Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution



  1. Please send me the other Constitutions the evidence. Great talk.


    Comment by Austin T. Kreutz | April 15, 2023 | Reply

  2. PH,
    Question about 9th Amendment. Lately there is much talk about religious exemptions for vaccine mandates being secured by the 1st Amendment. What about non-believers who simply do not want their bodily autonomy violated (Sam Adams rights of the colonists…Life, Liberty, Property, Defense thereof) by central government edict? I have heard of the 9th Amendment as an argument against abortion, so I have an argument that my life, liberty and bodily property rights are protected by the 9th Amendment. When I used this in a debate, then the opponent simply replied that the 9th Amendment thereby gave him a right to a living wage, paid time off, abortion and a whole list of Progressive Era “Rights.” Help, please. What was the flaw in my logic and understanding? Relying on religious expression rights seems too narrow. Thanks. Dr. Chris from Indiana.


    Comment by Christopher Magiera, MD | January 7, 2022 | Reply

    • 1. Our federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. When the States ratified the Constitution, they delegated specific enumerated powers to the new government of the Federation. So the Threshold Question is always: What Article, Section, and Clause in the US Constitution authorizes the federal gov’t to do such & such? e.g., Article I, Section 8, clause 8 authorizes the fed gov’t to grants patents & copyrights.

      What Article, Section and clause authorizes the fed gov’t to mandate the JAB over the Country at Large? They don’t have the power to mandate the JAB – it isn’t one of the enumerated powers.

      So why would one need to apply for a “religious” or other exemption from a mandate which the fed gov’t has no authority to impose in the first place? Why would you need to find something in the Constitution which prohibits the fed gov’t from doing something the Constitution doesn’t even grant them the authority to do in the first place?

      So the basic problem is that our People have forgotten that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. Simply put, the feds have no constitutional authority over the Country at Large to force people to take the JAB.

      See this Chart! Print it out! Ponder it:

      2. Over the limited geographical areas comprising the federal enclaves, the federal gov’t has general legislative powers – See Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause. Pursuant to Article I, Sec. 8, clause 15, the fed gov’t has general legislative authority over the armed forces of the United States. HOWEVER! THIS GENERAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IS NOT UNLIMITED – IT IS RESTRAINED.

      So now look at this article and see the discussion of the “privileges and immunities” clauses. There are the areas of one’s life which are “immune” from gov’t regulation: Defeat “COVID” Mandates by restoring the Genuine Meaning of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses

      You’ll note I quote Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. When our Country was founded and up until about the early 1900s, all American lawyers knew Blackstone’s. But in the early 1900s, when the Progressives were elected to office, the Law Schools stopped teaching Blackstone’s Commentaries. One can’t understand the “privileges and immunities” clauses without understanding Blackstone’s.

      So you don’t need to rely on the 9th Amendment for protection.

      Thanks for writing! Let me know if this helps or if you have any other questions. Our Physicians need to understand this.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2022 | Reply

  3. Dear PH: I recently read an article where it talked about the IRS putting out a statement reminding people that the value of stolen property and receipts from bribery must be reported as incomeon federal tax forms. I don’t remember the source, but it wasn’t the Onion, and Googlesearch revealed several other article on this topic. I was pretty sure that robbers weren’t in the habit of filing tax returns,so I wavered between laughter and just shaking my head.
    Do you know if such a …..requirement … actually in the codes? But whether it is or not, isn’t it somewhat remarkable that the IRS would declare that they use receipts from stolen property and instances of bribery to fund the federal government? If that is actual practice, would that itself not be statutorially unsustainable?


    Comment by Bob Montgomery | January 1, 2022 | Reply

    • Surely that was a spoof! For one thing, it would violate the 5th Amendment to require people to report their crimes on their tax forms. Or is there a category to report “miscellaneous income”? But what if one were audited and asked the source of that “miscellaneous” income? I suppose one could take the 5th at that point. The people who write those regs are so out of touch with reality that it’s believable that they would write such a reg. You did give me a laugh, for which I thank you.

      But violating the 5th Amdt wouldn’t bother the fed gov’t we have today – look at how they have violated the 6th Amendments rights of the January 6’ers. Trump lost my support forever when he failed to pardon them before he left office. [thou he pardoned Jared Kushner’s Father].

      The money used to fund the federal gov’t is borrowed from the fed reserve – that’s why the fed reserve was set up – to provide the fed gov’t with unlimited amounts of credit so that it could construct the socialist regulatory welfare state we have today. I wrote about it here:

      Americans LOVED the “progressives” – Teddy Roosevelt (R) and Woodrow Wilson (D), tweedle dum – tweedle-dee


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 2, 2022 | Reply

  4. Have there been any police stops of armored vehicles (Brinks, Loomis, Garda)which then resulted in asset forfeiture of the firearms and/or cash inside?


    Comment by dons2017 | December 29, 2021 | Reply

    • well, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing. However, if the police recover stolen assets, the police ought to return the assets to the rightful owner. But these day, who knows?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 29, 2021 | Reply

  5. Would like to sign up for your blog


    Comment by Roy Monsour | November 6, 2021 | Reply

  6. Thoughts about Anna Von Reitz ?


    Comment by irishnd2011hotmailcom | March 23, 2021 | Reply

    • She is not a judge – she is not a lawyer.
      Whether she really is or is not descended from the Junkers, I do not know.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 23, 2021 | Reply

  7. Hello, Joanna:
    I enjoyed your video and all of your strategies to overcome this election fraud. After seeing that Senator Tom Cotton has now back pedaled and will not be objecting to the electoral votes when he was going to; I just sent him a scathing email on his website. He is a so called Harvard lawyer….and I told him to do his homework and he should speak with you, email you and go onto your site. I would recommend teaching him what obviously he never learned at Harvard about the constitution or he chooses to not obey it.
    Please reach out to him. I never write anyone about political viewpoints, but I am so disgusted with all of this. I am very awake…
    Love your passion and tenacity! Just a voter that believes in the REAL truth! Thank you.


    Comment by Rhonda Spero | January 4, 2021 | Reply

  8. RE: Speech Against Article V Convention
    That was the most concise, clearly worded speech I have heard in a very long time. One of the many you have made.
    Thank you PH for the speech and all you do encouraging the populace, as well as our so called leaders, to man up and understand and follow our Constitution. I have spread it to everyone I know with instructions to send it on to all they know. Even my contacts in Canada as if our Constitution fails it will affect them as well.
    Thank you again…

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by N S | February 20, 2020 | Reply

    • Thank you for your encouraging and uplifting words, NS.

      Yes, we could restore our Constitutional Republic – but we better get started on that Task and not let the globalists get an Article V convention. If that happens, yikes!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 21, 2020 | Reply

  9. Got into an interesting debate when I suggested at a resolutions committee mtg. that we change the reference to illegal “alien”: to illegal “foreign national”. Someone suggested I was trying to be “politically correct”. I tried to point out that “foreign nationals” are subjects of their native lands until they revoke their loyalty and pledge allegiance to the new country which admits them., therefore, until they are “legalized” they remain “foreign nationals” not just “aliens”, When “caravans” of immigrants arrive at our border waving the flags of their homelands, it is obvious, they have not revoked their loyalty to their native land! Am I wrong to suggest we adjust our terminology?


    Comment by Rose christensen | February 17, 2020 | Reply

  10. Publius, I just wanted you thank you for all you’ve done to advance knowledge of our Constitution and ensure you know how much I personally appreciate it. I wish you and all your beloved the merriest of Christmases this Holy Season! God Bless and keep you.


    Comment by Diamondback | December 21, 2019 | Reply

    • Thank you so much! You made my day! and I wish the same blessings to you.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 21, 2019 | Reply

      • Thank you. Til next time, best wishes.


        Comment by Diamondback | December 21, 2019 | Reply

  11. 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.


    Comment by Jim Prentice | November 16, 2019 | Reply

  12. 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?


    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:
      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”

      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”.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 23, 2019 | Reply

  13. 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”


    Comment by Mark Rademaker | July 5, 2019 | Reply

  14. 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).


    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”.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2019 | Reply

  15. 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”


    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:

      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:

      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.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2019 | Reply

  16. 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, its the Barry Foster Radio Show. If you are interested please contact me at my e-mail address.
    Thank You


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

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


    Comment by Pam Johnson | May 26, 2019 | Reply

    • Hi, Pam. I have a definitive paper on this issue here:

      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.


      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


        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!


          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 27, 2019 | Reply

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


            Comment by Nelson Lazear | May 27, 2019

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: