Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Treason, Cowardice, and the Islamic Invasion: Why States Must Revitalize The Militia

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”?

Conclusion

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?

Endnotes:

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

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

December 2, 2015 Posted by | armed citizens, Federalist Paper No. 46, gun control, Islamization (Islamification), James Madison, Militia, refugee resettlement | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 37 Comments

How SCOTUS perverted the “equal protection” clause of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

 

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

September 12, 2015 Posted by | 14th Amendment, equal protection clause, Marriage | , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

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.

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

September 10, 2015 Posted by | Article VI, clause 2, Supremacy clause, Supreme Law of the Land | , , | 24 Comments

The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax

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

Yet this monstrosity is pending in Michigan as SB 306 2 and in North Carolina as HB 366. 3 Legislators in four States, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi and North Dakota, have already passed it.

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.

Endnotes:

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.

2 Leon Drolet’s article of July 10, 2015, and Sam Easter’s article of July 8, 2015, about SB 306 pending in Michigan don’t mention the new national taxes.

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

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

August 26, 2015 Posted by | Amendments to the Constitution, Balanced Budget Amendment, Chip DeMoss, Compact for America, enumerated powers | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 31 Comments

Does the Creature Dictate to the Creator?

By Publius Huldah

WHERE did the federal government come from? It was CREATED by the Constitution.

WHO ratified the Constitution? WE THE PEOPLE, acting through special ratifying conventions called in each of the States.

So the federal government is merely the “creature” of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 33 (5th para), and Thomas Jefferson in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, under the 8th Resolution.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to have a correct understanding of the relation between the federal government and The People unless you understand that the federal government is merely the “creature” of the Constitution. It is not a party to it. The STATES are the parties to the constitutional compact (contract).

THIS is why James Madison said, in his Report of 1799 to the Virginia Legislature on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution, that THE STATES, as the creators of the federal government, are the final authority on whether their creature has violated the compact THE STATES MADE WITH EACH OTHER. The constitutional compact is between the Sovereign States. The federal government is merely the “creature” of that compact.

That is why the States have the natural right to NULLIFY unconstitutional acts of their “creature”, the federal government.

But our “creature”, the federal government, has taken the bizarre position that the Constitution means whatever THEY say it means.

Oh, do they need smacking down! Does the creature dictate to its creator?

The nullification deniers say, “YES!”

Manly men say, “NO!”

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

August 10, 2015 Posted by | Nullification, nullification deniers, Resistance to tyranny | , , , , , , , | 31 Comments

PH’s Article V Convention & Nullification Event in North Carolina on May 26, 2015

To my Friends in North Carolina: Do come! I would love to meet you. And if you don’t want to eat lunch, don’t.

To COS operatives & groupies: If you come and snip at me, I will show you how a Cold War Warrior (and womanly woman) with brains, knowledge, moral character, and a quick wit, fights.

Click on the photo to make it bigger.

 

MAY-7

May 18, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , | 8 Comments

PH’s Article V Convention & Nullification Events in Indiana for May, 2015

I will speak on the deadly danger of an Article V convention, and of the two remedies our Framers actually told us to use when the national government usurps power, at the following events:

Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 in Auburn, Indiana
Host: DeKalb County 9/12 Group
Location: St. Andrew Evangelical Presbyterian Church, 320 W. 4th Street, Auburn, Indiana 46706                                   Time:  5:30 p.m. for food; 6:30 p.m. for meeting, EDT.

See Face Book page HERE

 

Date: Thursday, May 14, 2015 in Elkhart, Indiana
Host: TEA-MAC  with Constitutional Sheriff Brad Rogers.
Location:  Trinity United Methodist Church, 2715 E. Jackson Blvd., Elkhart, Indiana 46516
Time: 7:00 p.m. EDT

THE DEADLY DANGER OF ARTICLE V CONVENTION Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

May 8, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

PH’s Article V & Nullification Event in West Chester, Ohio

I will speak on the deadly danger of an Article V convention, and of the two remedies our Framers actually told us to use when the federal government usurps power, at the following event:

Date: Saturday, April 11, 2015
Host:  Building Blocks for Liberty
Location: Lakota West Freshman Auditorium, 5050 Tylersville Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069
Time: 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM Eastern Time

See website describing event HERE.

 

There will also be someone from COS there to tell you that all our problems can be fixed by having a CONVENTION where our Constitution will be “amended”.  The official COS line is that only amendments will be proposed.

But Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for the COS, let the cat out of the bag when he said:

“… 3. I think the majority of Americans are too lazy to elect honest politicians. But I think some men and women could be found who are morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution” [boldface mine].

So the Communications Director for the COS says our Constitution will be “re-written”.  HERE is the screen shot of Sillar’s comments.

And what will this “re-written” Constitution look like?  Michael Farris’ proposed “parental rights amendment” gives us an ominous warning of what anything Farris has a hand in will look like:  His proposed amendment, which he claims will protect parental rights, actually delegates power over children to the federal and state governments! Read it HERE.

And don’t forget, the re-written Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification.  It need not be 3/4 of the States – it can be any mode of ratification the drafters want.  E.g., the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a Referendum called by the President.  Read the proposed Newstates Constitution HERE.

The reason these people want a convention is because a new Constitution can only be imposed at a convention.

Any needed Amendments can be made the way the existing 27 Amendments were made!  Congress proposes them and sends them to the States for ratification!  James Madison always said that when States want Amendments, they should instruct their Delegations to Congress to propose them.

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

April 4, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The States won’t save us at an Article V Convention

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

March 27, 2015 Posted by | Article V, Article V Convention, Jim Crow laws, Nullification | , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Delegates to an Article V Convention Can’t be Controlled by State Laws!

By Publius Huldah

Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding Principles that:

♦  All men are created equal.

♦  Rights come from God.

♦  People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).

♦  When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.

These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.

These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”: Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.

This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.

The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates

Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution), the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 appointed Delegates and  instructed them to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.  2

But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution (the one we have now is our second Constitution).  Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at a convention today (which will surely result in a third Constitution).

The Delegates to the 1787 convention also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.

 Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?

So! Do you see? If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a third Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:

♦  Fifty years ago, the Ford Foundation produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.

♦ The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.  The text of their proposed constitution is HERE.

♦ The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.

Do you know about the North American Union (NAU)?  During 2005, George W. Bush met on his ranch with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico and they sketched it out.  The three countries merge and a Parliament is set up over them.  HERE is the Task Force Report on the NAU by the Council of Foreign Relations – Heidi Cruz was on the Task Force which wrote this up.  The United States will need a new Constitution wherein we surrender our sovereignty to the North American Union.   People!  If there is an Art. V convention, the Delegates can impose such a new Constitution with whatever mode of ratification will guarantee approval; and before you know it, we will be a Member State of the NAU.

Warnings from the Wise

Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoral to dismiss their warnings:

♦  Alexander Hamilton writes of “the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…”  Federalist No. 85 (9th para); and that he “dreaded” the consequences of a new convention because he knows that there are powerful individuals in several States who are enemies to having any kind of general [federal] government.  This could result in our losing the Constitution we have (No. 85, last para).

♦  James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country.

In Federalist No. 49, Madison shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.

♦  Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

♦  Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…” 

♦ Former US Supreme Court Justice Scalia said on April 17, 2014 at the beginning of this video:

“I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?”

Can State Laws Control Delegates?

Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling their Delegates.

Really? Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (father of our Constitution), opponents of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.

But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t – I will show you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented. Let’s use House Bill 148, recently filed in the New Hampshire Legislature, to illustrate this:

Section 20-C:2 I. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” [italics mine]

Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:

“any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New Hampshire”.

What is wrong with this?

♦  If the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison used and always advised.

♦  New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.

♦  It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving a new Constitution.

♦  It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

♦ Delegates to an Article V convention are performing a federal function – they are not under the authority of the States.

♦  Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.

 

Section 20-C:2 II. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V convention.”

What is wrong with this?

♦  What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings secret? At the federal convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers made rules restricting publications of their proceedings.

♦  What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.

Section 20-C:2 III. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:” “I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]

Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last clause, of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution. Who today honors his Oath of Office?

Section 20-C:2 IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”

Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:

♦  As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.

♦  Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.

♦  The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.

♦  If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.

♦  The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?

Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates.

Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain

If there is a convention today, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t know. Do you trust them?

Our Framers never said that when the federal [and State] government violate the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution they violate.

They never said the remedy is to file a lawsuit and let federal judges decide. They expected us to act as they did – with “manly firmness” 3 – and resist unconstitutional acts of the federal and state governments.

Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read and enforced by our votes; and failing that, by manly opposition – resistance – nullification.

Endnotes:

1 Rhode Island boycotted the Convention.

Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of amendments by the Continental Congress and by every State.

HERE [from Farrand’s Records, vol. 3, Appendix B, p. 559-586] are the Credentials of the Delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787 and Instructions from their States.  These Instructions encompassed:

♠ “alterations to the Federal Constitution which, when agreed to by Congress and the several States, would become effective“:  Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, S. Carolina, Maryland, & New Hampshire;

♠ “for the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution”: Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Delaware, and Georgia; 

♠ “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”: New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut;

♠ “provisions to make the Constitution of the federal Government adequate”: New Jersey.

3 The 7th paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” [boldface mine] PH

Published Feb 1, 2015
Revised July 9 &10, 2015; Oct 25, 2015; Jan 8, 2017

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

February 1, 2015 Posted by | Amendments to the Constitution, Article V, Article V Convention, Convention of States project, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, Faithful Delegate Laws, New Hampshire Faithful Delegate Law, North American Union | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 53 Comments

%d bloggers like this: