Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Daily Commentary

The NAZIS were NOT “right wing”!

We often hear people parroting words to the effect that the communists & socialists are “left” wing, and the NAZIS are “right” wing.

The mindset thus instilled into those who hear & believe this rubbish is that tyranny is at both ends of the political spectrum; so the best place to be is right smack dab in the middle!

And they don’t know what is in the middle except that it involves not taking a position.

This is an illustration of mass manipulation of a peoples’ belief system.  It is destructive because people believe there is no alternative to tyranny.

The lie that NAZIS are “right wing” has been disseminated in order to deceive the unthinking.

Someone said recently that “anti-semitism is on the rise on the ‘far right’ as well as the left”.

Sadly, it is true that anti-semitism is on the rise.  But it is not on the rise among people who love our Founding Principles as set forth in our Declaration of Independence, and in the original intent of our Constitution.

The German NAZIS and the American neo-NAZIS are NOT “far right”!

“NAZI” is the acronym for “Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”.   The literal English translation is, “national socialist German workers’ party”.

The NAZIS were socialists! They were “national” socialists, as contrasted with Marx & Engels who were “international” socialists.

NAZIS have been called “far right” in order to sabotage the thinking of the American people. This is how the sabotage works: The Communists are “far left”. The NAZIS are “far right”. Gee! I better be in the middle – a moderate!

So under this false model, both “extremes” are presented as bad. Only the moderate middle is good. And the best alternative [limited constitutional civil government] does not appear at all.

But the TRUTH is that collectivism with all its variants (communism, fascism, Fabian socialism, syndicalism, etc.) are all on the same side [collectivism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, terror, & government tyranny]. The distinctions between these variants are only minor and technical.

The alternative to all of them is limited constitutional civil government – such as our Framers gave us.

The above insight, which should be obvious to anyone who knows a bit of German or who can think, is not original with me.  Ayn Rand pointed it out somewhere many decades ago…..

June 9, 2013.

*     *     *

The U.S. government is NOT a Private Corporation!

Here is a really silly video which says things which are not true:

But I will tell you the Truth on this issue:

The US Code is complex. [It shouldn’t be, but it is.]

1. Let’s look at 28 USC §3002 (15): It is found within Title 28, Part VI, Ch. 176, Subchapter A, United States Code.

So let’s break that down:

Title 28, United States Code, deals with the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Part VI – deals with Particular [legal] Proceedings.

Ch. 176 – deals with Federal Debt Collection Procedure

Subchapter A, §3002 provides definitions for the terms used in Ch. 176.

Subsection (15) provides a definition for “United States” which includes “a federal corporation”.


One may not properly look at a tiny subsection within a federal act except in the context of the act as a whole. The “federal act” here is “The Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act”, which is codified at 28 United States Code §§ 3001-3015.

2. So what is “a federal corporation”? This site gives a simple and excellent explanation:

“A federal corporation is an entity created by the U.S. Congress to perform a public service. The Congress creates a federal corporation by passing a law that defines the size, purpose, structure, and authority of the entity. The U.S. Postal Service, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are examples of federal corporations.”

Here is a list of the various federal corporations which have been created by Congress:

So the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is an example of one of the federal corporations which have been created by Congress.

Congress has been creating corporations (such as the FDIC and the Postal Service) to perform the various “public services”. The post office is a “lawful” corporation (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 7).  The FDIC is unlawful because there is no constitutional authority for the FDIC.

So the United States government is NOT a  private corporation. The federal government is NOT a private corporation. But Congress has been making laws to create “public service” corporations which are generically referred to as “federal corporations”.

Say you owe Amtrak money – you have been shipping your products on their trains and you owe for freight charges. Well, this Act applies to you. For purposes of the Act – to collect the debt from you – Amtrack is classified as a “federal corporation”. It is a “corporation” formed by Congress. Amtrack is unconstitutional (b/c it is not authorized by the Constitution). However, you were using it to ship your products and so you must pay for the service. If you don’t pay, Amtrack has the right to sue you for what you owe.

So, when dealing with such complex statutory schemes, one must read each provision in the CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE.

We have a terrible problem with the ignorant rubbish put out and pushed by the people on our side who don’t know what they are talking about. It really is immoral to speak on matters of which one is ignorant.

 May 25, 2013.

April 25, 2021 update:  See this excellent article by Attorney Larry Becraft, “United States of America is Not a Private Corporation: Analysis of the “Act of 1871″ Nonsense”

 *     *     *

The Straight Scoop on Impeachment:

1. It is NOT necessary that the president, other officers in the executive branch, or federal judges commit a felony before they may be impeached & removed.

Alexander Hamilton points out in Federalist Paper No. 66 (2nd para) & Federalist Paper No. 77 (last para), that the president may be impeached & removed for encroachments, i.e., usurpations.

He points out in Federalist Paper No. 81 (8th para), that federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations.

2. Throughout The Federalist Papers, it is stated that impeachment is for “political offenses”.

3. The House has the SOLE power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2, last clause).  The Senate has the SOLE power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3, next to last clause).   The decision to convict is not reviewable by any other body – and common sense tells us what that means!   The House may impeach, and the Senate may convict, for any reason whatsoever; and their decision cannot be overturned.

4.  The language at Art. II, Sec. 4. about “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is far broader than one might at first glance think.  Somewhere I saw a scholarly paper showing that the “high” refers to the status of the official – it does not refer to the severity of the offense.

Now!  Pay close attention:  “Misdemeanor” has a much broader meaning than a lesser category of criminal offenses.  Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows the primary meaning of “misdemeanor” to be:

“Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.”

This shows – proves – that a president, vice-president, and all civil Officers of the United States may be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office for “mismanagement”.

“Mismanagement” and “encroachments” have never before been so aptly applied to a civil authority as to Obama, Hillary, and their minions; except, perhaps to Nero, who also fiddled while Rome burned.

Errant members of Congress are never impeached – they are expelled (Art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2).

Military personnel are never impeached – they are court-martialed (see UCMJ – Uniform Code of Military Justice).

NOTE:  See updated version -which answers questions People had – here:

May 9, 2013

*     *     *

Are Opinions of the Supreme Court Really “Supreme”?

The supreme Court claims that their decisions are “settled law”.  And this is what all American law students are told in law school.   Accordingly, 99.999% of American Lawyers (most of whom are incapable of independent thought) accepted the indoctrination and believe that EVERYTHING the supreme Court does is “the final word”; that they are gods; and that once they have ruled on an issue, the issue is “settled”.

But the Truth is that the opinions of the supreme Court are nothing more than opinions in the cases before them.

Furthermore, they rule on a whole host of issues they have no constitutional authority to decide.  See, e.g.,

The supreme Court has been usurping power for a very long time.  They usurp power when they rule on cases they have no authority to hear.  Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 lists the categories of cases they are permitted to hear.

Now look at the “supremacy clause” at Article VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution:  Are supreme Court opinions part of the “supreme Law of the Land”?

Of course not!   It is astonishing that progressives get away with the Lie that supreme Court opinions are “settled law”.

Is there a remedy?  Of course!  Our Framers were very wise men.  Federal judges serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1); and when they usurp powers, impeachment is the proper remedy (Federalist Paper No. 81, 8th para, Alexander Hamilton).

It is not true that federal judges have “lifetime appointments”!

March 21, 2013.

*     *     *

May the Federal Government Lawfully Make ANY Restrictions on  Our Guns & Ammo?

By Publius Huldah.


When you look at it from the perspective of limiting the federal government to its “enumerated powers”, it all becomes very easy and clear.  We haven’t been looking at it this way because we are so ignorant of our Constitution that we don’t know that it delegates  “enumerated powers” only to the federal government.

The Truth is, that when WE THE PEOPLE “created” the federal government, we itemized (“enumerated”) in the Constitution all the powers WE delegated to it.

We nowhere delegated to any branch of the federal government power to restrict, infringe, etc., guns, ammo, etc.

So any federal laws or BATF rules for the Country at large which purport to restrict, infringe, etc., guns or ammo, are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government in Our Constitution.

THIS is what we need to get people to understand.  Their misplaced focus on the 2nd Amendment as being the “source” of our right to keep & bear arms, has been a disaster:

Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, enumerates the powers of the federal courts – it lists the types of cases they may hear.  One category of case they may hear is “all cases or controversies arising under this Constitution”. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution.  That is how they claimed judicial power to decide the scope and extent of our “rights” under the 2nd Amendment; and hence, what federal restrictions on our “2nd Amendment rights” are  “reasonable”.

Do you NOW see why you must point to The Declaration of Independence (2nd para) and  assert that your right to keep and bear arms – to self-defense – comes from GOD and is Unalienable?

PEOPLE!  Wake up!   The federal government has only “enumerated powers”.   NOWHERE in the Constitution did we delegate to the federal government  authority to impose ANY restrictions on guns, ammo, etc.  They violate Our Constitution when they impose these restrictions.

And YES, private American citizens can have armed ships!  Remember the Privateers who fought the British ships in the War of 1812?  Remember Letters of Marque & Reprisal (Art.I, Sec. 8, cl. 11)?  Our Framers contemplated an American People who were so heavily armed that they could be Privateers, as well as wreak vengeance on our enemies via letters of Marque & Reprisal.

So be a patriot and buy a tank …  or an armed ship!

Currier print

Originally, Congress had no problem with the Right of Citizens  to own  Warships.   During some of our early conflicts,  Congress would contract  (Letters of Marque) with the owners to assist our Navy and raid enemy ships.
‘In this painting the American privateer, General Armstrong, fires on British ships during the War of 1812′ (painting by Nathaniel Currier, courtesy Library of Congress, LC-USZC2-1904).

Many Thanks to Grumpy Opinions for the photo and his caption

Oh! And do read this on the BURN BARRELS!   This is how manly men & womanly women act in response to tyranny:

January 29, 2013

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

*     *     *
Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws

The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be armed) can’t be repealed because to do so would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws”.

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

Of course we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc.

In addition, the 2nd Amendment recognizes this God-given right.

Our Framers were all for an armed American People – they understood that arms are our ultimate defense in the event the federal government oversteps its bounds (see, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46).

Furthermore, the federal government is nowhere in the Constitution granted authority to restrict, in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, ALL laws made by Congress, ALL regulations made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BAFT), are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it would not be an ex post facto law.

People shouldn’t sling around terms, the meanings of which, they do not understand. It is immoral.  So always ask someone who really knows.

If TRUTH spread as rapidly as lies, our problems would have been resolved long ago.  If People loved TRUTH more than they love lies, we wouldn’t have gotten into this trouble in the first place.

We must stop forwarding and circulating stuff until we have checked it out!

December 31, 2012.
*     *     *     *

Restrict Spending To The Enumerated Powers:  That’s How We Balance The Budget!

What those who ignorantly support the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) overlook is that our Constitution is one of enumerated powers only.  That means that everything which WE authorized the federal government to do is actually listed in the Constitution.

Look at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 3-16:  It lists – itemizes – most of the powers WE THE PEOPLE delegated to Congress.

Now this is the Key:  Congress is authorized to spend money ONLY on the enumerated objects of its powers.  I.e., Congress may spend money on operating a patent office because issuing patents and copyrights is an enumerated power delegated to Congress.  See: Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8.

But Congress is NOT authorized to appropriate funds to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink alcohol responsibly.  That is not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress.

Congress is NOT authorized to appropriate funds to provide medical care to old people or poor people.  That is not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress.

SO!  It is the list of Congress’ enumerated powers which is to control and limit its spending.

See, e.g., this paper:

at the subheading, Article I, §8, clauses 1-16: What it Really Means.

That is how Congress is to control its spending:  They may lawfully appropriate funds ONLY on the  objects of its enumerated powers.

So, Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, requires Congress to periodically publish the list of what it has appropriated funds for (e.g., such and such amount for salaries of federal judges [authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 9 and Art. III, Sec. 1]; such and such amount to build ships for the Navy [authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 13]; and such and such amount to pay the salaries of the people who mint the coins and the guards at the mint (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 5).

Congress is also required by Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause to publish the receipts it took in.

Our Constitution contemplated that the federal government would obtain its revenue [which was to be spent ONLY on the enumerated objects of Congress’ powers] in two basic ways:  (1)  import & export tariffs, excise taxes (e.g., tax on whiskey) and  (2) apportioned contributions from the States.

So, if the federal government had a shortfall in its constitutionally authorized expenditures on the enumerated objects, and the revenues from the tariffs and excise taxes, the federal government would make up the shortfall from the States.  The amount due from each State would be apportioned based on population [Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3]

Congress never had a “budget” until the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.  The Progressives wanted to substitute a “budget” for the enumerated powers.

This was the beginning of the wholesale ignoring of Our Constitution.

Do you see?

December 22, 2012


WARNING AGAINST A CON-CON  (a/k/a “Art. V Convention”)

Rob Natelson can’t be a big States’ rights guy – I expect that is a mere pretense to sucker people into supporting him in his push for a con con – the same kind of deceit & trickery which got the American People to support various disastrous Amendments to the Constitution (such as the 17th).

I expect the ploy is this: One pretends to be for something (e.g., the 10th Amendment) in order to induce the supporters of THAT to trust the deceiver on another issue (e.g., a con con).

Perhaps I should write a formal rebuttal of the two glossy pdf’s two nefarious organizations are disseminating in order to deceive State legislators throughout the Country into supporting a con con.   I hadn’t before b/c others have already done such a great job of explaining why – if there is a con con – our existing Constitution is CERTAIN to be superseded.  The national Eagle Forum website has a page with several papers and letters on the dangers of a con con; and the late Henry Lamb wrote a short and brilliant paper, “No, no con-con” which you can read here:

Also, here is an excellent (though longish) explanation of the certain perils of a con con from the American Policy Center.

In a nutshell, the TRUTH is this: That if there is a con-con, Congress “calls” it (see Art. V). Congress [the ones who gave us $16 trillion in debt] will have the power to appoint the delegates, since they are the ones who “call” it.  Congress may appoint whomever they wish: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John “The Backbone” Boehner, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, every wacky left wing law professor in the country, and those who pretend to be all for the 10th Amendment while they connive to take Our Constitution away from us altogether.

Some people are laboring under the delusion that the States will get to appoint delegates – but they really are delusional. CONGRESS “calls” it – so CONGRESS APPOINTS THE DELEGATES. CONGRESS WILL APPOINT DELEGATES WHO WILL DO WHAT CONGRESS WANTS.

And we all know what a great job CONGRESS has done in controlling spending and in overseeing judicial nominations and in controlling the innumerable usurpations of the  Executive Branch!

IT WAS CONGRESS WHO RAMMED OBAMCARE DOWN OUR THROATS. Now, we want a con con where  CONGRESS will appoint the delegates?

Supporters of a con con also tell us the monstrous lie that we need not worry, b/c whatever the con con comes up with will have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. But THAT is a requirement of Our Existing Constitution – the new Constitution may well set up an entirely different mode of ratification – e.g., a majority vote of Congress.

So, the proponents of a con con are either the biggest liars in the history of our Country, or they are the most gullible people ever, or they are truly stupid, or they are mentally ill, or they are incapable of rational thought and analysis.

There is no innocent explanation – THIS is the greatest danger our Country has ever faced. THIS is their opportunity to take away our guns, ban Christianity, eliminate private property, legalize a whole host of new perversions, etc.

WHY would we agree to give this power to CONGRESS? Remember! Whoever appoints the delegates determines the outcome.   CONGRESS won’t send people like James Madison and George Washington to a con con.

November 28, 2012

*  *  *  *  *  *

What Would Really Happen if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned by SCOTUS?

Liberals/progressives say their constituency should vote for obama because if Romney is elected, he will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade; and this [so they say] will mean the end of abortion in our Country.

Since abortion is a Sacrament to the left, they can think of nothing worse than outlawing the baby-killing they so delight in.

So when obama/biden tell their blood-hungry constituency that a Romney Presidency would mean the end of baby-killing, they fall for it.

But let us look at the Truth:

Roe v. Wade is merely an opinion issued in a lawsuit by SCOTUS.  What it purported to do was to overturn all STATE Statutes (“laws”) which outlawed abortion. If a future SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, it would merely return the issue to each of the 50 States [where it belongs] for each of them to decide what to do about it.   Some State Legislatures would outlaw it, others would permit it.

So it is not true to say that overturning Roe v. Wade would result in the outlawing of abortion throughout our land.

To get the issue back before SCOTUS, all that is needed is (1) a case where abortion is an issue and (2) SCOTUS would need to accept review – agree to hear it (or as lawyers say, “accept cert”). It would not be difficult to get this back before SCOTUS! Some State legislatures would need to get some Spine & Moral Character and then pass strict anti-abortion laws for their States. Then the baby killers will file suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the anti-abortion state statutes. Whoever loses takes it up to the US Circuit Court of Appeals. Whoever loses there asks SCOTUS to accept review. Piece of cake!

Of course, the better course of action by far is for the States to wake up and Remember that they are Sovereign – that decisions about abortion is one of the powers retained by The States and The People – that power over abortion was never delegated to the federal government, and that SCOTUS’ opinions on the same are irrelevant as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government and to that Court.

October 24, 2012

Jury Nullification in Criminal Trials in Federal District Court

OK! You have been summoned for jury duty (“petty jury”) for a trial in federal district court. Here are a few things you need to know:

1. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, shows that the federal courts are granted permission to hear several categories of cases. You may be called to be a juror in either a “criminal” case or a “civil” case.

a) A criminal case would most likely involve an alleged violation of the U.S. (i.e., federal) criminal code.

b) A civil case would most likely involve a case between citizens residing in different States over some non-criminal issue as breach of contract, negligence, etc.

2. The issue of jury nullification arises in criminal cases where Defendant is charged with an unjust, unfair, or unconstitutional federal [or State] law.   E.g., the “crime” of failing to buy health insurance.

Here is the Issue: Even if the Prosecutor proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant failed to buy health insurance, do you, as a Juror, have the Right – or the Duty – to refuse to convict?

a) The Prosecutor & the Judge insist that you do NOT have that Right! In fact, the Judge is most likely to instruct you that if you find – as a matter of FACT – that Defendant failed to buy health insurance, then you MUST find him guilty.

b) Defense counsel desperately wants to tell you that the Judge is lying to you, and wants to tell you about your Right – really, your “Duty” – of Jury Nullification. BUT JUDGES DO NOT ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SO INFORM YOU! They will jail defense counsel for contempt before defense counsel can tell you.

3. So I will show you here that Jurors have the Right  – the DUTY, really – of Nullification in criminal cases in federal courts. Art. III, Sec. 2, last clause, U.S. Constitution, says:

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury…”

Now note the entry for “Jury” in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

“…Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions…” [emphasis added]

When Our Constitution was ratified, our Framers understood that Jurors had the Right to decide the law in criminal trials! This means that the Jurors have the Right to judge the “law”. And if you find the law unfair, unreasonable, unconstitutional, unfairly applied, that Defendant has been unfairly singled out,  or whatever; then you have the right – the Duty, really – (in a criminal case) to find the Defendant NOT GUILTY.

Alexander Hamilton, a lawyer, was well aware of the problem of unjust criminal statutes. He says in Federalist No. 83 (12th para):

“… arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared to me to be the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all relation to criminal proceedings….” [emphasis added]

4. But the Judge in the case where you are a Juror will probably require you to take an Oath that you will follow the Law as  s/he explains it to you and that if you find that Defendant violated the Statute, then you MUST find him guilty.

If you say anything about “judging the law” or “is the Statute under which Defendant is charged constitutional”, then the Prosecutor will kick you off the Jury “for cause”.

Before the trial starts, both counsel have the right to ask potential Jurors questions during “voir dire” to determine whether each will be a good Juror for their side.  You are under Oath to tell the Truth when you are being so questioned.  So, if the prosecutor asks you about “Jury Nullification”, do you know about it, do you agree with it,  YOU MUST TELL THE TRUTH!  You don’t want to be tried for perjury. 

But you have the right to assume that the Judge is fair & impartial and will obey the Constitution (since s/he took an Oath to do so – Art. VI, clauses 2 & 3). So, when you take the Juror’s Oath, you have the right to assume that the Judge will obey the Constitution.

But once you are seated, and find out what Defendant is charged with, and hear the evidence,  and learn to your shock & horror that the Prosecutor & the Judge both spit on the Constitution they each swore to support,  and you then go into the Jury Room to deliberate;  you must do as your conscience dictates.

5. Here is a very good short article written by a law professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia: “Jurors’ Handbook A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty”:

There is much on that web site. I had concerns about some of the stuff, and I didn’t have time to read everything on the site.  But what the law professor says in the linked paper is Right On! PH

August 28, 2012


The Opinion of Obama Puppet John Roberts upholding obamacare:

We have seen several articles recently which purport to show how John Roberts did us all a great favor by upholding obamacare.

It is astonishing that anyone could be so easily deceived.  Yet, some are!  “Talisker” is one  who is deceived – see his post at Free Republic

In Truth, Robert’s opinion has probably done more to destroy our Country than anything which ever before spewed from the fetid minds of the judges on the supreme Court.

First, let’s look at what Our Constitution actually says about the powers of the federal government to tax:

1. The Constitution is specific about the types of taxes Congress may impose:

(a) “Direct taxes” which must be apportioned. A “direct tax” is a tax paid directly to the federal government. The original idea was that the federal government would assess each State it’s pro rata share of the tax bill based on population. So if the federal government needed $100,000., it would assess each State it’s pro rata share based on its population and the States would collect it from the People.   See  Art. I, §2, cl. 3 & Art. I, §9, cl. 4.

(b) Import tariffs and excise taxes on certain articles of commerce: These taxes are paid by the consumer to the seller who then sends it to the federal government.   Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Art. I, §9, cl. 1 [which permitted Congress to levy an import tax on slaves brought here]; Art. I, §9, cl. 5 [which prohibited the levying of taxes on articles exported from any State]; Art. I, §9, cl. 6 [which prohibited the assessment of taxes on ships traveling from State to State]; and Art. I, §10, cl. 2 & 3 restricted the powers of States to levy certain taxes in commerce.

(c) A tax on incomes– 16th Amendment.  Not Estates.  Not gifts, just “incomes”.

So!  Our Constitution is very specific about the kinds of taxes which the federal government is permitted to assess and collect!

2. Furthermore, the purposes for which Congress may lay and collect taxes are limited by its enumerated powers! So it may lay and collect taxes (of the 3 types authorized) to fund the military, pay the salaries of the people at the patent & copyright office, etc.; but it may NOT levy and collect taxes to fund programs which are not among the enumerated powers.  I prove the foregoing in this paper:

3. What John Roberts did was to look at Art. I, §8, cl. 1 and say it permits Congress to levy any kind of tax it wants for any purpose whatsoever.

It is the final destruction of our Constitution.

Roberts should be impeached, tried, convicted, kicked off the bench and prohibited from ever holding federal office again (Art. I, §3, last clause). And the bars of which he is a member, should disbar him.  It is clear that federal judges may be impeached – and should be – for usurpations of power (Federalist Paper No. 81, 8th para, Alexander Hamilton). PH

July 24, 2012

*   *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Four Ways to Get Rid of Obamacare:

1.  The supreme Court may declare obamacare unconstitutional when this case gets to them.   Anthony Kennedy is the “swing vote”, and court watchers tend to think Kennedy will vote that obamacare is unconstitutional.

2. The President has the power and the duty (imposed by his Oath of Office) to refuse to implement it.  He should issue an Executive Order directing federal executive agencies not to implement obamacare.  But this requires us to elect a President with a BRAIN and a SPINE  who will actually HONOR HIS OATH  to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.  If we did, obamacare could be dead as soon as the new President takes office.

3. Congress could repeal it – but we have to send people to Congress who will do this.

4. State officials are required by their oaths of office (Art. VI, 3rd clause, U.S. Constitution) to refuse to implement obamacare.

It really is in the hands of The People.  We just don’t seem to have the wisdom to elect people who will honor and obey The Constitution.  We go by image & personality.  Watch all the gushing among the people on our side over their candidate of choice for the nomination:  None of the discussion is about obeying Our Constitution.  We are like silly high school girls gushing over a silly boy. PH October 1, 2011.


  1. First, I would like to thank you for this article. Wholesome in the truth indeed. Secondly, I would expand on the 2A and how federalism works. As it all about actual federalism. As it is all about a State’s right to Miltias and (co)operation between the State and federal government. It is correct that we have the unalienable right to arms, though how “reasonable” is defined by a State’s Constitution. Hence why in many cases, in many States, is to having an exceptional Sheriff and State Constitution.
    Thirdly, I would of expanded some more on the 16th Amendment, and how unconstitutional it is. Not only by how it is structured, but it is not a direct tax, arguments from the Carriage Tax.
    All in all, nicely done. A couple of people that I look to and found their research to be accurate are History Prof. Kevin Gutzman and Catholic Constitutional historian Mike Church. Both have published works, and “must reads”.


    Comment by J. Heyer | April 3, 2020 | Reply

    • 1. Yes, the concept of “federalism” is something all should understand, but few do. This Chart illustrates the “federal” structure of our government. The States united ONLY for the purposes of the handful of powers our Constitution delegates to the national government. For all other purposes, the States were to remain separate and independent

      2. It is also important that Citizens gain a clear understanding of the “Militia of the several States” and of the right to keep and bear arms. Start reading the posts at the top of this link and then go down the list:

      3. Whether it was actually ratified or not, the 16th Amendment is considered by the powers that be to be part of the Constitution. Don’t waste your time – and that of others – by insisting that it is not constitutional. ANYTHING which is authorized by the Constitution is by definition “constitutional”.

      4. I wouldn’t believe a word Kevin Gutzman says. He is a supporter of Compact for America’s version of a “balanced budget amendment”. Their proposed amendment to the US Constitution is a nasty piece of work: It’s being sold as a device to scare Congress, to control federal spending, etc.; but it actually grants massive new taxing powers to Congress. I have several papers about it here: Kevin Gutzman has no excuse for supporting such a deceptive and evil scheme as Compact for America’s deceptive amendment.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 3, 2020 | Reply

  2. Blacks Law Dictionary defines the UNITED STATES as a corporation.


    Comment by Robin | April 5, 2018 | Reply

    • Please quote the definition Black’s gives AND link to the site where Black’s says that.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2018 | Reply

  3. I do dislike posting in the comment section, other than the topic of discussion. Nonetheless, PH, I only learned of your blog from pumabydesign, another blogger that I follow, only a short period ago did I know anything about you, so I was cautious in a comment on your meeting in Virginia, and not until I did my research, do I see where your stand is and what the intent of your ideology is delineated. I want to congratulate you on your blog, your knowledge, and foundational intent of being a great (one of the best) on constitutional issues, and our nation, there may be times that I disagree and yet other times that I do, which is what I consider a healthy resource and a great blog to read and follow. A blog that I will re-blog and site in my writing as well.
    I thank you for the work that you do, and the discussions you generate.

    R.S. Helms …


    Comment by R.S. HELMS | November 10, 2016 | Reply

  4. Re- the federal gun control video: It goes black with audio to. @3-4 min. mark then; comes back on then goes to black screen again @ the 5:24 mark if the timer is operating properly. I didn’t have time to observe the rest.

    I’ve been directing a lot of viewers to see that video. I’m teaching my 13 year old granddaughter the Publiushulda way, and I know you will like to hear my son has taught her how to us a 28 gage Skeet & Trap gun…a regular Annie Oakley. I taught him and he taught her and she can out shoot both of us after one year.


    Comment by Con Ma | October 20, 2016 | Reply

    • Thanks, I’ll check it out.

      I encourage all to learn and obey the Constitution and to listen to our Framers. I am merely a teacher of what they said and wrote!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 20, 2016 | Reply

  5. hello PH, just a note your federal gun control video has a glitch in it. I guess there are a lot of people boneing up on the 2nd. amendment:-)


    Comment by Con Ma | October 19, 2016 | Reply

    • what’s the glitch?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 19, 2016 | Reply

  6. Now that I am starting to understand how dumb the political types and most others are about or God given right’s, what can I do to help you?


    Comment by Michael Hall | October 12, 2016 | Reply

    • We need more TEACHERS of TRUTH!

      And we need to find out how to teach the American People how to distinguish between the liars and the Truth tellers. They must learn to make others PROVE what they say; and stop accepting on blind faith that what others say is true.

      And people must learn to lay aside their precious “opinions”, and start looking at FACTS and FIXED PRINCIPLES.

      If you look at the comments posted all over the internet, you will see that most people just spout off their opinions. But our “opinions” are worthless. All that is important is FACTS and TRUTH and PRINCIPLES.

      We are drowning in ignorant opinions.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 12, 2016 | Reply

  7. Obama edict (executive order) (ddtc) applies to export of manufactured weapons.

    however, he is applying it to local gun smiths who repair or replace worn or damaged parts thereof. This sounds like a nullification candidate. Article-Section- & Clause. if congress can’t do it neither can POTUS.

    Don’t miss the Florida Gun Show this Saturday & Sunday.


    Comment by Con Ma | August 2, 2016 | Reply

    • Yes, the president has no authority to issue such executive orders. All manly men and womanly women will ignore it.

      Why do Americans elect to Congress people who let the president get away with murder?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 2, 2016 | Reply

  8. Is there any validity to this video which claims that there is no law regarding the establishment of The Federal income tax.

    I suspect that with the for ever lying people in office for the last 7-1/2 years that it is to discombobulate the people and disrupt income to feed the Federal system. I just read that 6 U.S. Aircraft Carriers at sea, that would be the most Carriers at sea for a very long time: what’s up? I’m thinking disinformation like the communists and George Soros who supported BO and now Killary.


    Comment by Con Ma | June 18, 2016 | Reply

    • I don’t have time to watch the video. I didn’t practice in this area. So I have no personal knowledge one way or the other.

      However, I have come across attorneys who specialized in defending people charged with violating federal tax laws. If you will go to this paper,

      and read what I said about Mark Levin’s phony amendment “to limit federal taxing” and the footnote to that discussion, you will know all that I know about the subject.

      The website I link to was suggested to me by one of the criminal defense tax lawyers whom I have known.

      That said, I would never advise an individual to refuse to file and pay taxes b/c such could get the person criminally prosecuted and put into prison.

      And from what I have heard from some of these criminal defense lawyers, not all federal judges want to hear any arguments against the income tax.

      Again: Our problem isn’t the income tax. Our problem is that Americans send to Congress people who REFUSE to obey the Constitution and who are too cowardly to stand up and turn things around.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 18, 2016 | Reply

  9. Publius/Huldah,

    You have used a word or words that is used to describe the “structural system of codification”, (my characterization)

    I recall that you used it in explaining the manner that Vattel used to structure his work.

    I copied and pasted with the intent to research it and now can not find it in my files or various google searches hoping it would show up.

    If you please, please post in reply.

    Want to improve this site


    Comment by slcraignbc | December 10, 2015 | Reply

    • SLC,
      Re the format for Vattel’s Laws of Nations:
      There are various American legal encyclopedias: Corpus Juris Secundum, American Jurisprudence, etc. These are written in the standard format for legal encyclopedias: The subject is exhaustively examined, and the paragraphs are numbered. To completely examine a topic, many pages and more paragraphs are required – to understand the subject, one must read the entire Chapter.

      Vattel’s Laws of Nations is in this format. The paragraphs in his Chapter on natural born citizen are numbered. In order to understand the concept, one must read and ponder THE ENTIRE CHAPTER. But many Americans are so lazy and shallow that they read only one paragraph; think they know all about it; and so go out into the internet world and spread the misunderstanding which came about because of their own laziness. Anyone who insists that to be a natural born citizen, one must be born in this Country, is a lazy & shallow person who didn’t read past the first paragraph! Irresponsible, too. Actually, it is immoral to pontificate on matters of which one is ignorant.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 12, 2015 | Reply

  10. You are my go-to source for Constitutional questions so I read your blog about “government is not a corporation.” One thing bothers me, though. You say, “Here is a list of the various federal corporations which have been created by Congress:” as though you are OK with the list including each state, with a link to that state’s webpage. I thought that the states created Congress.
    I would like any information you can provide about the “sovereigns” claims that our government is a corporation and that the Act of 1871that created the District of Columbia really wrote a new constitution for the country. How did this silliness start? Is there ANY truth to it?


    Comment by Brenda Donnellan | October 9, 2015 | Reply

    • I wrote that post a while ago – the page I linked to seems to have been changed. SOME corporations created by Congress would be lawful – eg, the corporation for the post office would be lawful – since mail delivery is an enumerated power (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 7). But AMTRACK is unconstitutional because transportation is not an enumerated power.

      Yes, the States created the federal gov’t when they ratified the Constitution. The federal gov’t is merely the “creature” of the constitutional compact the States made with each other.

      There is absolutely NO TRUTH to the claims you mention in your last para. I don’t whether idiots on our side dreamed it up because they are confused and don’t understand what they read; or whether it is black ops stuff put out by the Progressives to confuse gullible people on our side and get them to waste their time on rubbish.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 9, 2015 | Reply

  11. PH:

    Please read the following web site and reply to question: Is there anything that can be done immediately to stop the Trans Pacific (Trade) Pact in its tracks? (We can’t afford to wait for a thoroughly enlightened electorate or another general election! We can’t even trust Congress!)



    Comment by paradigmrw | May 21, 2015 | Reply

    • I think that the best we can do is prepare for the worst. The worst. Get ready. The stupidity and weakness of the people we elect to office is astounding. But only a stupid people would elect them. And so now, we are going to pay. God preserve you and your family.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 21, 2015 | Reply

  12. What recourse does a citizen have when a lawmaker promotes laws that abrogate any of our rights as enumerated under the Bill of Rights? The 2nd Amendment comes to mind. I reside in California and the legislature is constantly attacking our right to bear arms. Next, they will come after our right of free speech when it comes to speaking about the evilness of Islam. Where will this end? What recourse?


    Comment by Legatus legionis (@frank95054) | April 12, 2015 | Reply

  13. Here’s a silly question on taxes. There is a lot of talk about a national sales tax, well, the constitution gives congress jurisdiction over interstate commerce so they can tax that. But the constitution doesn’t give jurisdiction over intrastate commerce. So, can congress impose a sales tax on a service or product transaction wholely contained within a state?


    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | April 6, 2015 | Reply

    • That’s not a silly question – it’s an excellent question. The Constitution authorizes Congress to impose “excises” – not ad valorem “sales” taxes.

      The powers delegated to the federal government are so few & defined that, except for war, the federal government could run on “imposts” (import tariffs), “excises” (non ad valorem taxes levied on units of merchandize such as a tax on a gallon of whiskey), and the pro-rata contributions from the States (who could collect the tax as they deemed proper & right).

      The commerce clauses don’t create taxing powers where the feds can levy any kind of tax they want. The taxing powers – in the original Constitution – are delegated by Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3 – the “direct” tax] and by Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1 [the indirect taxes].

      And see the limitations on federal taxation at Art. I, Sec. 9, clauses 4 & 5.

      I mean to write on this when I get time. sigh.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2015 | Reply

      • I enjoy your blog.  Informative!!     


        Comment by ROBERT TOTH | April 6, 2015 | Reply

        • Thank you, Robert! Your kind words could not have come to me at a better time.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2015 | Reply

  14. Publius,
    Does the Supreme Court does have the power to declare a state law unconstitutional. even by not taking an appeal? If they do not can you give examples?


    Comment by Carolyn | October 11, 2014 | Reply

    • In a PROPER CASE, the supreme Court has delegated judicial authority to declare State laws unconstitutional.

      Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1 sets forth the judicial power of the federal courts. Those are the kinds of cases federal courts are permitted to hear. For more information, see my paper under the Category heading, “Enumerated powers of the federal courts”.

      If a State legislature passed a law saying that candidates for Congress had to be 45 years of ago or more; and candidates for the US Senate had to be 50 years of ago or more – then the federal courts would have lawful – delegated – judicial power to overturn the State law as unconstitutional. Such a State law would violate Article I, Section 2, clause 2, & Article I, Section 3, clause 3 of the federal Constitution, and would be unconstitutional.

      Since Article III, Sec. 1, cl. 1 says,

      “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases… arising under this Constitution…”, the federal courts would have lawful authority to declare the State law unconstitutional.

      But when States make laws which do NOT address powers delegated to the federal government, then the federal courts have NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY to interfere. Since our Constitution NEVER delegated to the federal government power (over the Country At Large) over abortion, homosexuality, and marriage, the federal courts have no lawful judicial power to interfere. Those are not matters “expressly included” in the Constitution and the federal government has no lawful authority over them.

      The federal courts USURPED POWER over these objects. In the linked paper, I show how they perverted Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment to usurp power over abortion, homosexuality & marriage.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 13, 2014 | Reply

      • Thank You…..


        Comment by Carolyn | October 13, 2014 | Reply

  15. PH,

    Ive been working with a group of youth each summer in a shooting program. It provides me with the opportunity to discuss, Natural Law and our founding documents. During one of those discussions several of the youth told me the Constitution granted the national government unlimited powers and provided me with the link below as what their professor was telling them:

    ” … It should be obvious that the “Constitution of our Founders,” including the Bill of Rights, may not protect as many rights as many wish to believe. Moreover, we have already noted the Constitution dropped all revolutionary talk of “unalienable” rights and “Creator endowed” liberty. This was not an oversight.”


    Comment by sgtjusmc | July 7, 2014 | Reply

  16. I was told the Bill of Rights only restricts our federal government, not the states. If this is so, does that mean that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule on any state matters when it is a 2nd Amendment Rights or any other matter which involves the Bill of Rights? Would I be right in saying that state matter belong to the state supreme courts? Also, would I be right to say that the Supreme Court is only allowed to rule on anything that the federal government passes. Would I be also right to say that the Supreme Court cannot rule on it if it is not in the Enumerated Powers section of the U.S. Constitution? Or, would I be wrong. Can you give me more clarification on this, and can you tell me where it says all this? Thank you!


    Comment by rick | June 2, 2014 | Reply

  17. I am in need of an attorney that is astute in the constitution. We have a situation in Giles, county Virginia where the Giles County Public Services Authority has send out back billing notices because it states that they have made a mistake. some of these bills are for hundreds of dollars. If a citizen contests he/she is then threatened with ruining his/her credit, placement of liens on property and now we are being threatened with confiscation of our State Tax returns. Right after the PSA sent out these notices without explanation, they then voted to purchase a $250,000 front end loader, hire a new full time employee, give all their employees a raise, and proceed with a well study at the cost of $60,000.00. A study which all questioned at the same meeting would render information needed. I am not sure if this is the forum to make this request but if anyone knows of an attorney versed in both the federal and Va. State constitution that would at least be willing to sit down and listen to what is happening in this county we would greatly appreciate contact information for any attorney, qualified that may be interested.


    Comment by D.Croson | March 27, 2014 | Reply

    • Is there no local attorney – who also got the notice – to look into this?
      It is outrageous!
      Who is in the Giles County PSA? Are they elected? appointed? Who do the members of the PSA answer to? County commission? Contact your County Commissioner. Contact your State Representative and Senator. Try to handle this politically.
      What does the PSA bill for? utilities?
      The State Attorney General is supposed to be The Peoples’ Lawyer. Complain.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 28, 2014 | Reply

  18. If you have time please give me your understanding of the War Powers Act. How does it specifically define the powers of a President of US to use the military? Also if you have time give me references.


    Comment by Doc | September 8, 2013 | Reply

    • Doc,

      It is THE CONSTITUTION which defines the powers of Congress and the President reference the Military. Most of the power over the military is held by Congress: See Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 11-16.

      The President is MERELY the “commander in chief”: See Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 1

      NO ACT OF CONGRESS MAY LAWFULLY CHANGE ANY OF THIS! That includes the “War Powers Act”. To the extent that it pretends to delegate powers to the President which THE CONSTITUTION doesn’t grant to the President, it is unconstitutional.

      So what is a “commander in chief” – what does that mean? Federalist No. 69 (6th para) tells us:

      “…It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy;…”

      So the President is really just the top general and top admiral. His instructions come from Congress.

      Now! A general in the field, or an admiral at sea, must make quick decisions, from time to time, to defend the men under them. So, it is proper for a general or admiral to use initiative in emergency situations – where there is no time to run it up the chain of command.

      Likewise, if U.S. air space is invaded by an armed fighter jet which refuses to identify itself, then it is proper for the President, as CINC, to order the jet to be shot down. There is no time to call Congress and have them vote on it!

      But as to initiating attacks – bombing Syria, etc., the President has NO AUTHORITY TO INITIATE ANY SUCH THING. ONLY CONGRESS CAN INITIATE SUCH MATTERS.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 12, 2013 | Reply

  19. I like that phrase ‘ignorant conceit’. It reminded me of Hayek’s last book titled ‘Fatal Conceit’, published just about 20 years ago and it holds almost the same meaning i.e. people are not and cannot be smart enough to control society but they invariably they are and the results are necessarily fatal.


    Comment by Larry Lotter | March 20, 2013 | Reply

  20. It would be GREAT if you could stand before Congress to educate them!!!!


    Comment by Robert Toth | March 20, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, Dear, but Congress is uneducatable. Remember the ignorant Dianne Feinstein? She thinks she knows all about it. But she knows nothing. It is impossible to teach people who are filled with ignorant conceit.

      But perhaps we can elect County Sheriffs who understand it. I don’t know if we can educate our State Representatives. They are a pretty ignorant, but conceited, bunch also.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 20, 2013 | Reply

      • I totally agree… that Congress is uneducatable, but you would expose them for their real intentions to the public!!
        Connecticut, my state residence, has very restrictive gun control laws pending. I wonder if they will pass? … Any thoughts or suggestions? Thank you!


        Comment by | March 20, 2013 | Reply

  21. Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    If you read the Amendment closely, with specificity the second clause, “the right of the people” should stand out, not for what it says, but for what it does not say! It does not say, insinuate, claim, or infer, that the “Right” was created by the Document, or the Government! There is no, nor can there be, any proprietary claim upon the existence of that Right! That statement informs us that the Founders acknowledged the fact that this God-given Right pre-existed the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Government, theirs, or any other for that matter! The Neanderthals “enjoyed” the God-given Right, to Keep and to Bear Arms, and they had no Nation; no Government; no Bill of Rights!

    Finally, read the last four words of the Amendment: “shall not be infringed.” By that, the Founders were referring to the Government; the Amendment was a promise, by the Founders, that the Government that they created, would not “interfere” (infringe) upon that God-given Right!

    That is how I understand the concept of our Rights; and, in knowing the Founders as I do; I believe that I am correct in that understanding!


    Comment by Bud Parker | March 5, 2013 | Reply

    • And you are correct, my dear 1st Sgt!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2013 | Reply

  22. PH

    I know you are much more knowledgeable in our Constitution and Federalist Papers and I have a question relating to the 2nd Amendment Supreme court decisions/opinions.
    The Supreme Court made some Opinions/decisions on the personal right to “keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
    It has been quoted that those Opinions/Decisions stated or included “with reasonable regulations” is that true???

    AZ Bob

    p.s. What is the difference between a order of the Court Decision vs Opinion???? and if a Judge on the Majority side made a comment in his reasons for the decision does that also become law??


    Comment by AZ Bob | February 15, 2013 | Reply

    • Dear AZ Bob,
      Great question! I am pressed for time now, and might not be able to give full answer for a few days.

      So for now, let me get you started in analyzing this question:

      1. Ponder the 2nd Amdt, what does it really say? Where does the right come from? Did it exist before the 2nd Amdt was ratified? Or did the 2nd Amdt create the right?

      2. Look at the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence: What does that say about “Rights” and their status? What does it say about the purpose of government?

      3. If the supreme Court said, whether as part of its “holding” or whether as mere “dicta”, that the federal government could impose “reasonable restrictions” on this right, would they be telling the Truth or not?

      4. Do any of the enumerated powers of any branch of the federal government delegate authority to restrict or regulate guns? Where? So……., what does this signify?

      I expect you are talking about the D.C. v. Heller case (2008), where five (5) judges on SCOTUS said that the 2nd Amdt. means that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms unrelated to membership in the militia or military. It’s been about 5 years since I read the case, but I believe Scalia (who as I recall wrote the majority opinion), said something about that right being subject to “reasonable restrictions”. Ummmm, how do we reconcile that with the phrase, “shall not be infringed”.

      BTW: Note that four (4) judges on that court said that individuals do NOT have a right to keep & bear arms unless they are in the organized militia or military or law enforcement.

      You know what that means: We are only one supreme Court judge away from the supreme Court ruling that We The people can’t have guns.

      This is why James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, said States have the right of NULLIFICATION when any branch of the federal government usurps power.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 15, 2013 | Reply

      • It is interesting to note that the assumption of officialdom by donning the robe of a Supreme Court Judge does not nedcessarily confer upon that person wisdom, or, for that matter, unbiased opinions. If my understanding of the “Militia” is correct, it is comprised of the male citizens of the Nation. You, your uncle, your brother, and me. That is about as formal an organization as I want it to be! “We, the People.”


        Comment by Bud Parker | March 5, 2013 | Reply

        • In the Militia Act of 1792, it was all able-bodied male citizens ages 18-46 except for federal officers and employees. All able-bodied adult male citizens (except for federal officers & employees) must still (and always) be prepared to be soldiers.

          Later amendments to that act added women; but you and I both know that women shouldn’t be infantry. And we could raise the age – and should – for retired military people like you with the actual training & experience.

          That’s why that DHS memo says you are …… dangerous.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2013 | Reply

          • My dear, you need not fear that I won’t “report for duty” in time of crisis. I cannot recall one single retired military person that would not stand fast for our Constitution. Many of my close personal friends still on active duty are thou roughly disgusted with the Pretender-In-Chief. Thinking of that fellow makes me wonder just how many elected federal officials are complaisant in that crime. All of them? How can so very many citizens know without question what a natural born citizen is, as it relates to the POTUS, yet not a word from anyone in either House of Congress, or a Court? May God have mercy on this great nation.


            Comment by Bud Parker | March 5, 2013

  23. Linked to below are four excellent, informative papers from regarding secession.The authors are David Gordon and Donald W. Livingston. Livingston’s papers provides enlightening information on the “Great Emancipator.”


    Comment by Jeff Edelman | January 30, 2013 | Reply

    • Jeff, I wanted to read the links before I posted your links to the Mises site, but I don’t have time to read them now. My hesitation stems from some concerns about whether this organization is entirely faithful to the Principles of von Mises. People who hate Our Constitution have infiltrated groups all over the spectrum and are undermining our Framers and Founding Principles from all directions.

      Certainly “secession” is “legal” and permissible.

      The problem with secession, however, is that it doesn’t solve the underlying problem: The underlying problem is the moral corruption and ignorance of The American People. The federal government is not the problem, it is only the symptom of the real problem – which is our own degeneration.

      Secession is like a divorce. A husband and wife have problems b/c of sin. The rational course of action is to eliminate the sin and fix the relationship. Divorce just permits the parties to ignore the sin.

      And think: What happens when a State secedes? The corrupt and ignorant People in that State will still be there.

      It’s like forming third political parties: Unless the people in the 3rd party agree to be bound by PRINCIPLE – i.e., Our Constitution – they will just do what they think is a good idea and will become just like the Republican Party.

      The solution to our problems is not Secession – but a moral regeneration and a return to Our Founding Principles.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 31, 2013 | Reply

  24. Worth reading but if the analysis is correct, I simply don’t believe amateur citizens stand little chance in a war for the Constitution against the professionals in the bureaucracy and academia and the media, all getting paid to secure our unconstitutional government….especially when half amateurs are wolves in sheep’s clothing.


    Comment by Larry Lotter | June 28, 2012 | Reply

  25. PH .. I’ve been coming here for a while now and I always refer to your pages when commenting on other forums. Thank you for allowing us to do that (with a link to your pages and advice to educate themselves.)

    I have thought long and hard about asking the local school if I could start a class on the Constitution. It would be strictly voluntary and maybe after hours so adults could come and in doing so, I would love to base a syllabus on your papers as well as others. Would that be okay with you?

    Keep up the good fight in trying to educate all us ‘monkey’s out here LOL

    Peace and God Bless you and yours


    Comment by Kali Kale | June 22, 2012 | Reply

    • Of course, my dear Kali! I have been meaning to work on a syllabus myself, but just never get around to it. I have your email address so I’ll send you 3 charts I made which I think are very helpful.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | June 22, 2012 | Reply

  26. My guy, Rick Perry, not only believes that the Entitlements are Ponzi schemes and unconstitutional but he also said that he would follow your advise and use an Executive Order to stop the implementation of Obamacare. He is the only candidate that is using such bold language to lead us back to a constitutional republic, complete with part-time legislators.


    Comment by Larry Lotter | December 5, 2011 | Reply

    • Then why, oh why, does he keep calling for a balanced budget amendment? The best thing that can be said about anyone who supports a BBA is that he does not understand the concept of enumerated powers. Those enumerated powers set the limits on what Congress is authorized to spend money on! Congress may spend money on the patent & copyright office, on hiring someone to mint coins, on a naturalization office, etc. (see list at Art. I, Sec. 8). The Constitution does not permit them to spend money on 99.9999% of the things they appropriate money for. The cure is for Congress to return to its enumerated powers!

      The BBA cuts the heart out of our Constitution b/c it sets a new standard for spending: Congress may spend however much they take in [ i.e. the more taxes they collect, the more they can spend]. And Perry thinks THAT is a great idea?

      And it is impossible to contact Perry and other candidates. They don’t seem to give a hoot when people try to instruct them on The Constitution. They all seem to be so full of themselves that they are deaf to whatever we say. All they want from us is money.

      So, every time I hear Perry’s ad on Faux News, I wonder if he is the complete idiot or if he realizes WE THE PEOPLE are such idiots that he can pander to our ignorance by calling for a BBA.

      Michelle Bachmann was my choice until she too came out for the BBA. I fear all the candidates are so ignorant that we are doomed.

      Larry, if YOU have access to Perry, then explain to him why the BBA is such a BAD idea. I have two papers on it which spell it out. I trust that if we ever could get a candidate who knows the Constitution and is willing and able to explain it to The People, he would do well.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 5, 2011 | Reply

    • Balanced Budget Amendment – It’s one of those “tricksie” terms that sounds good, but is just what you say, Huldah. It turns the Fox (Congress) loose on the American taxpayers. The Congress sets the “Budget” and we have to come up with the money. And like you say, the Enumerated Powers limit what Congress can spend money on. That’s much too restrictive to the repubs and dems. Reckon, this is why they keep trying to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
      What I want to know is, what happened to the Graham-Rudman Balanced Budget Amendment?????? Did it get lost in the “paper shuffle”?????? Not that I’m for the Graham-Rudman, but if there already is a Balanced Budget Amendment that Congress past, How come Congress doesn’t REPEAL old BBA, and what’s different from Graham-Rudman from this newly come up Unconstitutional legislation? They are both Unconstitutional.
      I have been often asked, which of the repub candidates, this “time around”, I am supporting. I’m for “NONE OF THEM”.
      The ONLY redeeming point, I can find in the whole convolution is this, “GET RID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE”, that is such an Unconstitutional appendage stuck on US during the Wilson Administration, and in remorse, Wilson said, “I have destroyed my Country” or words to that effect. Mr. Paul talks about doing this, but whether he could or would might be another situation.
      I, too, have tried to get ahold of a Candidate, but the candidates are insulated with “Aids” who are building an empire and playing games, while our Beloved Country is being destroyed before our eyes.
      I like your suggestion, Huldah, about study helps in studying the Constitution. If this was a “required” Civics exercise in ALL Public Schools, we might get out of this “ditch” in a few years, and if we would recognize the Lord once more in this Christian Land, Supreme Decision, 1892, God would give US a “rebirth of Freedom”. I wish Congress would let you present this at Freshmen Orientation when the new Congressmen are sent up there. But, alas, I think their instruction is about the perks, pensions, and benefits they will receive, because they have come to this “high estate”. UGH
      Thanks for your good work and Keep, Keeping on. God surely see the distress of our hearts. He sees our Tears and hears our Prayers for our Beloved America, the Beautiful.

      For God & Country


      Comment by Ruth Ann Wilson | December 6, 2011 | Reply

  27. Dear Huldah,
    Could you get a copy of SB 1867, passed 11-30-2011, Former POW, presidential Candidate last time around, John McCain is a Co-sponsor. This horrible legislation passed with 93 Senators approving. Amendments were voted down, and the president is a dictator with powers to arrest American Citizens on “suspicion of being a terrorist”. Please remember, what Homeland Head Janet Napolitano defined as a “terrorist” in her directive in Spring, 2009, that caused “howls” from Patriots around the Country.
    The full text was not available to the General public before the vote. It will have to be reconciled with the House Bill.
    God Save America, Land that I Love
    For God & Country


    Comment by Ruth Ann Wilson | December 3, 2011 | Reply

    • Ruth Ann, Here is the text of SB 1867, and even without having yet read a word of it, I can see that it is a disgrace: 682 pages! WHO reads 682 pages before they pass it?
      I’ll see what I can find out about it.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 3, 2011 | Reply

    • Ruth Ann, I have not had time to study the 682 page bill (who has?). But I found a very brief commentary on it which asks the right questions. It does appear that the bill empowers the federal government (the military only?) Homeland Security? DOJ? to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens. Believe me when I say that lawyers who write such stuff are vague on purpose. We know how to say exactly what we want to say and how to reserve wiggle room in such a way that the laypeople don’t know what is being done.

      And to think that the People of the State of Arizona had the opportunity to rid themselves and us of that execrable John McCain.

      Just a word of CAUTION: The website where the linked comment is posted is a lefty progressive website – but the brief comment by Marshall Thompson is worthy of reading.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 9, 2011 | Reply

  28. Why, if there is no mention of any constitutional power to implement healthcare in the first place, is the case being decided on such narrow grounds as the individual mandate?


    Comment by Larry Lotter | December 1, 2011 | Reply

    • Wow, Larry! You sure hit the nail on the head! The argument “our side” is making is worse than stupid: Their argument seems to be that the supreme Court hasn’t before forced us to buy something. Well, duh! (1) Of course the supreme Court has forced us before to buy something: they forced us to buy social security insurance and medicare insurance – what’s the difference between that and obamacare? There is no material difference; and (2) If the standard of constitutionality is “what does the supreme Court require us to do”, then that they haven’t required us to do something in the past doesn’t stop them from requiring us to do it in the future.

      You are correct: the proper argument is that obamacare is unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the enumerated powers granted to Congress. Why aren’t they making that argument? (1) Few attorneys or judges have any understanding of the concept of “enumerated powers” [it isn’t taught in law school]; and (2) if obamacare is unconstitutional, then so is social security and medicare – and people LOVE social security & medicare.

      So the moral/political issue of our time is whether the American people are willing to dismantle the federal social security and medicare programs. Our survival depends on their willingness to man up and start taking responsibility for their own lives! If the old people with their hands out continue to put themselves above their grandchildren, then we are doomed.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 3, 2011 | Reply

      • Ron Paul has a great plan for this, in case no one was listening. The”old people” don’t “have their hands out” they aresimply receiving back much much much less than they payed in, since the devaluation of our dollar they have been robbed. We are only doomed if we don’t wake up to this and understand it.


        Comment by Liberty Monger | May 10, 2013 | Reply

        • Actually, I think if you check, you will see that the “old people” have been getting back much more than they put in.

          But certainly, failure to understand this particular issue is not what is doing us in! Our immorality and ignorance are what is doing us in.

          And in any event, social security & medicare are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government: Social security and medicare are not “enumerated powers”. So the issue is how do we wind them down in a fair manner? Dr. Walter E. Williams has put forth a sensible proposal.

          I, for one, have renounced all such “benefits”.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 10, 2013 | Reply

          • PH Any suggestions on how I as a individual can help educate our Leaders and the public that would make a difference???



            Comment by AZ Bob | May 10, 2013

          • Bob, it often seems to me as if no one gets it – but then, I see proof that some do. So all I know to do is to keep trying to turn on the lights in the minds of our fellows, and hope they will elect better people.

            And pray to God for intervention.

            And PREPARE for the worst. Really.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 25, 2013

  29. Thanks for your good advice. Since I have found your advice well informed and legally in line with the Constitution, I would hope that all of the hundreds of attorneys in Washington, DC and the Congress, all know how to get rid of this abomination called Obamacare.
    Thanks again for your work.

    For God & Country
    Ruth Ann Wilson


    Comment by Ruth Ann Wilson | October 17, 2011 | Reply

  30. …and none of the current crop of ‘presidential candidates’ really speaks the truth about this…the sound bites overtake substance.


    Comment by drkate | October 17, 2011 | Reply

  31. PH – I love it! Please keep in touch. You are educating so many people. I am sharing your page consistently via, & You are a national treasure. MAHALO!


    Comment by Wendy Hooper | October 3, 2011 | Reply

  32. Thank you, Ruth Ann!

    We couldn’t figure out how to add my daily commentary on the lack of constitutional authority to prosecute the man for killing the bear who came into his yard (where he lives with his wife and children). It showed up only as a comment to this instead of as a separate entry.
    When I graduated from law school, copying machines were very rare………


    Comment by Publius/Huldah | October 2, 2011 | Reply

  33. I like your idea of brief observations. Most of us get “three minutes at local County Commission” and I mean they time us. So thanks for the “condensed version”. We need the “long version”, too. This is real education, of God and Country, the kind of education people used to get before the atheists moved into the Public education of this Christian Nation.
    You asked about the “endangered species” and the case of an American killing a bear in his yard.
    I am sure that this nonsense is found somewhere in the UNELECTED ABC AGENCIES UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. This is Unconstitutional, but we have been ruled by caprice for so long, we have stopped being astonished at the absurd nonsense that passes as “law”.
    Thanks for your writings. Our Liberty is in Law, God’s Ten Commandments and the Constitution.
    For God & Country
    Ruth Ann Wilson


    Comment by Ruth Ann Wilson | October 2, 2011 | 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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: