Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Defeat “COVID” Mandates by restoring the Genuine Meaning of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses

By Publius Huldah

Someone asked me why I write on the US Constitution when the US Supreme Court won’t enforce it.

This is why:  Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the self-evident Truth that Rights come from God, and that they are unalienable.  Accordingly, there are certain areas of your life which are off-limits to government regulation – you have an “immunity” from governmental regulation of these areas.

But since the federal and state governments are refusing to recognize our Rights, it falls on us to boldly step up to the plate and insist that our Rights be respected.  You have no lawful, moral, or religious duty to submit to a government when it violates our Constitution and seeks to take from you the rights God gave you.

Governments do not have constitutional authority to force you to take the COVID JAB.

And in this paper I show that the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses of the US Constitution prohibit the federal, state, and local governments from requiring you to be “jabbed” or putting you into a concentration camp if they assert that you are at “high risk” of getting infected [i.e., those who are 65 years of age or older].

So Americans are going to have to man-up and assert their God-given rights.  But before you can do that, you must understand what your Rights are and what the Constitution says.

Our Constitution of 1787 is a glorious Document. But we didn’t read it, we didn’t adhere to its genuine meaning, and we permitted judges to redefine its terms. We must put a stop to that. The following draft 1 Resolution for State and local governments shows how, by restoring the genuine meanings of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses, we can defeat “COVID” tyranny.

Right to Freedom from “COVID” mandates – Model Resolution for State and local governments

I. The Law

WHEREAS, our Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding and part of the Organic Law of our Land, and recognizes that our Rights come from the Creator God; that among these Rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; and further, that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is one of enumerated powers only; and We The People did not grant to the federal government power over the Country at Large to interfere in medical or health matters; to dictate that injections be administered to The People; to impose quarantines or “lock-downs” for real or pretended diseases; to establish internment (concentration) camps for the purpose of confining whomsoever the federal government wishes to confine; to require that The People wear devices such as face masks, or to obtain and carry internal passports; or to exercise any other such control over the sanctity of our persons; and

WHEREAS, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides,

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”; and

WHEREAS, the privileges and immunities clauses of the Constitution of the United States provide:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” (Article IV, § 2)

“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” (§1 of the Fourteenth Amendment); and

WHEREAS, the due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States provide:

At the Fifth Amendment, that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”; and

At §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”; and

WHEREAS, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England set forth at Book I, Chapter I, pp 128-140 (J.B. Lippincott) [link] the common law definitions of “privileges” and “immunities”; and shows that “immunities” refers to those areas of personal liberty which are free from regulation and control by civil governments, to-wit:

  • The God-given Right of Personal Security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation – and specifically that a person has the Right to preserve his health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it [p. 132 at 4.];
  • The God-given right of Personal Liberty consists of an individual’s right of locomotion, of changing situation, or moving his person to whatsoever place his own inclination may direct; that no person may be imprisoned or confined except pursuant to the lawful judgment of his equals; the right of habeas corpus; and the prohibition against excessive bail; and
  • The God-given Right of Property consists of the absolute and inherent Right of an individual to the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of his acquisitions; and that no person may be divested of his property, but by the judgment of his peers; and

WHEREAS, “due process of law” is a term with a precise technical import going back to the Magna Charta; and means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property cannot be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! [See Raoul Berger’s masterful work, “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment”, at Part I, Chapter 11 “Due Process of Law” link]; and

WHEREAS, it is a fundamental Principle of Anglo/American Jurisprudence that when Framers of a Constitution or Statute use a term which has been defined at the Common Law, that is the meaning to be assigned to the term in the Constitution or Statute (United States v. Smith (1820) link) & Raoul Berger’s chapter on “Due Process” at p. 222]; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Ohio declares at Article I: Bill of Rights that

“Section 1: Inalienable rights. All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.”

“Section 3: Right to assemble. The people have the right to assemble together, in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good; to instruct their Representatives; and to petition the General Assembly for the redress of grievances.”

“Section 20: Powers reserved to the people. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.”

II. Violations by the federal government of The Law

WHEREAS, under the pretext of protecting the public from the allegedly dangerous “COVID” disease, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of the federal government has been involved in the development and administration of a so-called “vaccine”; but that there is considerable evidence that such are not “vaccines” in the traditional sense of the word – but are injections designed to alter human DNA and replace it with a man-made DNA, and to destroy our God-given immune systems; and further that “COVID vaccines” have resulted in many deaths and disabilities among injected persons and are expected to result in a great many more deaths among injected persons in the coming years; and

WHEREAS, also under the pretext of protecting the public from the allegedly dangerous “COVID” disease, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has made plans [here & here] to relocate selected Persons against their wills to internment (concentration) camps which are now, with the connivance of certain State governments, being set up throughout the Country; and

WHEREAS, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is an unconstitutional federal agency which is not authorized by our Constitution to exist; accordingly all of its actions are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and

WHEREAS, by these above-described acts, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated, and hence its acts are not law, but are altogether unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and

WHEREAS, such acts are also unconstitutional as in violation of the right of free assembly within the meaning of the First Amendment to the US Constitution; and

WHEREAS, such acts also deprive Citizens of their God-given Immunities from civil government’s regulation of their Persons and Personal Liberty, and deprive them of their God-given Right to the free use and enjoyment of their Property – all in violation of Article IV, §2, US Constitution; and

WHEREAS, such acts also deprive Citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

III. State and local governments

WHEREAS, certain “private” businesses have been seeking to bring about the forced injections of Citizens with the so-called “COVID vaccine” by threatening to fire such Citizens unless they submit to the injection; and further, that for State and local governments to permit such tyranny violates that Principle, set forth in our Declaration of Independence, that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us (which governments are to do by protecting us from those who seek to take our rights away from us); and that just as civil governments may not lawfully deprive The People of their God-given Rights and Liberties, neither may private persons or businesses; and

WHEREAS, for the State or any local government to impose lock-downs, mandate social distancing, order the closures of churches and selected businesses, and impose limitations on crowd sizes, would unlawfully restrict the Rights of The People to freely assemble; and that in the State of Ohio, such would violate Article I, Sections 1 and 3 of the Declarations of Rights set forth in the State Constitution; and

WHEREAS, for the state or local governments to cooperate with the unconstitutional federal agency known as the “Center for Disease Control and Prevention”, in its unlawful and tyrannical plan to incarcerate in internment (concentration) camps, Citizens against their wills, would unlawfully deprive the Citizens of Ohio of their Rights of free association and free assembly; and would also trespass on their Immunities against civil government’s control of their persons within the meaning of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and would also deprive Ohio Citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law, also in violation of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

For the state or local government to mandate the wearing of face masks also violates the God-given Right of Personal Liberty.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That all acts of the federal government described hereinabove in Part II are unconstitutional and are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

2. That all acts of State and local governments described hereinabove in Part III would also be unconstitutional and unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and that this body [identify whether it’s the State legislature or a County or municipal governmental body] will vigorously oppose all such unlawful acts.

3. That this body intends to vigorously uphold the Right of the Citizens to be free from the requirement of forced injections, mask wearing, social distancing, lock-downs; and will not permit Ohio Citizens to be relocated against their wills to the internment (concentration) camps now being planned by the unconstitutional federal agency known as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

It is so RESOLVED, this ________ day of _____________, 2021.

Signatures, etc.

Endnote:

1 This is a draft Resolution suggested by me for consideration by State and local governments – I used Ohio to illustrate that States must consult their own State Constitutions in addition to our federal Constitution.

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

August 24, 2021 Posted by | Blackstone's commentaries on the Laws of England, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, covid, covid virus, COVID-19 scam, due process clause, privileges and immunities | , , , , , , | 15 Comments

How to make civil government Irrelevant

 
 

January 24, 2021 Posted by | covid virus, speech codes | , , | 25 Comments

Mail-in voting? A “political question” which only State Legislatures and Congress may decide

By Publius Huldah

It has become obvious that one of the purposes of the COVID-19 scam is to bring about unrestricted mail-in voting in the toss-up and Red States so that the upcoming presidential election can be stolen by the Left for the senile Joe Biden and his constitutionally ineligible running mate, Kamala Harris.

On September 9, 2020, the Left achieved their goal for the Red State of Tennessee – unless the Tennessee State government enforces the US Constitution and rejects the federal judge’s unconstitutional order.

1. The absurd Order from the US District Court, Middle District of Tennessee

The Tennessee Code permits mail-in voting for certain categories of people [Tenn. Code § 2-6-201]; but requires those who register by mail to appear in person at the official place of voting and bring proof of identity when they vote for the first time [Tenn. Code § 2-2-115 (b) (7)].

Our elections are already tainted by the “ghost voters” described in Deroy Murdock’s article (published 2017) [here]. Murdock showed that throughout the United States, over 3.5 million persons who didn’t exist were registered to vote. But that number wasn’t sufficient to elect Hillary Clinton; so the Left needs more ghost voters. With mail-in voter registration, dead people can be registered to vote; and with unrestricted mail-in voting, those dead people can vote forever.

The Plaintiffs in this action claim to be distressed about the statutory requirement that first-time voters (who registered by mail) appear in person to vote because it forces them to choose between their “health” [they might catch COVID-19 if they go to the polls] and their right to vote. 1

On September 9, 2020, federal judge Eli Richardson issued a preliminary injunction which has the effect of setting aside, for the upcoming presidential election, the statutory requirement – established by the Tennessee Legislature – that persons who registered by mail, show up in person the first time they vote.

Here is Richardson’s 29 page Order.

So let’s cut 29 pages of bunk down to its essence: Richardson ruled that the Tennessee Legislature’s requirement that the first-time voters (who registered by mail) physically appear at the polls, imposes a “moderate burden” on voting rights; and the State failed to show the Court that Tennessee has a “legitimate state interest” to justify that burden. 2

Even worse: Throughout his Order, Richardson writes repeatedly [some 20 times] of Plaintiffs’ “First Amendment right to vote”; and says at the end of para 31 of his Order,

“…it is likely that Plaintiffs will prevail on their claim that the first-time voter requirement violates the First Amendment right to vote…”

But the First Amendment makes no mention of a “right to vote”. 3 Furthermore, in footnote 22 of his Order, the Judge says:

“In a prior order, the Court declined to address any suggestion that there is no First Amendment right to vote, for any purposes at all, by mail in particular… The Court was well aware that McDonald supports such a suggestion, but the Court simply did not need to opine on that matter. The Court likewise does not need to do so here…”

What? The Judge declined to address whether or not a First Amendment right to vote actually exists even though he has already determined that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the requirement that first-time voters (who registered by mail) show up in person to vote “violates the First Amendment right to vote”!

2. Why do Plaintiffs and the Judge repeatedly speak of a “First Amendment right to vote”, when the Judge isn’t prepared to say that such a right even exists?

They may be aware that the federal court has no jurisdiction over this case; but are attempting to fake it by claiming that the case “arises under the Constitution” via the First Amendment.4

The judicial power of the federal courts is limited to those few categories of cases enumerated at Article III, §2, clause 1, US Constitution. Not one of the categories invests the federal court with jurisdiction over this case. This case can’t be said to “arise under the Constitution” because there is no “right to vote” in the US Constitution; and the remaining categories listed in Article III, §2 are clearly inapplicable.

So it appears that Plaintiffs have fabricated a mythical “First Amendment right to vote” in order to provide a pretext for the federal court to exercise jurisdiction in this case – and that the federal judge let them get away with it.

3. Article I, §2, clause 1, US Constitution, negates the absurd claim that there exists a federal constitutional right to vote.

At Article I, §2, cl. 1, the States expressly retained their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters:

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” [italics added]

Accordingly, those who are eligible to vote for Representatives to their State Legislature are the ones eligible to vote for Members of the federal House of Representatives. 5

With four later Amendments, the States agreed that they would not deny eligibility to vote to Citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), and for those 18 years of age or older on account of age (26th Amendment). It is important to note that these four amendments do not grant the “right” to vote to the persons described in the Amendments – merely that the suffrage will not be denied to those persons on account of their race, sex, etc.

So the States retained their original authority to set whatever qualifications for voting they deem appropriate, subject to their agreement that they would not deny suffrage on account of a Citizen’s being in one of those four categories.

So there is no “right to vote” set forth in the US Constitution. To the contrary, voting is a privilege granted or denied on the basis of whether applicants meet the qualifications for voting set forth within their State Constitution. 6

4. What does our Constitution say about how the President and Vice President are to be elected?

Article II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment set forth the procedures for electing President and Vice President. Those procedures are described here under the subheadings, “Electors appointed by States were to choose the President” and “The 12th Amendment establishes procedures for voting by Electors”.

Our current procedures bear no resemblance to the Constitutional requirements. 7 It’s too late to obey the Constitution for the upcoming presidential election; so let’s see what our Constitution says about the federal elections to Congress.

5. US Constitution: the “times, places and manner” clause

Pursuant to Article I, §4, clause 1, State Legislatures have the power to prescribe the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for US Representatives 8 and US Senators.9

This clause also provides that Congress may make laws which override such State laws.

So the power to determine the time, place and manner of holding such federal elections is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State and federal governments.

It is up to the State Legislatures to decide which “burdens” are appropriate with respect to the place of voting – with Congress having power to override what a State Legislature decides. The Judicial Branches of the state and federal governments may not substitute their views as to which “burdens” are appropriate and which are not. These are “political questions” granted to the Legislative Branches to decide; and the Judicial Branches – state and federal – may not lawfully interfere. 10

It is clear that “manner of voting” includes such matters as a requirement of personal presence at the place of voting. This is what our Framers contemplated, as shown by their words quoted in footnote 8 below. When a State legislature decides that personal presence is required – that decision can be overturned only by Congress.

So Judge Richardson’s view that the Tennessee Legislature doesn’t have a good reason for requiring first time voters (who registered by mail) to vote in person and present ID is irrelevant, and his Order is ultra vires.

6. What is the State’s remedy against the unlawful Court order?

So! You have seen that determining the “place and manner of voting” is a political power delegated exclusively to the State and federal Legislatures. It is thus a “political question”; and the federal [and state] Judicial Branches may not substitute their views for those of the Legislative Branches.

And since there is no “right to vote” contained in the US Constitution, the Federal District Court has no jurisdiction over this case. This case doesn’t “arise under the Constitution” or fit within any of the other categories of cases enumerated at Article III, §2, cl.1, US Constitution.

So the pretended Order of September 9, 2020, is ultra vires and lawless, and the State of Tennessee has no obligation to obey it.

The duty of the elected and appointed State and local officials is to obey the US Constitution. When the dictates of a federal [or State] judge contradict the Constitution, State officials must side with the Constitution and against the judge. 11

And what will happen if the State of Tennessee refuses to comply with the Judge’s order? The Judge can’t enforce his Order. He has to depend on the Executive Branch of the federal government to enforce it. 12 Do you believe that President Trump will send in federal troops to force the State of Tennessee to comply with Judge Richardson’s ultra vires Order?

Note:  In addition to the Offices of President & Vice-President, many other offices will also be on the Ballot:  the entire US House of Representatives is up for grabs.  So is the House in the State Legislatures all over the Country.  1/3 of the US Senate will be on the ballot; and a proportional number of Senate Seats on State Legislatures throughout the Country will be on the ballot.

EVERY REPUBLICAN LEGISLATOR NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND:  Your Seat is likely to be stolen in this upcoming election.

So you better wake up and get your State Legislature to smack down the federal & state judges who are assisting the Left in stealing your Seat.  And if Congress doesn’t act, they will lose control of the Senate and most likely every seat in the House.

Why should the Left stop with stealing only the Presidential election when they can also steal YOUR seat?

Endnotes:

1 How do they get their groceries?

2 Order at paras 29 – 31.

3 The First Amendment says,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment is a limitation on Congress’ powers to make laws – it doesn’t grant a “right” to vote!

4 In Federalist No. 80 (2nd para), Hamilton states that cases “arising under the Constitution” concern

“…the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union [the US Constitution]…” [boldface added].

In the 3rd & 13th paras, Hamilton illustrates what “arising under the Constitution” means: He points to the restrictions on the power of the States listed at Art. I, §10 and shows that if a State exercises any of those powers, and the fed. gov’t sues the State, the federal courts have authority to hear the case.

5 The 17th Amendment [ratified 1913] provides that those who are eligible to vote for Representatives to the US House are eligible to vote for US Senators.

6 With the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Congress usurped the retained power of the States to set and enforce eligibility standards for voting. In a series of 3 papers, the last of which is here, I show how the assertions about The Federalist Papers made by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, in their attempts to justify their unconstitutional judgments, are false.

7 Our disregard of these constitutional provisions doubtless contributed to the creation of the current chaos.

8 Our Framers told us what “times”, “places” and “manner” mean:

In Federalist No. 61 (4th & 5th paras), Alexander Hamilton shows that “Time” refers to when elections are held. He explains that under the Articles of Confederation [our 1st Constitution], States had been conducting elections from March to November; and that uniformity in the time of elections is necessary “for conveniently assembling the [federal] legislature at a stated period in each year”.

“Place”: Hamilton also points out that the suffrages of citizens living in certain parts of the States could be defeated by restricting the place of election for Representatives in the House to “an INCONVENIENT DISTANCE from the elector” (2nd para). [caps are Hamilton’s].

“Manner” of holding Elections refers to such things as paper ballots or show of hands, the place of voting, and whether the States will be divided into congressional districts for purposes of electing Representatives. James Madison discusses the “Manner” of holding Elections in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2, August 9, 1787:

“Mr. Madison: … the Legislatures of the States ought not to have the uncontrouled right of regulating the times places & manner of holding elections. These were words of great latitude. It was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the discretionary power. Whether the electors should vote by ballot or vivâ voce, should assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts or all meet at one place, shd all vote for all the representatives; or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district; these & many other points would depend on the Legislatures and might materially affect the appointments …. what danger could there be in giving a controuling power to the Natl. Legislature? Of whom was it to consist? 1. of a Senate to be chosen by the State Legislatures … 2. of Representatives elected by the same people who elect the State Legislatures…” [emphasis added]

Rufus King in the Massachusetts Convention said in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 3, January 21, 1788:

“Hon. Mr. King rose … It was to be observed, he said, that in the Constitution of Massachusetts, and other States, the manner and place of elections were provided for; the manner was by ballot, and the places towns; for, said he, we happened to settle originally in townships…” [emphasis added]

9 When Art. I, §4, cl. 1 was drafted, the State Legislatures were to choose the State’s Senators to the US Congress – so the “place” of choosing the US Senators would be wherever the Legislature met. With ratification of the 17th Amendment, Congress gained oversight over State laws addressing the “place” of election of US Senators.

10 In Marbury v. Madison [link], decided 1803, the Supreme Court explained the concept of “political powers” and that the manner in which political powers are exercised is beyond the reach of the courts:

“By the Constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. …whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and, being entrusted to the Executive, the decision of the Executive is conclusive … [and] can never be examinable by the Courts.”

Marbury addresses the political powers exercised by the President. That same deference to the exercise of political powers has long been extended to the acts of the other political branch, Congress. Where the Constitution grants a political power to Congress, the manner in which Congress exercises the discretion is also beyond the reach of the Courts. So, for example, if Congress were to exercise the power granted to it by Article I, § 4, clause 1, to make a law banning mail-in voting; its action can never be examined by the Courts – the Courts may not substitute their views for those of Congress.

11 Marbury v. Madison also stands for the Great Principle that when an Act of one branch of government violates the Constitution, the other Branches must obey the Constitution and not the unlawful Act.

12 Alexander Hamilton made this same point over 200 years ago – see Federalist No. 78 (6th para). If law schools had made The Federalist Papers required reading, our Country wouldn’t now be in such a mess.

September 20, 2020 Posted by | 12th Amendment, 1st Amendment, Article I Sec. 4, COVID-19 scam, dead voters, Elections Clause, Eli Richardson, federal election of 2020, ghost voters, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, mail-in voter registration, Mail-in voting, Nullification, political questions, Red States, Times Places and Manner clause, Toss-up states, US District Court Middle District of Tennessee, voter registration | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 36 Comments

   

%d bloggers like this: