Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Contact

publiushuldah@gmail.com

313 Comments »

  1. If I’m correct that President Nixon created the EPA through executive order, could Trump disestablish the EPA with an executive order? Every state has there own office of EPA.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | December 7, 2016 | Reply

    • Oh yes, Trump can disband the EPA – and he should. His Duty is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause). He does that, in part, by dismantling unconstitutional federal agencies and departments and returning their functions to the States.
      Yes, he can disband unconstitutional federal agencies – in the Executive Branch – by Executive Order.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 8, 2016 | Reply

  2. PH, have you made MR. Trump aware about the (Ikwan) The Muslim Brotherhood and their plan?http://www.google.com/search?q=where+was+the+Muslim+brotherhood's'+ikwhan+papers+discovered+in+a+hidden+basement%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari Bo knows about it yet he is going full speed ahead to become a Marter for Allah and taking us with him.
    face book or some one is not letting my posts on Facebook and even changes the text of notes As I’m typing. I am lucky I got this far. Most people in the U.S. haven’t heard of Ikwan. in that context. can you send this? I’v just found his mailing address but it’s Snail Mail and I can’t get it to him in Time before the Debates since they start tomorrow.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | September 25, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, the Donald doesn’t contact me much and share his thoughts and such with me [though he did tweet one of my videos]! and he has referenced one of Kelleigh Nelson’s articles in New With Views.

      But if you saw his 3 minute “The Snake” video – he knows about the threat! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ApG7i3qgL8

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 25, 2016 | Reply

  3. Publius Huldah; I recently watched your video, “Article V Convention Debate”. May I say I fully concur with your thoughts and views. And based on your references to Congresses usrpation of power(s) by and through various agencies, commonly referred to as ABC agencies, I should like to share the following with you, and I sincerely hope this finds it’s way to you.

    Of the many of these agencies, a number of which you mentioned in your speech, and the fact that they are not authorized in the “enumerated powers” I would submit the following to you.

    It is my belief that Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section, Clasue 17 has the authority to create any agency it desires. However, those agencies do NOT have authority to exercise powere, IE; “jurisdiction”(read police power) within the Union of 50 states; and in support of that I submit to you the federal government’s clear knowledge of that by and through their OWN federal law; to wit:
    4 USC 72
    “All offices of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.”

    This law, 4 USC 72, tells me that all the agencies created by Congress and which are not established pusrsaunt to any of the enumerated powers may not act within the Union of 50 states, and I would further submit that Congress knows it too as they created this specific law, Title 4 USC, Section 72, as what I would call an “escape clause” for every citizen to use to defy such unlawful agencies. However, few people know of this law, nor have little understanding of a simple challenge of jurisdiction of an agency; due, in my view, to the fact the people’s ignorant belief that the federal government is all omnipotent throught all the states in all matters. A fact you and I both know is fallacious.

    Furthermore, any law Congress drafts to give authorization for an agency to act in the Union, such a law being one that applies to the nation, must therefore be published in the Federal Register.

    Any one, or the number of agencies you mentioned I would challenge to produce the specific “law” drafted by Congress to exercise their authority outside the District of Columbia, and produce the page(s) of the Federal Register wherein they are published. I wouldwager that none of them can, yet they exercise their alleged/presumed authority in defiance of any constitutional power to do so.

    I sincerely hope that what I have written here finds it’s way to you as I would like to hear back from you and your thoughts about what I’ve put forth here.

    Like

    Comment by Richard Tast | September 7, 2016 | Reply

    • What you are proposing confuses a simple issue and could get people into needless trouble.

      Congress’ powers over the Country at Large are restricted to the enumerated powers.

      Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 17, Congress has general legislative powers over the DC and other federal enclaves (military bases, federal courthouses, etc., all over the Country). In the DC and federal enclaves, Congress’ powers are limited by the Bill of Rights and other prohibitions on fed power set forth in the Constitution (e.g., Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 9).

      So for the DC and federal enclaves, Congress may pass all those laws which need to be passed: criminal laws, speed limits, no trash burning on windy dry days, etc.

      We must stop looking for cute gimmicks to solve our Country’s problems.

      What you propose would result in some poor dumb cluck’s getting into trouble and accomplishing nothing.

      Our problem is that Americans don’t know that most of the federal agencies and departments are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. State governments don’t care – they just want to keep those federal funds for these unconstitutional programs flowing into their States. Americans LOVE the unconstitutional federal programs which send them checks and pay their bills and subsidize their failings.

      THAT’s the problem. THAT is what we should address. What’s needed is a moral regeneration of the American People.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 8, 2016 | Reply

  4. Regarding Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court said the “commerce clause” extends to local intrastate activities which “affect” interstate commerce, even if the activities aren’t “commerce”! The Court also asserted that Congress has power to regulate prices of commodities and the practices which affect such prices!
    Did that apply to the charlatans on the streets of New York selling rabbit pellets advertised as smart pills? It wasn’t false advertisement, when the purchaser tasted the pellets, they said it tasted like Rabbit poo, to which the Charlatan responded”see there, you are getting smarter already”. I wonder how many Supreme Court Justices have such cavalier attitudes toward their bank accounts as they have toward we the People? Maybe they need to be reminded that they have life long tenure during good behavior ONLY! John Roberts would be a good example, especially after the Oberkfeld usurpation!

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | September 7, 2016 | Reply

    • New York law only applies to the sellers of rabbit pellets.

      Federal judges serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1); and yes, Americans need to be reminded of that. They have been told that federal judges have lifetime appointments, and since they don’t read the Constitution, they don’t know that federal judges don’t have “lifetime appointments”.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 8, 2016 | Reply

  5. Regarding the latest usurpation, does any one know if Congress authorized the $400m cash transfer to Iran? the reason I ask is that the only thing I have found to this point leads to an example of a Symantec equivocation in order to deceive.
    Bo was pushing the narative that he had to convert dollars to Swiss Franks because congress banned sending dollars because it would be illegal for some reason which is apparently invisible.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | August 12, 2016 | Reply

  6. UNITED STATES v. CASTLEMAN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12–1371. Argued January 15, 2014—Decided March 26, 2014: why is this not an ex post facto law? once tried and convicted Amendment VII Should stop the expansion of the penalty from a misdomener to an felony especially by the Feseral court.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | July 2, 2016 | Reply

    • I am so sorry, I don’t have time to read this case! I don’t even have time to sort out the syllabus.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 3, 2016 | Reply

  7. PH:

    Today, in US District Court in Phoenix, Jared Laughner, convicted in 2011 of the mass murder incident in Tucson involving Rep. Gabby Gifford, filed suit against the US Government claiming he was implanted with a mind control chip which drove him to his murderous act, and asking for $25 Million in damages.

    The Arizona Republic artlcle’s author, Dennis Wagner, writes that federal courts are ‘obliged to accept civil actions regardless of the contents’. My question: Is the mere accusation of an unConstutitional or criminal act against the US Government a proper qualifier for a federal court to take up the case? I’m pretty sure such an issue doesn’t qualify as a case ‘arising under this Constitution’, but am unsure just how such a case must be handled?

    Have you any thoughts to help me get clarity?

    Like

    Comment by nelsonaire1 | March 24, 2016 | Reply

    • The judicial powers of the federal courts are enumerated at Art. III, Sec.2, US Constitution.

      Note the various categories of cases federal courts may hear – some of them have nothing to do with the Constitution. See this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/the-judicial-power-of-the-federal-courts/

      Access to the courts is a cherished right. At times in our history, we have denied that right to people. E.g., before (and for a while after) the War for Southern Secession, some or all of the States didn’t permit black people to have access to courts. So you could trample all over a black person’s God given rights, but s/he couldn’t do a thing about it because s/he wasn’t permitted access to the courts.

      We must NEVER NEVER NEVER have a gatekeeper before the law. Everyone must be allowed to file his actions. No government official should be allowed to say,”You can’t file that lawsuit!”

      However, once the lawsuit is filed, and the Defendant served, then the Defendant may make any appropriate motions such as Motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, etc. Then the Judge rules on the motion. And courts can impose penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits.

      And finally, there is this: We mustn’t let our own understandings be the limit of what is possible. I can’t say that such mind control as Plaintiff alleges is not possible. I know that People are controlled by propaganda. Why not implanted devices?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2016 | Reply

  8. PH:

    Is the 14th Amendment really valid? Link – http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth/amend.htm#.VuXap2QrLEY

    Supporting article by Mr. David Lawrence of US News and World Report, link
    http://www.Constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

    I distrust Judge L.H. Perez as reliable since he was a segregationist and a person of demonstrated devious character, but his information seems to be backed by Mr. Lawrence.

    Since I do trust your opinion, I would like to know what it is, if you are aware of this situation.

    Thanks.

    Like

    Comment by Jerry C Nelson | March 13, 2016 | Reply

    • I don’t have opinions about the Constitution.

      The 14th amendment was ratified. It is part of the Constitution.

      Many recent supreme Court opinions on the 14th Amendment are not consistent with the original intent of the amendment. See my papers under the category “14th amendment.”

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 13, 2016 | Reply

      • PH:

        Thanks for the response.

        Obviously I didn’t make my question to you clear. I don’t mean to waste your time but may I try again?

        Perez’s article contends that the 14th Amendment was not adopted according to Constitutional provisions; some southern states’ rights of Senate suffrage were denied, two or three States rescinded their original approval, etc., among numerous other claims of unConstitutional acts by Congress.

        I’ve read everything I can find among your presentations on the 14th but maybe I’ve missed your comments on this point, and I don’t recall that Prof. Berger ever addressed this issue in his books, either.

        My question asks your opinion as to the validity of those claims, which if true, would seem to mean the amendment adoption requirements were not completed or were falsely created, thus invalidating the 14th Amendment.

        Like

        Comment by Jerry C Nelson | March 14, 2016 | Reply

        • So explain to me why looking into whether the 14th amendment – or the 16th amendment – were actually ratified is a good use of my time?

          And WHAT if I decide they weren’t? Then what happens?

          Should I write articles fussing about how they weren’t properly ratified?

          What would the remedy be?

          I trust you begin to understand: is this the best use of YOUR time?

          I, for one, have spent enough time on this issue.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 14, 2016 | Reply

          • PH:

            I DO see your point, I think, in that since the 14th has already been accepted for so long, whether validly or not, attempts to overturn it probably would be a great waste of time. I guess I’m interested in discovering how our Constitution has so often been turned on its head to use as ammunition when discussing with others the need for watching closely what our political leaders do.

            I also wonder: since you reply so quickly even to unworthy questions as mine here, do you ever sleep?

            Thank you again, PH. God Bless.

            Like

            Comment by Jerry C Nelson | March 14, 2016

          • No, I sleep very little. too worried. really worried. I spent several years in & out of communist E. Europe during the cold War and see what is coming here. We are ripe for a takeover. Our Land is filled with a parasitic, incompetent, ignorant, and immoral underclass. And a vicious immoral political elite.

            The Constitution got turned on its head and ignored b/c The People REFUSED to read it and learn it and hold their elected officials accountable. Besides, they loved the handouts….

            and instead of reading our Declaration of Independence and Constitution – something every person of ordinary understanding is able to do [except for Art. III, Sec. 2 which requires knowledge of litigation to fully grasp] – they wanted to muck about in supreme court opinions which they quoted at every opportunity.

            Still, we must do what we can to turn on lights and who knows what may happen? And Sam and Frodo are my inspiration.

            Like

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 14, 2016

  9. Since Obama’s father is not a US citizen and he has served nearly two terms does that change the potency of the ‘Natural Born’ requirement?
    What is the mechanism of law enforcement in regard of this violation since we now have Rubio and Cruz trying to do the same thing? If the violation of the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ requirement continues in practice without successful legal contest will it or can it be stricken from the Constitution and if so what would that procedure be? Thank you

    Like

    Comment by Kathleen Lieberman | March 7, 2016 | Reply

    • The Constitution can’t be changed by ignoring it – as obama, Cruz, & Rubio supporters have done.
      If Americans continue to ignore our Constitution – then our Country will collapse.
      And the Enemy is right at the gate pushing to get a new Constitution.
      THEN, when it’s too late, Americans will learn what they have lost.

      If you go to my home page and click on the Category “natural born citizen”, you will get all the posts on this topic.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 7, 2016 | Reply

  10. Completely awesome site. I sincerely thank you for all your work in compiling this information into a very easy to follow and find format. It is very upsetting that our country has moved so far away from this Supreme Law of our Great Land. How a citizen can, I feel, knowingly disregard this amazing document that our founders worked so hard at creating to make sure our liberty would never again be infringed upon is beyond me. It is a sad day. Thank you again.

    Like

    Comment by Johnny Haxton | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  11. Pleasantly surprised by The Constitution, Vattel and the Natural Born Citizen. I was completely unaware such a definitive work on the subject existed, as I was UNAWARE of Vattel’s influence on the Founding Fathers. Is there an even greater requirement/qualifier, than Natural Born Citizen, for those seeking the Presidency? The Founders mandated the Sacred Oath of Office in all original Constitutions. Are there qualifications regarding the Lawful standing required for those who give their Oath? One example of such a requirement comes from DeToqueville. He reports in Democracy in America (1838) a case in Chester County, NY (no cite), in which the presiding judge (of the “Assizes.” Court of Common Pleas?) refused to accept the testimony of a witness who expressed disbelief in God. The judge further remarked, “Until this moment I was unaware there was a man living who does not believe in God.” How different our nation and perhaps our world would be if our courts had maintained those high standards. How is it possible for a non-believer to give the sacred Oath of Office? The raised hand signifies calling upon God as Witness to the oath. How is that possible for the non-believer? The raised hand further represents a declaration to the world of the Oath giver’s Lawful standing to call upon God as Witness? How is that an option for the non-believer? In the Declaration of Independence is found four names for God; Creator, God of Nature, Supreme Judge of the world and Divine Providence, all of which are thoroughly consistent with Scripture, Old and New Testaments. Those names are not consistent with the name of Allah found in the Qur’an. How then does the adherent of Islam qualify to give the sacred Oath of Office mandated in our Constitutions? A careful reading of “The Constitution, Vattel and the Natural Born Citizen” makes abundantly evident neither obama, nor Cruz nor Rubio possess the necessary Natural Born Citizen qualification to be President of the United States. obama fails on both counts. Neither is he a Natural Born Citizen nor would his self-confessed “Muslim faith” and his obvious lack of faith in the God of the Holy Bible (He speaks of “the Holy Qur’an” with such reverence) cannot justify any claim by obama to possess the Lawful standing to give the Sacred Oath of Office. We are either a nation governed by Rule of Law, or we are not. How often we hear the term, “Rule of Law,” but never do we ask, “Whose law? What law?” Blackstone provides the answer: “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. 40. Clearly Blackstone recognizes God as The Source of ALL VALID Law. Our republic is contemplated by the Founding Fathers to be governed by the Rule of LAW, God’s unchanging Law, as envisioned by Blackstone. Administered by men holding themselves always Accountable to God, faithfully fulfilling their Sacred Oath of Office ruling over a populace worshiping that God, always giving thanks to that God.

    Like

    Comment by Alan Wakefield | February 2, 2016 | Reply

    • Thank you! I spent weeks scouring the internet gathering the evidence I needed for that paper (in addition to what a Friend gave me to get me started).
      Yours is an interesting comment: Here are some issues I would need to research:

      How did our Framers understand “Oath or Affirmation” at Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause? What’s the difference between “Affirmation” and “Oath”? And what precisely did they mean by an “oath” – is that a calling down of God’s [Jehovah’s] wrath on one if he breaks his oath? Is “affirmation” a secular version of the Oath; or is in deference to Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:37?

      The last sentence of Art. VI, clause 3 says “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification…” What did they mean? I think the issue of the time was that States and the feds couldn’t make being an Episcopalian, or baptist, or congregationalist, etc. a condition of holding office; and they couldn’t ban Quakers, Catholics, and such from holding office. But those are all Christian denominations.

      We would need original source writings of that time period to gather the evidence we need…

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2016 | Reply

  12. Thomas Sowell is chiming in on the issue of a convention and wondering why the so-called left opposes one: http://www.naplesnews.com/columnists/opinion/thomas-sowell-messing-with-the-constitution-2911bb26-7351-37cb-e053-0100007f3bb8-364896891.html

    Like

    Comment by SwampFoxFL | January 12, 2016 | Reply

    • Apparently Sowell doesn’t know that our Constitution already limits the federal government to the 18-21 powers (it depends on how you count) enumerated in the Constitution. This is distressing. I have a few things I must do now – then I will wrote on Greg Abbott.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 12, 2016 | Reply

  13. I understand and respect your warnings about an Article V convention of the States. However, if, and it’s a big IF, there were a way to propose and have the States agree to a single act convention to either repeal the XVII or not, this would seem to be a worth while en devour. Repeal the XVII, or not, and that’s it. No other acts may be taken up or considered. Other than via an Article V convention of the States I don’t see Congress voting to remove the election of the Senators by popular vote, ever.

    Like

    Comment by selfsovereign | January 11, 2016 | Reply

    • If you understood my warnings, you wouldn’t be wishing for an impossibility. It is IMPOSSIBLE to restrict the acts of a national convention.

      Re-read the warnings of Madison, Goldberg, and Burger. Consider whether there is a possibility that the Father of our Constitution (James Madison) and two former US Supreme Court Justices (Goldberg & Burger) understood something about the danger of national conventions which YOU have so far not seen. Conjure up the images of your children & grandchildren in your mind as you answer this question – they are the ones who will pay for your conceit if you don’t answer the question honestly.

      Delegates to a convention are the sovereign representatives of the People and have the plenipotentiary power to propose a new Constitution with a new and easier mode of ratification. REMEMBER what happened at the “amendments” convention of 1787! Read the limitations imposed on the delegates by the Continental Congress and by the States. The Delegates ignored their instructions and wrote a new Constitution with a new and easier mode of ratification. [e.g., read Article XII, Sec. 1 of the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America, and you will see that that Constitution is ratified by a Referendum called by the President. [But don’t worry – the votes will be counted fairly.] If a Convention is called and Delegates are bribed to propose the Newstates Constitution, there will be NOTHING we can do to stop it. B/c the person who counts the votes will decide. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

      I have written a simple introductory overview of this issue – if you want to know the Truth, read it and look at the linked Exhibits.
      I’m here if you have questions. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/open-letter-to-state-legislators-everywhere-the-other-side-of-the-article-v-convention-issue/

      That Americans got conned into ratifying the 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments proves that Americans have been too dumbed down and are too easily manipulated to be tinkering at this time with our Constitution. Most of the Amendments ratified since the 12th increased the powers of the federal government! Americans didn’t see it – they ignored the warnings – they fell for the propaganda.

      The proper way to get rid of the 17th Amendment is to do the same as we did to get rid of the 18th Amendment. You say Congress won’t propose such an amendment? But they are the people Americans elected! Americans can’t elect honest, wise, and competent people to any office, but you think they are capable of proposing wise amendments to our Constitution?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 11, 2016 | Reply

      • A convention of the states is constrained by the fact that a supermajority of the state legislatures must approve each individual amendment the convention agrees to propose. Yes, some amendments have been harmful, the 17th is the one that is likely the worst, but, in general, if a supermajority of the states can agree to a change, how bad can such change be?

        Like

        Comment by skookumchuck55 | February 26, 2016 | Reply

        • You are overlooking the plenipotentiary powers of delegates to an Article V convention to propose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification.
          And the only convention for proposing Amendments is the one at Article V – the one Congress calls.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 26, 2016 | Reply

  14. The reason the founders were forced to turn to Vatel rather than English Common law in this case is that no right of succession to the presidency would exist here as it did to the throne in England. They had to find a way to prevent the office of president from being held by anyone with any other possible allegiance and Vatel worked perfectly!

    Like

    Comment by Bigun | September 10, 2015 | Reply

  15. When I click on a link in your most recent article, “The Truth about the Supremacy Clause,” the links take me to the relevant page that explains your point in more detail. But, if I forward a copy of your article to a friend, it takes me to a page that says that I am “Lost.” Why?

    Like

    Comment by SilentNoMore | September 6, 2015 | Reply

  16. Lysander Spooner is remembered more for his support of the abolition of slavery, state nullification, jury nullification and condemnation of the excesses of the Federal government during reconstruction. He also established a successful mail company in direct competition with the US Post Office, which had his company shut down. I’ve read several of his essays, available at Mises.org, and he impresses me as more of a libertarian than socialist.

    Like

    Comment by SgtJUSMC | August 1, 2015 | Reply

    • Well! The US post office was wrong to try to shut him down. Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 7 authorizes Congress to establish Post Offices and post Roads – BUT it is not an exclusive power.

      I.e., ONLY Congress may coin money & regulate the value thereof (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 5, & Art. I, Sec. 10, clause 1); and ONLY Congress may write the rules for naturalization [since they are “uniform”]. But anyone may deliver mail.

      Several of the few & enumerated powers delegated to Congress are NOT exclusive powers.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 3, 2015 | Reply

  17. I know. I’ve been told Lysander Spooner was a “socialist” – did he live before the communist-socialist movement began!? In any case, his treatise “An Essay on the Trial by Jury” is a MUST read. It is long, but even if you only get through the first 4 or 5 paragraphs you will have more understanding of nullification and the rights of people, than most graduate students in Poli Sci do. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35 Enjoy it. It is well worth reading.

    Like

    Comment by Jim Greaves | July 31, 2015 | Reply

    • I don’t have time to read the essay (beyond the first few paras) – so can’t endorse or reject it. But our Framers understood that in criminal cases Jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts. Noah Webster put this in his 1828 Dictionary under the definition of “jury”: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Jury
      Alexander Hamilton said the same thing several decades earlier.
      Check out the Fully Informed Jury Association website – I haven’t read it all, but what I did read [several years ago] was excellent.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 1, 2015 | Reply

  18. Note that the COS BBA etc – social-fascist crowds – as well as progressives in general – have taken the “general welfare” clause in the Preamble to be “a power granted to Congress”, when in fact it is merely a statement of purpose that ONLY applies within the context of delegated powers. Thanks for the work you do, and the rebuke and derision you adeptly thrust aside – Jim Greaves, Thompson Falls MT

    Like

    Comment by Jim Greaves | July 31, 2015 | Reply

  19. Please read “Constitutional Nullification and the Constitutional Officers Duty to Protect” by admin November 9, 2014 and also read in the same place [Patriot Coalition] under ARCHIVE an article called “Fact Sheet: Deceptions and Myths Regarding Article 5”.

    Like

    Comment by Fallon T Gordon Sr. MD | May 2, 2015 | Reply

  20. May we republish Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!
    in http://citizensJournal.us, with credit and linkback to your site?

    Like

    Comment by George Miller | April 26, 2015 | Reply

  21. A radio talk show host said that the president could probably grant amnesty to the millions of illegals in the country on his final day in office. If the difference between amnesty and a pardon is that a pardon is granted after a conviction and an amnesty is granted or issued to avoid prosecution, doesn’t this make it impossible for the president to do this?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | April 15, 2015 | Reply

    • The talk show host doesn’t know what s/he is talking about.

      The President can do it – in the sense that if Congress lets him get away with it – then he gets away with it.
      But the President may not LAWFULLY do it.

      Article I, Sec. 8, clause 4, delegates to CONGRESS the power to establish an “uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Only Congress has the power to decide how an invader, illegal alien, lawful immigrant, etc., becomes a Citizen. The President may not lawfully ignores Laws made by Congress on this issue – and refuse to enforce the laws Congress makes.

      But the Remedy for usurpations and lawless acts of the President is impeachment, trial, conviction, and removal of the president. And that is in the hands of Congress alone. As long as WE THE PEOPLE keep sending to Congress politicians who are ignorant and spineless, we won’t get rid of this president.

      Furthermore, Article I, Sec. 9, clause 1 permits CONGRESS to control immigration. But with the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 or thereabouts (the one wrong-turn Teddy pushed), Congress basically opened the floodgates and lets everyone in.

      So there is no doubt: We are in this grave danger b/c The American People are too stupid and ignorant and sinful to elect men of virtue and wisdom to public office.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  22. Importance of the U.S. Constitution as a prerequisite to public office.
    Posted on March 6, 2015 by paradigmrw
    Hi PH:

    I have two questions:

    Q1 Since a working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution is such an important foundation for public office, shouldn’t there be a test that would certify/qualify aspirants as to their competency in this area? If so, how do you imagine that could be implemented–if possible? Obviously, it would have to show the ability to properly apply the original principles, and not just demonstrate rote knowledge. (This may be an impossible dream, but it would certainly eliminate many of the imposters now sitting in high positions within the legislative, executive and judical branches of our government.)

    Q2 I am currently reading “The Supreme Court” by Willam Rehnquist, and it occurs to me that legal precedent often seems to inject human error, personal bias, and historical context into legal decisions. To use these precedents as arguments for future legal decisions would seem to inject errors into the system that simply become compounded over time. As a result, we see a movement to “living laws” that shift the meanings of laws and change legal outcomes out of keeping with all original intent. In matters of Constitutional law in particular, would it not seem appropriate to require that all decisions conform strictly to original intent as determined by our founding documents and their writers? If so, HOW?

    Like

    Comment by paradigmrw | March 6, 2015 | Reply

    • Q1 Citizen groups should conduct oral examinations of the candidates. When I was young, and applied for summer secretarial jobs, I had to take a typing test. But as a People, we support and elect to PUBLIC OFFICE candidates whom we have not tested on their knowledge of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. That is shocking. We vote for them b/c we are told (by Fox News and shallow talk show hosts) that they are tea party rising stars; because they chant lines we like to hear; and b/c we “like” them.

      Think about the amazing consequences of such a GRASS ROOTS movement: People would have to read the two documents themselves before they could question and test candidates; the event would be public; and it could become so widespread that candidates would be forced to submit to the public tests.

      Q2 What you say about bad precedent resulting in compounding error upon error is true. How to fix it? We must elect to the office of President and Senate ONLY people who have proven they know the Declaration and Constitution; as well as Representatives and US Senators who have the backbone to impeach and convict federal judges who violate the Constitution in their opinions (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

      I can perceive, after a few minutes of listening to the blather of the so-called “conservative” icons and tea party darlings that they are ignorant or phonies….

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 7, 2015 | Reply

  23. Obama is refusing to obey “one federal Judge” and is moving ahead with his “memo” on immigration. If this is contempt of court, can Obama be arrested?

    Like

    Comment by Jeanniemac | March 1, 2015 | Reply

  24. several years ago I ordered two booklets from you, i imagine 2011, now everyone wants one, 5 relaiives in sweden, 4 in kansas, 4 in texas, 2 in oklahoma. one is 1791-1991 The Bill of Rights and Beyondand Essential Liberfty Pocket Guide. I am trying to get everone i know to learn about our constitution and this great land of ours. i was a school teacher for 21 years and loved it.

    Like

    Comment by myra wandry` | January 22, 2015 | Reply

    • The booklets didn’t come from me! Thank you for your efforts in spreading Truth.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 23, 2015 | Reply

  25. Madam, I am honored by your reply. I believe, as you apparently do, that we as a people would do well to consider and respect the wisdom of those who went before than to try to reinvent self government. May I be so bold as to offer my favorite presidential quote of all time, not that any of our “leaders” still agree with it. It’s up to us.

    “(Paternalism) undermines the self-reliance of our people and substitutes in its place dependence upon governmental favoritism. It stifles the spirit of true Americanism and stupefies every ennobling trait of American citizenship.
    “The lessons of Paternalism ought to be unlearned and the better lesson taught that while the people should patriotically and cheerfully support their government, its functions do not include the support of the people.”

    President Grover Cleveland (Democrat), in his second inaugural address, March 4th, 1893

    Sleep good.
    Publius50

    Like

    Comment by James Madison | January 15, 2015 | Reply

    • Thank you, Sir. It must be very distressing to you to see how far the American People have fallen since your time here – and how people like Joseph Robinson (see his comment under my paper, “Rob Natelson Perverts the Necessary and Proper Clause and Thinks in Circles”) claim that you changed your mind and became a supporter of the convention method of proposing amendments.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 15, 2015 | Reply

  26. You pulled my string.
    Don’t get insurance and just plan your taxes such that you’re not owed a refund. My understanding is that the only way they can “fine” you is to extract it from any refund due you (PH, I’m counting on you to correct me if I’m wrong).
    And please…how costly is it to “eat healthy”? A pound of carrots is a buck, 5 pounds of potatoes 3 bucks. I know that’s not the start of a gourmet menu, but really, fresh food is a blessing to us and reasonably affordable. Folks are just used to the easy “Dollar Menu” and pizza delivery.

    Publius50

    Like

    Comment by James Madison | January 13, 2015 | Reply

    • Sir, I am honored that you have visited here. I have not read the obamacare act and the implementing regs so don’t know about how the “fines” work – today – it will surely change next year – but what you say (as always) sounds plausible and reasonable.

      But the old days are over – tyranny is now officially here. Get ready, Folks.

      And yes, healthy food is cheap when you cook from scratch (as I do) and/or have a vegetable and fruit garden. Berries are easy to grow…..

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 13, 2015 | Reply

  27. Publius H…I have a serious question. I can’t afford healthcare under the ACA. I believe the ACA and it’s penalty constitute an unlawful seizure of my work product. Is there anyone out there willing to file suit against the Federal Government for violating my 4th amendment rights?

    Like

    Comment by brian mcnary | December 23, 2014 | Reply

    • obamacare IS unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government. However, we have lost on that issue in the courts for the reason that the federal courts have connived with the other two branches of the federal government to usurp power over us. Forget suing the fed. gov’t – you will lose. There is NO justice in the federal courts.
      You will have to do as many are doing – find doctors who will treat you out of the government controlled system. There are organizations of doctors who will do this.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 23, 2014 | Reply

    • I do not want any type of health insurance. This year will be a penalty and nxt yr a lot. It costs money to eat healthy, now they want to charge me for not being sick. What if you do not pay the penalty?

      Like

      Comment by Roxanne Free | January 12, 2015 | Reply

      • Who is your Congressman and US Senator?

        BTW, I haven’t had health insurance for close to 40 years – too expensive.

        If you can, grow a garden – it really cuts down on the food bills. Learn to can and get a food dryer.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | January 12, 2015 | Reply

  28. Sorry, but I didn’t submit this question.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | December 9, 2014 | Reply

  29. “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…” does not mean that they regulate immigration. It means; ” The process whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship”.

    The US Constitution in Article 1, Section 9 specifically states that it is the state’s who decides who may come into our nation, but that the federal government decides what “tests”, etc they are required to pass to become a US Citizen.

    Section 9: “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”

    Yes the “or importation of such persons” does no longer apply, and truthfully am not sure about “shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” but I read it to mean that congress can deny a person who migrated (immigrated) here to be allowed naturalization.

    What do you think?

    Like

    Comment by Cal | December 9, 2014 | Reply

    • You totally misread it. And I suspect you are so convinced that YOU are right that you would refuse to listen to someone who actually does know and points out your errors.

      And you believe that a text means what YOU think it means! You said,

      “truthfully am not sure about “shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” but I read it to mean that congress can deny a person who migrated (immigrated) here to be allowed naturalization.”[emphasis mine]

      Try diagramming the sentence. Lay aside the rubbish you have picked up from ignorant people who don’t know what they are talking about, and use your own head. THINK! Diagram the sentence!

      After you have done that, report back to me.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 9, 2014 | Reply

      • You are correct, sorry. What it says is “Section. 9. The Migration” Then after the “or” – which gives a choice of one or the other – there is the other choice “or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

        Since the ONLY duty regarding immigrants assigned by the US Constitution is Clause 4 – “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

        Even if it would not be true of the “or” part (but the retired English teacher said that is what it does, separate two distinct parts of the choices), then under the Tenth Amendment since the decision of immigration was not assigned to the federal government it would still belong to the states or to the people. I have found no where in the US Constitution where it is delegated to the general government, only what it takes to become a US citizen was delegated to those who serve within it.

        Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

        Like

        Comment by Cal | December 9, 2014 | Reply

        • No. Try it again. Diagram the sentence. Our Framers wrote much on this clause, but you would not be able to follow what they say if you can not understand what Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1 says.
          You are laboring under a misconception which blinds you to the truth of what that clause says. Wipe your mind clean of what you think you know and look at it with a fresh unbiased eye.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2014 | Reply

  30. 17 states filed a lawsuit in a Texas District Court against the administration about it’s executive order dealing with immigration issue. Since states are involved why wasn’t this case filed directly to the Supreme Court? Doesn’t the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction if a state is a party in a case? (art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2)
    Klaus Lindner

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | December 3, 2014 | Reply

  31. Have you written anything about the incorporation doctrine, where the bill of rights are applied to the states?

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | October 16, 2014 | Reply

  32. Of course you’re correct. I was just relating to the “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property with out due process of law” in the fourteenth amendment. The left always hangs their hat on the “any person” when calling for due process hearings. My only thought was that if the hearings were required, why not have them in their country of origin. Long ago our judges travelled circuits so why couldn’t they now in these cases.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | October 6, 2014 | Reply

    • Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment applied only to freed slaves to grant citizenship to them and to protect them from southern Black codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship. THIS has been proved. Read my paper under the category “14th Amendment”.

      Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment has NOTHING to do with anything else: It has nothing to do with killing babies, homosexual acts, homosexual marriage, and illegals sneaking over the border. Study the paper – yes it is complicated – but we all must learn of the twisted minds of the judges whom the presidents we elect appoint to the federal courts – and whom the US Senators we elect confirm.

      YES, I blame the AMERICAN PEOPLE for all our problems.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 6, 2014 | Reply

  33. Could the federal government immediately deport illegal immigrants, when apprehended, to their countries of origin if congress established circut immigration courts in our embassies in various foreign countries. The immigration judges could travel circuits, like in the old days, to different countries to conduct the individuals due process hearings.

    Like

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | October 6, 2014 | Reply

    • That’s interesting, Klaus.

      I don’t know that our federal government would need immigration judges. I don’t see why the fed gov’t couldn’t just put these people on a bus or airplane and transport them back to their Country of origin. Do you happen to know whether in the past the fed gov’t did as you suggest?

      It is fundamental that Countries have the right to control their borders so as to prevent people from entering. I don’t see why we need to give illegal invaders a hearing before we return them. If they don’t have a Visa, then they shouldn’t be here. SEND THEM BACK!

      I traveled much abroad in the past. Each Country has its own rules for being allowed to visit. Why should I expect to be exempted from the rules? If I wanted to visit a country, I found out what I needed to do to get a visa. If I sneaked in w/o a visa, I wouldn’t expect a hearing – in some of the countries I entered, I would expect to be shot!

      We have forfeiture laws now in this land where your money can be taken from you with no warrant and no charges against you, and you don’t get a hearing! But an illegal alien can sneak in here and he gets a hearing? Rubbish. He’s lucky to be deported and not shot. Oh, if the alien has money on him, charge him for his transportation back home. No discount.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 6, 2014 | Reply

  34. Section 16. Grand juries—composition—jurisdiction to convene—powers.—
    That a grand jury shall consist of twelve citizens, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment or a true bill: Provided, that no grand jury shall be convened except upon an order of a judge of a court having the power to try and determine felonies; but when so assembled such grand jury shall have power to investigate and return indictments for all character and grades of crime; and that the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith, shall never be suspended.

    I do not understand why Judge would constitute a Grand Jury for purposes of “inquiring into willful misconduct”. What is your legal and functional analysis of this State Constitution Article I, Section 16? An inquiry should be impromptu, and oversight, not something a federal district judge needs to constitute.

    Like

    Comment by Jordan James | October 4, 2014 | Reply

    • Jordan, I must get a formal paper out on this – but all my time has been focused on trying to stop an Article V convention.

      It appears you are quoting from a State Constitution. Bearing in mind that I can not construe Article I, Section 16 of your State Constitution in pari materia with anything else your Constitution says which is related to criminal procedure, I offer the following general observations about the purpose of a grand jury.

      But first, we must understand the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE that the civil government “holds the sword”. That means that only the civil government may lawfully prosecute crimes and punish convicted persons. The reason for this PRINCIPLE is to avoid “vigilante justice” – where mobs go out with torches and pitchforks (or white robes and hoods) – and string up whomever the mob has decided is guilty of a crime.

      So, on the State level, suspected crimes are prosecuted by prosecuting attorneys who are (for the most part – if not in all States) elected by The People. These prosecuting attorneys are the ones who decide whom they will prosecute and whom they will not prosecute. The idea, of course, is that The People are RESPONSIBLE for electing competent and honest criminal law attorneys to the office of Prosecutor.

      The purpose of a grand jury has always been – and is – to serve as a body of citizen advisers to the Prosecutor.

      In the criminal justice system [and I speak from personal professional experience], the Criminal Division of the Court System summons Citizens to serve on the Grand Jury [REMEMBER: the civil government “holds the sword”]. This is a mere ministerial function of following the procedures set out in State Law for selecting names and sending out the summonses to Citizens notifying them that they are to appear for purposes of serving on the grand jury. Once these Citizens are sworn in, they have the following functions:

      1. The Prosecutor may present to them evidence he has gathered respecting so & so’s suspected criminal activity – and the Prosecutor basically asks: “Do you think I have enough evidence here to prosecute so & so for the crime of such & such?” If the members of the grand jury think there is sufficient evidence to prosecute so & so for that crime – they return an “Indictment”. If they don’t think there is sufficient evidence, then they refuse to Indict. Their opinion is advisory only.

      2. When the grand jury is assembled, they may also ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE inquire into the “willful misconduct in office of public officers”. And if they decide that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a public officer for willful misconduct in public office, then they issue a “Presentment

      The Prosecutor is not required to prosecute those against whom the grand jury has issued a Presentment. The Prosecutor is the lawyer and is the one who has been elected to bear the responsibility of making the final decision as to who will be prosecuted for what. For example, citizen grand jurors might want a prosecution against an individual over whom the Court has no jurisdiction! E.g, a STATE criminal court has no jurisdiction to prosecute obama for being an ineligible fraud; or Holder for being an incompetent, dishonest boob.

      See? THAT is how the grand jury system is set up and how it works. Be very careful of the “common law grand jury” movement – they do not know what they are talking about.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 5, 2014 | Reply

  35. How do I sign up to receive your blog? I unintentionally clicked on “unfollow” on the wordpress site and I can not find how to re-up to receive your blog. Please help. Bill Lopotko

    Like

    Comment by Bill Lopotko | September 19, 2014 | Reply

    • Bill, Go to my Home page and scroll down till you get to the photo of me. Under that you will see – on the right of the page – the info on “Follow blog via email” and “sign me up!”
      And thank you!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 19, 2014 | Reply

  36. You have expressed, I hear, an constructive critique of the premise and spirit of NationalLiberationAlliance.org. Would you please provide your thoughts accordingly?

    Like

    Comment by Jordan James | September 17, 2014 | Reply

    • Hummm, I don’t recall doing so. Isn’t that a South American movement? I’m not familiar with the organization – but it sounds sinister. Is it?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 17, 2014 | Reply


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: