Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution



  1. 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!


    Comment by Bigun | September 10, 2015 | Reply

  2. 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?


    Comment by SilentNoMore | September 6, 2015 | Reply

  3. 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, and he impresses me as more of a libertarian than socialist.


    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.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 3, 2015 | Reply

  4. 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. Enjoy it. It is well worth reading.


    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”:
      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.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 1, 2015 | Reply

  5. 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


    Comment by Jim Greaves | July 31, 2015 | Reply

  6. 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”.


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

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


    Comment by George Miller | April 26, 2015 | Reply

  8. 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?


    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.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 16, 2015 | Reply

  9. 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?


    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….


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 7, 2015 | Reply

  10. 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?


    Comment by Jeanniemac | March 1, 2015 | Reply

  11. 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.


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

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


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 23, 2015 | Reply

  12. 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.


    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.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 15, 2015 | Reply

  13. 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.



    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…..


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 13, 2015 | Reply

  14. 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?


    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.


      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?


      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.


        Comment by Publius Huldah | January 12, 2015 | Reply

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


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

  16. “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?


    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.


      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.”


        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.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 10, 2014 | Reply

  17. 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


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

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


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

  19. 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.


    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.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 6, 2014 | Reply

  20. 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.


    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.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 6, 2014 | Reply

  21. 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.


    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.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 5, 2014 | Reply

  22. 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


    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!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 19, 2014 | Reply

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


    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?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 17, 2014 | Reply

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 )

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,052 other followers

%d bloggers like this: