’s three part series, “Are You Doing Your Constitutional Duty For “Homeland Security”?


Madison closes his magnificent 9th paragraph in Federalist No. 46 with this:

“…Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.” [emphasis mine]

But we became “debased subjects of arbitrary power”. So now, will we lay down before the Invaders and Insurrectionists and those in our federal government who aid and abet them? Or we will man up, revitalize our State Militia, and show the world that we still have some “free and gallant Citizens of America” in this land?


1 Our Framers contemplated that immigration would be restricted to people who shared our culture and values – e.g., Federalist No. 2, 5th para.

But Americans got conned into believing that an ideal culture is multicultural. Thus, with Teddy Kennedy’s immigration reform act of 1965, our borders were opened to all. We congratulated ourselves on our new virtues of “tolerance” and “diversity”. But the goal of the multiculturalists was to eradicate our unique Culture – we were too gullible to see it. So now, the enemy is inside the gates, and more are coming in. And Islam doesn’t tolerate multiculturalism.

2 “Open borders” adherents bristle at the assertion that Congress has constitutional authority to restrict immigration. They insist that Art. I, §9, cl. 1 addresses only the importation of slaves and says nothing about free immigrants. But the text distinguishes between “migrations” and “importations”, and the Duty is levied on “importations”, not “migrations”. Slaves, being “property”, were “imported”. Free Europeans “migrated”. The power of the States to determine such persons as it was proper to admit, expired January 1808. There are various letters and speeches from our early days confirming this. I’ll write it up when I get time (if this doesn’t turn on the light). For now, see Federalist No. 42 (6th para):

“…Attempts have been made to pervert this clause [Art. I, §9, cl. 1] into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice [the slave trade], and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.” [boldface mine]

Our Framers understood that the national government must be able to determine who is allowed to come here. That’s why Art. I, §9, cl. 1 delegates to Congress power to control immigration, commencing January 1808. And isn’t one of your complaints against the federal government that it has refused for so long to control our Borders?

3 See the website for The Center for Security Policy (Frank J. Gaffney) HERE. There you can read The Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate and take over all American Institutions. They are working to make this Country part of a global Islamic caliphate. Open your eyes NOW.

4 Do read all 8 of Dr. Vieira’s papers in this series. They get very moving.

5 “Troops” as in Art. I, §10, last clause, are professional full-time soldiers. States may not keep “Troops” absent consent of Congress. But the States’ Militia is a permanent State institution. The States retain their pre-constitutional powers over their Militia, subject only to the federal government’s limited supremacy set forth in the 3 Militia clauses [See Part 2 of Dr. Vieira’s paper HERE.] PH

December 2, 2015

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

December 2, 2015 Posted by | armed citizens, Federalist Paper No. 46, gun control, Islamization (Islamification), James Madison, Militia, refugee resettlement | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 37 Comments

Publius Huldah shows federal gun control is unlawful


Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

March 3, 2013 Posted by | 2nd Amendment, armed citizens, gun control, marque and reprisal, Militia, Resistance to tyranny, Tennessee Constitution | , , | 52 Comments

Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1903, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws

By Publius Huldah

The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the Dick Act of 1903 (which the purveyors of rubbish claim respects our Right to be armed) can’t be repealed because to do so would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws”.

Who dreams up this stuff? Does anyone check it out before they spread it around?

Of course we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc.  Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that our Rights come from God and are unalienable.

The 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution recognizes that this God-given right to keep and bear arms is to be free from any interference WHATSOEVER from the federal government.

Our Framers were all for an armed American People – they understood that arms are our ultimate defense in the event the federal government oversteps its bounds.  See, e.g., what James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, writes in the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46!  The reason the Citizens – the Militia – are armed is to defend ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, communities, and States from an overreaching, tyrannical federal government.

Accordingly, the federal government is nowhere in the Constitution granted authority to abridge, restrict, or infringe,  in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, ALL such restrictive laws made by Congress, and ALL regulations made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (ATF), are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. Restriction of arms and ammunition is NOT one of the “enumerated powers” delegated to Congress or the Executive Branch.

Furthermore, all pretended regulations made by the ATF are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, which vests ALL legislative powers granted by the Constitution in CONGRESS.   Executive agencies have no lawful authority whatsoever to make rules or regulations of general application to The People!

In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly.   Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty.   See,

But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic.

And the assertion that Congress can’t repeal the Dick Act because a repeal would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws” shows that whoever wrote that doesn’t know what he is talking about. He obviously has no idea what a “bill of attainder” is, and no idea what an “ex post facto law” is.

This accurately explains what a “bill of attainder” is:

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

Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to retroactively criminalize barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.

Now, say Congress passes a pretended law making possession of firearms a crime and ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Only if you do not turn in your guns will you have committed a “crime”.  That is not an ex post facto law because if you turn in your guns, you won’t be criminally prosecuted. The “crime” is the failure to turn in your guns – not the prior possession of guns.

Such a law would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because gun control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Thus, the law would be outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress.

It would also be unconstitutional as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But it would not be an ex post facto law.  See postscript below!

People shouldn’t sling around terms, the meanings of which, they do not understand. It is immoral.

If TRUTH spread as rapidly as lies, our problems would have been resolved long ago.  But if People can come to love TRUTH more than they love the ignorant rubbish they circulate, perhaps it is not too late to restore our Constitutional Republic. PH


In Federalist Paper No. 84 (4th para), Alexander Hamilton says re ex post facto laws (and of the importance of the writ of habeas corpus):

“…The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny…” PH

Postscript added Jan 17, 2014:  None of us are infallible – all of us must be willing to rethink what we think we know.  I have rethought this and now believe that such a law would be an ex post facto law in violation of Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 3 of the Constitution (if the Congress passed the law) or Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1 (if a State passed such a law).  At the time a person acquired the gun, it was completely legal to possess it.  To then make it unlawful to not turn in your guns – or to do as Connecticut did and say you have to register all your existing guns or it’s a felony – makes unlawful something which was lawful when you did it.  So mea culpa, Folks!  And never shrink from saying you were wrong when you were wrong.

Posted January 19, 2013; revised Jan 21, 2013; Jan. 17, 2014; May 22, 2016

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

January 19, 2013 Posted by | 2nd Amendment, Bills of attainder, Bureau of Alcohol Firearms and Tobacco (ATF), Dick Act of 1903, ex post facto laws, gun control, Militia, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies | , , , , , , , | 56 Comments

Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamacare.

By Publius Huldah.

Harvard Law School was embarrassed recently when one of its graduates, the putative President of the United States, demonstrated that he was unaware that the supreme Court has constitutional authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.1

And after reading a recent paper by Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge, one wonders whether the academic standards (or is it the moral standards?) of that once great school have collapsed.

Professor Elhauge says in “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” (The New Republic, April 13, 2012), that Congress may force us to buy health insurance   because in 1792, our Framers required all male citizens to buy guns; and in 1798 required ship owners using U.S. ports (dock-Yards) to pay a fee to the federal government in order to fund hospitals for sick or disabled seamen at the U.S. ports.

Oh! What tangled webs are woven when law professors write about Our Constitution!

I have already proved that Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause (which grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over dock-Yards and the other federal enclaves) is what authorizes Congress to assess the fee from ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards. See: Merchant Seamen in 1798, Health Care on Federal Enclaves, and Really Silly Journalists.

Now I will show you where the Constitution grants authority to Congress to require adult citizens to get armed!

The Constitution Authorizes Congress To Require Citizens to Buy Guns and Ammunition.

In 1792, Congress passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”.2 This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (except for federal officers and employees) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a gun and ammunition, and train.

Does Congress have authority in the Constitution to require this?  Yes!  Article I, Sec. 8, clause 16 says Congress has the Power:

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” [boldface mine]

That is what authorizes Congress to require adult male citizens to buy guns and ammunition.

As Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1792 reflects, the “Militia” is the citizenry!  Our Framers thought it such a fine idea that The People be armed, that they required it by law!  See, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46 where James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, speaks of how wonderful it is that the American People are armed – and why they need to be. 3

So!  In the case of Congress’ requiring adult citizens to buy guns and ammunition, Congress has specific authority under Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.16.

In the case of Congress’ requiring ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards to pay the fees to fund the marine hospitals at the dock-Yards, Congress is granted by Art. I, Sec.8, next to last clause, a general legislative power over the federal enclaves, such as dock-Yards.4

But for the country at large, Congress has no broad grant of legislative powers. There, Congress’ powers are few, limited, and strictly defined.  See: Congress’ Enumerated Powers.

Now, let us look at obamacare.

What Clause in The Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Us into Obamacare?

Nothing! Over the Country at large (as opposed to the federal enclaves), Congress has only enumerated powers.  These enumerated powers are listed in Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 and in the Amendments addressing civil and voting rights. No enumerated power authorizes the federal government to force us into obamacare.

So, Professor Elhauge introduces a nasty bit of poison.  He says:

“Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.”

Do you see what he is doing? Surely he knows that obamacare is not authorized by any enumerated power.  So!  He asserts that nothing in the commerce clause says Congress can’t force us into obamacare.  He thus seeks to pervert Our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to an abomination which says the federal government can do whatever it pleases as long as the commerce clause doesn’t forbid it.

Furthermore, what he says is demonstrably false.  The Federalist Papers & Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention show that the purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to prevent the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. For actual quotes from Our Framers and irrefutable Proof that this is the purpose of the interstate commerce clause, see: “Does the Interstate Commerce Clause Authorize Congress to Force Us to Buy Health Insurance?”.

Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. And it does much more than force us to buy medical insurance. Obamacare turns medical care over to the federal government to control. Bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services will decide who gets medical treatment and what treatment they will get; and who will be denied medical treatment. If you think the federal government is doing a great job feeling up old ladies and little children at airports, wait until they are deciding whether you get medical care or “the painkiller”.

Folks! The Time has come that we must recognize that social security and Medicare are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. We must confess that it is wicked to seek to live at other peoples’ expense! And when a People renounce Personal Responsibility – as we did when we embraced social security & Medicare – the federal government takes control.

Social security and Medicare are fiscally bankrupt. Obamacare, which will prevent old people from getting medical care, is the progressives’ way of dealing with the unfunded liabilities in these programs: Kill off old people by preventing them from getting medical care!

The Piper will be paid. Shall we pay him by killing off old people?

Or, shall we return to Personal Responsibility and dismantle (in an orderly fashion) the wicked, unconstitutional, and fiscally unworkable social security and Medicare programs?


1 Our Framers gave us an elegant system of Checks & Balances: Each branch of the federal government has a “check” on the other two branches.  This is expressed primarily in the Oath of Office (Art. VI, cl. 3 & Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause) which requires each branch to obey the Constitution and not the other branches! The supreme Court’s check on Congress is to declare their Acts unconstitutional:   See (in addition to the Oath) Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1; Federalist No. 78 (8th -15th paras); and Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Congress’ check on the judicial branch is to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp power (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

2 Here is the URL for the Militia Act of 1792:  Read it! And note how short it is.

3 In “The Patriot”, Mel Gibson’s character commanded a South Carolina Militia – civilians who took up arms against the British. Everyone knew that “the Militia” was the armed citizenry – farmers, trappers, shopkeepers, clergy, etc.  It still is.

4 Attorney Hal Rounds provides fascinating additional information on this issue: “Ships will dump sick sailors wherever they may make landfall, and the locals have the burden of dealing with the victim. Their care then raises the legal right to compensation for their services, which the law of nations allows to be levied against the nation, not just the owners, of the ship.” For Mr. Round’s full comment see the Postscript of April 7, 2012 here. PH

May 3, 2012
Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

May 3, 2012 Posted by | Einer Elhauge, federal enclaves, Health Care, Interstate Commerce Clause, Medicare, Merchant Seamen healthcare, Militia, obamacare, Personal Responsibility, social security | , , , , | 26 Comments


%d bloggers like this: