Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Contact

publiushuldah@gmail.com

361 Comments »

  1. On your article “Does the “interstate commerce” clause authorize Congress to force us to buy Health Insurance?” The question which Bill O’Reilly asked was “whether Congress has Authority under the Constitution to require us to buy Health Insurance?” Because Liz Wiehl stated that the Congress has the “power” under the Commerce Clause, the question got sidetracked. The question was “does the congress have the “Authority” under the Constitution” to meke us do something we do not want to do! The focus should have been on the “Authority” of the Congress. A thorough reading of the United States v. Lopez 1995 reveals that the Congress does Not have anything approaching a police power within the several American States. Does the Congress have the power to force us to buy yellow blue jeans?

    I am in total agreement with you regarding the commerce clause but the question got sidetracked.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Prentice | November 16, 2019 | Reply

  2. I watched your video on the 14th Amendment and citizenship and I have to ask. The 14th Amendment wasn’t adopted until 1868. So, how did the Framers reliance on Vattel matter 100 years later?

    Like

    Comment by jim1flyer | August 22, 2019 | Reply

    • Here is your homework assignment!

      Read these two quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

      “The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption–a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible.” –Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801. ME 10:248 [boldface added]

      “I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal Constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies.” –Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:76

      There is a page of Jefferson quotes here: https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1020.htm
      Be sure to click on “sources” at the bottom so you can see where these quotes came from.

      Jefferson is saying that we must understand our US Constitution the way it was understood at the time it was ratified. Since our Framers got the concept of “natural born citizen” from Vattel, that understanding remains as THE correct Principle for construing Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5, US Constitution.

      In this paper, I proved beyond a reasonable doubt that our Framers relied on Vattel for their understanding of “natural born citizen” https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

      Section 1 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t change the definition of “natural born citizen”. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to the freed slaves – it “naturalized” the freed slaves – so that first generation of freed slaves became “naturalized” Citizens.

      But the children of those naturalized Citizens, being born of parents were were Citizens, were “Natural Born Citizens”.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 23, 2019 | Reply

  3. Dear Publius,

    Thank you for taking the time to read my letter!

    You are aware of the phrase, “in Pursuance thereof”….Article VI of the U.S. Con….So, I am a firm believer in the concept of original intent. To not follow original intent would be to steal and that would break The Law [ Exodus 20:14,15]. Even if I do not like the original intent, for me to change it would be to sin. So, with this said, will you, PLEASE, send me a link(s) which tells us how the Founding Fathers used that phrase in that context? 😁 ( By the way, you sent me Madison’s works.)

    Mark, for “our Lord”

    Like

    Comment by Mark Rademaker | July 5, 2019 | Reply

  4. Hello,

    The bright line definition of a natural born Citizen of the USA is one born in the USA to USA-only citizen parents (parents free of USA recognized dual citizenships). This ensures that one is born with sole allegiance to the USA and to no other country or sovereign, which was the founders’ intent for the nbC requirement.

    However, other cases outside of this bright line may meet the sole allegiance requirement. If the USA citizen parents have their permanent residence in the USA or its territories, then the child need only be born in a place where they are free from USA recognized jus soli foreign birthright citizenship claims (the child must be born completely free of USA recognized dual citizenships).

    Like

    Comment by thinkwell | July 3, 2019 | Reply

    • “bright line”?
      I note you didn’t cite any original source documents from our Framing Era to support your position.
      There is some truth in what you wrote. Also some error.
      So I’d describe it as “muddy”.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2019 | Reply

  5. Dear Publius Huldah,

    Thank you for taking the time to read my letter!

    My understanding is that Patrick Henry was not for the U.S. Con., he believed that it was a power grab. Also, he believed in, We the States, not, We the People…Yes? Do you think he was right? Maybe link me an article? Thanks!

    Mark, for “our Lord”

    Like

    Comment by Mark Rademaker | June 26, 2019 | Reply

    • Thanks for asking! Yes, Patrick Henry was opposed to our Constitution of 1787, and wanted an Article V convention so he could get rid of it.

      1. See, e.g., this letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson dated Dec. 8, 1788 where Madison refers to Henry as “at the head & the most inveterate” of “[t]he enemies to the Government”. Go here to page 309 to see the letter: http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1937/1356.05_Bk.pdf

      See Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Edmund Randolph where Madison speaks of Patrick’s Henry’s having introduced into the Virginia Assembly a resolution asking Congress to call an Art. V convention and that Madison believed that Henry’s real purpose was to destroy the “whole system” set up by the new Constitution. It’s in the same book on page 294.

      Others letters to the same effect are on pages 262 (to Jefferson), etc.

      2. No, I don’t think Patrick Henry was right about this. I’m sure he was a good man and a Patriot – but I’ve read some of what he wrote and he was not as well versed in statecraft as were Madison & Hamilton.

      3. I haven’t seen any original source writing addressing Henry’s alleged preference for “We the States” in lieu of “We the People” – so I don’t know the answer to that question. However, I support the requirement that the new Constitution of 1787 be approved by The People instead of by State legislatures: see subheading 7. Conclusion of my paper here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-usmca-trade-agreement-violates-our-constitution-and-sets-up-global-government/

      This why our Constitution of 1787 provided, at Article VII thereof, for ratification of the new Constitution by special ratifying conventions called within each of the States.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2019 | Reply

  6. Hi Ms Huldah;

    I am interested in your comments regarding the Supreme Court and their decisions. I am co-host of a daily radio program and would love to invite you to call into our program for a discussion. We are on M-Thur. 8am – 10am on station 730am in Sebring Fl. The program is streamed on newstalk730am.com, its the Barry Foster Radio Show. If you are interested please contact me at my e-mail address.
    Thank You
    Les

    Like

    Comment by Lester A Lob | June 24, 2019 | Reply

  7. Is there anything in the Constitution preventing states the authority to allow illegals the right to vote?

    Like

    Comment by Pam Johnson | May 26, 2019 | Reply

    • Hi, Pam. I have a definitive paper on this issue here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2018/08/16/the-states-determine-qualifications-for-voting-and-procedures-for-registration-and-only-citizens-may-vote/

      Study this, and you will understand the whole issue. I put enormous effort into writing such papers. And my readers must also make effort to learn the issue & arguments.

      After you’ve studied it, let me know if you have questions.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 27, 2019 | Reply

      • I hope you are well P.H.,

        I don’t know what the CA constitution says about voter qualifications but based on this statement in your paper it is possible that they have acted within that constitution.

        “In our federal Constitution of 1787, the States expressly retained (at Art. I, §2, cl.1) their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters; and ordained that those whom they determined were qualified to vote in elections to their State House of Representatives would thereby be qualified to vote for their federal Representatives to Congress.”

        Nelson Lazear

        Like

        Comment by Nelson Lazear | May 27, 2019 | Reply

        • Nelson, in the Paper I linked to, I quoted from the California Constitution to show what it says about qualifications for voting. So the California “motor voter” Statutes VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 27, 2019 | Reply

          • Thanks, I should have followed the link. Sorry for the trouble!

            Like

            Comment by Nelson Lazear | May 27, 2019


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: