By Publius Huldah
The BBA Made Simple
Say you want your Butler to buy some groceries; so you give him your credit card. You can:
1. Give him an ENUMERATED LIST of what you want him to buy: 1 chicken, 5# of apples, two heads of cabbage, a 2# sack of brown rice, and a dozen eggs. Whatever amount he spends for these enumerated items will be charged to you.
2. Tell him he may spend on whatever he wants, and ask him to please don’t spend more than 18% of your weekly income. But whatever amount he decides to spend (on pork and other things) will be charged to you.
The first illustrates how our Constitution is written: The items on which Congress is authorized to spend money are listed – enumerated – in the Constitution. To see the list, go HERE.
The second illustrates how a balanced budget amendment (BBA) works: It creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. And there is no enforceable limit on the amount of spending.
Our Constitution Limits Spending to the Enumerated Powers
Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want. If Congress obeyed our Constitution, they would limit spending to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money, excessive federal spending is not the result of a defective Constitution, but of disregarding the existing constitutional limitations on federal spending.
Because everyone has ignored these existing limitations for so long, we now have a national debt of some $20 trillion plus a hundred or so trillion in unfunded liabilities. 1
Various factions are now telling conservatives that the only way to stop out of control federal spending is with a BBA.
Obviously, that is not true. The constitutional answer is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers. Eliminate federal departments (Education, Energy, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc., etc.), for which there is no constitutional authority. 2
Since our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government, most of what they’ve spent money on since the early 1900s is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.
Yet our Constitution is still legally in place; and can be dusted off, read, and enforced by a Repentant People. They can shrink the federal government to the size established by the Constitution which created it. 3
Using the Federal “Budget” to Snap the Trap on an Unsuspecting People
Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.
Spending is to be limited by the enumerated powers. Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, the Treasury is to publish periodic Statements and Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditures. Since the list of objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money is so short, it would be a simple matter to monitor federal spending and receipts.
But since the unconstitutional Budget & Accounting Act of 1921, Presidents and Congress have been putting into the “budget” whatever they want to spend money on.
Do you see that if the federal government is given constitutional authority (via a BBA) to spend money on whatever they want, they are ipso facto granted constitutional authority to exert power over whatever they want?
Oh, Americans! False friends lead you astray and confuse the path you should take. Under the pretext of imposing “fiscal responsibility” with a BBA, they would legalize the totalitarian dictatorship which has been developing in this Country for 100 years.
Creating the all-powerful federal government by Amendment
A BBA changes the standard for spending from whether the object is an enumerated power to whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. 4
So a BBA would transform the federal government created by our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to one of general and unlimited powers because it would authorize Congress to appropriate funds for – and hence have power over – whatever they or the President decide to put in the budget!
A BBA Doesn’t Reduce Federal Spending
A BBA wouldn’t reduce federal spending because:
· all versions permit spending limits to be waived when Congress votes to waive them; and
· Congress can always “balance the budget” with tax increases. Compact for America’s “balanced budget amendment” delegates massive new taxing authority to Congress: it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) in addition to keeping the income tax.
Americans think, “I have to balance my budget; so the federal government should have to balance theirs.”
They overlook the profound distinctions between the economies of their own family unit and that of the national government of a Federation of States. Our federal Constitution sets up a system where Congress is to appropriate funds only to carry out the enumerated powers; and the bills are to be paid with receipts from excise taxes and import tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by a direct assessment on the States apportioned according to population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).
Americans also think that since States have balanced budget amendments, the federal government should have one. They overlook the profound distinction between the federal Constitution and State Constitutions: 5
· The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of enumerated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.
· But State Constitutions created State governments of general and almost unlimited powers. Accordingly, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything. So State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.
A BBA would have the opposite effect of what you have been told. Instead of limiting the federal government, it legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; transforms the federal government into one which has power over whatever they decide to spend money on; and does nothing to reduce federal spending.
Twenty-eight States have already passed applications for a BBA. Go HERE to check the status of your State. Warn your friends and State Legislators. For a model your State can use to rescind its previous applications, go HERE and look under “Take Action” column, or contact me. Do not let the malignant elite complete their revolution by replacing our Constitution.
1 State governments are voracious consumers of federal funds. THIS shows what percentage of your State’s revenue is from federal funds. Contrary to what RINO State Legislators say, they don’t want federal spending reduced: They want to keep those federal dollars flooding in.
2 George Washington’s Cabinet had 4 members: Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General.
3 Our federal Constitution is short and easy to understand. The only way you can avoid being misled is to find out for yourself what it says. Be a Berean (Acts 17:10-12).
4 Amendments change all language to the contrary in the existing Constitution. Eg., the 13th Amendment changed Art. I, §2, clause 3 & Art. IV, §2, clause 3 because they were inconsistent with the 13th Amendment.
5 In Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end), James Madison said:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
WHAT HAPPENS IF HILLARY DIES BEFORE THE ELECTION? WHAT HAPPENS IF SHE IS ELECTED, BUT DIES BEFORE TAKING OFFICE?
By Publius Huldah
The system we now use to elect presidents and vice presidents is unconstitutional. Our Constitution doesn’t permit political parties to hold primaries & national conventions to select nominees for their party.
Instead, the Electors of each State are to meet within their own State and THEY cast the votes for their State for president; and then in a second ballot, THEY cast the votes for their State for vice president. Then each group of Electors sends their list of persons voted for to the President of the Senate who, on a specified date, counts the votes.
The 12th Amendment specifies the procedures we are supposed to follow.
I have two papers on this: The most recent is here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/…/trashing-the-12th-am…/
The earlier article I wrote on this topic illustrates with examples, precisely how the voting for president and vice president is to be done: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/national-popular-vote-goodbye-sweet-america/ and look under the subheading, The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.
So the Constitution doesn’t address what happens if Hillary dies before the election, because under the Constitution, her nomination [like Trump’s] is unconstitutional.
We abandoned the Rule of Law long ago.
We are now under the Rule of Man. So the Democrat party will do whatever they want to do about replacing her if she dies before the election.
Section 3 of the XX Amendment addresses what happens if Hillary is elected but dies before she takes office: Tim Kaine will be President.
By Publius Huldah
The compact for a National Popular Vote (NPV) is a destructive scheme. Yet it’s been approved by several States; and is pending in others. Since the text of the compact no longer seems to be set forth on the NPV website, we’ll look at the NPV bill now pending in Tennessee.
In a nutshell, the compact seeks to evade the 12th Amendment to our Constitution (where the States elect the President); and substitutes a national popular vote where inhabitants of major metropolitan areas elect the President.
The Constitution our Framers gave us
The federal government created by our Constitution is a Federation of Sovereign States united under a federal government for those limited purposes itemized in the Constitution; with all other powers reserved by the States or the People.
So that The States – The Members of the Federation – could maintain their independence and sovereignty, our Framers wrote these provisions into our Constitution:
- State Legislatures were to choose the U.S. Senators for their State (Art. I, §3, cl. 1); and,
- The States, as separate political entities, were to elect the President (Art. II, §1, cls. 2 & 3).
The People were to elect only their Representatives to the House (Art. I, § 2, cl.1).
James Madison explains in Federalist No. 45 (7th para), why this ensured that The States would maintain control over the federal government:
“The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments …” [boldface mine]
The result of State Legislatures choosing the U.S. Senators and controlling the election of the President [via the selection of Electors], was that the States would be able to control the federal government.
The 17th Amendment
But we threw away one of these safeguards when we foolishly ratified the 17th Amendment with the popular election of U.S. Senators. This is how The States – The Members of the Federation – lost their representation in Congress and their control of the Senate.
Art. II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment
We abandoned the other safeguard when we foolishly ignored the procedures in the 12th Amendment where small bodies of specially chosen wise and prudent men (Electors) made the selections of President and Vice President for their State. We allowed Electors to become rubber stamps for the popular vote in their State.
Our Framers didn’t want popular election of the President because they recognized that People are easily manipulated by those who take advantage of their “hopes and fears”, to steer them towards candidates favored by powerful groups (Federalist No. 64 (3rd & 4th paras; Federalist No. 68, etc.)
Furthermore, under the 12th Amendment, the electoral votes of each State are split according to how the Electors vote. If Tennessee obeyed the 12th Amendment, it would work like this when selecting President: 5 Electors vote for Candidate X; 4 vote for Candidate Y; and 2 vote for Candidate Z. Those would be the vote totals for President which would be sent to Congress. The same procedures are to be followed in a separate vote for Vice-President. 1 The “winner takes all” practice followed in most States is unconstitutional!
How The National Popular Vote Scheme Will Work
Under the scheme incorporated in the NPV bill pending in Tennessee, all of Tennessee’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
The wording of the compact is deliberately obscure. In plain English, this is what it does:
Each Member State will conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President.
(a) & (b) The State Election official in each Member State will add up the votes cast in all the States and the D.C. to get the total number of votes cast nationally for each presidential ticket. The State official will then designate the presidential ticket with the largest number of votes nationally as the “national popular vote winner”.
(c) & (g) Electors will then be appointed in each Member State who are to cast all their votes for the national popular vote winner.
So! If the popular vote in Tennessee is for James Madison, but the total national popular vote favors Adolf Hitler, then all of Tennessee’s 11 Electoral Votes are awarded to Adolf Hitler.
Indeed, the winner of the national popular vote will end up with all the electoral votes for every State. And do not think that the winner will fail to claim a “Mandate” for whatever he wants to do.
The States Can’t Lawfully Enter Into A Compact Which Violates The U.S. Constitution!
Every aspect of the NPV violates the 12th Amendment. It sets up a method of electing the President and vice-President which is altogether repugnant to our Constitution.
Furthermore, Art. I, §10, last clause, prohibits States from “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State” “without the Consent of Congress”. So, whether the NPV Compact also violates Art. I, §10, last clause, depends on whether Congress consents to it. But Congress may not lawfully consent to unconstitutional compacts of the States!
Under The NPV Scheme, Votes From Major Metropolitan Areas Will Decide Presidential Elections.
Most of the Population of these United States is located in a few major metropolitan areas. Under the NPV scheme, these areas would decide the elections for President!
See this 3D map (scroll down) showing how the major metropolitan areas voted in a recent presidential election.
The NPV is not about “making every vote count”. The NPV is about guaranteeing that every future presidential election is decided by inhabitants of major metropolitan areas. And it further diminishes State sovereignty.
What Should We Do?
Repeal the 17th Amendment. We must henceforth elect to Congress only those who are committed to repealing the 17th Amendment. This is the only way The States can regain control of the Senate.
Return to the 12th Amendment. We must dismantle the present unconstitutional and corrupt system and return to the method of electing the President and Vice President established in our Constitution. State Legislators could restore to their States right now the power to control the President! All States have to do is obey the 12th Amendment! Also, specially chosen Electors are far more likely to choose good Presidents than the ignorant masses which fill our major cities.
Even in its present perverted form, the “Electoral College” serves two important purposes: (1) It balances the influence of the heavily populated urban areas with the more sparsely populated rural areas; and (2) gives the smaller States a voice in the election of President.
As a People, we need to STOP being so eager to amend a Constitution we have never read and don’t understand.
1 For an illustration of how voting under the 12th Amendment is to be conducted, see THIS under the subheading, “The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.”
Here are the links to the Exhibits:
Vattel, Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217
By Publius Huldah
Convention supporters assure us that the States will have control over Delegates to an Article V convention.
That is not true.
The Truth is States have no power over the convention at Art. V. All they can do is “apply” to Congress for Congress to “call” a convention. THIS CHART by Judi Caler shows who has the power to do what respecting an Article V convention.
Delegates to an Article V convention are performing a federal function – they are not under the authority of the States.
Furthermore, Delegates are the sovereign representatives of The People and thus are vested with plenipotentiary powers to alter or abolish our form of government – our Constitution (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para).
This has already happened once in our history:
At the Federal Convention of 1787, this plenipotentiary power was exercised to replace our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution we now have. On February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments to our first Constitution, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution – the one we now have.
Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification: Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (p 8-9) provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution, drafted at the “amendments” convention of 1787, provided at Art. VII thereof that it would be ratified upon approval by only nine of the then existing 13 States.
And the Delegates to that convention disregarded the instructions of their States as well as the instructions of the Continental Congress.
So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established.
It is child’s play to figure out how to get around State’s “faithful delegate” laws. This is how to do it:
- If the proceedings are secret, the States won’t know what is going on – and can’t stop it.
- And if Delegates vote by secret ballot – the States would never know who did what.
So! Do you see? It would be impossible for States to prosecute Delegates who ignore State instructions.
When James Madison and two former US Supreme Court Justices have warned that delegates to an Article V convention can’t be controlled, it is wicked to dismiss their warnings as “fear mongering”.
Natural born citizen status is inherited – it’s not bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress
1. Neither Obama, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens. At the times they were born, their Fathers were not citizens. Location of birth is irrelevant. Those who insist that a person must be born within the US point to Section 212 of Vattel. But one must read all that Vattel wrote on the subject and which is contained in Sections 213-217.
A “natural born” citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents. Just as he inherits his eye and hair color from them, so he inherits his citizenship status. He is “born” with the hair and eye color his parents gave him, and he is “born” with the citizenship status they gave him. No provision in the Constitution made him a Citizen – no Act of Congress made him a Citizen – just as no provision in the Constitution or Act of Congress determined his eye or hair color. His citizenship, eye color, and hair color are all inherited from his parents. THAT’s what a natural born citizen is. READ all of the sections on this which Vattel wrote: By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular. In my first paper, you can find the links to Vattel and other original source documents illustrating the original intent of “natural born citizen”.
2. Our first generation of Presidents were all born as subjects of the British King. There were no US citizens until July 4, 1776 when we proclaimed our Independence. Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 contains a grandfather clause which permitted our first batch of Presidents to qualify. They were citizens at the time of the Adoption of our Constitution.
3. It appears that both of Donald Trump’s Parents were Citizens at the time he was born. It is irrelevant that his Mother was an immigrant: She came here from Scotland; and later became a US Citizen during 1942 – several years before Donald was born. Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President. [But because of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably irrelevant.]
4. I found another article on this topic which is excellent: http://www.latimes.com/…/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-…
5. Our Country would be so much better off if people would stop spouting off about this subject until after they become well-informed. And they can’t become well-informed until they have studied this carefully using original source documents and read all the original source documents I cite in my first paper.
And you must detach the result you want from your thinking when you are studying. TRUTH sheds its own Light – and you will NEVER get that Light until you love TRUTH above all things including the outcome you want. I am well aware of the disgraceful cases where peoples’ views on this issue are determined by whom THEY want for President.
Be sure to read the short article in the LA Times. The law professor author discusses the 3 ways of reading our Constitution:
- original intent (yours truly);
- textualism (the words mean what they mean today not what they meant when our Constitution was drafted & ratified);
- it’s a living, breathing, evolving Constitution which means whatever the Judges, or whoever has the power, says it means.
Which are you? Think hard about the ramifications of each position before you decide.
Jan 17, 2016
Postscript added Jan 18, 2016:
People are confused about the effect of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. I’ll explain:
There is a difference between:
- a “natural born citizen” (who inherits his citizenship status from his parents by the “laws of nature” alone – like eye color); and
- someone who becomes a “citizen” by operation of a man-made Proclamation or law such as the Declaration of Independence, a clause in the Constitution, or an Act of Congress.
One of the purposes of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves. That generation of freed slaves became Citizens by operation of a man-made law: the 14th Amendment. So they became Citizens, but they were not “natural born” citizens, because they weren’t “born” as citizens from parents who were citizens.
However, after that first generation of former slaves became citizens, their children were “natural born” citizens because they were born of citizens.
Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with “natural born citizens”, i.e., those who are born of parents who are already citizens.
Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment has to do with the creation of new Citizens by operation of man-made law.
By Publius Huldah
To All State Governors and State Legislators:
War is coming to America. Obama is importing young able-bodied males to make civilizational jihad on us; and Congress can’t summon up the moral courage to stop him.
To see what is ahead for us, watch this 20 minute video. It depicts the Islamic takeover which is right now going on throughout Europe as European countries are being repopulated by millions of young able-bodied Muslim males (euphemistically called “refugees”) who are explicit about their intention to breed the native Europeans out of existence, and replace the European cultures with Islamic culture.
And Obama is bringing it here.
This paper discusses the two courses of action set forth in Federalist Paper No. 46 for situations such as this: (1) The States must refuse to cooperate with the federal government; but if that doesn’t solve the problem, (2) The States must use their State Militia to defend their State and Citizens.
Invaders are not “Refugees” or “Immigrants”
Those pushing for an Islamic takeover of Europe and North America are referring to these able-bodied young Muslim males as “refugees”. The use of that term brings the Muslims who are brought into the United States within the federal Refugee Resettlement Act. And since the Constitution delegates power over immigration to Congress, and Congress re-delegated refugee policy to the President, the States must submit to Obama’s Will and accept the “refugees” he forces on them. Thus goes the specious argument recently made by Ian Millhiser.
But we will look at the Truth.
What does our Constitution say about Immigration and Naturalization?
Immigration (or migration) pertains to new people coming to this Country to live.1 Naturalization refers to the process by which an immigrant becomes a Citizen.
Our Constitution does delegate power over immigration and naturalization to Congress. Article I, §9, clause 1, delegates to Congress (commencing January 1808) power to control migration. 2 Article I, §8, clause 4, delegates to Congress power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
But what is going on now with the importation of large numbers of able-bodied young Muslim males is not “immigration” as contemplated by our Constitution. It is an act of war being committed against the People of the United States by their President. The plan is to overthrow our Constitutional Republic and set up an Islamic Caliphate over America. 3
That is Treason – it is Insurrection. It is not “immigration”, and it is not “refugee resettlement”.
The States must refuse to cooperate
Michael Boldin’s recent informative article explains how the federal resettlement program works: The federal government coordinates resettlement of “refugees” with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) located within the States, and thus circumvents state and local governments. Accordingly, the States should promptly stop all such NGO involvement; take control of the programs themselves; and then refuse to cooperate with the federal government.
James Madison, Father of our Constitution, spells this out in Federalist No. 46 (7th para). Respecting unpopular acts of the federal government:
“…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” [emphasis mine]
But if the federal government persists, then the States must move to the next Step.
Our Constitution Imposes the Duty on the Federal Government to protect us from Invasion
Article IV, §4, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…” [emphasis mine]
In Federalist No. 43 (3rd para under 6.), Madison says of this provision:
“A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it…” [emphasis mine]
Article I, §8, clause 15 delegates to Congress the power:
“to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
Article 1, §8, clause 16 delegates to Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. The States retain the power to appoint the Officers and conduct the training.
Article II, §2, clause 1 makes the President Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. [But remember: the federal government may call forth the Militia only for the three purposes listed in Art. I, §8, cl. 15].
But the federal government hasn’t called forth the Militia to protect the States from the Islamic invasion. To the contrary, the President is importing the invaders and foisting them on the States.
So! What are States and The People to do? Because the President is aligned with the invaders, and Congress filled with moral cowards, must we passively submit to having ourselves and our Christian and Jewish children killed, and then let our surviving burka dressed daughters and granddaughters be handed over to the clitoris cutters?
No! The People have the Natural Right of self-defense; and the States have the reserved Power to defend their Citizens. With the State Militia, The People and the States have the means to exercise this Natural Right and reserved Power.
The States must Revitalize their State Militia
What is the Militia? As Dr. Edwin Vieira’s excellent series 4 on the Militia and how it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms shows, the Militia has a long history in America. That history began with the English settlements in the early 1600s. Every free male was expected to be armed and prepared at all times to protect himself, his family, and his community. Laws in the Colonies gave effect to this requirement. So at the time of the drafting of our Constitution in 1787, everyone knew of this 150 year long history of free American males being required to be armed, trained, and ready at a moment’s notice to answer the call of Duty.
Accordingly, the above identified “militia clauses” were written into our Constitution of 1787.
In 1792, Congress implemented these militia clauses and passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”. This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to get a rifle, bayonet, ammunition and an ammunition pouch, and enroll in the local Unit of their State Militia for training.
As Section 1 of the Act shows, the adult able-bodied male Citizens of a State are The Members of their State Militia. So, continuing the long-standing colonial tradition, Members of Congress in 1792 thought it such a fine idea that all male citizens be armed and trained and members of their State Militia, they required it by federal law!
So! As Art. I, §8, cl. 15 shows, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into national service to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. But what if the federal government refuses to act?
Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the Citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7th & 12th paras); and that the States’ reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9th para).
And on the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13th para):
“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition…”
True, it was contemplated that the “United States” would be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN BY INVADERS, then the People have the natural right to defend themselves, and their States have the retained Power to employ the Militia to defend them from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.
The States are within their retained Sovereign Power to call up their State Militia to fend off invaders. Article I, §10, last clause, is an expression of this retained sovereign Power of States of self-Defense:
“No State shall … engage in War, unless actually invaded…”
Clearly, the States may use their State Militia to engage in War to defend the States from Invasion.5
James Madison spoke to the same effect as Hamilton respecting federal tyranny. In Federalist No. 46 (9th para), Madison speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:
“…Let a regular army … be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. … [To the regular army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. … Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms [an insurmountable] barrier against the enterprises of ambition…” [boldface mine]
Look to Your State Constitution for Provisions re Your State Militia
Article VIII of the Constitution for the State of Tennessee provides for Tennessee’s Militia. Consistent with the tradition which has existed in this Country since the early 1600s, all Tennessee Citizens are members of this Militia. Article I, §28, TN Constitution says:
“That no citizen of the state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law.”
Read your State Constitution. What does it say about the Militia? What do the implementing State Statutes say? Is your State Militia active? Why not? For information on revitalizing your State Militia, see Dr. Vieira’s three part series, “Are You Doing Your Constitutional Duty For “Homeland Security”?
Madison closes his magnificent 9th paragraph in Federalist No. 46 with this:
“…Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.” [emphasis mine]
But we became “debased subjects of arbitrary power”. So now, will we lay down before the Invaders and Insurrectionists and those in our federal government who aid and abet them? Or we will man up, revitalize our State Militia, and show the world that we still have some “free and gallant Citizens of America” in this land?
1 Our Framers contemplated that immigration would be restricted to people who shared our culture and values – e.g., Federalist No. 2, 5th para.
But Americans got conned into believing that an ideal culture is multicultural. Thus, with Teddy Kennedy’s immigration reform act of 1965, our borders were opened to all. We congratulated ourselves on our new virtues of “tolerance” and “diversity”. But the goal of the multiculturalists was to eradicate our unique Culture – we were too gullible to see it. So now, the enemy is inside the gates, and more are coming in. And Islam doesn’t tolerate multiculturalism.
2 “Open borders” adherents bristle at the assertion that Congress has constitutional authority to restrict immigration. They insist that Art. I, §9, cl. 1 addresses only the importation of slaves and says nothing about free immigrants. But the text distinguishes between “migrations” and “importations”, and the Duty is levied on “importations”, not “migrations”. Slaves, being “property”, were “imported”. Free Europeans “migrated”. The power of the States to determine such persons as it was proper to admit, expired January 1808. There are various letters and speeches from our early days confirming this. I’ll write it up when I get time (if this doesn’t turn on the light). For now, see Federalist No. 42 (6th para):
“…Attempts have been made to pervert this clause [Art. I, §9, cl. 1] into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice [the slave trade], and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.” [boldface mine]
Our Framers understood that the national government must be able to determine who is allowed to come here. That’s why Art. I, §9, cl. 1 delegates to Congress power to control immigration, commencing January 1808. And isn’t one of your complaints against the federal government that it has refused for so long to control our Borders?
3 See the website for The Center for Security Policy (Frank J. Gaffney) HERE. There you can read The Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate and take over all American Institutions. They are working to make this Country part of a global Islamic caliphate. Open your eyes NOW.
4 Do read all 8 of Dr. Vieira’s papers in this series. They get very moving.
5 “Troops” as in Art. I, §10, last clause, are professional full-time soldiers. States may not keep “Troops” absent consent of Congress. But the States’ Militia is a permanent State institution. The States retain their pre-constitutional powers over their Militia, subject only to the federal government’s limited supremacy set forth in the 3 Militia clauses [See Part 2 of Dr. Vieira’s paper HERE.] PH
December 2, 2015
By Publius Huldah
1. Harvard Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves by means of thousands of quotes from the Congressional Debates, that the purpose of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic God given Rights.
2. The “equal protection” clause within Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment says:
No State shall “…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In Ch.10 of his book, [go to page 222 of this pdf ed], Prof. Berger shows the true meaning of the “equal protection” clause: The “equal protection” was limited to the rights enumerated in The Civil Rights Act of 1866. Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America …
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This 1866 Act thus secured to blacks the same right to contract, to hold property, and to sue, as whites enjoyed, and the equal benefit of all laws for security of person and property. “Political rights” were excluded [Remember, the 14th Amendment did not give freed slaves the right to vote]. But respecting the rights listed in the Act, States were now required to treat blacks the same as whites. THAT is what the “equal protection” clause in the 14th Amendment means.
3. So, the “equal protection” clause is not a carte blanche invitation for federal judges to thereafter prohibit States from making any “distinctions” or “classifications” on any subject whatsoever in any of their State Laws or State Constitutions which five (5) judges on the US Supreme Court don’t agree with!
But that is what federal judges have been doing. And they have decided that, respecting marriage, “classifications” and “distinctions” based on male and female genders are unconstitutional as in violation of the equal protection clause.
What unadulterated RUBBISH emanates from the fetid recesses of the minds of the federal judges in this Country.
Will these judges next say that State Statutes which prohibit close relatives from marrying make “distinctions” and “classifications” which violate the equal protection clause?
4. To my fellow Citizens, I say: For Heaven’s Sake, People! Use your heads! God gave you a brain – use it!
5. To my fellow lawyers, I say: Watch The Matrix, Part I. Pay close attention to the passage where Morpheus is offering the blue pill and the red pill to Neo. Morpheus later says, “I am trying to free your mind, but I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to walk through.” Note the descriptions of the Matrix thereafter and of the people who are still plugged in. What you have been told, beginning with your first year in law school, is a lie. Lawyers who accept the lies are plugged in to the Matrix. The red pill signifies opening your eyes. I offer you the red pill. Open your eyes.
Sept. 12, 2015
WHEN may courts lawfully strike down, under the “supremacy clause”, State laws and provisions in State Constitutions?
By Publius Huldah
The courts have lawful authority under the supremacy clause of the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2) to overturn SOME Amendments to State Constitutions and SOME State laws.
It depends on whether the State provision conflicts with the federal Constitution, or with an Act of Congress which is authorized by the Constitution, or with a Treaty which is authorized by the Constitution.
For example: Say a State law says you have to be 45 years old to run for President. That would conflict with Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5, US Constitution, which establishes 35 years as the minimum age requirement. State laws can’t contradict the Constitution. So a court could properly strike down the State law which says Presidents must be at least 45 years old.
Do you see? The State Law, or State Constitutional provision, or State judicial opinion must CONTRADICT something in the federal Constitution, or Acts of Congress authorized by the Constitution, or Treaties authorized by the Constitution – before it may lawfully be struck down under the supremacy clause.
THE REASON AMERICANS HAVE SUCH DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THIS IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT GRASPED THE SIMPLE CONCEPT THAT OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION CREATED A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF “ENUMERATED POWERS” ONLY.
When acts of the national government are authorized by the Constitution, States can not lawfully contradict such acts.
But when acts of the national government are not authorized by the Constitution, then State legislators, officials and judges are obliged by their Oaths of Office to SPIT ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
The KEY QUESTION IS ALWAYS – ALWAYS – ALWAYS – ALWAYS: What provision in the federal Constitution authorizes the national government to act on the issue in question?
Now I ask all of you a question: Can you cite Article, Section, and clause of the federal Constitution which authorizes the national government to meddle in “abortion”, “homosexuality”, or “marriage” over the Country at Large?
Can’t find it? What does that tell you? It should tell you that the national government has no authority to meddle in these three areas. My paper on marriage explained this very clearly, I thought……
So when the national government has no constitutional authority to meddle in an area, they may not lawfully strike down State provisions on these areas. When they do so anyway, the States and The People must man-up and resist!
But when the national government has constitutional authority to act in an area, then any State Constitutional provision or State statute in contradiction thereto can properly be struck down under the supremacy clause.
Americans have totally failed to understand that the list of areas in which the national government has constitutional authority to act is…… A VERY SHORT LIST. The list is so short that you all ought to have the list in your heads. Check it out HERE.
By Publius Huldah
A devilish plot is afoot to impose new national taxes on the American People. It is a masterful piece of trickery because the authorization for the new national taxes is buried within Compact for America’s version of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.
Furthermore, the balanced budget amendment does nothing to control federal spending; and transforms our Constitution from one of limited and defined powers to one of general and unlimited powers. 1
Let’s look at Sections 1-6 of Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment:
It does Nothing to Control Federal Spending
Section 1 allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes and add to the national debt. That’s a good idea?
Sections 2 and 3 permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree. States are addicted to federal funds. Will 25 States agree not to take more federal funds?
Section 4 is a joke: Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress? Congress won’t even impeach a President for Treason.
How Authorization for the New Taxes is Hidden
Section 5 says:
“No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….” [italics mine]
What is a “general revenue tax”? Section 6 defines it:
“…’general revenue tax’ means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…” [italics mine]
Now go back to Section 5 and substitute the definition of “general revenue tax” for that term:
“No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….”
There it is: All that’s needed is approval of two-thirds of the members of each House and a new national sales tax and/or value added tax is imposed on us. And they can increase it, along with increasing the income tax, whenever they get two-thirds of the members to vote for it.
Section 5 also permits Congress to make laws to impose a new “end user sales tax” 4 which would replace the income tax – this “end user sales tax” is passed by a simple majority of both houses.
So! Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment provides two options to Congress:
· Two-thirds of the members of both Houses can impose a new sales tax and/or value-added tax in addition to the income tax; or
· A simple majority of both Houses can impose “a new end user sales tax” which replaces the income tax.
Which option will Congress choose?
Our Constitution Doesn’t Now Authorize a National Sales Tax or Value-added Tax
Article I, §8, clause 1 says:
“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…”
Principles of Compact for America say this clause already authorizes a national sales tax or value added tax. Board Vice-President Chip DeMoss said on Feb. 12, 2014:
“a national sales tax would be an “impost” (defined as a tax or similar compulsory payment) that is authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1…” [see comments and scroll down after comment 19 till you see Chip DeMoss’ name].
We may not properly use DeMoss’ redefinition of “impost”!
We must use the definition of “impost” our Framers used: The Federalist Papers say an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports. Type imposts in the search box [at the link] and the Papers discussing imposts will come up. See for yourself that an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “impost” as:
“…Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs.”
Do you see?
National sales taxes and value-added taxes are also not “excise” taxes. Excise taxes are a tax on a unit of goods – such as the infamous whiskey excise tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion. 5 It imposed a flat tax per gallon. The tax was payable for domestic whiskey at the distillery (§17 of the Act) and the casks were numbered and marked to show the tax had been paid (§19 of the Act).
“Taxes” at Art. I, §8, clause 1 refers to the apportioned direct tax provided for at Art. I, §2, clause 3 of our Constitution.
Our Framers were specific about the kinds of taxes Congress is permitted to impose. Congress does not have the power to impose any kind of tax it wants. Our Framers limited Congress’ taxing power to:
· the apportioned direct taxes at Art. I, §2, clause 3;
· the duties or imposts on imports at Art. I, §8, clause 1; and
· the excises at Art. I, §8, clause 1.
A sales tax is none of the above. A sales tax is a percentage of the retail price of goods. A value-added tax is a “turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions” and raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide”.
We have never had a national sales tax or value added tax in this Country. Why? Because they are not authorized by the Constitution.
We were manipulated into supporting the 16th Amendment. We were told the income tax would “soak the rich” – and the envious drooled at the prospect.
And so again today, statists are seeking to trick us into supporting a national sales tax or a value added tax: first, by concealing it within the verbiage of the bill; 6 and then, once the trickery was exposed, by claiming the Constitution already authorizes these new types of taxes.
There is a Better Way: Downsize the Federal Government!
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money is a short list. See the list HERE.
Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated by the Constitution. Let’s cut federal spending by downsizing the federal government to its enumerated powers and constitutional limits.
1 Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers: If an object is on the list of enumerated powers (e.g., the patent & copyright office authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 8), Congress may lawfully spend money on it. That’s how our Constitution already controls federal spending.
All versions of a balanced budget amendment change the constitutional standard for spending FROM whether an object is on the list of enumerated powers TO a limit on total spending where Congress may spend money on whatever they or the President put in the budget. This is what transforms our Constitution FROM one of enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. And that is the true purpose of a balanced budget amendment. It has nothing to do with limiting federal spending – the pretended spending limits are fictitious since they may be waived whenever the feds [and 26 of the States] want to waive them.
3 Matthew Burns’ article about the hearing on HB 366 before N. Carolina’s House Judiciary Committee (which passed HB 366) doesn’t mention the new national taxes. Burns quotes the Bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Millis, as saying the problem is “Washington is unwilling or unable to limit itself.” So the solution is to massively increase Congress’ taxing powers?
4 “End user sales tax” is not defined in the balanced budget amendment.
5 Apparently, the practice of tarring & feathering “revenuers” began with the Whiskey Excise Tax.
6 The trickery was exposed over a year ago HERE. Since then, Compact for America has claimed the Constitution already authorizes the new taxes. Are we too gullible to be free? PH
August 26, 2015